Now it seems they’re looking into the state’s helicopter records. Christie apparently flew to NY by helicopter on 9/11, the flight records may show if he flew long and lovingly over the traffic jam that he orchestrated as well as which co-conspirators were on board.
Christie, as head of the RGA, is now toxic. It seems everybody is washing their hair or has some other excuse when he comes to town for a fund raiser.
Even more fun- one of the NJ newspapers has announced they were mistaken in endorsing him for governor.
He’s toxic for the RGA, but if he resigns as head, that goes against the image he’s trying to project of “move along… nothing to see here…”. Can the RGA force him out?
The media has repeatedly brought up the fact that Christie and Wildstein went to grade school together. They were childhood friends according to the media. When Christie’s camp finally responded to this media “charge”, the media responded by saying it was childish for Christie to be talking about something that happened soooooo long ago. The media can discuss it but Christie mustn’t defend himself? It might make the media look stupid and petty.
I’m sure that the 8 Democrats and 4 Republicans on the “bipartisan” NJ Super Investigative Committee will repeatedly find Christie guilty of something by an 8 to 4 vote.
If it’s childish for Christie to bring up shit he says happened in high school, then it would be irresponsible of the commentariat *not *to say so, hmm?
If Christie can “defend himself” from the charge of appearing childish, he can start any time.
Christie can’t have it both ways. Here is a guy who he appointed to a six-figure job where he had no predecessor (and as it turned out, no successor), no job description, and didn’t have to submit a resume for. His job was to be the eyes and ears of the governor within the Port Authority and had great influence over capital projects. He answered only to Christie. You can’t put him in such a position, then claim you barely know the guy. “Oh him? Well, I was an athlete and class president. I don’t know what that loser did” So once he threw him under the bus, he brings up “well, his high school social studies teacher accused him of being deceptive”. What an amateurish press release. I expect Christie to send Tonya Harding out to kneecap the guy, not whine about high school incidents.
You have it backwards. It was the media who first made the school connection a part of their “investigation” of why Christie had ordered the bridge closing. (The media was wrong about the bridge being closed, of course.) The media then attacked Christie for responding to the media’s guilt-by-grade-school-association claim.
You can’t talk about your childhood. Only we can talk about your childhood.
At that famous self-absolvatory press conference, Christie claimed he barely even knew the guy who implemented the lane closings. Why was that claim not worth checking out? Are you suggesting Christie is entitled to have his word taken without question, unlike any other politician, and especially after this incident?
“The media was wrong about the bridge being closed”, you say? Who in the media wasn’t clear about there still being one lane left open?
“The media then attacked Christie”, as you say, *not *for responding, but for *how *he responded - being inconsistent and disingenuous at best about his relationship with Wildstein, and for being childish with his retaliation memo.
That press release was still in response to media accusations. Unless the media’s actions should never be questioned? If the media believes Christie’s response was a childish act, so was the media’s original accusation.
Has the media uncovered any evidence that Christie actually ordered the lane closings?
He can talk about what ever he wants, the question is whether or not it’s relevant. A long standing relationship that goes back to childhood and continues up until January 2014 at which point it suddenly poof never existed, is relevant.
The opinion of a Social Studies teacher 35 years ago isn’t really. Particularly if it turns out thatit was all a misunderstanding
One thing I’m not quite getting is where Wildstein derived the authority to order such lane closings. His job has no job description, hence, no official duties and no official authority. Why would his authorization to commit such a damnfool action hold any water, why was he obeyed save for the presumed authority of the Governor’s office?
You seem confused by the difference between an accusation and an inquiry.
The relevant actions are those of Christie.
No, but the circumstantial evidence that he at least approved of it is mounting. Part of that his Christie’s denial of ever having known Wildstein personally, despite remembering some seriously petty shit from high school. If Christie didn’t know what was being done in his name by his closest advisers, and didn’t even ask about a major, well-reported problem for months afterward, then he’s pretty damn clueless for a fucking governor, isn’t he? Which way would you bet?
The media doesn’t have to. The US Attorney may, when he decides who can give him the most bang from his immunity buck. I think the misappropriation of Sandy funds is what’s going to do Christie in. Sure, somebody in the governor’s office ordered up a traffic jam. But treating disaster relief as your political slush fund is what puts you in prison. And isn’t it odd that Christie has kept his yap shut about his lieutenant governor shaking down the mayor of Hoboken?
True dat! If the suggestions prove to be fact, that Christie manipulated funds meant for victims of Sandy…the homeless, the displaced, the boned…so that they would favor projects that benefit his well-to-do Republican friends…that is far worse than a nasty little bit of political judo.
Your correspondent notes that this is yet to be proven. But the suspicion should never have been there in the first place, that’s what transparency is for.
You seem unclear on the concept. The media brought up the connection to help explain why Christie appointed Wildstein, who was not a traffic professional. Was it merit or was it cronyism? The connection helps answer that question.
That is the way New Jersey works. I was friends with the state treasurer when I lived there, who got appointed because he was brother-in-law of one of the governor’s top political advisers. My friend was competent and honest (unlike his brother-in-law) but he didn’t get the job solely on merit. They were Democrats, by the way. This is the way New Jersey works.
So the high school connection was totally relevant. Comments by Social Studies teachers, not so much.
BTW Wildstein is not saying, yet, that Christie ordered it, just that Christie knew about it long before he claims he did. In other words, Christie lied. Does that shock you?
From a couple of days ago: FTR the facts that I was concerned about were with regards to your characterization of “The media”. ISTM that the NYT has faithfully reported the tick-tock of this story. When 2 politicos (Christie and Wildstein) make charges and counter-charges against each other, the media love it. Policy analysis, to take one example, is more challenging to write about.
Now doorhinge isn’t exactly alone. Following reports of Bridgegate, Christies popularity rose among hard core Republicans. I can understand it remaining the same. But seeing it actually rise is hilarious.
Vis a vis 2016, I always knew that Christie had a glass jaw. I didn’t think that he would flame out so quickly though.
When bullies are wounded or exposed they tend to go the way of W, weak and ineffectual. When the apathetic and easily led that comprise a large percentage of the electorate see the weakness, they turn on them quickly. With a compliant conservative press, the difficult part is exposing those bullies.
There was good press on this issue though, or we would never have even heard of it and Christie would have been bathing in the glow of the Super Bowl and his Rock Star fund raising tour.
Who in the media wasn’t clear about there still being one lane left open?