Come now. Everyone but Christie has said that his investigation was a sham. I might have more respect (actually, some respect) for Christie if he just came out and said “if the pants don’t fit, you must acquit’”
Perhaps you’d be so kind as to point out some instances of Obama’s internal investigations and cites where he declared other investigations to be illegitimate. Pray tell, you’re not talking about Benghazi ™ are you?
I’m talking about all of them. It’s the standard MO. He orders and internal investigation, finds nothing, and then attacks all other attempts to investigate.
What Christie did was admit that he was in a catch-22, and is awaiting the outcome of the other investigations. He’s not slamming the Democrats as engaging in a political witch hunt, even though they have every motivation to claim his scalp given that he’s the only real threat to Hillary.
Meanwhile, Obama flatters himself into thinking that Issa wants to get him even though there’s no longer any value in getting him and there hasn’t been since Nov. 2012.
All of them? I can’t name one.
What Christie did was a pre-emptive strike, smearing those who will be testifying against him so that it becomes a he-said, she-said situation. The Democrats are not engaging in a witch hunt, there is a genuine scandal here. Christie’s threat to Hillary never was real, and now his presidential campaign is over. He blew it by engaging in political blackmail and extortion.
Issa is a psychopath. His “investigation” is Alice In Wonderland stuff- “There are no charges! Prove your innocence!” He keeps up the charade of an “investigation” because the Republican base is batshit crazy and wants desperately to think there is a scandal here.
Oh, he does, he does - Obama is his Moby Dick. Issa took over the chairmanship promising a never-ending stream of investigative hearings until he found something, remember? Never mind that that traditional Republican approach worked *so *well against Clinton. “Getting him”, and in the process tarnishing the Democratic brand, is what he lives for.
Meanwhile, perhaps Issa’s own history of auto theft, arson, and insurance fraud is worthy of more investigation than it’s received, wouldn’t you say? It’s certainly far better grounded in fact.
Know what? It isn’t all about Obama.
In the case of the IRS, I think Issa knows very well it won’t lead to Obama, but there is value in getting the IRS. And there’s a lot to still find out on that front.
On Benghazi, I’ll grant that’s still political because it pertains to Clinton.
On the IRS, the real scandal is that these requests for tax exempt status ever got approved, not that conservative groups were targeted. Of course, liberal groups AND conservative groups were targeted, and the ONLY ones who got their requests denied were liberal groups. Of course, conservatives whine about the IRS because that’s what conservatives do. The difference between a conservative and a puppy is that a puppy will grow up and stop whining.
On Benghazi, there is no scandal. More people were killed in more embassy/consulate attacks in the Bush years than the Obama years, but for some reason the Benghazi victims are The Four Most Important People In The History Of The Universe.
Ahem, I haven’t said that the internal investigation is a sham so your claim of “everyone but Christie” seems to be false, or at least, over zealous. 
CNN also reported that Mayor Hoboken’s story has changed several times and Mayor Hoboken won’t/can’t clear up the “misconceptions”. How is the internal investigation a sham but the CNN story isn’t?
Did you know that the internal investigation cost the taxpayer $5M. No, wait, maybe it was $500K. Or was it $2M? How did the NYT come up with it’s estimate of $1M? Did they just make up a number that would fool the public?
How much is the political witch hunt costing the taxpayers? $1M? $2M? $10M?
(p.s. Obama admitted that he and Holder were involved in running illegally purchased firearms across the Mexican border when Obama, by right of his Executive position, simply declared Executive Privilege to protect himself, Holder, BATFE higher ups, and others from prosecution.)
That’s an argument for a policy change, which the administration is now doing in a transparent manner. The IRS itself was not authorized to change that policy at low levels. And their enforcement of that policy was clearly discriminatory, which they admitted. People lost their jobs. Trying to do backsies and say, “Oh, it was really nothing”, is simply a circling the wagons response because the Republicans turned it into a capital case. So now the President concedes nothing, because that’s his MO when threatened. He battens down and goes into defensive mode.
Which again, is a contrast to Christie. I won’t say that Christie’s handling of this affair has been ideal, and if Democratic investigations find that he was more involved than he says, or that the culture he cultivated in his adminstration led directly to this kind of abuse, then he should be eliminated from consideration as a Presidential candidate. That’s also my issue with the Obama administration: I believe that no one ordered the IRS to do anything, but I do believe that unofficial outside pressure from the PResident and Democratic officeholders urging an IRS crackdown on these organizations was interpreted as orders to act. I also believe that the government workforce is becoming very hostile to Republicans(understandably), and as a result is starting to execute its duties in a non-neutral fashion(unacceptably).
How was the IRS’ enforcement discriminatory? They targeted liberal groups and conservative groups. Some liberal groups were denied, NO conservative groups were. So if the Obama Administration was using the IRS as a political weapon, it did a piss poor job as the only ones that suffered any harm were liberal groups. And let’s not forget, the IRS changed the criteria for tax exempt status for these groups from working “exclusively for the public welfare” (as stated in the statute) to “primarily for the public welfare”. This change taken by the IRS in the Eisenhower Administration is the real scandal.
You are misinformed. The vast majority of groups targeted were conservative, and Cincinnati was not authorized to approve any of their applications until they were first sent to DC. Whereupon they were never acted on. They were authorized to deal with liberal applications on their own.
So Cincinnati, who Lerner tried to throw under the bus, did exactly what they were supposed to do, and yes, did decline a few liberal applications. It was the DC counsel’s office that ordered that no conservative application be approved until it was sent to them. That’s clearly discriminatory.
Don’t care to address the main issue of the IRS rewriting the statute in the days of Ike?
Why not? Ike was a RINO.
Sarah Palin, is that you?
I can see why the “'Cause Christie is a fucking Republican” camp followers would want to undermine or ignore the GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP report because it’s findings are embareassing to their preconcieved notion that Christie must be guilty or is “probably” guilty. “Probably” guilty because of the “mounting” evidence, of course. Except that all of the alleged evidence hasn’t/can’t be proven. One by one, the mounting evidence has fallen by the wayside. Zimmer always has the option of clearing up any misunderstanding of her multiple and conflicting versions of Zimmer’s stories.
According to the GDC report, they questioned a lot of people, except for several key witnesses, and reviewed a lot of documents. All of the witnesses have the option of coming forward and challenging or rebuking the GDC report.
*I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
What follows is the product of interviews with more than 70 witnesses and the review of more than 250,000 documents, including the personal texts and emails of the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, and their senior staffers, over the past two months. We were tasked by the Office of the Governor to investigate (i) allegations concerning the George Washington Bridge toll lane realignment at Fort Lee, and (ii) Mayor Zimmer’s allegations concerning Superstorm Sandy aid allocations to Hoboken. Based on our investigation, we are now in a position to address most but not all of these allegations, as several key witnesses have refused to cooperate with our investigation or asserted their Fifth Amendment rights. But we have had the cooperation of all current members of the Governor’s Office, former members of that Office, and other independent witnesses as well. We are therefore confident that, based on our thorough review, we have a clear understanding of what happened here, even if the participants’ precise motives remain to be determined. We were also tasked by the Governor’s Office to make recommendations, as warranted by our findings, to promote best practices going forward. Here is a summary of our findings and recommendations.*
No, Christie’s own lawyers’ investigation is not embarrassing to anyone but Christie. What it is not is credible. Or informative, especially given the lack of cooperation, even for them, from the Christie people who did this thing for him. Or a wise use of NJ taxpayer money.
But he had to do it. Almost all scandals start out with an administration investigating itself. That should never be the end of it, but it is part of the process.
What makes Christie unusual is that he’s actually admitting it, rather than crowing that his investigation cleared him and so STFU. Which is the behavior of most politicians in his situation.
What specific information in the report do you consider to be not credible? The GDC report confirmed the CNN story about Zimmer’s stories issued a month earlier. Are you suggesting that the CNN report is not credible, either?
You’re convinced that Christie’s people did this thing for him (“him” being Christie). What proof do you have that Christie’s people did this thing for him? Has the political committee found any evidence that Christie was actually involved or are you hoping the grand jury will fulfill your fondest dream?
Besides the whole of it, considering the source? The information that isn’t there.
Unless you claim it’s plausible they did it just to be assholes for its own sake, then you’re simply being recalcitrant.
My “fondest dream” is that we get the truth. Those of you desperately trying to handwave away whatever we *do *know are in the way of that end.
Ah, no. Not even close enough for hand grenades or rock 'n roll. Christie did, in point of fact, crow about his “exoneration”.
“The whole of it?” What defendant wouldn’t want to be able to instigate their own investigation into the charges against them? Governors, by State law, can do that. What is in the GDC report that makes you want “handwave away” the entire report? That’s what you’re attempting to do, isn’t it? Is it because a Democrat was in charge of creating it? You can’t hold that against the report’s findings, can you? Or can you?
If you actually want to get to the truth, I would assume “everyone” would look at ALL of the information that’s supplied and judge that information on it’s merit and not on an assumption that Christie must have actually been involved in spite of the lack of actual evidence. Zimmer’s stories, as described by CNN and the GDC, now appear to be political horseshit.
What stories, versions, and rumors are left that leads you to know Christie must have been involved in the Great NJ Lane Reassignment?