So, should we get used to saying, Inmate Christie?

Just asking. It appears that right now that fate is just as likely as him becoming President.

Meh. I’d be very surprised if the whole scandal even ends in impeachment. Not to say that it won’t damage him - Christie’s Presidential ambitions are long gone - but he’s not going to get prosecuted. My guess is that it’s going to be a long, painful political death, with lots of uncertain testimonies and finger pointing, ending up with a small handful of people either paying fines or going to jail and Christie still governor.

If Christie left any kind of email trail or if there is sworn testimony against him, yes he could wind up in prison. If they have a cell with a missing bar or two, might as well save it for him.

He seems smart enough not to have done that, only to have kept his expectations of his staff strictly oral. As long as he can keep claiming he had no idea what they were doing, he’s legally untouchable, and probably unimpeachable too. But he can never win another election anymore.

I don’t get the reference here.

Edit: oh. A fat joke. Because Christie is fat. Haw haw.

Almost zero chance. It was shitty political move and he’ll pay a political price, but I can’t see criminal charges getting made let alone sticking.

Points for clever snark, but based on what we know so far it seems unlikely. Something even juicier - and definitely tied to the man himself - would need to come out in order for him to join Blagojevich in Governor Jail.

But is there even a slight chance of that happening? The journalists have had a field day and dug as deep as they could go, and nothing new seems to be surfacing. I suppose there is a chance that one of his former staff - especially Bridget Anne Kelly - could incriminate him, but I doubt any new evidence pointing to Christie’s direct involvement is going to be discovered.

It will be interesting to see what happens when they start handing out immunity.

We can’t confuse lack of news with lack of guilt. We’ve had a big release of redacted documents and testimony in public committee. Now we’re in the quiet phase with the US Attorney and the prosecutor hired by the legislature doing their slow, methodical investigation. They don’t do their work to feed the 24 hour news machine, it might well be months before we have more news to digest.

I actually have a question. If, for example, Kelly got immunity and immediately exposed Christie for doing x, y, and z, without providing evidence, how much damage could she do? There’s obviously an ulterior motive for her - Christie basically verbally abused her to make himself look better - so how much weight would her word hold in court?

Depends on documents, other people’s testimony – like the mayor of Hoboken, for example – and who else gets immunity and whether they corroborate what she says.

Adding: And what BobLibDem says.

Basically what Christie has done has also been done by large numbers of other politicians. And these other politicians haven’t been jailed.

It usually takes something like a politician accepting cash bribes for a politician to go to jail–and there have been no suggestions that this has occurred. Christie is a politician interested in power–not someone interested in lining his own pockets.

Fair enough. It’ll be interesting to see where this all goes.

That’s what confuses me - he wants power. What he did (assuming he was more involved in the scandal than he says, which I think likely), is extraordinarily counterproductive towards his goal. It literally benefited him in no way, apart from the small amount of pleasure gained from exerting power over those you govern. I get that people make mistakes, and that Christie is known to be a bit (well, more than a bit) of a bully, but seriously? I find it impossible to understand what he was thinking. It was stupid beyond belief - and then the ‘traffic study’ story was unbelievably flimsy, and they knew the question was going to be asked and had time to prepare a better response. I feel as if there’s a missing puzzle piece here.

I think probably not. For one thing, NOBODY addresses an inmate that way; or refers to them that way when not in their presence.

I’d have a difficult time getting used to saying “Inmate ANYBODY AT ALL.”

Must be a California thing. We address prisoners as Inmate Lastname all the time in New York. I figure it’s likely that New Jersey has been influenced by New York so if Governor Christie ends up in prison, he’ll probably be known as Inmate Christie.

Wouldn’t the charges most likely be federal, RICO or similar? That would put him in a federal pound-me-in-the ass prison, not Rahway.

Speaking as a resident of a state where the previous governor is in prison and the one before that was just released, BobLibDem has a good point.

When Rod Blagojevich was arrested, I was genuinely surprised, and so was everyone else I know. Everyone knew he was a jerk and a buffoon, and everyone knew he was being investigated, but we had no idea how bad it really was. The feds did their work very quietly and painstakingly, and nothing was leaked.

The fact that the federal investigators met with Mayor Zimmer on a SUNDAY has to be disturbing to the Christie team. They’ve done virtually nothing in response but repeatedly call her a liar, and I think that shows that they’re frightened.

Or ideally two and a half years, say during Christie’s acceptance speech at the 2016 GOP convention? :smiley:

(A man can dream can’t he?)

Really? I’ve heard of a lot of examples of similar behavior (using control of city infrastructure to punish voters for their politicians) back in the spoils-era, but I can’t think of many modern examples. That’s part of why its an interesting scandal, it seems like such a throw-back.

Who specifically are you thinking of?

I don’t think they’ll manage to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Christie was involved in the bridge closing, but I think if they do he’ll go to jail.