Page 1 of 3
Fat boy blocked the bridge
Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:15 pm
by Gob
Republican rising star Chris Christie, New Jersey's Governor, is facing claims his office orchestrated traffic mayhem to pursue a petty political vendetta.
Emails and texts appear to link a Christie aide to the closure of lanes to the George Washington Bridge, one of the world's busiest, in September.
The gridlock was allegedly engineered to punish a Democratic mayor who did not endorse the governor's re-election.
Mr Christie postponed a morning event after the emails were released.
The documents made public on Wednesday do not suggest that Mr Christie himself had anything to do with the lane closures, but they may contradict his assertions that none of his staff were involved.
The scandal is brewing as the tough-talking governor, often touted as a 2016 White House candidate, is due to tour the nation in his other role as chairman of the Republican Governors Association.
"Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee," top Christie aide Bridget Anne Kelly wrote last August, in one of the emails obtained by US media.
"Got it," replied David Wildstein, whom the governor appointed to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which controls the George Washington Bridge.
About a month later, two of three traffic lanes to the bridge - which is the main crossing to New York City - were shut for several days.
It caused major traffic jams in the New Jersey borough of Fort Lee, whose mayor, Mark Sokolich, had declined to support Mr Christie's re-election campaign last autumn.
Mr Wildstein, who has since resigned, is due to testify under oath on Thursday before a state legislature committee investigating the claims
Re: Fat boy blocked the bridge
Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:35 pm
by Big RR
Par for the course in the state of New Jersey.
Re: Fat boy blocked the bridge
Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:31 pm
by Sue U
Big RR wrote:Par for the course in the state of New Jersey.
No, it's not. Political vendettas and dirty campaign tricks are one thing, but intentionally fucking up a major metropolitan area's motor traffic and causing trouble -- even hardship -- to hundreds of thousands of innocent people is beyond the pale. Wildstein and Baroni have already resigned. The fact that Christie hasn't fired everyone else involved lends further credence to the speculation that he at least knew and approved of this fuckery. His administration looks mean, bullying, vindictive and petty -- which if I do say so has always been my impression of the man himself.
Re: Fat boy blocked the bridge
Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:46 pm
by Joe Guy
Here's a photo of Chris Christie getting ready to go outside to block traffic...
Re: Fat boy blocked the bridge
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 1:05 am
by Econoline
Re: Fat boy blocked the bridge
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 1:39 am
by rubato
If I was going to pick the Governor best able to block traffic, Christie would be it.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Fat boy blocked the bridge
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 12:51 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
I listened to the traffic reports back then and was wondering WTF was up with the GWB. Seemed every day for a while it was delay after delay for days on end. The traffic people were speculating it was overnight work being behind schedule.
Now we know.
Re: Fat boy blocked the bridge
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 1:52 pm
by Lord Jim
If Christie was unaware of what Kelly had done, then clearly there was no reason for him to have reacted, or fired anyone, or taken any action at all until evidence came to light yesterday. If he genuinely knew nothing about this, then presumably Kelly, (and anyone else in his office who might have been involved) lied about their involvement, and with no evidence to the contrary, Christie took them at there word.(I think just about anyone would do the same with a trusted employee.)
Of course people who don't like Christie, have never liked Christie and would dearly love to see his Presidential ambitions derailed, (especially since he's a Republican who could actually win) are immediately trying to hang him with this, despite the fact that at this point there is absolutely nothing that indicates he had any knowledge or involvement. They're just trying to convict him with speculation that springs from their own anti-Christie bias.
That having been said, Christie's got a very serious problem here, and he has a short window to deal with it effectively. A high ranking member of his staff indisputably and deliberately orchestrated a dangerous situation for thousands of New Jersey citizens for petty partisan political reasons. Christie issued a fairly strong statement yesterday, but that's nowhere near enough. He needs to get in front of the cameras, come down hard, request an investigation from the Attorney General, dmeand that if lwas were broken that people be prosecuted, and basically take the lead on getting to the bottom of this and he needs to do it right now.
If it comes to light he was involved, (which I do not believe, if for no other reason then because of the monumental, needless, and reckless foolhardiness that would entail.) then not only are his Presidential ambitions finished, but he may not finish his term as Governor.
Re: Fat boy blocked the bridge
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:16 pm
by Lord Jim
Chris must have read my post:
TRENTON — The day after Gov Chris Christie's administration was rocked by another development in the George Washington Bridge scandal, the governor will break his silence with a news conference today.
Chris Christie.JPGView full sizeGov. Chris Christie
The 11 a.m. announcement at the Statehouse gives Christie a venue to try to explain how a senior member of his staff and his campaign manager could have known about the lane closures without telling the governor.
National media have descended on Trenton in preparation for a court hearing that will determine if David Wildstein, the former Port Authority executive and Christie ally, testifies publicly under subpoena this afternoon.
I think a full blown press conference is exactly the right venue in this situation, (presumably it will begin with some firing announcements) and he should be prepared to be there answering questions for a while. This is the most important moment of Christie's political life; we'll see how he handles it.
Re: Fat boy blocked the bridge
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:36 pm
by Sue U
Lord Jim wrote:
Of course people who don't like Christie, have never liked Christie and would dearly love to see his Presidential ambitions derailed, (especially since he's a Republican who could actually win) are immediately trying to hang him with this, despite the fact that at this point there is absolutely nothing that indicates he had any knowledge or involvement. They're just trying to convict him with speculation that springs from their own anti-Christie bias.
Ahem ..... From your own subsequent post:
Lord Jim wrote:The 11 a.m. announcement at the Statehouse gives Christie a venue to try to explain how a senior member of his staff and his campaign manager could have known about the lane closures without telling the governor.
Christie's senior aide and his campaign manager not only knew about it, they orchestrated and directed it with his appointees to the Port Authority. It is true that there is as yet no evidence directly implicating Christie, but it is also hard to believe that such high-level figures were running a completely secret rogue operation -- especially under a governor as hands-on and micro-managey as Christie is.
I have not been shy about saying I don't like Christie and have never liked Christie, from the time he was a US Attorney. But I would love to see him run for President, since a) it would get him the hell out of New Jersey for a good year and a half, and 2) despite the fawning media, I think he would be an absolute disaster in a national campaign.
ETA
Oh, and by the way, this scandal has been under investigation for months; Wildstein and Baroni both resigned a month ago, retaining criminal defense counsel, and it is inconceivable that prior to that time Christie had not asked them or his staff to show him what evidence might be uncovered. The guy was a frickin' federal prosecutor who specialized in government corruption and malfeasance cases, fer chrissakes.
Re: Fat boy blocked the bridge
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:44 pm
by Guinevere
This type of retribution is absolutely consistent with what Sue and BigRR have been saying about Christie all along. I can't imagine he wasn't involved somehow, but I'm sure he will lie through his teeth about it, point fingers all over the place, and make sure he deflects all personal criticism.
Re: Fat boy blocked the bridge
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:53 pm
by Crackpot
Of course this all relies on the willingness of someone to "take one for the team"
Re: Fat boy blocked the bridge
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:54 pm
by Big RR
sue--I meant to say par for the course in NJ with the Christie administration; they have been the most vindictive bunch of asses I've seen in this state ion a long time (and that's saying a lot). I don't know if Christie was personally involved in this, but given his demeanor as governor and his hands on approach to everything, it certainly suits his personality and I doubt aides would do it without his approval. But let's see how he squirms out of this.
And Jim, I am one who would not like to see him as president, but there are a lot of other republicans (and even democrats) I would rather see as president even less. My main concern with him (politics aside) is that his bluster and bullying disguised as "bipartisanship" won't work in Washington. NJ has a tolerance for that sort of behavior, many even celebrate it, but that sort of arm-twisting will not work in the US senate or House and with many members of each having a history of dealing with people worse than him. Four (or 8) more years of congressional gridlock doesn't really interest me. But, IMHO, to do well in Washington you have to be a politician; this guy is just a big-mouthed bully.
Re: Fat boy blocked the bridge
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 6:53 pm
by Lord Jim
I watched about half of Christie's press conference and listened to most of the rest, and I think he did a superb job...
He was categorical, direct, and not evasive in any way. He answered questions for nearly two hours, and never once lost his cool, and never once came across in an arrogant or condescending manner...
I think he did precisely what he needed to do...
If there's no credible evidence that comes out that contradicts what he has said, then within a couple of weeks this will blow over and to a certain extent in some ways it might even help him; this gave him an opportunity to display (at length) a coolness under pressure that runs counter to those who portray him as a "hot head"...
There is of course one caveat...
If evidence comes out showing that he is lying, and that he was in fact involved in this, then he is completely finished...
He put everything on the line in that press conference; there's no wiggle room or fall back position available to him if he's not telling the truth.
Re: Fat boy blocked the bridge
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:16 pm
by Sue U
"Have you seen our state flag? There is literally a severed horse's head on the state flag; that sends a message to every other state in the union ... "
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-j ... ge-scandal
Re: Fat boy blocked the bridge
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:49 pm
by Big RR
Jim--I only heard excerpts, but I thought the most laughable thing was when he said he never micromanages. this was the guy who only a year ago toured the state after Hurricane Sandy insisting HE had to do everything. HE had to go to every town and make sure disaster resources were being distributed properly, HE had to oversee the distribution of federal aid, HE had to talk with Obama and congressional leaders, HE had to hog all the news time, etc. His staff? You'd think he never had one; it was all HIM. And now, when there's a problem, he never micromanaged, he relied on people to do their jobs. I just don't buy it.
I personally agree with crackpot here, and think his biggest exposure is if someone rolls over and says what really happened. There's a lot of speculation that criminal charges may be forthcoming, so who knows? I personally don't think Christie is the type of person who inspires that kind of loyalty among his staff, or that anyone would be willing to take a bullet for him, but we'll have to see.
Re: Fat boy blocked the bridge
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:03 pm
by Lord Jim
his biggest exposure is if someone rolls over and says what really happened. There's a lot of speculation that criminal charges may be forthcoming, so who knows? I personally don't think Christie is the type of person who inspires that kind of loyalty among his staff, or that anyone would be willing to take a bullet for him, but we'll have to see.
All of that presupposes of course that Christie is lying, which apparently you are predisposed to believe; even take as a given...
I guess if no evidence comes out that he was involved your assumption will be that he was successful in covering it up.
Does the option that the man could be telling the truth even register as a remote possibility on your radar screen?
Personally, if no evidence comes out that contradicts what he said today, my assumption will be that he has told the truth.
And I'll bet that will be the assumption of most New Jerseyites and other Americans as well. (I expect the polls will prove me right.)
The more I think about it, the more I believe that assuming he's not shown to be lying, he did himself a lot of good today politically. He came across, both in terms of demeanor and what he said in a way that I think will be appealing to many voters.
Re: Fat boy blocked the bridge
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:22 pm
by Sue U
I watched the remarks and most of the Q&A. I think he did a good job and said the right things. But the one thing I still cannot understand is why he allegedly didn't look any harder at what was going on until yesterday, when more than a month earlier his own appointees to the Port Authority had resigned specifically because of this incident. If I were Governor, I'd have been calling these guys to ask why they were stepping down and lawyering up, if this was not a real thing, and what kind of dirt is out there that could get on me. I would think that would have been obvious. Also, although not necessarily germane to the story, his claims to not be a bully or a micromanager are not credible.
Re: Fat boy blocked the bridge
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:32 pm
by Big RR
Jim--take as a given? No. Believe? Yes, I do believe he was involved; it certainly is in line with other things he has done. I'm not a juror here and am entitled to make up my mind based on whatever I choose. As for your second question, if no further evidence comes out, yes, I would think he was successful in covering it up. Might he be completely innocent? Sure, but based on his past conduct, I just don't believe he is.
eta: Sue--the only reason I point out the claim that he is not a micromanager as being relevant is because he is using that to provide an excuse as the why he didn't know about it. That's something I just can't buy. Some people give their staff free reign, but I don't think he is one of them. Personally, I don't necessarily think he planned it, but I find it pretty difficult to think he didn't know about it before it happened.
Re: Fat boy blocked the bridge
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:47 pm
by Sue U
Big RR wrote:Personally, I don't necessarily think he planned it, but I find it pretty difficult to think he didn't know about it before it happened.
Oh, I might even buy that he didn't know about it, if Mayor Sokolich says he was never asked for an endorsement or some other "favor." But there again, I don't get the personal animosity to "the little Serbian" displayed in the emails unless he was somehow a thorn in the side of Wildstein, Baroni, Kelly, Stepien or Christie himself.