E-mails among Christie appointees suggest political vendetta

JC wrote:

Are personal journals really admissible as any sort of evidence? All I can think of reading the stories about this are, "dear diary! Chris Christie was mean to me." Don't get me wrong, if he tried to hold relief funds in exchange for favors that's despicable. I just don't see how something that can't really be validated can be considered proof.

No, but the claim itself is pretty damning, particularly if the financial side of things is as one-sided as the mayor is making out. Plus it goes a little ways further towards motive. This business about repercussions for not endorsing Christie has never rung true, so finding more evidence that this was some kind of shady real estate deal clears things up a little.

Like I said, Jersey politics.

Looks like Rob Blagojevich is optimistic that his appeal will get his sentence cut. He believes the court should have heard *all* 500 hours or so of his recorded phone conversations, rather than the excerpts that were presented, because with that context, it's clear that he's a great guy and would never have done what he did.

IMAGE(https://24.media.tumblr.com/62d9744db45f6c160d64347bd58940e2/tumblr_mzpmghRiCX1sr6ohxo1_500.png)

JC wrote:

Are personal journals really admissible as any sort of evidence? All I can think of reading the stories about this are, "dear diary! Chris Christie was mean to me." Don't get me wrong, if he tried to hold relief funds in exchange for favors that's despicable. I just don't see how something that can't really be validated can be considered proof.

Apparently prosecutors and the FBI have been talking to a few folks who have validated the claims laid out in Zimmer's journal.

Someone needs to hire me to write for the daily show...

Christie's National Poll Numbers Plummet

Only 22 percent said they have a positive view of Christie, down 11 points from the NBC/WSJ poll in October. Moreover, his negative rating has climbed from 17 percent in October to 29 percent in the latest survey.

Christie Knew About Lane Closings, Ex-Port Authority Official Says

The former Port Authority official who personally oversaw the lane closings on the George Washington Bridge in the scandal now swirling around Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey said on Friday that the governor knew about the lane closings when they were happening, and that he had the evidence to prove it.

If this is proven Christie is really screwed. People might have disliked the lane closure / vendetta story but Christie has been admiant he didn't know. If he did he is a proven liar and it iwll be much harder for conservatives to rally around him.

farley3k wrote:

Christie Knew About Lane Closings, Ex-Port Authority Official Says

The former Port Authority official who personally oversaw the lane closings on the George Washington Bridge in the scandal now swirling around Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey said on Friday that the governor knew about the lane closings when they were happening, and that he had the evidence to prove it.

If this is proven Christie is really screwed. People might have disliked the lane closure / vendetta story but Christie has been admiant he didn't know. If he did he is a proven liar and it iwll be much harder for conservatives to rally around him.

yeah, if this is true it's all over.

This was interesting:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...

Everyone I talk to agrees that closing lanes to get back at a mayor is right out of the Wildstein playbook. But since Wildstein is capable of anything, a lot of people also believe that he would have no problem saying Christie ordered him to close the lanes, whether it's true or not. That explains the odd, erratic behavior from the Governor....he's caught between a rock and a hard place.

Either way, some people are questioning Christie's judgment by giving this guy any power at all.

Yeah, well, you train your dogs to maul people, don't be surprised if you end up getting mauled.

farley3k wrote:

Christie Knew About Lane Closings, Ex-Port Authority Official Says

The former Port Authority official who personally oversaw the lane closings on the George Washington Bridge in the scandal now swirling around Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey said on Friday that the governor knew about the lane closings when they were happening, and that he had the evidence to prove it.

If this is proven Christie is really screwed. People might have disliked the lane closure / vendetta story but Christie has been admiant he didn't know. If he did he is a proven liar and it iwll be much harder for conservatives to rally around him.

I don't know about conservatives rallying around him as it is. On my facebook newsfeed (not representative, not data, just anecdotal, of course) all the conservatives are still mad at him for being nice to Obama during the hurricane episode. It's incredible how politically petty some of these people are, even when they are the nicest people you could meet irl. It boggles my mind.

Republicans certainly seem to have the market cornered when it comes to being petty.

JC wrote:

Republicans certainly seem to have the market cornered when it comes to being petty.

Yep, that's exactly what I said.

Edit: I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic at me, or I'm just reading it wrong. If my response was harsh, I apologize.

I was agreeing with you 110% I'm sick of republican inaction and intractability being advertised as "we're just doing what our constituents want!"

I sort of like what David Brooks said today about this whole thing. He stated that if this is true, Christie's presidential aspirations are over, leaving no one but Rand Paul to take the GOP nomination in the 2016 race. And as he puts it, in a battle with Hillary Clinton, Paul will likely be the favorite in perhaps as many as four crucial battleground counties in rural Alabama.

I'm still not convinced Christie is planning on running for president. Even if this bridge issue hadn't come up.

Not because HE doesn't want to run but because I'm not sure "true" conservatives (whatever the F that means) can swallow some of his more centrist ideas.

Oh and he hugged a black guy.

Paleocon wrote:

I sort of like what David Brooks said today about this whole thing. He stated that if this is true, Christie's presidential aspirations are over, leaving no one but Rand Paul to take the GOP nomination in the 2016 race. And as he puts it, in a battle with Hillary Clinton, Paul will likely be the favorite in perhaps as many as four crucial battleground counties in rural Alabama.

But you left out the bit that almost made me crash my car due to peals of laughter--"If he's a disingenuous bully who lied, that's a tough campaign platform to run on." That's punditry from David Brooks, ladies and gentlemen. Give him a hand!

The Pauls are Neo-Confederate Theocrats, anyway. It's amazing how they hoodwinked libertarians into thinking otherwise. If Rand Paul is where the GOP is going, they're doomed. (Let's see how "property rights trump civil rights" flies nationally...)

They'll still get the Senate back this round, or at least have a shot at it, due to the number of low population Red states. Once you get away from elections based on head-counts, Republicans actually have an advantage in elections where the *state* is represented, rather than it's population.

What I've seen of Ron Paul is definitely libertarian.

Rand is something else. He strikes me as an opportunistic scumbag, where his father is much more of an idealist.

Malor wrote:

What I've seen of Ron Paul is definitely libertarian.

Rand is something else. He strikes me as an opportunistic scumbag, where his father is much more of an idealist.

Robear wrote:

The Pauls are Neo-Confederate Theocrats, anyway. It's amazing how they hoodwinked libertarians into thinking otherwise. If Rand Paul is where the GOP is going, they're doomed. (Let's see how "property rights trump civil rights" flies nationally...)

They'll still get the Senate back this round, or at least have a shot at it, due to the number of low population Red states. Once you get away from elections based on head-counts, Republicans actually have an advantage in elections where the *state* is represented, rather than it's population.

I'm so glad I'm not the only person who's noticed this about Rand Paul. I have issues with his father, but at least he genuinely seems to believe in the political philosophy that he's espousing. Rand Paul just seems to do the thing that's calculated to have the greatest political impact. Sometimes that turns out good for the country. But oftentimes he's pushing something really mealy-mouthed and harmful.

Eh.. Ron Paul's perfectly happy to use the power of the Federal Government to pursue anti-Libertarian goals that he likes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctit...

More Wikipedia:

In February 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama administration's Justice Department had determined that a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional and, as a result, the administration would no longer argue in support of the act's constitutionality in court.[146] Paul issued a statement to Iowa Republicans criticizing the Obama administration's position, saying: "Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected. I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state."

Ron Paul also feels that property rights are the bedrock of liberty, and the Civil Rights Act violated them. He said so in Congress in 2004 during the debate of a bill celebrating the fourtieth anniversary of the CRA. He was the only one to vote against it. (He has reiterated this stance many times since then.)

He's also headlined a conference for the Fatima Center in Canada, a group dedicated to bringing the Catholic Church back into governments, "for they cannot be separated". The organizations involved included some noted anti-Semitic representatives, such as E. Michael Jones. His campaigns have long had the support of American Dominionists and other similar movements; for example, in 2012 it accepted and touted the endorsement of Nebraska pastor Phil Keyser, who has called for the execution of homosexuals. He's also had a career-long association with various major players in the Christian Reconstruction movement, a group which has openly theocratic aims.

So Rand Paul and his father are - understandably - not very different in their beliefs. As I noted, the wonder is that they've had such success with socially liberal libertarians, while so much of their support comes from people who would much rather see a Christian government over the country.

Why do they always double down on stupid... I just cannot wrap my brain around why he would continue this story that's already been proven false six ways from Sunday.

Christie, appearing on a local radio show, stuck to a position that’s literally hard to believe.

CHRISTIE: As I said at the time of January 9th when I did my press conference, I still don’t know whether there was a traffic study that morphed into –

HOST: You still don’t know at this point whether there was a traffic study?

CHRISTIE: Well, what I’m saying, Eric, did this start as a traffic study that morphed into some political shenanigans, or did it start as political shenanigans that became a traffic study?

MSNBC article.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...

With respect to the idea that he knew about it before/during the shutdown though, what's actually been proven here? "Evidence exists" was referenced in a letter by a guy's lawyer when trying to get him immunity and the state to pay his legal bills. The guy who already turned in like 900 pages worth of stuff that was supposed to be all inclusive but did not include this evidence. I get why the left would consider this red meat, but it certainly doesn't warrant a Javert-style "I KNEW IT"

NormanTheIntern wrote:

With respect to the idea that he knew about it before/during the shutdown though, what's actually been proven here? "Evidence exists" was referenced in a letter by a guy's lawyer when trying to get him immunity and the state to pay his legal bills. The guy who already turned in like 900 pages worth of stuff that was supposed to be all inclusive but did not include this evidence. I get why the left would consider this red meat, but it certainly doesn't warrant a Javert-style "I KNEW IT"

I agree. Unless they have proof this is just a he said/she said game at this point. We're at the point where we are waiting for the other shoe to drop (if ever)

At this point, we really can't say anything more, unless we can actually see the evidence in question.

I don't think I'd have any trouble believing it could be either way, but I'm inclined to blame Christie no matter what, for this reason: the buck stopped there. It always does. They're his staff, so what they do is his responsibility.

Further, there's also the simple fact that even if he didn't directly know on this one, his staff isn't going to be coming up with this sort of thing unless they've got plenty of other examples of seriously bare-knuckle politics. This is, after all, New Jersey.

I can totally see people in that office thinking, "So what if a few people die? Big deal."

tl;dr version of that: You can delegate authority, but not responsibility. Even pretending you can is seriously scummy, and worthy of booting Christie all by itself.

Well that's interesting... The position that had been created just for this Wildstein guy to occupy has now been completely removed...

I don't think that helps them when it comes to how they want to portray their administration.

I think that's the least of their concerns. But if you have any questions about New Jersey politics, read "Boardwalk Empire" by Nelson Johnson (not the fictional version). It's got good discussions of state politics as they impacted Atlantic City.

Robear wrote:

I think that's the least of their concerns. But if you have any questions about New Jersey politics, read "Boardwalk Empire" by Nelson Johnson (not the fictional version). It's got good discussions of state politics as they impacted Atlantic City.

It's definitely a minor issue in the grand scheme of things, but it contributes to the narrative of a corrupt administration creating things as favors.

You are right, of course.