Told Ya'll Christie KNEW!

[TemplarKormac]

Uhh, your opinion does not mean the Mayor told the truth. I study legal processes and procedures. I also take the unreliability of Mayor Zimmer into account when she wrongly terminated a staffer. She lost that case and had her credibility called into question at that hearing. Nobody on your side of the argument is trying to substantiate her claims! Nobody.

Link for "wrongful termination" allegation?

Former public safety director Alicea wins suit against Hoboken, awarded $440K | NJ.com

I will point out that the jury ruled Zimmer didn't discriminate, but they did rule that Alicea was discriminated against by the City of Hoboken. Meaning, that if you're going to sit there and apply this bridgegate scandal to Christie, you need to apply this case to Dawn Zimmer. It's as simple as that.

Derideo. Please.

You guys are sitting there pinning everything on Christie, yet when people pin things on Zimmer she suddenly becomes not liable for her misconduct. Why is that? I smell a big double standard here.

 

[paperview]

What did the jury have to say about Mayor Zimmer's discrimination Templar?

There was a verdict. A vote. What was the vote count?

Tell us.

Hint: it did not lay blame on mayor Zimmer. By large majority.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Former public safety director Alicea wins suit against Hoboken, awarded $440K | NJ.com

Your false allegation against Mayor Zimmer;



The second paragraph in your own link;

While the jury voted, 6-2, that the city engaged in discrimination against Angel Alicea, it also found that Mayor Dawn Zimmer, by a vote of 7-1, did not discriminate against Alicea and is not held liable.

Read my edit. If you think I didn't notice that, then you take me for a fool.

Not taking anyone for a fool. I asked for the link based upon your original allegation. That is proven to be unfounded. You have acknowledged as much. The matter is settled.

 

[paperview]

For people too lazy to click on the link:

"Mayor Dawn Zimmer, by a vote of 7-1, did not discriminate against Alicea and is not held liable."

Former public safety director Alicea wins suit against Hoboken, awarded $440K | NJ.com

 

[TemplarKormac]

Link for "wrongful termination" allegation?

Former public safety director Alicea wins suit against Hoboken, awarded $440K | NJ.com

Your false allegation against Mayor Zimmer;

I also take the unreliability of Mayor Zimmer into account when she wrongly terminated a staffer.

The second paragraph in your own link;

While the jury voted, 6-2, that the city engaged in discrimination against Angel Alicea, it also found that Mayor Dawn Zimmer, by a vote of 7-1, did not discriminate against Alicea and is not held liable.

By the way, what do they mean by "city of Hoboken" and "Mayor Zimmer?"

She is the mayor, she represents the city, yet somehow only the "city" was liable for discrimination? Makes sense. There are city managers that all employees must report to.

So, if the same is true for Zimmer, why oh why is Christie being blamed for the actions of his staffers? Isn't there a possibility that just like Zimmer, Christie's people acted without his prior knowledge Zimmer's city managers discriminated against Angel Alicea? Isn't it true that their behavior isn't automatically pinned on her leadership? Why is that the case with Christie?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your false allegation against Mayor Zimmer;



The second paragraph in your own link;

Read my edit. If you think I didn't notice that, then you take me for a fool.

Not taking anyone for a fool. I asked for the link based upon your original allegation. That is proven to be unfounded. You have acknowledged as much. The matter is settled.

Far from it. You folks are sitting there pinning the actions of Christie's staff on him as if he had something to do with the traffic jam, yet when Zimmer's city managers discriminated against Angel Alicea, somehow she is absolved of any wrongdoing, oh no, she had nothing to do with the discrimination. The people who hired and fired Alicea report to the mayor. So why is she not to blame for this discrimination, but Christie is automatically blamed for the traffic jam?

Why the double standard?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Link for "wrongful termination" allegation?

Former public safety director Alicea wins suit against Hoboken, awarded $440K | NJ.com

I will point out that the jury ruled Zimmer didn't discriminate, but they did rule that Alicea was discriminated against by the City of Hoboken. Meaning, that if you're going to sit there and apply this bridgegate scandal to Christie, you need to apply this case to Dawn Zimmer. It's as simple as that.

Derideo. Please.

You guys are sitting there pinning everything on Christie, yet when people pin things on Zimmer she suddenly becomes not liable for her misconduct. Why is that? I smell a big double standard here.

The jury found no misconduct on the part of the mayor. They specifically excluded her from all liability.

As far as Christie is concerned the investigations are ongoing. My own position is based upon him lying to the people of NJ, of whom I am one. I am following this very closely indeed because I was a supporter of his and saw him as a viable Republican candidate for 2016. I need to know the outcome because it impacts where I will stand. Right now Christie still has "deniability" but for that to work it must be "plausible". When he lies he loses "plausibility". That is my major concern at the present. Why is he lying?

And yes, if I caught Zimmer lying I would be holding her to the same standard. There is no evidence of her lying and a jury just exonerated her of all liability. Bring me something else and I will reconsider but right now I am not seeing anything at all.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Former public safety director Alicea wins suit against Hoboken, awarded $440K | NJ.com

I will point out that the jury ruled Zimmer didn't discriminate, but they did rule that Alicea was discriminated against by the City of Hoboken. Meaning, that if you're going to sit there and apply this bridgegate scandal to Christie, you need to apply this case to Dawn Zimmer. It's as simple as that.

Derideo. Please.

You guys are sitting there pinning everything on Christie, yet when people pin things on Zimmer she suddenly becomes not liable for her misconduct. Why is that? I smell a big double standard here.

The jury found no misconduct on the part of the mayor. They specifically excluded her from all liability.

As far as Christie is concerned the investigations are ongoing. My own position is based upon him lying to the people of NJ, of whom I am one. I am following this very closely indeed because I was a supporter of his and saw him as a viable Republican candidate for 2016. I need to know the outcome because it impacts where I will stand. Right now Christie still has "deniability" but for that to work it must be "plausible". When he lies he loses "plausibility". That is my major concern at the present. Why is he lying?

And yes, if I caught Zimmer lying I would be holding her to the same standard. There is no evidence of her lying and a jury just exonerated her of all liability. Bring me something else and I will reconsider but right now I am not seeing anything at all.

But somehow we are tying the behavior of Christie's staff to Christie, but not Zimmer's city managers to Zimmer.

Just as you challenged me:

Can you prove that Christie was lying? You simply can't sit there and say "he's lying" without some shred of proof. So far, the accusation he knew is nothing but hearsay at this point, second Dawn Zimmer is disreputable. She contradicted herself on a sworn deposition.

Here's an interesting parallel:

The Tower Commission report regarding the Iran Contra scandal implicated everyone but Reagan. Does that mean Reagan wasn't responsible or does that mean he still knew about it? It's interesting to see how in some instances the leader knows about the behavior, or in others he is completely oblivious to the fact, even as it is played out under his or her nose...

 

[Derideo_Te]

Former public safety director Alicea wins suit against Hoboken, awarded $440K | NJ.com

Your false allegation against Mayor Zimmer;



The second paragraph in your own link;

While the jury voted, 6-2, that the city engaged in discrimination against Angel Alicea, it also found that Mayor Dawn Zimmer, by a vote of 7-1, did not discriminate against Alicea and is not held liable.

By the way, what do they mean by "city of Hoboken" and "Mayor Zimmer?"

She is the mayor, she represents the city, yet somehow only the "city" was liable for discrimination? Makes sense. There are city managers that all employees must report to.

So, if the same is true for Zimmer, why oh why is Christie being blamed for the actions of his staffers? Isn't there a possibility that just like Zimmer, Christie's people acted without his prior knowledge Zimmer's city managers discriminated against Angel Alicea? Isn't it true that their behavior isn't automatically pinned on her leadership? Why is that the case with Christie?

Yes, it is possible that Christie's staff acted without his knowledge.

So let's examine that possibility together.

The GWB scandal was obviously preplanned from the tone of the emails initiating it. Therefore there had to be some motivation for planning something of this nature. The "payback for not endorsing" theory doesn't make sense. The $1 billion development project in Ft Lee just 2 blocks from those lanes does make sense. The timing of the traffic jam coincides with the funding of that project. Follow the money to see who stood to gain/lose and you find your guilty party.

The Hoboken project was directly tied to Samson, a political appointee of Christie at the Port Authority. Once again follow the money to see who stood to gain/lose. The Harrison project is also tied to Samson and Christie's brother gained from that deal.

Now we know, based upon the above, that there is most definitely some kind of corruption within the Christie administration. The only question becomes Christie's involvement. Everyone was either an appointee, a staffer or a relative of his. At the very least Christie has responsibility for making those appointments and hiring those people.

Beyond that remains to be seen by what the evidence reveals.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Derideo. Please.

You guys are sitting there pinning everything on Christie, yet when people pin things on Zimmer she suddenly becomes not liable for her misconduct. Why is that? I smell a big double standard here.

The jury found no misconduct on the part of the mayor. They specifically excluded her from all liability.

As far as Christie is concerned the investigations are ongoing. My own position is based upon him lying to the people of NJ, of whom I am one. I am following this very closely indeed because I was a supporter of his and saw him as a viable Republican candidate for 2016. I need to know the outcome because it impacts where I will stand. Right now Christie still has "deniability" but for that to work it must be "plausible". When he lies he loses "plausibility". That is my major concern at the present. Why is he lying?

And yes, if I caught Zimmer lying I would be holding her to the same standard. There is no evidence of her lying and a jury just exonerated her of all liability. Bring me something else and I will reconsider but right now I am not seeing anything at all.

But somehow we are tying the behavior of Christie's staff to Christie, but not Zimmer's city managers to Zimmer.

Just as you challenged me:

Can you prove that Christie was lying? You simply can't sit there and say "he's lying" without some shred of proof. So far, the accusation he knew is nothing but hearsay at this point, second Dawn Zimmer is disreputable. She contradicted herself on a sworn deposition.

Here's an interesting parallel:

The Tower Commission report regarding the Iran Contra scandal implicated everyone but Reagan. Does that mean Reagan wasn't responsible or does that mean he still knew about it? It's interesting to see how in some instances the leader knows about the behavior, or in others he is completely oblivious to the fact, even as it is played out under his or her nose...

Reagan lied to Congress, TK.

Zimmer did not contradict herself in that sworn deposition. That is being deliberately distorted. She was asked about transcripts, journals, meeting dates, etc. Her note book does not even have any dates in it. It did not fit the description of what she was being asked about.

As for me being able to prove that Christie is lying I am applying the same standard that the police use when they listen to statements. When someone's story constantly changes to fit new evidence it is a giveaway that they are not telling the truth.

Originally Christie claimed that it was a "traffic study". When that story imploded because the Port Authority had no knowledge of it he switched over to blaming his own staff and calling them liars. He denied all knowledge of what they were doing at the time.

Then Wildstein's lawyer reveals that there is "evidence" that he did know at the time and Christie's kneejerk response is that he didn't know about it "beforehand" but he didn't deny the allegation. That then changes to a full out attack on the integrity of Wildstein's character in the subsequent story.

So now we have 4 different versions from Christie. Which one is the truth? Is there a 5th version still to come? How about a 6th or 7th?

So yes, I know Christie is not telling us the truth because he keeps changing his story to suit himself.

 

[edthecynic]

Yes, a lot of amendments were filed, NONE of them were voted on before the bill was voted on and passed by dems only.

Like I have said before, once the Right sinks their teeth into a lie, they never let go!!!

In order for 161 GOP amendments to be PASSED, they had to be debated and VOTED on. There was 60 hours of debate over 13 days!!!

that was all prior to the filing of the ACA bill, there was zero discussion on the bill that was actually passed. The final bill was passed with no floor debate and no amendments in either house.

The Right will NEVER admit the truth!

On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill, the bill then passed by a vote of 60–39 on December 24, 2009.

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 1st Session as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 3590 as Amended ) Vote Number: 396 Vote Date: December 24, 2009, 07:05 AM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed Measure Number: H.R. 3590 (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ) Measure Title: An act entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Vote Counts:YEAs60
NAYs39
Not Voting1

 

[MarcATL]

Baloney. Pure baloney.

The question is not whether he knew about the closings, but whether he either ordered them or was aware that they had been ordered by someone on his staff as a vindictive measure against the mayor of that town.

So what if he knew about the lane closings? Means absolutely nothing.

More Democrat attempts to kill his '16 candidacy.

Pretty lame.

WRONG!!!

Christie had multiple Press Conferences where he told the American people that he had absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of the bridge closings.

If this is true...he's TOAST!

Forget '16, he'll have to resign in disgrace NOW!!!

Toast I sed....TOAST!!!

#LOLGOP

lol

As usual, we are on the same page MarcATL. Right down to the toast.

Just think. Rand Paul is dancing around in little circles in his office right now.

Jeb Bush is giggling and high-fiving.

Ted Cruz is hitting his knees and thanking Jesus.

Indeed Sir...a regular buck dancing session.

 

[rdean]

Crispie now attacking David Wildstein's high school days.

Although Christie and Wildstein attended high school together and it was Christie who appointed him to the Port Authority, the letter becomes personal, describing him as “tumultuous” and even cites events from Wildstein’s teenage years to try and discredit him, including saying that he was “publicly accused by his high school social studies teacher of deceptive behavior.”

Christie Hits Back, Attacks Wildstein in Letter to Friends and Allies - ABC News

I know you are but what am I?

You only have to go back to 1994 to find Crispie was sued for defamation of character and not only lost, but had to apologize.

 

[MarcATL]

Oh by the way, did you notice how nothing more has come of that accusation against Christie?

I think you will see lots of back & fourth bullshit, with each camp claiming premature victories and over-reading every little sign, but we will not know what the evidence is until all the subpoenas and testimony have been processed, which could take a long time. Given that this will likely end Christie's presidential run, I'm not sure that the issue should continue to have the importance assigned to it. This is looking like a standard case of government corruption, which should not surprise your party.

Most odd is how the Right, the self-proclaimed party of Constitutional fidelity, clings to its crooks until the bitter end. [This is why we laugh at you when you point out Democratic crimes] The reason the Right gets away with ignoring its party's crimes is partly because the party has gotten better at manipulating the opinions of its less educated followers (I'm talking about the post-Nixon Right which created a powerful Think Tank & Media universe to expunge/rewrite all facts that didn't serve the party's interests). For instance, we have raised a generation of Republicans fully inside a bubble where Reagan's act of selling weapons illegally to the world's leading terrorist nation (Iran-Contra) does not exist. And where Reagan's massive financial and weapons infusions into the early Hussein regime literally doesn't exist, despite being on the public record. And where Bush's anti-Constitutional spying or the cherry-picked Intelligence that allowed him to justify a pre-established policy of regime change in Iraq... doesn't exist because the Right has created such loyal dupes. [FYI: this extreme level of opinion management was a Nixonian strategy, who thought that controlling public opinion was the only way to insulate himself from the Watergate investigation. You have to understand the context here. The pre-Nixon press was quite Liberal. This is why Nixon felt the party had to create its own media universe, with its own factual content... so that the Washington Post couldn't end a presidency or so that men like Walter Cronkite couldn't end the Vietnam War by talking honestly about the stalemate. Had FOX News, Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, Hannity, O'Reilly, Levine and the blogosphere existed in the 70's, Nixon could have gotten away with his crimes against the Constitution, and people like you, 100% contained within the Rightwing media universe, would have been among his loudest and most aggressive advocates]

When LBJ, by expanding the Vietnam War, went against the core principals of the Left, he was severely disciplined by the democratic base, who denied him a 2nd term as the student Left screamed " "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" By contrast, your party is 100% loyal to its sitting presidents, thus displaying a faith in Big Government that far exceeds the Left.

As a voter, you're supposed to be an internal check against your party's Constitutional abuses, not a sycophant or a flag-draped dupe. The fact that you always protect your biggest crooks 'til the bitter end makes it hard to take your criticism of the Left seriously.

When you party's leader says "Washington is going to save the middle east with freedom", your job is to be skeptical of Big Government's ability to control or save the world (despite the very best of intentions). Indeed, if Washington can't run a laundromat on budget, why would you give it the money and power to remake whole Arab nations in our image? The fact that people like you were rabid cheerleaders for such a massive expansion of Washington's power and budget makes it very hard to take any of your criticisms against Big Government seriously. We expect you to be intelligent critics of Government's ability to do big things, but every time your party captures the White House you expand the power and budget of Washington more than even the Left. We need dupes like you to become more literate on Foreign and Domestic policy. Please research how much power and money the Reagan War on Drugs gave to Federal agencies. Or take a look at the Patriot Act and Homeland Security, two unprecedented power-grabs over which you are silent (unless a democrat is in office). Let's start your education now. Read this article on Homeland Security so you understand why this Bush creation shows the true Republican Party, the one which has grown government more than the Left could ever dream.

Click Me to see Big Government Conservatism in action.

Conclusion: stop cheerleading for your own presidents and party leaders and we will be able to take you seriously. Be a real critic of Big Government in all its form, not a mere cheerleader and attack-dog for one party.

WoW!!!!

So deep, so profound, so heavy, so...TRUE!!

All I can do is....

*stand to my feet, commence to giving a one-man standing ovation*

 

[tinydancer]

Christie truly strikes me as that new breed of politician who isn't content to just win. This new breed run down a scorched earth policy against anyone and everyone who opposed them in an election.

My feelings have nothing to do with whether or not he helped Obama win with all the photo ops. Because I believe with all my heart that it wasn't about helping Obama win.

Christie wanted to punish Romney for picking Ryan and not him as VP.

It was all about hurting Romney and Ryan.

I think he's just that type of scumbucket.

ETA: Yes liberals, you read that right. If you look out your window right now you will see this.

 

[Politico]

Told ya all. There is still no proof of anything. Leftytoon fail.

Er, 20 subpoenas have been sent - and there are at least 3 investigations going on...

Compliance with the subpoenas isn't due until this coming week.

It's not like a TV movie - Over in 90 minutes.

So you agree the title is a fail. Thanks.

 

[JoeB131]

You on the left want Christie destroyed for a lie about traffic, but you completely give Hillary a pass for a lie about what caused the death of 4 americans at an american consulate.

its nothing but disengenuous partisanship.

I am not defending Christie, but lets use the same standards to judge all politicians.

Okay.

Let's.

When you have a memo where Hillary's appointee said, "Time for Stevens to DIE", and Hillary answered back "Got it". Then you might have a comparable standard.

Because, honestly, since we REALLY don't know what set those protestors off, or what their motives were, it's just a lot of speculation, isn't it?

Jesus H. Christ.

You are a moron. An absolute, unmistakable m o r o n.

Not at all.

There's a big difference between taking an action yourself and not anticipating what others will do.

If you were intellectually honest, you'd admit that.

 

[JoeB131]

Christie truly strikes me as that new breed of politician who isn't content to just win. This new breed run down a scorched earth policy against anyone and everyone who opposed them in an election.

My feelings have nothing to do with whether or not he helped Obama win with all the photo ops. Because I believe with all my heart that it wasn't about helping Obama win.

Christie wanted to punish Romney for picking Ryan and not him as VP.

It was all about hurting Romney and Ryan.

I think he's just that type of scumbucket.

ETA: Yes liberals, you read that right. If you look out your window right now you will see this.

]

Do you really think there is ANYONE out there who was all set to vote for Romney, and then he saw Christie hanging with Obama and decided to vote for Obama?

Really?

Romney lost because he was arguing that the rich don't have enough money and half of us are moochers because we expect to be fairly paid.

He'd have lost by bigger margins if the economy wasn't still in such bad shape because of Bush. Or if so many racists didn't vote Republican.

 

[racewright]

Christie truly strikes me as that new breed of politician who isn't content to just win. This new breed run down a scorched earth policy against anyone and everyone who opposed them in an election.

My feelings have nothing to do with whether or not he helped Obama win with all the photo ops. Because I believe with all my heart that it wasn't about helping Obama win.

Christie wanted to punish Romney for picking Ryan and not him as VP.

It was all about hurting Romney and Ryan.

I think he's just that type of scumbucket.

ETA: Yes liberals, you read that right. If you look out your window right now you will see this.

]

Do you really think there is ANYONE out there who was all set to vote for Romney, and then he saw Christie hanging with Obama and decided to vote for Obama?

Really?

Romney lost because he was arguing that the rich don't have enough money and half of us are moochers because we expect to be fairly paid.

He'd have lost by bigger margins if the economy wasn't still in such bad shape because of Bush. Or if so many racists didn't vote Republican.

Are you kidding me Owbama won because of racism 95% of blacks voted for him not because they thought he would do a good job but because he is half black. thats probably the reason he did not get 100% the half white part.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Are you kidding me Owbama won because of racism 95% of blacks voted for him not because they thought he would do a good job but because he is half black. thats probably the reason he did not get 100% the half white part.

Guy, 91% of blacks voted for Al Gore. 89% of blacks voted for John Kerry.

The reason why they do that is because Republicans have done nothing for the last 40 years except find new ways to piss black people off.