You know it's a scandal: Subpoenas flying - Squealing for immunity

[Mertex]

UPDATED: Christie bridge scandal: N.J. Assembly panel releases full subpoena list, including governor's office | NJ.com

TRENTON — The state Assembly committee investigating the George Washington Bridge scandal released the list of names of the 18 high-level Port Authority and Christie administration officials and two offices that received subpoenas within the last 24 hours.

Official at center of Christie Bridgegate scandal says he'll talk if prosecutors give him IMMUNITY

In it, former deputy chief of staff Bridget Kelly – publicly fired last week by Gov. Christie – wrote Wildstein that it was 'time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee,' a New Jersey town where morning commuters enter the busy George Washington Bridge.
'Got it,' replied Wildstein in the email.
The result was a four-day rearrangement of traffic cones on the bridge's entry tollgates, choking off the flow of cars from Fort Lee and bringing the town to a standstill for hours on end.

------------------------

I wonder how hilarious the parents of six and seven year old children sat in traffic for four hours thought the joke was? You think they are still laughing?

You would think after years of Republicans spending millions on so called Obama scandals, they would have something. Anything. Crispie's scandal is a real scandal. No matter how much Republicans try to minimize the danger it put tens of thousands of real and regular Americans in. How many Americans are Republicans willing to hurt to "get Obama"?

Oh,uh, maybe there's a way to get to the bottom of it without having to give him immunity, why should he get away with it.....everyone involved should face the music....I say.....

 

[Dot Com]

Love honest right wingers telling us exactly how they feel. When you point out right wing racism, USMB conservatives become outraged. "Oh, they don't speak for us". Only they do.

Antares is the same as that assclown. I think its about time Antares went on the rw racist ignore list

As to the OP, yeah, the busiest bridge in the world being willfully brought to a crawl is, in one rw'ers words in this thread, "just about traffic cones"

Just as it is time for YOU to go on mine...Assclown...now don't cry...I might see you from time to time.

*Bye Shitstain*

thankyu jesus Been waitin' a long time for that

 

[HenryBHough]

Misleading headline!

Led folks to believe it was another Behghazi thread.

 

[The T]

Antares is the same as that assclown. I think its about time Antares went on the rw racist ignore list

As to the OP, yeah, the busiest bridge in the world being willfully brought to a crawl is, in one rw'ers words in this thread, "just about traffic cones"

Just as it is time for YOU to go on mine...Assclown...now don't cry...I might see you from time to time.

*Bye Shitstain*

thankyu jesus Been waitin' a long time for that

NEVER count yer chickens clown.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I don't understand why you keep on going back to the, "He hired a top notch lawyer," angle. This doesn't prove anything. Anybody with any sense in high level politics would immediately lawyer up in a big controversy because even if you are innocent the opposite party has every reason to nail you to the wall.

Beyond that, I don't particularly disagree with you, but using the fact that an accused person has a lawyer as proof of their guilt is silly.

Oh, and you also keep mentioning the, "Somebody is trying to cut a deal," angle. Again, this is common place, and the person trying to cut the deal has a big incentive to lie.

The point is that there is a lot of evidence tying this to upper level Christie officials and significant evidence making it appear as if Christie is lying about the situation, but the lawyer and the deal don't prove anything.

The rightwing defenders of Christie have used several tactics to downplay this scandal. They have claimed that it is "just a traffic jam", the Dems are out to get Christie and the hoary old "Blame the MSM" chestnut. Then there are the deflections to IRS, Benghazi and F&F. Given all of that there needed to be some way to focus on just what is actually at stake here.

The defense lawyer emphasizes the seriousness of the investigations. As far as using lies to obtain immunity the authorities won't grant it without corroboration of the testimony. What you might be missing here is that this is shaping up into an adversarial situation between Christie and his former staff members. If they were all singing from the same songbook then this would be a storm in a teacup. But instead we see fissures and battle lines being drawn.

it was just a traffic jam. it was illegal, but it was just a traffic jam nonetheless....

And Watergate was just a burglary too. In politics it isn't so much the crime, but what motivated it that ends up becoming the issue.

 

[paperview]

The rightwing defenders of Christie have used several tactics to downplay this scandal. They have claimed that it is "just a traffic jam", the Dems are out to get Christie and the hoary old "Blame the MSM" chestnut. Then there are the deflections to IRS, Benghazi and F&F. Given all of that there needed to be some way to focus on just what is actually at stake here.

The defense lawyer emphasizes the seriousness of the investigations. As far as using lies to obtain immunity the authorities won't grant it without corroboration of the testimony. What you might be missing here is that this is shaping up into an adversarial situation between Christie and his former staff members. If they were all singing from the same songbook then this would be a storm in a teacup. But instead we see fissures and battle lines being drawn.

it was just a traffic jam. it was illegal, but it was just a traffic jam nonetheless....

And Watergate was just a burglary too. In politics it isn't so much the crime, but what motivated it that ends up becoming the issue.

And the cover up.

 

[rdean]

I don't understand why you keep on going back to the, "He hired a top notch lawyer," angle. This doesn't prove anything. Anybody with any sense in high level politics would immediately lawyer up in a big controversy because even if you are innocent the opposite party has every reason to nail you to the wall.

Beyond that, I don't particularly disagree with you, but using the fact that an accused person has a lawyer as proof of their guilt is silly.

Oh, and you also keep mentioning the, "Somebody is trying to cut a deal," angle. Again, this is common place, and the person trying to cut the deal has a big incentive to lie.

The point is that there is a lot of evidence tying this to upper level Christie officials and significant evidence making it appear as if Christie is lying about the situation, but the lawyer and the deal don't prove anything.

The rightwing defenders of Christie have used several tactics to downplay this scandal. They have claimed that it is "just a traffic jam", the Dems are out to get Christie and the hoary old "Blame the MSM" chestnut. Then there are the deflections to IRS, Benghazi and F&F. Given all of that there needed to be some way to focus on just what is actually at stake here.

The defense lawyer emphasizes the seriousness of the investigations. As far as using lies to obtain immunity the authorities won't grant it without corroboration of the testimony. What you might be missing here is that this is shaping up into an adversarial situation between Christie and his former staff members. If they were all singing from the same songbook then this would be a storm in a teacup. But instead we see fissures and battle lines being drawn.

it was just a traffic jam. it was illegal, but it was just a traffic jam nonetheless....

Comparing what Republicans did to a five minute traffic jam is like comparing cancer to a common cold. You can get well from both, but cancer is much more dangerous.

 

[Dot Com]

it was just a traffic jam. it was illegal, but it was just a traffic jam nonetheless....

And Watergate was just a burglary too. In politics it isn't so much the crime, but what motivated it that ends up becoming the issue.

And the cover up.

true. Why isn't Issa (R) holding hearings about this mis-use of power?

 

[dannyboys]

NJ State is unlike any other. If I were one of the LIB members on this witch-hunt and if Christie himself is exonerated I'd be planning an immediate move out of the State. And a name change.
The list of MSNBC pigs is growing too.
They better pray to God they never need any help in any way from any REP controlled office in any government department for the rest of their lives. "Sorry Mr. Schultz. Your application forms seem to be missing again. Why not resubmit them again?".

 

[Derideo_Te]

NJ State is unlike any other. If I were one of the LIB members on this witch-hunt and if Christie himself is exonerated I'd be planning an immediate move out of the State. And a name change.
The list of MSNBC pigs is growing too.
They better pray to God they never need any help in any way from any REP controlled office in any government department for the rest of their lives. "Sorry Mr. Schultz. Your application forms seem to be missing again. Why not resubmit them again?".

That would be just as illegal as the interference with interstate commerce was. If it turned out that they were being partisan they would be fired immediately and depending upon the severity even face criminal charges.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

I really just don't have the energy to go around pointing fingers today.

I'm just going to wait and see what happens.

 

[rdean]

Chris Christie?s 1994 ad was too tough (and inaccurate) for Jersey - The Washington Post

Crispie was previously sued for defamation of character and lost.

In Chris Christie’s first successful campaign for public office, he sat down next to his wife and baby, looked into a camera and told voters something that wasn’t true.

It was 1994, and Christie was a 31-year-old lawyer running for the county board in suburban Morris County, N.J. He was making a television ad, saying to the camera that his opponents were “being investigated by the Morris County prosecutor.”

Actually, they weren’t. But Christie’s inaccurate ad ran more than 400 times on cable TV before the June GOP primary. He won.

That ad helped get him into his first elected office but then helped get him out of it. He was sued for defamation, required to apologize and then defeated at the polls after just one term.

---------------------------------

Wow, something I didn't know about Crispie.

Republicans sure know how to pick them.

 

[Dot Com]

all they need to do now is play good cop v bad cop & one of the perps will sing like a bird

 

[rdean]

all they need to do now is play good cop v bad cop & one of the perps will sing like a bird

How Tweet it is.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

even rderp's avie is dishonest.

 

[Mertex]

NJ State is unlike any other. If I were one of the LIB members on this witch-hunt and if Christie himself is exonerated I'd be planning an immediate move out of the State. And a name change.
The list of MSNBC pigs is growing too.
They better pray to God they never need any help in any way from any REP controlled office in any government department for the rest of their lives. "Sorry Mr. Schultz. Your application forms seem to be missing again. Why not resubmit them again?".

That may be the problem with the rightwing....that's how they think....why they are so unpopular.....

 

[rdean]

even rderp's avie is dishonest.

That photo was taken at the police station a few minutes after Zimmerman wiped off the small amount of blood from a tiny cut under his nose.

Jurors see photos of Trayvon Martin?s body | HLNtv.com

You guys practice stupid? What else could it be? You sit in front of Google. You could find out for yourself if you weren't such a lamebrain numbskull.

 

[Knightfall]

Tut, tut, I expected better of you than that squirm, Ilar. When faced with the facts that you cannot refute you chose to make false allegations about me instead. In case you have forgotten I firmly supported Christie being the GOP candidate for 2016 prior to this scandal.

I have made no presumption of guilt. Instead I am simply looking at the hard evidence as it currently stands. Given what is out there now and the number of investigations by various agencies this is a major setback for 2016. He will probably not be out from under this and have it far enough in the past before 2020.

So let's just do a quick recap. There is already hard evidence so this is not a media nor a Dem attempt to derail Christie. He has hired a top notch defense attorney and he will be dealing with at least 5 investigations by the various agencies involved. As such it will be ongoing for a considerable time and that will seriously handicap his chances in 2016 irrespective of his actual involvement.

I don't understand why you keep on going back to the, "He hired a top notch lawyer," angle. This doesn't prove anything. Anybody with any sense in high level politics would immediately lawyer up in a big controversy because even if you are innocent the opposite party has every reason to nail you to the wall.

Beyond that, I don't particularly disagree with you, but using the fact that an accused person has a lawyer as proof of their guilt is silly.

Oh, and you also keep mentioning the, "Somebody is trying to cut a deal," angle. Again, this is common place, and the person trying to cut the deal has a big incentive to lie.

The point is that there is a lot of evidence tying this to upper level Christie officials and significant evidence making it appear as if Christie is lying about the situation, but the lawyer and the deal don't prove anything.

The rightwing defenders of Christie have used several tactics to downplay this scandal. They have claimed that it is "just a traffic jam", the Dems are out to get Christie and the hoary old "Blame the MSM" chestnut. Then there are the deflections to IRS, Benghazi and F&F. Given all of that there needed to be some way to focus on just what is actually at stake here.

The defense lawyer emphasizes the seriousness of the investigations. As far as using lies to obtain immunity the authorities won't grant it without corroboration of the testimony. What you might be missing here is that this is shaping up into an adversarial situation between Christie and his former staff members. If they were all singing from the same songbook then this would be a storm in a teacup. But instead we see fissures and battle lines being drawn.

Partisans will always find ways to minimize or maximize an issue to suit their purposes, but the issue here is whether somebody wanting to cut a deal to testify against Christie in exchange for immunity and the presence of a lawyer adds any weight to the idea that Christie is guilty.

In regards to the lawyer, it clearly does not. You say you just mention this to show the seriousness of the situation, but everybody who has an ounce of intellectual honesty realizes that harming a populace for the supposed sins of a mayor is an incredibly serious charge especially when it could have contributed to the death of a woman. At the same time it should be equally obvious that Christie would be a fool not to have a lawyer when it people are talking about charging you with a crime.

Regarding the rules on immunity deals, you would have to show me the statute which requires testimony to be corroborated before immunity can be given in exchange for it. It would seem to me that if there were already outside evidence the a piece of testimony was true, then this would negate the need for the testimony in the first place, but it's possible I'm ignorant of the law on this point.

it was just a traffic jam. it was illegal, but it was just a traffic jam nonetheless....

Using your political power to punish someone who disagrees with you politically and hurting a whole city of citizens in the process is hardly a small deal. It's not about the traffic jam; it's about massive abuse of power, and let's not forget that someone might have died because of this.

And Watergate was just a burglary too. In politics it isn't so much the crime, but what motivated it that ends up becoming the issue.

I disagree with you completely. A crime is a crime regardless of who committed it. I don't care if someone stabs me because they don't like the color of my skin or if they stab me to take my money and feed their family; it's equally criminal. I don't give a crap about the motivations of Nixon or Christie's officials either. It's irrelevant.

UPDATED: Christie bridge scandal: N.J. Assembly panel releases full subpoena list, including governor's office | NJ.com

TRENTON — The state Assembly committee investigating the George Washington Bridge scandal released the list of names of the 18 high-level Port Authority and Christie administration officials and two offices that received subpoenas within the last 24 hours.

Official at center of Christie Bridgegate scandal says he'll talk if prosecutors give him IMMUNITY

In it, former deputy chief of staff Bridget Kelly – publicly fired last week by Gov. Christie – wrote Wildstein that it was 'time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee,' a New Jersey town where morning commuters enter the busy George Washington Bridge.
'Got it,' replied Wildstein in the email.
The result was a four-day rearrangement of traffic cones on the bridge's entry tollgates, choking off the flow of cars from Fort Lee and bringing the town to a standstill for hours on end.

------------------------

I wonder how hilarious the parents of six and seven year old children sat in traffic for four hours thought the joke was? You think they are still laughing?

You would think after years of Republicans spending millions on so called Obama scandals, they would have something. Anything. Crispie's scandal is a real scandal. No matter how much Republicans try to minimize the danger it put tens of thousands of real and regular Americans in. How many Americans are Republicans willing to hurt to "get Obama"?

Oh,uh, maybe there's a way to get to the bottom of it without having to give him immunity, why should he get away with it.....everyone involved should face the music....I say.....

Agreed. I've never been a fan of immunity. On a fundamental level, it means somebody is getting away with a crime.

Chris Christie?s 1994 ad was too tough (and inaccurate) for Jersey - The Washington Post

Crispie was previously sued for defamation of character and lost.

In Chris Christie’s first successful campaign for public office, he sat down next to his wife and baby, looked into a camera and told voters something that wasn’t true.

It was 1994, and Christie was a 31-year-old lawyer running for the county board in suburban Morris County, N.J. He was making a television ad, saying to the camera that his opponents were “being investigated by the Morris County prosecutor.”

Actually, they weren’t. But Christie’s inaccurate ad ran more than 400 times on cable TV before the June GOP primary. He won.

That ad helped get him into his first elected office but then helped get him out of it. He was sued for defamation, required to apologize and then defeated at the polls after just one term.

---------------------------------

Wow, something I didn't know about Crispie.

Republicans sure know how to pick them.

It's not hard to see why Romney decided to skip Christie as his VP. My only question is why all this is starting to break now. My best guess is that it is because Christie beat Hillary in that recent fake election just before this scandal broke, but if this is Hillary pulling some strings, I'm surprised she didn't wait until election time. Wouldn't it be ideal for this story to break shortly after Christie was chosen as the candidate for the Republican party?

 

[Knightfall]

even rderp's avie is dishonest.

That photo was taken at the police station a few minutes after Zimmerman wiped off the small amount of blood from a tiny cut under his nose.

Jurors see photos of Trayvon Martin?s body | HLNtv.com

You guys practice stupid? What else could it be? You sit in front of Google. You could find out for yourself if you weren't such a lamebrain numbskull.

And These Pictures were taken of the back of his head which match his description of Travon Martin banging his head against the ground repeatedly.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I don't understand why you keep on going back to the, "He hired a top notch lawyer," angle. This doesn't prove anything. Anybody with any sense in high level politics would immediately lawyer up in a big controversy because even if you are innocent the opposite party has every reason to nail you to the wall.

Beyond that, I don't particularly disagree with you, but using the fact that an accused person has a lawyer as proof of their guilt is silly.

Oh, and you also keep mentioning the, "Somebody is trying to cut a deal," angle. Again, this is common place, and the person trying to cut the deal has a big incentive to lie.

The point is that there is a lot of evidence tying this to upper level Christie officials and significant evidence making it appear as if Christie is lying about the situation, but the lawyer and the deal don't prove anything.

The rightwing defenders of Christie have used several tactics to downplay this scandal. They have claimed that it is "just a traffic jam", the Dems are out to get Christie and the hoary old "Blame the MSM" chestnut. Then there are the deflections to IRS, Benghazi and F&F. Given all of that there needed to be some way to focus on just what is actually at stake here.

The defense lawyer emphasizes the seriousness of the investigations. As far as using lies to obtain immunity the authorities won't grant it without corroboration of the testimony. What you might be missing here is that this is shaping up into an adversarial situation between Christie and his former staff members. If they were all singing from the same songbook then this would be a storm in a teacup. But instead we see fissures and battle lines being drawn.

Partisans will always find ways to minimize or maximize an issue to suit their purposes, but the issue here is whether somebody wanting to cut a deal to testify against Christie in exchange for immunity and the presence of a lawyer adds any weight to the idea that Christie is guilty.

In regards to the lawyer, it clearly does not. You say you just mention this to show the seriousness of the situation, but everybody who has an ounce of intellectual honesty realizes that harming a populace for the supposed sins of a mayor is an incredibly serious charge especially when it could have contributed to the death of a woman. At the same time it should be equally obvious that Christie would be a fool not to have a lawyer when it people are talking about charging you with a crime.

Regarding the rules on immunity deals, you would have to show me the statute which requires testimony to be corroborated before immunity can be given in exchange for it. It would seem to me that if there were already outside evidence the a piece of testimony was true, then this would negate the need for the testimony in the first place, but it's possible I'm ignorant of the law on this point.



Using your political power to punish someone who disagrees with you politically and hurting a whole city of citizens in the process is hardly a small deal. It's not about the traffic jam; it's about massive abuse of power, and let's not forget that someone might have died because of this.




I disagree with you completely. A crime is a crime regardless of who committed it. I don't care if someone stabs me because they don't like the color of my skin or if they stab me to take my money and feed their family; it's equally criminal. I don't give a crap about the motivations of Nixon or Christie's officials either. It's irrelevant.

Oh,uh, maybe there's a way to get to the bottom of it without having to give him immunity, why should he get away with it.....everyone involved should face the music....I say.....

Agreed. I've never been a fan of immunity. On a fundamental level, it means somebody is getting away with a crime.

Chris Christie?s 1994 ad was too tough (and inaccurate) for Jersey - The Washington Post

Crispie was previously sued for defamation of character and lost.

In Chris Christie’s first successful campaign for public office, he sat down next to his wife and baby, looked into a camera and told voters something that wasn’t true.

It was 1994, and Christie was a 31-year-old lawyer running for the county board in suburban Morris County, N.J. He was making a television ad, saying to the camera that his opponents were “being investigated by the Morris County prosecutor.”

Actually, they weren’t. But Christie’s inaccurate ad ran more than 400 times on cable TV before the June GOP primary. He won.

That ad helped get him into his first elected office but then helped get him out of it. He was sued for defamation, required to apologize and then defeated at the polls after just one term.

---------------------------------

Wow, something I didn't know about Crispie.

Republicans sure know how to pick them.

It's not hard to see why Romney decided to skip Christie as his VP. My only question is why all this is starting to break now. My best guess is that it is because Christie beat Hillary in that recent fake election just before this scandal broke, but if this is Hillary pulling some strings, I'm surprised she didn't wait until election time. Wouldn't it be ideal for this story to break shortly after Christie was chosen as the candidate for the Republican party?

Regarding the rules on immunity deals, you would have to show me the statute which requires testimony to be corroborated before immunity can be given in exchange for it. It would seem to me that if there were already outside evidence the a piece of testimony was true, then this would negate the need for the testimony in the first place, but it's possible I'm ignorant of the law on this point.

If there is no corroboration then it is simply a case of "he said/he said" and the testimony carries no weight. But if there is something else to back it up then it has merit. For instance consider the recent allegations by Mayor Zimmer of Hoboken. She has accused the Christie admin of malfeasance over the distribution of the Sandy relief funds. By itself her word against theirs carries no weight. But she had her notebook with her own notes jotted down immediately following the conversation. Combine that with the fact that (a) Hoboken only received $300k instead of the $100 million they needed given that it was the most damaged city in the whole of NJ, and (b) this was immediately after she refused to endorse a property deal that involved Christie's appointee to the Port Authority, and (c) the Ft Lee traffic jam was timed to disrupt funding for a $1 billion property deal. Now her testimony stands in context and corroborates either evidence.

So if Wildstein only has his own testimony and nothing to back it up then it doesn't have the same value to the authorities. On the other hand if he can produce corroborating evidence then it is likely that he will receive immunity.

You took the Watergate remark out of context. I was making the same point that you did. Those who were belittling the GWB issue were doing so out of a partisan need to defend Christie.

It's not hard to see why Romney decided to skip Christie as his VP. My only question is why all this is starting to break now. My best guess is that it is because Christie beat Hillary in that recent fake election just before this scandal broke, but if this is Hillary pulling some strings, I'm surprised she didn't wait until election time. Wouldn't it be ideal for this story to break shortly after Christie was chosen as the candidate for the Republican party?

Hilary has nothing to do with this. It is all of Christie's own making. Either he was involved or he turned a blind eye to what he should have stopped. Either way he is responsible.

As far as timing goes it is breaking because Christie has been playing fast and loose ever since he took office. At some point these things catch up with you. What started as a reporter trying to get answers from the Port Authority about a "traffic study" snowballed when it reached the upper echelons and they denied all knowledge of it. That blew the cover story away and so now people wanted to know what actually happened. A FOA request turned up the emails from the PA and that pointed the finger at the governors office.