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

[Synthaholic]

Conservatives obviously do not want to discuss the OP, as they've deflected through the usual list - we're now up to Zimmerman.

Chappaquiddick can't be far away.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Conservatives obviously do not want to discuss the OP, as they've deflected through the usual list - we're now up to Zimmerman.

Chappaquiddick can't be far away.

Ilar already used the Chappaquiddick chestnut.

 

[Synthaholic]

Conservatives obviously do not want to discuss the OP, as they've deflected through the usual list - we're now up to Zimmerman.

Chappaquiddick can't be far away.

Ilar already used the Chappaquiddick chestnut.

Awesome!

How about Vince Foster?

 

[HenryBHough]

Ted the swimmer never made it to his goal.

Might just be that Shrillary is doomed to a similar fate.

Yes, that would be a crude but delicious turn of fate, no?

 

[Knightfall]

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.

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.

If I'm understanding you correctly on the testimony thing, you are saying that immunity/clemency cannot be granted unless there is supporting evidence. I suppose that might be the case, but can you provide me with any legislation that backs this up? With regards to Mayor Zimmer's allegations, it still seems to me that if you need to rely on someone's testimony, you obviously do not have enough evidence to support the facts already, and by its very nature, an unverifiable story is hearsay. Having notes taken by the same person who is making the claims hardly adds much weight especially if the chronology of when the notes were made can't be verified; I mean, she could have made those notes last week, right? Obviously testimony has a role, but without harder facts backing it up, it seems like a tenuous basis for a conviction.

Not that I'm defending Christie here. I strongly suspect he was involved at least with the traffic jam; at this point, I'm just curious about the legal protocol.

I guess I misunderstood you on the Watergate comment. My apologies.

The reason I mention Hillary is not to suggest that she set Christie up for the scandals but rather that she instructed her friends in the press to move on the Christie scandals. If Christie is half as corrupt as he currently appears, then there must have been stories being given to the press constantly about his administration's abuse of power. With the information about Sandy funds being withheld for instance, this is by know means a new development and a Mayor should have the clout to be heard, so why didn't either the Mayor make a stink earlier or the news media cover these allegations? You yourself said Christie has been fast and loose since the beginning; I know investigations take time, but it takes three years to uncover a single scandal from somebody who is corrupt from the start? I don't buy it. Why is the media in a frenzy over this story and refusing to let it go? It's not as if there is nothing else going on in the world. Christie was getting lots of love from the media until right after Christie beat Hillary in a straw poll, and now much of the media does their best to eat him alive? It could a coincidence, but it would not surprise me at all if the Clintons said, "Get him."

 

[HenryBHough]

In order to prove himself an apt opponent for Shrillary he would have to (1) have engineered the traffic problems, (2) denied that he or any of "his" were involved and (3) kill, or have killed, any of "his" who might have seemed about to admit their part.

Until he can do that kind of thing, well he just is NOT equipped to be president.

 

[rdean]

Christie should do exactly what the mulatto messiah and his boy holder did in the fast and furious investigations. Stonewall, claim executive privilege for documents and mislead. If it's good enough for maobama should be good enough for Christie.

When I mention right winger racism on the USMB they get so angry insisting it doesn't exist.

How many "thanked" that guy for his "useful" post?

 

[HenryBHough]

Christie should do exactly what the mulatto messiah and his boy holder did in the fast and furious investigations. Stonewall, claim executive privilege for documents and mislead. If it's good enough for maobama should be good enough for Christie.

When I mention right winger racism on the USMB they get so angry insisting it doesn't exist.

It does!

You have taught us well.

Sadly, you forgot whilst changing out of your white robes, that what goes around comes around.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

rdean....you do realize this entire thing is about orange traffic cones, right?

If only they got this excited about slain federal agents, or NSA dragnet spying!!!

 

[rdean]

Christie should do exactly what the mulatto messiah and his boy holder did in the fast and furious investigations. Stonewall, claim executive privilege for documents and mislead. If it's good enough for maobama should be good enough for Christie.

When I mention right winger racism on the USMB they get so angry insisting it doesn't exist.

It does!

You have taught us well.

Sadly, you forgot whilst changing out of your white robes, that what goes around comes around.

Pointing it out is not teaching it. This is something right wingers came up with all on their own.

 

[Dot Com]

Last i heard, it was believed that the woman he fired would sing like a bird to avoid prosecution

 

[rdean]

Last i heard, it was believed that the woman he fired would sing like a bird to avoid prosecution

Possible. I heard she was a single mom facing jail time.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Last i heard, it was believed that the woman he fired would sing like a bird to avoid prosecution

Depends up on what Kelly can prove. She said/he said doesn't cut it as far as avoiding prosecution is concerned. However if her lawyer reaches out to Wildstein's lawyer and they come up with a consistent story that corroborates each other than might be worth something.

It is just too much to believe that there were all these high stakes property deals in Ft Lee and Hoboken and Christie knew nothing at all about any of them. The timing links them up too. As they say, follow the money.

 

[FA_Q2]

If I'm understanding you correctly on the testimony thing, you are saying that immunity/clemency cannot be granted unless there is supporting evidence. I suppose that might be the case, but can you provide me with any legislation that backs this up? With regards to Mayor Zimmer's allegations, it still seems to me that if you need to rely on someone's testimony, you obviously do not have enough evidence to support the facts already, and by its very nature, an unverifiable story is hearsay. Having notes taken by the same person who is making the claims hardly adds much weight especially if the chronology of when the notes were made can't be verified; I mean, she could have made those notes last week, right? Obviously testimony has a role, but without harder facts backing it up, it seems like a tenuous basis for a conviction.

It’s not a matter of law but rather a matter of value. There is no legislation that can be pointed at requiring what Derideo states but it is how this is practiced. Your statement at the end sums it up actually: testimony alone is a tenuous basis for conviction.

Let’s use an example; if you had 2 people that you were looking at putting away, 1 a small time cocaine dealer and the other a major manufacturer who supplied that dealer and 50 others in the state you are obviously going to mark the manufacturer as a higher priority. The small fry dealer is expendable – the manufacturer will replace him by the next day whereas taking him down would have a real and appreciable effect on sales in that area. If all you have though is the testimony of a single dealer then there is nothing that is gained in giving him immunity – you are going to lose the case against the other anyway. In that case you take what you can get, decline to give him immunity and prosecute the one person that you have the evidence for. If you have sufficient evidence to convict both then you won the lottery and you can convict all guilty parties involved. Best case scenario.

However, should the evidence not be sufficient for the larger target and such testimony can add enough weight to the case then that is what immunity is for as well as why you need some corroborating evidence or you simply are not going to get that immunity. Why would the prosecutor offer such a valuable thing if there was no ‘payback’ for them?

I understand that such seems like a bad thing because, as you stated, someone is getting away with a crime BUT this is a matter of allowing someone committing a BIGGER crime getting away. If you know that one is going to get away with it, you are better off getting the source of the problem rather than some outlier that actually solves nothing. In this case and running under the assumption that Christie is guilty, jailing some of Christies aids/staff does what? Nothing. Absolutely zero gets accomplished because the SOURCE of the problem is not only still in office but also empowered by the fact that he got away.

The reason I mention Hillary is not to suggest that she set Christie up for the scandals but rather that she instructed her friends in the press to move on the Christie scandals. If Christie is half as corrupt as he currently appears, then there must have been stories being given to the press constantly about his administration's abuse of power. With the information about Sandy funds being withheld for instance, this is by know means a new development and a Mayor should have the clout to be heard, so why didn't either the Mayor make a stink earlier or the news media cover these allegations? You yourself said Christie has been fast and loose since the beginning; I know investigations take time, but it takes three years to uncover a single scandal from somebody who is corrupt from the start? I don't buy it. Why is the media in a frenzy over this story and refusing to let it go? It's not as if there is nothing else going on in the world. Christie was getting lots of love from the media until right after Christie beat Hillary in a straw poll, and now much of the media does their best to eat him alive? It could a coincidence, but it would not surprise me at all if the Clintons said, "Get him."

Interesting take. I don’t believe that the media sat on this though primarily because Christie is such a large figure in politics. The media’s prime directive is to make money and that is accomplished through viewership. He was a shining star before because he broke from the republicans to help Obama during the election. It was a rare example of someone not playing hard partisan tactics during that time. I think that he made a good ‘positive’ story for them for a while. Then this comes out and now they have some red meat.

The media has no loyalty to anyone. They will eat you alive if they think that story is going to be a winner over the positive one in a heartbeat and I believe that is what happened to Christie here. Having a story like this is something that they would be all over. The mayor OTOH might very well have sat on this until it was politically viable to release. That makes sense to me tbh. Political figures keep thing ‘in the bank’ all the time to propel their careers.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If I'm understanding you correctly on the testimony thing, you are saying that immunity/clemency cannot be granted unless there is supporting evidence. I suppose that might be the case, but can you provide me with any legislation that backs this up? With regards to Mayor Zimmer's allegations, it still seems to me that if you need to rely on someone's testimony, you obviously do not have enough evidence to support the facts already, and by its very nature, an unverifiable story is hearsay. Having notes taken by the same person who is making the claims hardly adds much weight especially if the chronology of when the notes were made can't be verified; I mean, she could have made those notes last week, right? Obviously testimony has a role, but without harder facts backing it up, it seems like a tenuous basis for a conviction.

It’s not a matter of law but rather a matter of value. There is no legislation that can be pointed at requiring what Derideo states but it is how this is practiced. Your statement at the end sums it up actually: testimony alone is a tenuous basis for conviction.

Let’s use an example; if you had 2 people that you were looking at putting away, 1 a small time cocaine dealer and the other a major manufacturer who supplied that dealer and 50 others in the state you are obviously going to mark the manufacturer as a higher priority. The small fry dealer is expendable – the manufacturer will replace him by the next day whereas taking him down would have a real and appreciable effect on sales in that area. If all you have though is the testimony of a single dealer then there is nothing that is gained in giving him immunity – you are going to lose the case against the other anyway. In that case you take what you can get, decline to give him immunity and prosecute the one person that you have the evidence for. If you have sufficient evidence to convict both then you won the lottery and you can convict all guilty parties involved. Best case scenario.

However, should the evidence not be sufficient for the larger target and such testimony can add enough weight to the case then that is what immunity is for as well as why you need some corroborating evidence or you simply are not going to get that immunity. Why would the prosecutor offer such a valuable thing if there was no ‘payback’ for them?

I understand that such seems like a bad thing because, as you stated, someone is getting away with a crime BUT this is a matter of allowing someone committing a BIGGER crime getting away. If you know that one is going to get away with it, you are better off getting the source of the problem rather than some outlier that actually solves nothing. In this case and running under the assumption that Christie is guilty, jailing some of Christies aids/staff does what? Nothing. Absolutely zero gets accomplished because the SOURCE of the problem is not only still in office but also empowered by the fact that he got away.

The reason I mention Hillary is not to suggest that she set Christie up for the scandals but rather that she instructed her friends in the press to move on the Christie scandals. If Christie is half as corrupt as he currently appears, then there must have been stories being given to the press constantly about his administration's abuse of power. With the information about Sandy funds being withheld for instance, this is by know means a new development and a Mayor should have the clout to be heard, so why didn't either the Mayor make a stink earlier or the news media cover these allegations? You yourself said Christie has been fast and loose since the beginning; I know investigations take time, but it takes three years to uncover a single scandal from somebody who is corrupt from the start? I don't buy it. Why is the media in a frenzy over this story and refusing to let it go? It's not as if there is nothing else going on in the world. Christie was getting lots of love from the media until right after Christie beat Hillary in a straw poll, and now much of the media does their best to eat him alive? It could a coincidence, but it would not surprise me at all if the Clintons said, "Get him."

Interesting take. I don’t believe that the media sat on this though primarily because Christie is such a large figure in politics. The media’s prime directive is to make money and that is accomplished through viewership. He was a shining star before because he broke from the republicans to help Obama during the election. It was a rare example of someone not playing hard partisan tactics during that time. I think that he made a good ‘positive’ story for them for a while. Then this comes out and now they have some red meat.

The media has no loyalty to anyone. They will eat you alive if they think that story is going to be a winner over the positive one in a heartbeat and I believe that is what happened to Christie here. Having a story like this is something that they would be all over. The mayor OTOH might very well have sat on this until it was politically viable to release. That makes sense to me tbh. Political figures keep thing ‘in the bank’ all the time to propel their careers.

Thank you FA_Q2 for putting the testimony in context as evidence. Returning briefly to Knighfall's point about the notes, they will be run through FBI forensics to determine if they were made at the time alleged. In addition there are other Hoboken council members who recall her mentioning this at the time. Granted she is still the "single source" for this allegation and as such her testimony can be treated by Christie's lawyers as "partisan payback" if there is no other corroboration to support. Hence FA_Q2's point about not giving immunity to the small fry and charging them since that is all they have in hard evidence.

The media didn't sit on anything from what I can tell. There was nothing to report until the GWB incident. Once that broke the media turns into it's usual feeding frenzy and all sorts of things come to light.

Lastly I am becoming more and more convinced that this is all to do with the properties involved. That establishes a pattern and the timing fits in too.

 

[HenryBHough]

The easy solution would be for Christie to just come out of the closet and admit he is an Obama-hugging Democrat. Then any dirty trick he might have been party two would lose all media attention immediately. Especially if it were proven he cooked up the whole thing.

He might then be a serious threat to Hillary but, in doing so, expose himself to mortal risk.