patrick.net

Dan8267 says

I believe in innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I do too, but this is not a trial, so that standard does not apply. If and when he is tried, then it should apply. Politicians are judged by their conduct in office. If the people don't approve of their conduct, they don't vote for them. Christie had assured the media that his staff did not cause the traffic jams as political retribution. He even sarcastically joked about the very idea being ludicrous. That implies that he did some sort of internal investigation and talked to the people who were responsible. Earlier, he admitted that proper protocols were not followed in doing this "traffic study", so he knew something wasn't kosher. Why would you even block off lanes to do a traffic study? That makes no sense. Quite obviously, his internal investigation was superficial at best. If he were truly innocent, and his staff truly went rogue, he should have gotten to the bottom of it. Clearly the evidence was there; Christie just failed to bring it to light. These are the actions of someone who is guilty, and was complicit in the crime. The only other possibility is that he is grossly incompetent, which I don't believe. But it doesn't matter, because I don't want a grossly incompetent president either.

Call it Crazy says

If you knew the normal daily traffic around that bridge, and the liberal MSM didn't tell you about this "scandal", you would think it's just another day in NJ/NY traffic hell...

That's bullshit. Those lane closures quadrupled commute times, according to the press.

Call it Crazy says

Christie just re-won the election in a BLUE state, run by democrat controlled legislative branches...

Um, that was before this evidence came to light. You do know this was just revealed a couple days ago, don't you?

Call it Crazy says

And MILLIONS lose their coverage...

The only thing anyone "lost" were junk insurance policies that didn't cover anything. If they would bother to simply go on the exchange and sign up for a new policy rather than screaming, they would find it's actually quite affordable.

Call it Crazy says

Which causes a traffic jam and causes some people to be late for school and work, and in the larger spin, a 91 year old lady has a heart attack...

It didn't just "cause a traffic jam"; it caused a week of horrendous traffic and endangered the public. That lady was delayed in getting to the hospital, and she DIED. They're saying the delay wasn't the cause, but it easily could have been. We may not ever know if anyone died that week as a result of not getting emergency services quickly enough. Long story short - that's not the kind of thing you should be fucking around with just to get revenge on a political opponent. And shit, the guy wasn't even an opponent; he was just a guy who wouldn't endorse Christie. You can try to downplay it all you like, but those are the actions of a THUG.

Call it Crazy says

Yeah, I would say both of those "scandals" are on the same equal level....

Yes, I'm sure YOU would say that.

Call it Crazy says

Homeboy says

Call it Crazy says

Christie just re-won the election in a BLUE state, run by democrat controlled legislative branches...

Um, that was before this evidence came to light. You do know this was just revealed a couple days ago, don't you?

Your point?? Is he running for Governor again this year??

Son, you are thicker than molasses.

Call it Crazy says

Well, if the press said it, then it MUST be true!! We all know, the press never lies and twists facts, right??

They reported on the traffic situation the week it happened. That was before it came to light that Christie was responsible. Your little media conspiracy theory just doesn't pan out.

Call it Crazy says

Dan8267 says

I believe in innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

When there is zero evidence supporting the guilt of a person, that's more than reasonable doubt.

Now, if and when evidence showing Christie played a role in this crime comes to light, I'll change my mind, but my decision will be based on facts, not politics.

Why the sudden change of heart... You have him guilty, convicted and sent to prison just a little while ago??

Jesus fucking Christ! Do you actually read any posts or just skim them in a rush to respond?

I have not in any of my posts stated that Christ Christie should be imprisoned. I stated that Bridget Ann Kelly and David Wildstein should be prosecuted for this crime. That's a big difference. You know, different people and different demand.

By the way, I fully reserve the right to have a "sudden change of heart" in any matter when new evidence is brought to light. There is nothing wrong with flip-flopping on a position due to a better understanding, increased knowledge, or new evidence. Only fools stick to their beliefs when their beliefs do not hold up to reality.

I might very well flip-flop and say Christie should be prosecuted, but not until there is a damn good reason to do so.

Well, Freud and Jung quarreled and they were on the same psychology squad as "psychoanalysts" so it's completely understandable and justifiable what krispy kreme did....

dublin hillz says

so it's completely understandable and justifiable what krispy kreme did....

Raising popular anger and blocking lanes under false pretense are legitimate instruments of power.

It's sort of like going to war under false pretense - except Americans care.

Call it Crazy says

Which causes a traffic jam and causes some people to be late for school and work, and in the larger spin, a 91 year old lady has a heart attack...

To believe your spin, we'd need to believe:

that lane closures on this busy thoroughfare don't make it much worse, which defies any kind of traffic system I've ever seen.

That Christie "looked into it", gave his word that he wasn't involved, not anyone in his administration. Then they lied to him, but he fell for it.

That, although it may have killed a woman (and maybe others), it didn't result in a tremendous amount of lost productivity.

On that last point, wouldn't such a business-friendly guy at least be held accountable for costing millions of dollars to spite someone in an opposing party (and a low-level one at that).

He's guilty at least of poor judgement; either in who he surrounds himself with, to whom he gives his trust, and voters would be right to question whether they could trust his word (since he "looked into it", which is shorthand for "if you believe me generally, extend that credibility to me here").

Logic says he was involved and this is the cover up. But, as Homeboy said, this isn't a trial, it's the court of public opinion. If his polls stay high, I would write it off as mass delusion.

CL says

Call it Crazy says

Which causes a traffic jam and causes some people to be late for school and work, and in the larger spin, a 91 year old lady has a heart attack...

To believe your spin, we'd need to believe:

that lane closures on this busy thoroughfare don't make it much worse, which defies any kind of traffic system I've ever seen.

... it may have killed a woman (and maybe others)...

I wouldn't throw this kind of stones in a glass house, because every time Obama visits SF for private fundraising dinner he seriously worsens traffic situation in and around the city. Which may have killed a woman or two.

Straw Man says

I wouldn't throw this kind of stones in a glass house, because every time Obama visits SF for private fundraising dinner he seriously worsens traffic situation in and around the city. Which may have killed a woman or two.

You really don't see the difference? You don't see normal operating procedures as fundamentally different than spite driven churlishness?

And then I wonder what you'd say about the Governor's use of helicopters?

CL says

Straw Man says

CL says

And if they can tie the death(s) to him, it will have a lasting effect.

Nah. He'll pretend to lose it, scream "What difference at this point does it make?" and it all will be forgotten. ;)

Wait...if it was "all forgotten" somebody better tell Issa, and 90% of the GOP and 100% of the flying-monkey right. Benghazi has not Ben-forgotten there.

Wow! The administration must be trying to make sure that Benghazi just fades away, eh?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/us-names-militants-involved-benghazi-attack-21486991

CL says

You really don't see the difference? You don't see normal operating procedures as fundamentally different than spite driven churlishness?

I say, let's charge anyone who crashes his car and causes traffic jams with all the deaths in 20 mile radius. Because crashing your car is not normal operating procedure and you're not supposed to do it.

And then I wonder what you'd say about the Governor's use of helicopters?

I need more information to say anything. Did he eat all the helicopters?

CL says

Wow! The administration must be trying to make sure that Benghazi just fades away, eh?

Well, maybe I'm wrong and there's still hope.

Krispy Kreme just wanted people to stop and think so bringing flow of traffic to a screeching halt was the way to do it. And what other choice did he have knowing that new yorkrers are basically zombies on crystal meth that would make adolph hitler seem like he was on pot?

Straw Man says

I say, let's charge anyone who crashes his car and causes traffic jams with all the deaths in 20 mile radius.

It's called vehicular manslaughter, and they DO charge people who commit it. My god are you ever stupid.

Homeboy says

Straw Man says

I say, let's charge anyone who crashes his car and causes traffic jams with all the deaths in 20 mile radius.

It's called vehicular manslaughter, and they DO charge people who commit it. My god are you ever stupid.

Right. Somebody thinks that all deaths within 20 miles of traffic jam caused by an accident are called "vehicular manslaughter" and I'm the stupid one. A-ok.

Straw Man says

Right. Somebody thinks that all deaths within 20 miles of traffic jam caused by an accident are called "vehicular manslaughter" and I'm the stupid one. A-ok.

If a person deliberately crashed his car into others, yes, it would be a crime, probably a felony.

More relevant to Bridghazi would be the situation in which a person deliberately blocked an emergency vehicle that was on the way to an emergency. And yes, that would be a crime as well.

Bridget Ann Kelly and David Wildstein effectively used thousands of vehicles to obstruct police, ambulances, and fire fighters in active duty. And they did so deliberately and with criminal intent. The emails prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.

As much as you dislike it, the Republicans have been caught doing something sleazy, dangerous, and illegal less than two years before a presidential election.

Dan8267 says

More relevant to Bridghazi would be the situation in which a person deliberately blocked an emergency vehicle that was on the way to an emergency. And yes, that would be a crime as well.

We've been though this once: blocking emergency vehicle is a misdemeanor. Look it up.

Dan8267 says

Straw Man says

Right. Somebody thinks that all deaths within 20 miles of traffic jam caused by an accident are called "vehicular manslaughter" and I'm the stupid one. A-ok.

If a person deliberately crashed his car into others, yes, it would be a crime, probably a felony.

I've written Homeboy off, but you, Dan, I still have a glimmer of hope for you. First of all, if person deliberately crashes his car and doesn't directly injury or kill anyone it won't be a felony, so let's get this out of the way. Now, do you really-really think that if person deliberately crashes his car, closing two lanes of freeway, this person will be legally responsible for all deaths in 20 miles radius from the resulting traffic jam?

Call it Crazy says

Wow, you and and that other conspiracy guy should get together and go on a speaking tour about 9/11, Sandy Hook and Bridgeghazi!!!

But first tell us, did that 91 year old lady have a cockeyed arm?

I know it's tough for you to come to grips with the fact that your hero is a scumbag, but you really need to end your denial-fest.

Homeboy says

Clearly the evidence was there; Christie just failed to bring it to light. These are the actions of someone who is guilty, and was complicit in the crime. The only other possibility is that he is grossly incompetent, which I don't believe. But it doesn't matter, because I don't want a grossly incompetent president either.

Someone is grossly incompetent because some staffer does something dumb and lies about it? You've obviously never been in charge of other people and I can certainly see why.

Did you read the story at all or just the headlines. Christie's staffer Kelly sent an email to Wildsten at port authority who arranged to block the lanes. Do you really believe Christie monitors and reads every email sent by his staff? Do you really believe Christie is supposed to be monitoring every action of the port authority, a huge bi state independent agency? That's just stupid. Traffic jams at the GW bridge? Yea right that's really suspicious enough for the govener of NJ to look into. Sort of like the sun rising in the east.

I'll go with Christie's explanation until something turns up that says there is more to it than a staffer being an idiot.

To put things in proper perspective, how many people have Obama fired over the IRS scandal and Obamacare webpage debacle?

bob2356 says

Someone is grossly incompetent because some staffer does something dumb and lies about it? You've obviously never been in charge of other people and I can certainly see why.

Yes, I've been in charge of people, and I considered myself responsible for their actions, as any competent person would. I can see that YOU obviously have never been in such a position.

bob2356 says

Did you read the story at all or just the headlines. Christie's staffer Kelly sent an email to Wildsten at port authority who arranged to block the lanes. Do you really believe Christie monitors and reads every email sent by his staff? Do you really believe Christie is supposed to be monitoring every action of the port authority, a huge bi state independent agency?

Obviously I did a lot more reading that you did. As I wrote before (and apparently you didn't read), Christie assured the media that he had spoken with his staff and was convinced that there was no political retribution involved. When the press made a public records request for email correspondence related to the lane closures, Christie's office said no such emails existed. Only after a subpena was issued were the incriminating emails released. So we have Christie claiming that he had investigated the matter and was convinced there was no wrongdoing, and then stonewalling outside investigators who tried to obtain documents about the incident, in addition to ADMITTING proper protocols weren't followed in the lane closures. Yet we now have a mountain of proof that this was a deliberate act of political retaliation. Only two possibilities exist: That Christie is so incompetent that he couldn't figure out the extremely obvious fact that something fishy was going on in his own office, or he is a liar.

I could maybe buy that this thing happened without him knowing about it, but I cannot buy that he looked into it with any degree of thoroughness at all and still didn't discover anything suspicious.

zzyzzx says

how many people have Obama fired over the IRS scandal

Nobody's life was put in danger because of the IRS actions. Worst that happened was some scumbag teabaggers had to pay taxes that they owed.

zzyzzx says

and Obamacare webpage debacle?

The webpage is fixed. Haven't you heard?

bob2356 says

I'll go with Christie's explanation until something turns up that says there is more to it than a staffer being an idiot.

It was a lot more than "a" staffer, dude:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/01/chris-christie-fort-lee-charlie-mckenna-text-message

Homeboy says

Yes, I've been in charge of people, and I considered myself responsible for their actions, as any competent person would. I can see that YOU obviously have never been in such a position.

So any time one of your staff screwed up you considered yourself grossly incompetent? I've had employees screw up and lie about it. Everyone has. You're really going to try to claim it never happened to you. Either total bullshit or you've full of shit about managing people.

Homeboy says

It was a lot more than "a" staffer, dude:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/01/chris-christie-fort-lee-charlie-mckenna-text-message

This article is a joke.

Christie could be pure as the fallen snow or in it up to his eyeballs. Either way I'm going to wait to see what comes out. Too bad you are so partisan you can't even define objective, much less try it.

bob2356 says

So any time one of your staff screwed up you considered yourself grossly incompetent?

Aw, for christ's sake, Bob. Could you try fucking READING what I write? Christie told the press he had investigated the matter - that he had spoken to his staff and was convinced they had done nothing wrong. If that really happened, and he's not just a lying sack of shit, then he's incompetent. Are you incapable of understanding the difference? Here's a simple analogy that maybe can get through to you:

If one of my employees does something wrong, that doesn't mean I'm necessarily incompetent. But if there are news stories every day about it, and the person affected by the wrongdoing CALLS MY OFFICE and speaks to my chief of staff, and tells her that he believes wrongdoing has occurred, and members of the press contact me, and I assure them that no wrongdoing has occurred, and then it turns out there were a TON of clues that something fishy was going on, that I failed to notice, then yes, I would be incompetent.

bob2356 says

This article is a joke.

You are a joke.

bob2356 says

Christie could be pure as the fallen snow or in it up to his eyeballs. Either way I'm going to wait to see what comes out. Too bad you are so partisan you can't even define objective, much less try it.

Fuck you. Partisan's got nothing to do with it. The people who are rabidly partisan are the ones saying, "Oh yeah, well Obama this and Hillary that..." That's irrelevant. I am judging this by the evidence, and there's NO WAY IN HELL Christie could have done the internal investigation he claims he did without uncovering the fact that something wasn't right. You're just refusing to see it.

Homeboy says

NO WAY IN HELL Christie could have done the internal investigation he claims he did without uncovering the fact that something wasn't right. You're just refusing to see it.

I;m glad you know so much about what happens in the govenor of NJ's office. Your "ton of clues" is starting to sound a lot like one bgmal's zionist plots. I'll wait for actual facts thank you very much. Supposition and projections just don't work for me. I'm sorry but I don't see the difference between the people saying Obama this Hillary that and you saying Christie this Chriistie that.

Hell I don't even like Christie, but I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

bob2356 says

I;m glad you know so much about what happens in the govenor of NJ's office. Your "ton of clues" is starting to sound a lot like one bgmal's zionist plots.

That's ridiculous. You just lost all credibility. We know for a fact that the bridge lanes were blocked deliberately as political retribution against Mark Sokolich. The emails and text messages prove it. The only thing at issue is whether Christie had knowledge of it when it was happening. Now if you're going to sit there and jabber that this is equivalent to some outlandish conspiracy theory about Zionist plots, then you are a nincompoop.

bob2356 says

I'm sorry but I don't see the difference between the people saying Obama this Hillary that and you saying Christie this Chriistie that.

I didn't ASK you if you fucking saw a difference between those two things. Again you fail to read. My gripe is when someone's RESPONSE to bridgegate is to say, "Obama this; Hillary that...", rather than responding to the issue. If you want to talk about Obama or Hillary, that's fine, but when your only response to a news story about a republican is "Some unrelated democrat did such and such", you're showing yourself to be rabidly partisan.

See, when someone says something I disagree with, I explain why. I don't say, "Oh yeah well what about this other unrelated partisan thing?"

bob2356 says

Hell I don't even like Christie, but I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I already gave him the benefit of the doubt, but in my opinion there no longer is any doubt.

Homeboy says

The only thing at issue is whether Christie had knowledge of it when it was happening.

Nice, you finally figured out the whole point. There hasn't been one single thing linking Christie (yet) to the mess. So all you have is the supposition that he should have known this was instigated by his staff (remember it was actually done by the port authority) based on your projection of how he should have looked into the situation when asked about it by the press. Sounds like bgmal logic to me. Maybe, just maybe, he asked his trusted staffer and she lied to him. Having no reason to think otherwise he believed it. Na, couldn't be that simple, this has to be a big conspiracy.

bob2356 says

Maybe, just maybe, he asked his trusted staffer and she lied to him. Having no reason to think otherwise he believed it. Na, couldn't be that simple, this has to be a big conspiracy.

There are several more players - not just one lying staffer.

To begin, why did the staffer do it? Why did she ask another Christie appointee(and a childhood friend) to cause the traffic problems? Think about it. She would have to be insane to do something so outrageous without some instructions from above. And even if she is just plain looney, how did she convince Wildstein - a trusted childhood friend of Christie to play along?

Even if Christie new nothing, one still has to wonder at his complete lack of curiosity about the bridge closure. From not responding to the thousands of complaints about the closure while it was happening, to later not seeming to be interested in why two of his appointees suddenly retired due to the growing scandal.

I think this will go the way of many of these type of scandals. Christie won't be guilty of ordering the stunt, but he will be guilty of trying to cover it up.

rooemoore says

Even if Christie new nothing, one still has to wonder at his complete lack of curiosity about the bridge closure. From not responding to the thousands of complaints about the closure while it was happening, to later not seeming to be interested in why two of his appointees suddenly retired due to the growing scandal.

Exactly. Finally, someone here with a bit of common sense.

bob2356 says

Nice, you finally figured out the whole point.

Um, I KNOW the point. YOU'RE the one trying to equate this with bgamal's wacky Zionist conspiracy theories. I mean, WTF, man?

bob2356 says

So all you have is the supposition that he should have known this was instigated by his staff (remember it was actually done by the port authority) based on your projection of how he should have looked into the situation when asked about it by the press

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

You obviously have NO CLUE what the facts are here. Why don't you do some research before you embarrass yourself any more? It WAS instigated by his staff. That was the first thing to come out in the press, and the fact that you don't know that is deplorable:
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/08/22229091-christie-vows-action-in-unacceptable-bridge-scandal?lite

"Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee," CHRISTIE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF BRIDGET ANNE KELLY WROTE to Christie Port Authority aide David Wildstein on Aug. 13, weeks before the lane closures that snarled traffic on the first day of school in New Jersey last fall.

Wildstein replied, "Got it."

[emphasis mine]

And no, I am not making a "projection" that he should have looked into it. He TOLD the press he looked into it:

Christie had previously denied involvement with the lane closures, and "absolutely, unequivocally" denied that the closures were politically motivated after accepting the resignation of a top port authority official in December. He also maintained that members of his administration had assured him that they were not involved with the lane closures.

I mean, what the fuck? Did he call a couple of his aides in and say, "Hey, did youse guys have anything to do with them lanes closures?" and they said "no", and he said, "O.K., that's good enough for me"?
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/11/22268855-democrat-heading-bridge-probe-says-christie-could-be-impeached-if-he-knew-of-closures?lite

One of the aides who Wisniewski and other Democrats said merit special scrutiny is Regina Egea, a senior staffer who Christie has designated to be his next chief of staff. Documents released Friday show that Egea was forwarded a copy of a scathing email from Patrick Foye, the Port Authority's executive director, at 10:44 a.m. on Sept. 13, 2012– four days after the first lane closures and a few hours after Foye sent it. In the email, Foye called the lane closures "abusive," a threat to public safety, and a violation of "federal law and the laws of both states" (New York and New Jersey.)

What did she say to Christie that day? You honestly expect us to believe that the woman who is going to be his next chief of staff didn't bother to mention to him that she got an email from the director of the port authority complaining about the fake traffic study? He was just going merrily along on his way, while a great deal of his staff were aware of the bridge controversy, and nobody ever told him? Jesus Christ are you ever gullible, man.

as opposed to an old nothing??

rooemoore says

Even if Christie new nothing,

Finally, somebody that can win a kindergarten spelling bee...

Homeboy says

rooemoore says

Even if Christie new nothing, one still has to wonder at his complete lack of curiosity about the bridge closure. From not responding to the thousands of complaints about the closure while it was happening, to later not seeming to be interested in why two of his appointees suddenly retired due to the growing scandal.

Exactly. Finally, someone here with a bit of common sense.