patrick.net

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.

Why shouldn't it be? Aides are hired as trusted associates.
You hire them based on their history and what you know about them.
If, after the fact, they fuck you over that is mostly out of your control.

Homeboy says

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"?

CL says

Straw Man says

The only possible consequences could be political and even these would be minor.

Call it Crazy says

If that's what your looking for dude, you have some HUGE targets sitting in D.C. Why not try and focus your energies there, not on a traffic jam...

Apologism runs strong. Ask yourselves if you would be as lenient, as Dan suggested, if it were a Democratic Governor in NEW JERSEY who carried himself as a thug or mobster. Why do I suspect your cavalier attitudes would evaporate?

To expound, which "scandal" that has been thrown at Obama do you think is in fact, trivial?

Whatever happened with the democrat poster child, John Corzine?

Call it Crazy says

In a state of 8 million people, how would Christie know of some traffic tie-ups...

Because it was all over the newspapers, the Port Authority executive director sent an email saying it was "abusive, a threat to public safety, and a violation of federal law", there were thousands of complaints, the mayor of Fort Lee publicly accused Christie of orchestrating the incident as political payback, Christie personally talked to reporters who told him about it, and staff members appointed by Christie resigned over the incident.

How would he know? Are you really this obtuse, or are you just pretending to be?

SoftShell says

Why shouldn't it be? Aides are hired as trusted associates.

You hire them based on their history and what you know about them.

If, after the fact, they fuck you over that is mostly out of your control.

That is the attitude a poor leader would have, not someone who has aspirations of running for president. A good leader would be proactive and not hide under a rock while his aides run amok.

bob2356 says

So all you have is the supposition that he should have known this was instigated by his staff

Homeboy says

Why don't you do some research before you embarrass yourself any more? It WAS instigated by his staff.

I clearly stated is was instigated by his staff. Maybe you should learn to read. So you agree it came from his staffer Kelly, so where's the evidence Christie himself was involved?

Homeboy says

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?

So you know that she did mention it? I'm very impressed you have such extensive unfettered access to the inner workings of Christie's administration.

Homeboy says

That is the attitude a poor leader would have, not someone who has aspirations of running for president. A good leader would be proactive and not hide under a rock while his aides run amok

Well that leaves out every president since Truman.

Homeboy says

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?

No I'm trying to equate your response to this story withbgmal's response to news stories with wacky zionist theories. He doesn't have any evidence and neither do you.

I am not talking about attitudes.
I am talking about circumstances.
You apparently have an attitude.

Homeboy says

SoftShell says

Why shouldn't it be? Aides are hired as trusted associates.

You hire them based on their history and what you know about them.

If, after the fact, they fuck you over that is mostly out of your control.

That is the attitude a poor leader would have, not someone who has aspirations of running for president. A good leader would be proactive and not hide under a rock while his aides run amok.

SoftShell says

Why shouldn't it be? Aides are hired as trusted associates.

You hire them based on their history and what you know about them.

If, after the fact, they fuck you over that is mostly out of your control.

It's out of your control to hire someone who won't fuck you over? You must not be too proficient at interviewing and background checks...

Call it Crazy says

Wow, really??? You truly know completely what an employee is going to do in the future??? Employees NEVER lie when caught??? Really??

We didn't realize you were such a great fortune teller!!!

I wouldn't say NEVER, but I wouldn't say it's out of my control either. I would say it's partially my fault...

Call it Crazy says

Question, if as you say, he lied and really ordered the closures, why hasn't Bridget Kelly, who was instantly fired, been on all the news media and talk shows telling everyone the TRUTH???

I have no idea if he knew or not, but the answer to your question is easy.

Christie may or may not be the next President of the US. It's not bad if POTUS owes you, is it? That's a pretty good reason to stay quiet

Call it Crazy says

Except, for right now, her career is in the sewer. No one will touch her and she's unemployable in gov't and business circles (well, maybe a liberal organization would hire her, they seem to like liars)... She's like 41 years old... I hope she saved her money...

And her prospects would improve if she went on TV selling out her boss?

Call it Crazy says

Probably not... In your world, truth doesn't matter....

We're talking about the real world. In the real world, job prospects aren't enhanced when you sell out your boss.

Especially political chief of staffs...

Call it Crazy says

Like I said.... in YOUR world...

lol--OK please explain how that helps in any world.

bob2356 says

I clearly stated is was instigated by his staff

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.

You said it was done by the port authority. You're anything but clear. You're all over the place on this. Maybe you don't really have a cogent point but just like to argue?

bob2356 says

Well that leaves out every president since Truman.

Oh, I see. What Christie did was o.k. in your mind because you don't expect any better. Nice.

bob2356 says

No I'm trying to equate your response to this story withbgmal's response to news stories with wacky zionist theories.

I know what you're TRYING to do. You just suck at it.

bob2356 says

He doesn't have any evidence and neither do you.

That is without a doubt the dumbest comparison I have ever seen. I posted pages and pages of evidence. Lots of people find Christie's story dubious, and they are not wacko conspiracy theorists, despite what you desperately wish to believe. You are obviously in denial.

It's not out of your control. However, there are no absolutes.
No one can predict with 100% accuracy how others will perform over the long haul.

tatupu70 says

SoftShell says

Why shouldn't it be? Aides are hired as trusted associates.


You hire them based on their history and what you know about them.


If, after the fact, they fuck you over that is mostly out of your control.

It's out of your control to hire someone who won't fuck you over? You must not be too proficient at interviewing and background checks...

Uhhh yeah, it is bad if POTUS owes you given the varied instruments of destruction at his/her hands.

tatupu70 says

Call it Crazy says

Question, if as you say, he lied and really ordered the closures, why hasn't Bridget Kelly, who was instantly fired, been on all the news media and talk shows telling everyone the TRUTH???

I have no idea if he knew or not, but the answer to your question is easy.

Christie may or may not be the next President of the US. It's not bad if POTUS owes you, is it? That's a pretty good reason to stay quiet

Hmmmm. Lets take a look at Monika...who fucked over her boss bill..
3/99: on the cover of TIME magazine
9/99: Handbag designer
1/2000: Spokes person for Jenny Craig
3/2002: Documentary subject
4/2003: Reality show host
12/2006: Social Psychologist

Regarding your statement bolded below: FAIL.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/RJoOhq4M1TY

tatupu70 says

Call it Crazy says

Probably not... In your world, truth doesn't matter....

We're talking about the real world. In the real world, job prospects aren't enhanced when you sell out your boss.

Thats a lot of eatin after all that porkin...

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

I had no idea that Lewinsky was SO FUCKING HUGE!