Time for some TRAFFIC!

[Monketi Ghost]

I said "close" to a terrorist act since there are national security implications since the closing of all tunnels to trucks after 9/11.

I don't see how one can argue that an act creating fear among the public at large with a potential for disaster, whose sole purpose is a political statement by zealots, is not coming close to act of terror. I suspect the people stuck on the bridge who lived through 9/11 may have considered this scenario. Had I been a New Yorker who lived 9/11, among my first thoughts as I sat stuck on the bridge, since radio announcements had no news otherwise, would have been, suicide bomber right in the middle of the bridge in that semi in front of me with 80,000 lbs of semtex.

And I meant it was neither a prank, nor anything "close" to a terrorist attack.

 

[Olowkow]

And I meant it was neither a prank, nor anything "close" to a terrorist attack.

That's what I understood, and I'd love to hear your reasoning.


ETA:

terrorist attack
noun a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims

It could be argued that violence was not used, but I can imagine some stuck on the bridge, if they had known it was a political effort to punish voters, feeling that they were being unlawfully restrained and victims of at least civilly criminal behavior.

If, and it's still a big IF, this lane closure "stunt" was done to influence future behavior by the mayor and/or citizens of Fort Lee, it is a type of threat bordering on domestic terrorism.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Most terrorist attacks aren't initiated with the intent to cause inconvenience?

 

[Olowkow]

Most terrorist attacks aren't initiated with the intent to cause inconvenience?

I see your point. So if no violence, such as a bomb or machine guns, is involved, then it is not terrorism? My previous ETA, kind of covers this. I'm not so sure that pouring botulism toxin in the reservoir, or mailing ricin or anthrax, though very inconvenient, is "violent" per se. However, for me, these, and even cynanide in Tylenol fall into the category of "terrorism" not "pranks" even if no one had been killed. Random mischief perpetrated against the public is a type of terror which can prevent people from enjoying their freedom. Maybe I'm creating a false dichotomy, but I'll be surprised if no one else suggests this before it is all over.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The Onion - Christ Christie: My fellow Americans, do I look like a corrupt, vengeful bully?

 

[Monketi Ghost]

I see your point. So if no violence, such as a bomb or machine guns, is involved, then it is not terrorism? My previous ETA, kind of covers this. I'm not so sure that pouring botulism toxin in the reservoir is "violent", or mailing ricin or anthrax is "violent" per se, but for me, these, and even cynanide in Tylenol fall into the category of "terrorism" even if no one had been killed. Random mischief perpetrated against the public is a type of terror which can prevent people from enjoying their freedom.

Well, first let me say that the word terrorist and the phrase terrorist attack aren't very good at describing all circumstances, and I think they're both misapplied pretty often.
That said, down to my definition, this stupid action on the part of ChristieCronies wasn't meant to cause terror, nor was it an attack, not as I use the words. Really, nearly any terrorist attack I can think of was meant to kill/maim/cause fear and panic.
So definitely, mailing poisons is in there, and personally meets my definition of an attack.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm willing to say, at this point based upon all I've seen/read, that if Christie survives this whole mess politically, it will be a minor miracle.

That said, I think his chances for the presidency in 2016 are finished, at the very least.

And that really hurts the GOP.

There was an interesting political analyst on Charlie Rose last night. He made a good case that Christie will survive this just like Obama, Clinton and Bush Jr survived numerous revelations during their campaigns.

 

[Olowkow]

Well, first let me say that the word terrorist and the phrase terrorist attack aren't very good at describing all circumstances, and I think they're both misapplied pretty often.
That said, down to my definition, this stupid action on the part of ChristieCronies wasn't meant to cause terror, nor was it an attack, not as I use the words. Really, nearly any terrorist attack I can think of was meant to kill/maim/cause fear and panic.
So definitely, mailing poisons is in there, and personally meets my definition of an attack.

I suspect you are now arguing a straw man version of what I said. I will simply agree to disagree, since we're now down to semantic differences.

Surprisingly, as the worm turns, now Limbaugh is calling out Fox news for being idiots! What next?

"Fox has always been unpredictable, but now they're starting to become [predictable]," he said. He added that it had been easy to predict what the "Republican line" about Christie's Thursday press conference would be: "Man oh man, this guy, greatest leader, greatest potential leader the Republican party has fielded in who knows how many years...he buried the thing!"


Limbaugh wondered aloud how "learned" pundits on Fox News could think Christie had put the bridge scandal behind him.
'I’m reading some of these comments they’re making, and I’m in disbelief!” he said.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Scene: Gov's office: There's a pile of paper on his desk that weighs more than he does. Seven lights are blinking on his phone.
Aide: There's traffic jam on the GWB.
CC: <censored>. Water is wet. Get the **** outta here.

Your scenario only goes one day out from the event at the most.

Come on, this has been big news and clearly Christie knew it was an issue when he answered in the press conference that he was the guy with the cones. It's not credible he didn't notice the growing story simply because his staff all said they weren't involved.

If he didn't believe his office was involved, he, as governor, should have been concerned enough about the lane closures to at least inquire about the study. I don't think it's been mentioned much in the thread, but his failure to investigate the incident given the seriousness of the allegations is rather incriminating in itself. Why wouldn't he have jumped all over it? Especially if he truly thought it was something other than political payback originating from his team or other appointees?

 

[plague311]

If he didn't believe his office was involved, he, as governor, should have been concerned enough about the lane closures to at least inquire about the study. I don't think it's been mentioned much in the thread, but his failure to investigate the incident given the seriousness of the allegations is rather incriminating in itself. Why wouldn't he have jumped all over it? Especially if he truly thought it was something other than political payback originating from his team or other appointees?

And then to request after the fact that the individual stop digging into it so much just goes to provide more support. There is no evidence showing that the gov. had no knowledge of this and everything pointing to him not only having knowledge, but being directly involved.

 

[hgc]

If he didn't believe his office was involved, he, as governor, should have been concerned enough about the lane closures to at least inquire about the study. I don't think it's been mentioned much in the thread, but his failure to investigate the incident given the seriousness of the allegations is rather incriminating in itself. Why wouldn't he have jumped all over it? Especially if he truly thought it was something other than political payback originating from his team or other appointees?

This can't be emphasized too much -- Why didn't Christie attempt to find out what was going on? One possible answer: He already knew.

On Dec 12 Bill Baroni (his top appointee to the PA) resigned. In a news conference that day, Christie had this to say:

Mr. Christie suggested that Mr. Baroni’s resignation was not connected to the bridge controversy. "Senator Baroni offered his resignation and I accepted it," he said at a news conference Friday. "But this was nothing I hadn’t planned already."

Where, oh where, is the follow up question? Christie has to explain why he planned on Baroni's departure.

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/201...igns-in-george-washington-bridge-controversy/

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I love this picture.

 

[Bob001]

And then to request after the fact that the individual stop digging into it so much just goes to provide more support. ....

Just an observation here: the "individual" that Christie asked to stop investigating is the Governor of the State of New York. He demanded that the governor of New York stop asking questions! If that's not a clue that he knows more than he claims, I don't know what is.

 

[jj]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ership-should-give-pause-to-voters-nationally

Interesting. Tom Kean is a big GOP figure in NJ. He's also known to be a ruler-straight arrow (which makes him unusual).

ETA now that I know I got the URL right: Tom Kean suggests that Christie might not be the best choice nationally.


It's interesting, Tom Kean is one of the few GOP politicians I current admire, which carries some weight with me.

 

[hgc]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ership-should-give-pause-to-voters-nationally

Interesting. Tom Kean is a big GOP figure in NJ. He's also known to be a ruler-straight arrow (which makes him unusual).

ETA now that I know I got the URL right: Tom Kean suggests that Christie might not be the best choice nationally.


It's interesting, Tom Kean is one of the few GOP politicians I current admire, which carries some weight with me.

Tom Kean is a gentleman -- the polar opposite personality from Chris Christie.

 

[grunion]

Wasn't there some email mocking Sokolich as a Serbian? If retaliation for the Hoens affair was the motive, then why the Serbian reference? (Yes I know Sokolich is Croatian but the Idiot Wildstein didn't know the difference. ) As I recall the Democratic leader of the Judiciary Committee was named Weintraub or something like that, hardly a Serbian name.

 

[Ladewig]

The UK bookmakers are still offering odds in the range of 9:2 to 4:1 for Christie being the Republican candidate. In fact many of them are offing odds from 12:1 down to 7:1 that he takes the presidency. Unfortunately, one cannot take the other side of the bet (folks cannot bet that he doesn't win the presidency). It might be a good time to get some bets down on other candidates as their odds will shorten as soon as Christie is eliminated.

2016 elections seem too murky for me to make predictions, but if someone offers me 12:1, I'll bet that if he doesn't run this time around and he does run for 2020, then he will be one of the top three candidates going in to New Hampshire. Money or message board icons. [his death between now and N.H. will be ruled "no action"]

 

[eeyore1954]

Just an observation here: the "individual" that Christie asked to stop investigating is the Governor of the State of New York. He demanded that the governor of New York stop asking questions! If that's not a clue that he knows more than he claims, I don't know what is.

Is there any evidence that he demanded Cuomo back off. I know there is an article that says he did in a private conversation.

 

[Unabogie]

Is there any evidence that he demanded Cuomo back off. I know there is an article that says he did in a private conversation.

Next up, Cuomo is going to have to explain what that phone call was about. Other items to look at:

1. Christie met with Samson a few days before the lane closings.
2. He personally approved the "study" and allocated $60k for it.


Also:

The documents also show that Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak had dinner with David Wildstein, then-director of interstate capital projects for the Port Authority, two days before the transportation official resigned in December over questions around the now-notorious multiday traffic jam in Fort Lee. Wildstein thanked Drewniak for his "sound advice" and the two men later e-mailed back and forth about how to announce his departure from the Port Authority.
In one e-mail, Drewniak said the governor approved the final statement.

Recall that Christie said Wildstein's resignation was something he'd expected for a long time and had nothing to do with Bridgegate. So how is that possible, when we know he was involved in the resignation and his entire staff knew all about the bridge closures?

There's all kinds of bread crumbs leading back to Christie. Honestly, if he somehow had all of this going on around him and never had a clue, then that's nearly as bad as ordering the hit. But it's getting harder and harder to believe he was out of the loop.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/chris-christie-bridge-fort-lee-david-wildstein-testimony

 

[Mumbles]

Wasn't there some email mocking Sokolich as a Serbian? If retaliation for the Hoens affair was the motive, then why the Serbian reference? (Yes I know Sokolich is Croatian but the Idiot Wildstein didn't know the difference. ) As I recall the Democratic leader of the Judiciary Committee was named Weintraub or something like that, hardly a Serbian name.

Here's the easiest answer. Fun.

Again, these are the same guys who smiled at school children being trapped on a bus for hours because of what their intentional traffic snarl. Assuming they were getting back at the senate majority leader, and knew full well that they were going to harm everyone in the area, why would they exclude the mayor?

Keep in mind that, yes, this is absolutely speculation. It has evidence for it, but the real reason for this could be, and likely is, wildly different than anyone is thinking. But at the moment, very few people have any clue why this disgusting event happened. If we take him at his own word, Chris Christie has abdicated his leadership role and refuses to look into it. And the *why* of it, really doesn't make it any better or worse, in any event, so why not just go ahead and posit reasons, and toss out circumstantial evidence in favor or against?