• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Time for some TRAFFIC!

hgc said:
.....
Now that the governor has made it plain that he had no interest in investigating for the months that this was building up and now that subpoenas and prosecutors are flying about, Christie's window for investigation has definitely closed.
....
Click to expand...

It seems like that's an important point. When the bridge was first shut down and complaints started rolling in, it seems like Christie would have asked his people "What the hell is going on?" Even if he didn't suspect his own staff of misconduct, he certainly would have wanted to know who to blame. "Traffic study? What the hell kind of traffic study? What do you study by shutting down the bridge? Gimme some names. I want their heads." It's very hard to believe that Christie would have said "Traffic study? Oh, OK," unless he didn't want to hear the truth.
 
Unabogie said:
Interesting wrinkle.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fort-lee-mayor-not-talking

Sokolich has decided to stop talking. There was a report over the weekend suggesting that the whole kerfuffle was actually about "Hudson Lights", which is a billion dollar development that's set to go up right there at the toll lane entryway.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/is-a-billion-dollar-development-project-at-the-heart-of-bridgegate

Could it be that Sokolich has unclean hands here? Could it be that he was paid off (legally in some way) during Christie's in-person apology?

The more we look into this, the dirtier the whole thing looks.
Click to expand...

It might be that Sokolich is just stepping back because so many other people are going after Christie. He doesn't want it to look like he's pushing some kind of personal dispute. He can say "I believe the governor" and look like statesman, while others try to prove Christie's a thug.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
It seems like that's an important point. When the bridge was first shut down and complaints started rolling in, it seems like Christie would have asked his people "What the hell is going on?" Even if he didn't suspect his own staff of misconduct, he certainly would have wanted to know who to blame. "Traffic study? What the hell kind of traffic study? What do you study by shutting down the bridge? Gimme some names. I want their heads." It's very hard to believe that Christie would have said "Traffic study? Oh, OK," unless he didn't want to hear the truth.
Click to expand...


I noted from Christie's "epic" press conference his sheer clowning over the question of the alleged traffic study, acting like he's Unfrozen Caveman Governor, who's mystified by our traffic studies like they're something exotic (up to and including the possibility that it starts with a text message saying, "time for traffic problems in Fort Lee").
 
Looks like the Fort Lee mayor isn't the only one on the **** list. Mayor Fulop of Jersey City had a meeting with state department heads cancelled. Coincidentially when he wouldn't endorse Christie.

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_...tings-with-mayor-who-wouldnt-endorse-gov?lite

After Baroni got an email reporting that Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich had left an “urgent” phone message complaining about the traffic jams at the bridge, Christee staffer Kelly emailed another Christee appointee, David Wildstein, asking “Did he call him back?”—apparently asking whether Baroni had returned Sokolich’s call. Wildstein replied: “Radio silence. His name comes right after Mayor Fulop.”
Click to expand...

Bolding mine. An enemies list? Oh, I can't wait until they find out some idiot emailed one around.
 
Looks like Christie has got more problems...

Feds investigate Christie's use of Sandy relief funds

Legal woes lurk for Gov. Chris Christie over bridge traffic jam scandal

Personally, I think the second one could be the worse one for him. The first can be, and already is being, dismissed as a partisan witch-hunt against Christie, though that could uncover some interesting things. However, the second one could be much nastier for him, especially since he is being sued personally via a class action lawsuit. Once the courts get involved, then that means very thorough investigations... and stuff gets dug up.
 
Last edited:
Regnad Kcin said:
I can't link to them at the moment, but apparently new polls are revealing the public's blasé indifference to this matter.
Click to expand...

Which public? In NJ? In NY? Nationwide?

Incidentally, how many people nationwide even know who he is?

ETA: I linked upthread to a poll by Rasmussen that stated that over half of NJ likely voters thought that Christie knew ahead of time what was going on with the lane closures and is attempting a cover up. That's hardly blase, especially coming from one's home state.
 
Last edited:
Spindrift said:
An enemies list? Oh, I can't wait until they find out some idiot emailed one around.
Click to expand...

Sounds a lot like it to me. There probably was not a written-down one like Nixon's unless they were really dumb, but it sounds like there was at least a mental one.

Nixon's list was very explicit about its purpose too:

The official purpose, as described by the White House Counsel's Office, was to "screw" Nixon's political enemies, by means of tax audits from the Internal Revenue Service, and by manipulating "grant availability, federal contracts, litigation, prosecution, etc."[3] In a memorandum from John Dean to Lawrence Higby (August 16, 1971), Dean explained the purpose of the list:
“This memorandum addresses the matter of how we can maximize the fact of our incumbency in dealing with persons known to be active in their opposition to our Administration; stated a bit more bluntly—how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies."[3]​
Click to expand...
 
MattusMaximus said:
Which public? In NJ? In NY? Nationwide?

Incidentally, how many people nationwide even know who he is?
Click to expand...
Here's the story, containing poll info, I mentioned.
A survey by the Pew Research Center found the public paid far more attention to last week’s cold snap than the New Jersey bridge scandal, with 44% very closely following the weather and just 16% paying close to notice to Christie’s apology and political developments in the Garden State.

The poll also found very little change in opinions about the governor nationally, with 60% saying their views of Christie had not changed in recent days. Sixteen percent of respondents said they now viewed him less favorably and 6% viewed him more favorably.
Click to expand...
 
MattusMaximus said:
Which public? In NJ? In NY? Nationwide?

Incidentally, how many people nationwide even know who he is?

ETA: I linked upthread to a poll by Rasmussen that stated that over half of NJ likely voters thought that Christie knew ahead of time what was going on with the lane closures and is attempting a cover up. That's hardly blase, especially coming from one's home state.
Click to expand...

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/chris-christie-poll-102110.html

http://www.people-press.org/2014/01/13/christie-story-attracts-little-public-interest/

Personally I think it's too early in this process for polls to be much use.

According to the poll, only 18% are following the story closely. It'll take some time to permeate to the rest. The cold snap is apparently the biggest news.
 
Tricky said:
As Christie is learning now, inside every little scandal is a bigger scandal waiting to get out. Now it looks as if the Gov. may be investigated for misusing Sandy relief funds.


In other words, he wasted 2 million dollars making sure that he got a lot of face time after the storm. Frankly, I'm not sure that using relief funds to make promotional ads is a correct use of such monies in any case, but I understand that these things are important to the businesses, who have a lot to say about how money is spent.

The forecast is for cloudy with an increasing chance of a ****-storm.
Click to expand...

That one seems like a minor sideshow compared to the bridge thing honestly.
 
Puppycow said:
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/chris-christie-poll-102110.html

http://www.people-press.org/2014/01/13/christie-story-attracts-little-public-interest/

Personally I think it's too early in this process for polls to be much use.

According to the poll, only 18% are following the story closely. It'll take some time to permeate to the rest. The cold snap is apparently the biggest news.
Click to expand...

Ah, thanks for those links.

Yes, based upon these polling data, I might have to revise my opinion of the situation... the earlier Rasmussen poll seemed to paint more of a dire picture than these others.

If, and it's a substantial if, nothing is turned up in the course of the investigation(s) that links Christie more directly to the scandal, then he might come out of this in decent shape. However, the devil is going to be in the details of what is or is not uncovered.

I also think the lawsuits coming his way are going to be politically troublesome.
 
Chrissy needs to step up his game. What is the point of crushing your enemies if you don't get to here the lamentations of their women?
 
Only a fraction of the documents have been released.

Clearly there is more to come. Christie may skate for a while, but the other shoe will eventually drop.
 
Polaris said:
Uhhh, because it's it true he used his political office to punish a Democratic rival for not supporting him in the past by shutting down part of a bridge, which resulted in a death due to EMT delays, not to mention other complications from same and unknown amounts of lost man hours of work due to commuter delays.
Click to expand...

Ok, I don't think you properly understood what I was addressing. Thanks.
 
Bob001 said:
Maybe a little high on the psychobabble scale, but one observer thinks Christie contradicted himself in multiple ways during his lengthy press conference:
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/11/5_reasons_chris_christie_might_be_lying/
Click to expand...


This is something that struck me within the first few minutes of the beginning of the "epic" press conference. Christie was providing tons of irrelevant detail - to distract and wear down his questioners. I was amazed at the press malpractice. If Chris Christie the prosecutor was met with such stonewalling from a witness, he'd know how to get his relevant questions answered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom