Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2007
- Messages
- 8,746
Why would she do that? Is there some kind of conflict of interest if she testifies about where she works?
The ship be sinking.
Why would she do that? Is there some kind of conflict of interest if she testifies about where she works?
Why would she do that? Is there some kind of conflict of interest if she testifies about where she works?
Why would she do that? Is there some kind of conflict of interest if she testifies about where she works?
Why would she do that? Is there some kind of conflict of interest if she testifies about where she works?
Perhaps there are laws that compel a government staffer to comply with an investigation in a way that a private citizen is not?
Likewise, it could just be a coincidence and isn't tied to the subpoenae at all.
I was just saying this today. Christie's swan dive has curiously coincided with Mitt and Ann opining about how sad they are that the country didn't get to enjoy the Mittness last time around. They smell the blood in the water and are dangling some hooks, to mix some metaphors.
And would be a tad impolite to seek immunity whilst still under the employ.
(I haven't read that is the case but others are certainly trying to jump on the Immunity Express).
Three of Christie's staff have taken the 5th. So, these three are admitting that they did something criminally wrong. Christie meanwhile in an effort to distance himself from the criminal wrong-doing is now tap-dancing so hard that his shoes are beginning to smoke. The Christie Doomsday clock has reached 11:15pm.
Kelly's attorney, Michael Critchley, Sr., told the panel that the requested information "directly overlaps with a parallel federal grand jury investigation" while also invoking Kelly's general right to personal privacy.
Notice that she's also refusing to turn over subpoenaed documents!
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fired-christie-staffer-to-plead-5th-refuse-to-turns-over-docs
And Christie went on a radio show last night and coincidentally opined on how every citizen has a right to listen to their lawyers and take the 5th, and who is he to demand otherwise?
LINK
I noticed the clever Christie in the radio interview placed himself clearly in the role of "we" want to get to the bottom of this continuing to act like he's among the investigators and injured parties rather than being one of the accused.
The man knows what he's doing.
And Christie went on a radio show last night and coincidentally opined on how every citizen has a right to listen to their lawyers and take the 5th, and who is he to demand otherwise?
And he gave his 3rd version of when he found out that there was a problem. His credibility is zero at this point. They've also uncovered that the people in his office were told not to take phone calls from the Mayor of Fort Lee.
I'm guessing that Christie's next press conference will be an imitation of Humphrey Bogart's character, Lieutenant Commander Phillip Queeg, from The Caine Mutiny. He will be nervously rolling ball bearings in his hand, wild-eyed, saying that the people in his office were against him from the very start, all of them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-95QqBXLG2I
I didn't mean that comment to apply to his life or the entirety of this incident. I only meant, he knows what he's doing in the interview placing himself on the side of the wronged, while trying to present the image he isn't among the wrongdoers.Does he know what he's doing? After that ham-fisted missive against Wildstein over the weekend, he's starting to look to me like a bumbling schmuck.
In any case, it makes no difference whether he knows what he's doing or not. The facts of the case will sink him or spare him. It's out of his control.
And as far as wanted to get to the bottom of things, that's preposterous. If he wanted to "know" what happened, would he have fired Bridget Kelly without asking her one single question? Of course not.
I didn't mean that comment to apply to his life or the entirety of this incident. I only meant, he knows what he's doing in the interview placing himself on the side of the wronged, while trying to present the image he isn't among the wrongdoers.
Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich told the Bergen Record Thursday that Gov. Chris Christie (R) made an extensive push to get his endorsement including lunch at the governor's mansion and favors from officials at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
Sokolich is a central figure into the investigation into September's lane closures on the George Washington Bridge, which some Democrats have alleged were ordered because Sokolich declined to endorse Christie's re-election bid. The lane closures led to days of gridlock in Fort Lee.
Sokolich told the newspaper he had lunch with Christie at the governor's residence, Drumthwacket, along with Hoboken, N.J. Mayor Dawn Zimmer. In January, Zimmer accused the Christie administration of threatening to withhold Hurricane Sandy aid from her city unless she approved a real estate project. He also said officials at the Port Authority, which oversees the bridge, lavished Fort Lee with attention prior to the closures including providing pothole repair and shuttle bus service.
According to Sokolich, his main contact at the Port Authority was the agency's former deputy executive director, Bill Baroni, a Christie appointee who resigned in December as questions about the closures mounted.
People close to Gov. Chris Christie (R) swear he had nothing to do with a heavily mocked memo that was circulated by his office about the bridge scandal.
A report in Politico on Friday claimed Christie had no knowledge of the memo, which attempted to discredit David Wildstein, a former ally who has said through his lawyer that he is prepared to turn over evidence against the governor.
The report, which was attributed to "two people familiar with the matter," said the widely -criticized memo was sent "earlier than planned" and included lines referencing Wildstein's behavior in high school that were "tucked" in by "someone."