• 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!

tyr_13 said:
At this point any of the possible motivations would be stupid, childish, poorly thought out, and have little chance of success. It is already unreasonable. Therefore a plan not actually being reasonable isn't cause to dismiss it as a possible motivation/plan.

That doesn't mean it isn't still speculation or that it doesn't lack evidence, but we can't go far in the other direction either.
Click to expand...

This is true. However I'm still going to call any theory involving Larry Silverstein a conspiracy theory until there's at least a shred of actual evidence suggesting that it might be true.
 
eeyore1954 said:
I believe a big ticket investor would not be concerned about an all of a sudden temporary lane closure.
Click to expand...

Oh, well, since we're going off of what people believe, let me apologize for stating what I believe. Obviously you're right since it's your belief.

eeyore1954 said:
I don't believe if a transportation or traffic study was part of an overall deal for financing the study would concern itself with when there was going to be temporary maintenance on the road. If a road is frequently being closed for repairs or maintenance it might be mentioned.
Click to expand...

Yeah, cause no big ticket investor would be turned off by thinking they'd have to deal with traffic snarls out of no where. In hind sight, we knew it was going to be temprorary. The fact that no one knew about this "study" and that it wasn't properly sanctioned means that people did not know that, at the time. Yes or no? So now that we know what you believe, why don't we try backing it up with some ****. If not, nothing you say carries anymore weight than what I say.

Newtons Bit said:
Sorry, that's just speculation. The other side of the argument is FACT. :p
Click to expand...

Are you ever going to offer anything of substance, or are these pointless quips all you have to offer? It's really getting obnoxious and not at all adding to the conversation. The things I have said are fact...are fact. If you can contest them, either of you, with anything other than your beliefs and speculation, than do it.
 
Newtons Bit said:
This is true. However I'm still going to call any theory involving Larry Silverstein a conspiracy theory until there's at least a shred of actual evidence suggesting that it might be true.
Click to expand...

The only mention of Larry in the last 2 pages has been by you. This is off topic and pointless to even speak about. Larry has nothing to do with this, so you should treat it like a conspiracy theory, and subsequently you should start a thread in the conspiracy sub forum to deal with it.
 
NYT is reporting on a letter from Wildstein saying Christie new about the bridge closure as it was takiing place; and that he has proof of that. Time will tell.
 
AlexW said:
NYT is reporting on a letter from Wildstein saying Christie new about the bridge closure as it was takiing place; and that he has proof of that. Time will tell.
Click to expand...


This is no surprise.

To say that it's common sense that Christie not only knew about but ordered this thing (which is what I have always thought) is certainly not evidence of his complicity. But I figured that, with the vast number of people involved, the fingers of the conspirators would eventually point to him. Now it begins.

As I said before, he will resign in advance of impeachment proceedings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/nyregion/christie-bridge.html
 
Aha! A few days ago the Port Authority told Wildstein they wouldn't be paying his legal bills because the thing he's in trouble for wasn't part of his official duties. But that's just the problem -- it was! Legitimate official duties, no. But if the guy sitting in his office at the PA picks up the phone and tells some PA underlings to close lanes, and that's what happens, then that's no doubt official duties.

So here's the letter from Mr. Wildstein's lawyer: http://www.scribd.com/doc/203732035/Letter-on-bridge-lane-closings

If you want your soldiers to fall on their swords, you had better cover their legal costs. I wonder who's paying Bridget Kelly's bills.
 
hgc said:
This is no surprise.

To say that it's common sense that Christie not only knew about but ordered this thing (which is what I have always thought) is certainly not evidence of his complicity. But I figured that, with the vast number of people involved, the fingers of the conspirators would eventually point to him. Now it begins.

As I said before, he will resign in advance of impeachment proceedings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/nyregion/christie-bridge.html
Click to expand...

The phrasing coming from Wildstein's lawyer seems like it may have been carefully constructed.

“evidence exists as well tying Mr. Christie to having knowledge of the lane closures, during the period when the lanes were closed, contrary to what the governor stated publicly in a two-hour press conference”
Click to expand...

Is he saying that Christie knew that the lanes were closed at the time, or that he knew his administration illegally ordered the closing of said lanes? The former is innocuous at worse, the latter would be a death blow.
 
Newtons Bit said:
The phrasing coming from Wildstein's lawyer seems like it may have been carefully constructed.
Click to expand...

It's a lawyer's letter! If you didn't need a carefully constructed letter, you wouldn't need to pay $500/hour to get it written. ;)


Is he saying that Christie knew that the lanes were closed at the time, or that he knew his administration illegally ordered the closing of said lanes? The former is innocuous at worse, the latter would be a death blow.
Click to expand...

He's seems to be saying the former. I have always assumed the latter, and I think it will come out.

I also think that proof of the former is way worse than innocuous for him -- if it puts the lie to anything he said at his "epic" press conference. It's ambiguous right now vis-a-vis that letter. It's one thing for Christie to have known that there was traffic problems because of lane closures. But what if Wildstein comes with evidence that he knew that they were concocting a phony-baloney traffic study cover story?
 
Yep, the bit that resonates with me is the letter saying that his knowledge is at variance with what he stated in his press conference.
 
hgc said:
It's a lawyer's letter! If you didn't need a carefully constructed letter, you wouldn't need to pay $500/hour to get it written. ;)




He's seems to be saying the former. I have always assumed the latter, and I think it will come out.

I also think that proof of the former is way worse than innocuous for him -- if it puts the lie to anything he said at his "epic" press conference. It's ambiguous right now vis-a-vis that letter. It's one thing for Christie to have known that there was traffic problems because of lane closures. But what if Wildstein comes with evidence that he knew that they were concocting a phony-baloney traffic study cover story?
Click to expand...

Depends on the context, I suppose. Forgetting about a lane closure that you didn't order canbe pretty innocuous in my book. If he heard about the GWB having traffic problems on the news or in a committee meeting then it's no big deal. On the other hand, if there's records of him taking pleasure from the plight of Fort Lee it could be bad for him. "Excuse me, Mr. Governor, the committee recorder noted that you 'cackled maniacally' after being told Fort Lee was experiencing traffic problems. Did you forget about that?" :p
 
Lawyer: “evidence exists as well tying Mr. Christie to having knowledge of the lane closures, during the period when the lanes were closed, contrary to what the governor stated publicly in a two-hour press conference”
Click to expand...
I don't now remember if Christie had said something to the effect of "I never even knew about the lane closures at the time..." But if he had said that, then the lawyer's "evidence..tying Christie to having knowledge..." of them is contrary to this particular claim.

hgc: Is he saying that Christie knew that the lanes were closed at the time, or that he knew his administration illegally ordered the closing of said lanes? The former is innocuous at worse, the latter would be a death blow.
Click to expand...

In other words, there now exists evidence that he lied about being aware of the closures, and the phrase "during the period when the lanes were closed" is what points to this first interpretation in hgc's question, I think. :confused: It is ambiguous though, without the "during the period" wording.
 
Olowkow said:
In other words, there now exists evidence that he lied about being aware of the closures, and the phrase "during the period when the lanes were closed" is what points to this first interpretation in hgc's question, I think. :confused: It is ambiguous though, without the "during the period" wording.
Click to expand...


No hurry. We've got months for this gruesome tale to fully unfold. It's been pretty fun so far.
 
barehl said:
The Christie doomsday clock is now at 11pm.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If anyone thought this was going away, they're in for a wakeup call. First guy to wake up is Christie himself. I don't know if he's going to be impeached but he'll never be president. Three months ago he had a real shot at it.
 
He also claims to be able to prove that Christie made untrue statements about himself.

The proverbial "other shoe to drop" is whatshername, the fired aide. She still has yet to offer an explanation. Wildstein's lawyer characterizes her email to him as an "order" from the Christie Administration. What will she say about it? I don't see how she can just remain silent about it unless she wants to accept all the blame and legal consequences herself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom