"In a letter released by his lawyer, the former official, David Wildstein, a high school friend of Mr. Christie’s who was appointed with the governor’s blessing at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which controls the bridge, described the order to close the lanes as “the Christie administration’s order” and said “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” three weeks ago."
What do they say?
It's not the crime, it's the cover-up.
NYT
77 comments:
LMAO
21st century codicil to "it's not the crime, it's the cover up" would be: it's not the crime, it's whether the criminal is a Democrat or a Republican, and if they're both Republicans, it's whether the criminal is a conservative or a Republican.
Because nuance.
(Wildstein is one of the people who had to give up his cushy government job because of the bridge closing scandal.)
Back to Plan B - Romney Is the 2016 Republican Front-Runner.
The plan is to have Hillary run unopposed.
ricpic said...
The plan is to have Hillary run unopposed.
It will just seem that way.
Well, this pretty much dooms Christie and secures the path for Hillary. Great "reporting" NYT!
I mean, can you image how many high-fives must be going around the NYT offices tonight?
Not only did they secure her Presidency, they reestablished their pre-emminence as the party organ.
Christie was doomed even before he was exposed as a big fat corrupt power junkie.
Good thing Hillary cannot be mocked for being a fat ugly old white woman. She's a shoe in.
The only tasks left I suppose are to destroy Drudge and Rush Limbaugh.
Wait for it...next week.
Well, the crime obviously matters too. In this case, the crime in question led to deaths of elderly infirm who couldn't make it to hospitals in Manhattan as the lane closure impeded the paths of ambulances. But why should concerns like that bother Republicans? As long as there was a political justification, the lives and well-being of anyone else simply don't matter to them. They're all in it for themselves.
That should be their slogan. Seriously: "We're just in it for ourselves".
Little: Way to show concern for Matthew Drudge and Drug High (or as the slang goes, "Rush") Limbaugh. You're sort of proving the point: All your concern is simply for the political outcome, and by extension, the pundits.
Republicans: They're just in it for themselves.
It's seriously a great slogan. After all, they keep telling us that their only real problem is just the way they "message" things.
When will one of you lazy fuckers on the masthead start a thread on the imminent sellout of the Tea Party by the Repub establishment on amnesty?
All your concern is simply for the political outcome, and by extension, the pundits.
No, I simply like conflicting viewpoints, and always have. I learned this from my dad (ong story).
You gave up on George Will and thankfully haven't drifted back to rank Sullivanism and even showed encouraging signs the other night but I still worry.
Your concern for me is touching but would I be as impressed if you were overseeing the traffic on a certain bridge that might be carrying me to a hospital? What if another New Yorker we know were in that ambulance? Shouldn't the concern for how horribly petty (and yet still destructive) this act was outweigh concern for the political ramifications?
A Christie (or whoever)-Hillary match-up is intriguing to speculate on, but still.
Hillary is always concerned about those under her who are in peril. She proved that.
The crime in question led to deaths of elderly infirm who couldn't make it to hospitals in Manhattan as the lane closure impeded the paths of ambulances.
I think there was a question about only one death, that of a 91-year-old woman, and it's not certain the delay caused it; in fact, her son-in-law says not: “We believe she died in her home, but they couldn’t pronounce her until she got to the hospital. The traffic didn’t make any difference.”
Above all else, it is important to make sure that no harm ever comes to people already under heavy enemy fire in Libya, but it's ok to let people die on bridges to hospitals in Manhattan.
This will be a very important message to tell the voters. It will resonate well with them: War and foreign skirmishes should be seen as risk-free endeavors but in our nation's biggest and greatest city it's ok to let people die because you resented a nearby local mayor's lack of support for your gubernatorial re-election campaign.
As I said: All about the politics. They're just in it for themselves.
You can do a lot with a headline. Especially with people who don't read beyond.
I think there was a question about only one death, that of a 91-year-old woman, and it's not certain the delay caused it; in fact, her son-in-law says not: “We believe she died in her home, but they couldn’t pronounce her until she got to the hospital. The traffic didn’t make any difference.”
Well that's a great justification for impeding ambulance routes if ever I heard one!
But yes, we know. Governor Christie had a lesson in political score-settling to prove.
I think the next time an ambulance needs me to pull over to the side of the road, I'll just stay in their way and go slow, until the cops pull me over. Maybe I'll keep one of those air fresheners dangling from my rear-view mirror cut out in the shape of Governor Christie and explain that he will make everything ok and the cops should just leave me alone and let me do my thing.
I have no trouble at all believing that Christie wanted this to happen.
I want to nit pick a little, though.
Christie being aware of the lane closures != Christie being aware of the purpose of the lane closures.
BTW, I don't think that anyone AT ALL thinks it's okay to close roads in a political pissing contest.
I don't know of a single person saying that if this was Christie's idea that they'd still support him or try to spin it as being a fighter or some weird thing.
The egregious imbalance of media coverage is what it is, and pointing that out is not *defending* Christie.
Romney: "But that didn't stop the Virginia-based bipartisan policy firm Purple Strategies from adding his name to a recent survey for Granite State voters,.."
Bi-partisan? "Purple Strategies?"
Uh huh.
BTW, I don't think that anyone AT ALL thinks it's okay to close roads in a political pissing contest.
And that's what rankles us. I mean, you seem like a nice, well-intentioned person, not at all so petty as to say that politics trumps the lives and well-being of others. And yet, the message more and more people hear from the GOP is that politics (and money) is all that matters and that they, really and truly, seem to be in it just for themselves. They're so afraid of labels like "socialism" that they seem to scoot right on over to an individualism so selfishly egotistic that just seems downright sociopathic a lot of the time.
Synova said...
The egregious imbalance of media coverage is what it is, and pointing that out is not *defending* Christie.
Drudge has featured this story more prominently than anyone, as have numerous other 'right' sites.
Well that's a great justification for impeding ambulance routes if ever I heard one!
I didn't intend it as a justification. Just didn't want you running wild with the "caused deaths of elderly" meme.
Synova -
Is this the symbol you were trying to make: ≠ ?
I do think you make a good point however.
Why wouldn’t he have known about lane closures? But I guess he said he didn’t know in the news conference, so there’s that.
And why wouldn’t he lie? He’s a New Jersey politician after all. Doesn’t he get cut any slack based on his upbringing?
...the message more and more people hear from the GOP is that politics (and money) is all that matters and that they, really and truly, seem to be in it just for themselves.
And that would be the message as massaged and delivered through the MSNBC et al. prism.
Well Lydia, that's a good point. I guess I was running a little wild with it. Still, Governor Soprano (and anyone like him) should understand that there are consequences to making the payola-patronage game the only game in town. This understanding of government as the only workable routine simply has to end.
And that would be the message as massaged and delivered through the MSNBC et al. prism.
I'm not sure what MSNBC has to apologize for, other than perhaps being as ideological/political as FOX but actually bothering to get their facts straight. In any event, the message is sound. The Citizens United ruling has implications that we can look at regarding the impact on democracy and money and politically aggrandizing power, and only one party has bothered to take that seriously, let alone do that.
Tell me about the sacrifices the GOP has asked of our nation's most powerful on behalf of the common good. The reason you won't, and can't, is no longer because they oppose that ideologically, but because they benefit from it directly. They have lost all concept of any separation between the common good and individual, er, enrichment.
Now, all that being said, at least we can say that the head of MSNBC is an American. FOX viewers are repatriating their favorite station's proceeds to an Australian.
What a historic downfall if Christie loses the chance to be president due to his acting like a prototypical NYC/ Northern NJ arrogant asshole.
Well A.J., I'm impressed that you actually identified this as the episode that did him in. For a minute, I was worried you might have thought it served him right for hugging Obama!
I know this sounds tricky, but I think there actually is a way that we can blame all this on Obama.
You see, if Christie didn't worry that his popularity was tied to bipartisan support of federal disaster funds post-Sandy (which included hugging Obama), he wouldn't have been so concerned with securing the support of Democratic mayors for his 2nd gubernatorial run.
Feel good, guys! There is a way that we can blame Obama for this after all!
The country needs a true conservative Congress and president to recover from three straight [24 years] of mediocre presidents.
Really? See, this gets us to the heart of the Republican "messaging" vs. ideology debate.
What has conservatism done for America and what will it do for America from now on?
Ritmo, I'm drunk.
But even in such a state, your remonstrations about bridge closings fail in comparison to Benghazi, IRS manipulations, Justice Department malfeasance, and the overall state of this country.
Get serious, then I'll get serious about listening to you.
Speaking of fat comics...
I am confused again. Seems to occur regularly lately. Just WHO decided Christie is/would be/etc., a strong 2016 candidate?
I mean, I'm paying zero attention to potential 2016 candidates...it fucking 3 years out for Christ's sake. I just pay attention to who is doing what to whom and who thinks it is oh so special.
At the moment, my candidate for 2016 is whoever I point to blindfolded in a metropolitan phone book. One thing I will pay attention to: just who is consistent in their actions and who is not.
Get serious, then I'll get serious about listening to you.
Prefaced by someone who admits his own drunkenness, this is an impossibly comical request.
But hypothetically speaking, you pretend the both of us can speak for political sentiment comparing such things as those you list.
I think it's easier. The public can and likely will (as they did in 2012) reward someone who seems to care more about them than he or she does about himself/herself.
And even once you ignore that, and chalk it up to stupid little events, the GOP just doesn't get that America doesn't care about 4 dead in a foreign embassy attack to the extent that you blow it up. The IRS story lost most of its teeth when revealed that a conservative underling took it upon himself to investigate groups that were, after all, anti-taxation anyway. And all that remains is if the public get around to accepting that the Tea Party's impediment to any economic initiatives to improve the economy are to be blamed, of course, on the Tea Party itself, and not on Obama. I think there's at least a decent chance of that. As Clinton said, asking the people to reward the people who got us into this mess so that they can turn around and have unlimited power to do the same things again is too nonsensical even for them to stomach.
I don't expect you to understand even the simplest parts of all this in your state. But the last one is the most important. I find it a similarly simple point, but perhaps others, perhaps even you, might find it too complex.
We'll see, man. We'll see.
Just WHO decided Christie is/would be/etc., a strong 2016 candidate?
I guess after all it was the media.
I mean, every other time I scan a newspaper I see some story on the path Republicans might be able to take to clawing their way back to relevancy, and of course, power.
And then I remind myself, why should I care?
Why does anyone care? Why would they?
It's up to the political parties to find ways of being relevant to their citizens. And if they can't, fuck 'em.
I don't believe in political welfare.
XRay said...
Ritmo, I'm drunk.
It's good to be drunk. It is a very long time since I was drunk.
"... this is an impossibly comical request."
Why is that? Do you think my admitted drunkenness negates my comment. Why?
"... you pretend the both of us can speak for political sentiment..."
I wasn't speaking for anyone other than myself.
You are the one who...
"The public can and likely will (as they did in 2012) reward someone who seems to care more about them than he or she does about himself/herself."
I ventured no such pronouncements.
Your next long paragraph is much whistling in the wind, noise to satisfy yourself that you are making a difference
"... simple point... you say. I'd say you've not much experience in life.
I missed a period, drat these drunken fingers.
Christie could not deny knowing about the lane closures; it was all over the TV news, etc. The it Christie referred to has to be that it was a stunt arranged from his entourage.
And that is why the "weaselly" language of this "bombshell" allegation today.
"... you pretend the both of us can speak for political sentiment..."
I wasn't speaking for anyone other than myself.
No matter. Neither can do so this confidently.
You are the one who...
"The public can and likely will (as they did in 2012) reward someone who seems to care more about them than he or she does about himself/herself."
I ventured no such pronouncements.
Pronouncements about a well-evidenced past event are easier than about the future. The fall-out of Willard's 47% comment are pretty well-documented. If conservatives really feel that this isn't a disastrous sentiment to reveal to the American voting public, then all I can say is that they're incredibly out of touch - probably too far out of touch to govern.
Willard himself knew how disastrous a revelation it was; I've never seen (and probably never again will see) him more nervous than when he had to make a public, backtracking statement about what an apologetic, entitled, undemocratic asshole he was for saying what he was caught saying. He knew any chance of winning was hopelessly thrown by that.
Your next long paragraph is much whistling in the wind, noise to satisfy yourself that you are making a difference
And so is your short sentence above.
"... simple point... you say. I'd say you've not much experience in life.
You can say whatever you want. Of course you can - you're drunk. But for the simple-minded, talking point-obsessed, it of course can be summed up more simply. Thusly:
Republicans only care about themselves. They're just in it for themselves.
That message resonates.
That message is eminently true.
That's the message that explains why a party that fucked everything up so badly would so desperately want a chance to regain so much power, reimplement the same failed policies, and prevent anyone else from trying different things that are proven to work better.
Republican entitlement. We know what it's about. Sorry you make me explain it to you so curtly.
Chris Christie is a media creation.
At least his viability as the Republican Candidate was pimped by the mainstream media as the latest Republican who would be easy to demonize and destroy once he got the nomination.
You are wrong Ritmo. Most conservative Republicans hate Christie. We are laughing our ass off. The media couldn't hold back so they destroyed him prematurely.
Call it premature immolation.
He was never going to be the nominee. Romney will never be the nominee. Get real.
Curt, eh. You would think so.
But, Ritmo, you win.
I can't be bothered to respond to such obtuseness in manner of thought.
It is, or will soon become, your world. Enjoy.
"Evidence exists." Passive tense, tautological. This passes as an accusation?
At least dust storms may exist.
It is the Dems who constantly pit one group of Americans against another while accusing Repubs of being racists etc.
In fact, that is the only thing Obama has done well for five years except for how well his policies have fucked up the country.
Yeah. The in it for themselves part was curt.
Guys like me should stop finding explanations for it and just say it. Leaves the accused speechless.
Of course, A.J. Progressives and liberals have torn the country apart. I won't mess you up on your own talking points!
But again, the question is what has conservatism done for America. What do you propose that it will do?
@XRay: Ritmo's whole entire problem (in a nutshell) may be that he never gets drunk.
" And yet, the message more and more people hear from the GOP is that politics (and money) is all that matters and that they, really and truly, seem to be in it just for themselves. "
Do you believe your own BS, Ritmo?
Change that first "from" to an "about" and you'll approach reality.
Change that first "from" to an "about" and you'll approach reality.
In other words, a simple grammatical case change.
That must embarrass...
...especially R & B.
It's the B.S. He shot himself down. So it goes, and so has he.
I'm referring to Chris Christie here. He had so much talent and competence to offer. He torched it, and for what?
Stupid bubble and idiotic tribe.
Been out for cocktails tonight. You're arguing about a political contest more than two years away.
I knew one of us was drunk.
So unoriginal. So mainstream today. So everywhere. So nauseating.
The "it isn't the crimes, it is the cover-up" thing only applies if the politician really didn't know what was going on. Nixon really didn't have anything to do with the Watergate break-ins, for example.
If Christie really did order the bridge closure, denial denial denial is the way to go, politically.
Either way, I like watching him squirm. :)
Michael Haz: Do you really want me to comment even less than I do or even have for the past couple-so years?
You call it, and I will hold my tongue here.
Christ, at the end of the day we will all die, as have all of our previous generations and as will our children and their descendants. What's up with the love of seeing squirming?
I say that's a waste,
Metaphor alert @1:30
Good one Chip- If Christie goes down for this dopey move, I can see him sitting on a bar stool for the rest of his life getting that purplish skin tone old drunks get on their face!
Which is worse?
Politically motivated traffic snarl -or- FOUR dead Americans including an ambassador, and a burnt to the ground American embassy all while the president parties for donations in Las Vegas and Hillary is AWOL.
?
The media's answer: Traffic snarl.
Michael Haz: Do you really want me to comment even less than I do or even have for the past couple-so years?
You call it, and I will hold my tongue here.
What on earth are you talking about?
Re: Evidence exists. Evidence does not exist until it is seen, and thus far no one has seen it. Someone claims that it exists, but it has not been seen. And the NYT, of course, is willing to write and publish an article about a Republican based solely on the rumor of evidence. Journalism at its finest.
@chick 12:28... you may be on to something.
Walker/Jeb 2016
We have to be careful Michael Haz.
Rcommal is very close to Governor Christie. She is always ready to resign if you criticize him.
Scott Walker/Nikki Haley 2016
Which is worse? Politically motivated traffic snarl -or- FOUR dead Americans including an ambassador, and a burnt to the ground American embassy
Morally? The latter, although neither would make a top 100 list of "political misdeeds of the last 20 years".
But politically? The former. Voters don't care about which is "worse". They care about which is more likely to affect them. They care about the problem they can relate to. They can't relate to getting killed in Libya because the average American would rather pass a kidney stone than work in a third-world shithole.
They CAN relate to crooked politicians fucking them over. Oh boy howdy can they related to that.
Bit of advice: enough already. If voters were ever going to care about Benghazi they would by now. Focus on ObamaCare and the lousy economy, both of which are doing a lot more harm to Americans than Benghazi did anyway.
"We have to be careful Michael Haz.
Rcommal is very close to Governor Christie. She is always ready to resign if you criticize him. "
All three of those sentences are false, and Trooper likes it that way. It's always easier, not to mention better, to twist things and people.
Meanwhile, to be all trivia about things, am I the only one to have noticed that the latest gal to have resigned in connection with the NJ scandal announced that through her lawyer who at least as of last summer reoresented Teresa Guidice? This is the sort of thing I should think some would love to eat up with a spoon. Does that mean I gain cred for offering it? God, I hope not.
It's all true. Deny it all you want but facts are facts girlie.
Trying to defend Christie by saying the lawyer of the person he fired also represents a Real Housewife is pretty weak tea.
You better have a bunch of better excuses ready.
If you think that's defending boyo you have an interesting definition of defense
--signed, girlie
yo
Post a Comment