The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on February 01, 2014, 12:27:09 am
-
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/01/chris_christie_responds_to_new_bridge_scandal_allegations.html (http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/01/chris_christie_responds_to_new_bridge_scandal_allegations.html)
By Brent Johnson/The Star-Ledger
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on January 31, 2014 at 5:53 PM, updated January 31, 2014 at 6:34 PM
TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie's office has released a statement responding to allegations made today that the Republican governor knew about the controversial lane closures at the George Washington Bridge when they happened last year.
The statement said the Republican governor stands by his position that he "first learned lanes were closed when it was reported by the press."
"Mr. Wildstein's lawyer confirms what the governor has said all along — he had absolutely no prior knowledge of the lane closures before they happened and whatever Mr. Wildstein's motivations were for closing them to begin with," the statement said.
"As the governor said in a Dec. 13 press conference, he only first learned lanes were closed when it was reported by the press and as he said in his Jan. 9 press conference, had no indication that this was anything other than a traffic study until he read otherwise the morning of Jan. 8. The governor denies Mr. Wildstein's lawyer's other assertions."
The attorney for former Port Authority official David Wildstein said in a letter today that Christie knew of the lane closures when they occurred last September.
"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" last month, attorney Alan Zegas said in the letter.
Zegas added that Wildstein "contests the accuracy of various statements that the governor made about him and he can prove the inaccuracy of some."
Wildstein, a longtime Christie ally who oversaw the closures, resigned from his Port Authority post last month.
Democrats have accused Christie's administration of closing the lanes as political retribution because Fort Lee's Democratic mayor refused to endorse the Republican governor for re-election.
On Jan. 8, emails surfaced showing Bridget Ann Kelly, Christie's deputy chief of staff, appeared to have advance knowledge of the closures. "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee," one email read.
The next day, Christie fired Kelly and repeatedly apologized for the matter at a news conference, but the governor said he had no advance knowledge of the closures himself.
He has said on multiple occasions that he did not learn of the closures until he read about them in the press.
-
Nixon lied until almost the end, and look how that worked out. I guess we wait and see what the truth is, if we ever do.
-
Interesting to see if the GOPe circles the wagons around him ..... :pondering:
-
Nixon lied until almost the end, and look how that worked out. I guess we wait and see what the truth is, if we ever do.
Nixon had a host of other problems as well.
-
Nixon had a host of other problems as well.
Landslide win in Nov. 1972, resigned in Aug. 1974. Big shift in his fortunes.
The fact was for him, he was never a popular and well liked man as a person.
-
Nixon lied until almost the end, and look how that worked out. I guess we wait and see what the truth is, if we ever do.
Obama makes Nixon look like a piker. What Nixon did not have was a Congress willing to go along with him no matter what he said or did. Big difference.
-
Landslide win in Nov. 1972, resigned in Aug. 1974. Big shift in his fortunes.
The fact was for him, he was never a popular and well liked man as a person.
And, I think, for good reason; from what I can tell he was a bit too paranoid, amongst other things. He also ended up displaying extremely poor judgment in choosing his closest advisors.
-
Obama makes Nixon look like a piker. What Nixon did not have was a Congress willing to go along with him no matter what he said or did. Big difference.
Nixon also did not have a mass media that was not only willing to go along with him, but was actively complicit in covering up his wrong-doing. If Nixon had had the mainstream media that Obama has, he would have finished out his term and retired with an unsullied reputation.
-
Nixon also did not have a mass media that was not only willing to go along with him, but was actively complicit in covering up his wrong-doing. If Nixon had had the mainstream media that Obama has, he would have finished out his term and retired with an unsullied reputation.
Nixon's dislike of the press was open, and when they got the reason, they murdered him with coverage.
Yet 6 years later a smarter politician Reagan made effective use of the press, never getting publicly "angry" like Nixon.
The press today would not treat another Reagan so kindly. But there hasn't been anybody since, to use the press, media, visuals like Reagan and his advisors/staff did.
-
Nixon also did not have a mass media that was not only willing to go along with him, but was actively complicit in covering up his wrong-doing. If Nixon had had the mainstream media that Obama has, he would have finished out his term and retired with an unsullied reputation.
It was one newspaper. The Washington Post.
And that effing rag has ridden that wave not only to the shore. They rode it all the way to where they rent the chairs and beach umbrellas.
Sure, the liberal media has protected Democrats a long time. But compared to the MSM today, they were pikers.
-
Am I the only one around here who gets a giggle over details? I mean, what are the odds a major bridge scandal is the result of someone named Bridget? What a coinkydink.
-
"What possible difference does this make now?"
-
Interesting to see if the GOPe circles the wagons around him ..... :pondering:
I think he's already got tire marks on his back from the bus the GOPe establishment has thrown him under (with the exception of RudyGiulliani).
-
I think he's already got tire marks on his back from the bus the GOPe establishment has thrown him under.
He as good as jumped under that bus himself back in 2012, with his ill-considered embrace of Obama just before the election. He's a very good political operator, but he occasionally shows flashes of extremely poor judgment, and the Obama affair and bridgegate are two examples.
-
He as good as jumped under that bus himself back in 2012, with his ill-considered embrace of Obama just before the election. He's a very good political operator, but he occasionally shows flashes of extremely poor judgment, and the Obama affair and bridgegate are two examples.
Of course....it couldn't just be that when he was the New Jersey shore tourist area completely destroyed and its residents homeless, he decided that in order to ensure FEMA wouldn't treat him like Oklahoma or Indiana and delay/deny federal assistance in a punitive fashion...he'd put on a pair of knee pads and 'take one for the team".
Personally, I think it's time for a GOP candidate to play hard ball with the opposition.
Traffic cones my arse....I would have blown up the bridge.
-
Of course....it couldn't just be that when he was the New Jersey shore tourist area completely destroyed and its residents homeless, he decided that in order to ensure FEMA wouldn't treat him like Oklahoma or Indiana and delay/deny federal assistance in a punitive fashion...he'd put on a pair of knee pads and 'take one for the team".
Personally, I think it's time for a GOP candidate to play hard ball with the opposition.
Traffic cones my arse....I would have blown up the bridge.
Did he make that clear - at least in private to the GOP leadership - and to the Romney campaign team? The facts suggest otherwise, which means that he most definitely isn't a team player. Had he given the GOP - and Romney - fair warning, they - and we - could have been prepared with an appropriate response, perhaps we could have led with a pre-embrace response that would have urged Christie to make peace with Obama, at least temporarily, for the sake of the devastated people in NJ, which would have gone a long way to innoculate Romney's campaign against the really negative consequences that ended up happening.
No. Christie jumped under that bus a long time ago. That ship has sailed. In fact, with some due, strategic, consideration, the democrats' existential need to trash Christie now may have done us a favor because it clears the field of these very potent landmines far enough from the next presidential election, that they won't even be old news by then. Just consider what would have happened if the Christie juggernaut had rolled into the middle of 2016 with Christie as the GOP nominee, only to have these landmines start exploding?
-
DC Christie not only embraced Obama, he made his prime convention speech all about himself and to make matters worse denied Romney fundraising from big money in NJ... He went out of his way to make sure Romney didn't win, while trying to play himself up... of course he wanted all the NJ Democrat Mayors support for his 're election, it was to make sure he won in a landslide so he could ride that horse into 2016...it was smoke and mirrors and his hubris has now blown up in his face.