New Documents Show Extensive N.J. Coverup - WaPo

[WillyT]

New documents show extensive N.J. coverup
BY PHILIP RUCKER - WaPo
January 10 at 5:49 pm

<snip>

New documents related to a traffic jam planned by a member of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's (R) staff show for the first time how furiously Christie’s lieutenants inside the Port Authority worked to orchestrate a coverup after traffic mayhem engulfed Fort Lee last year.

Inside the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Christie’s top appointees neglected furious complaints from Fort Lee’s police chief as well as from angry rush-hour commuters. One woman called asking why the agency was “playing God with people’s jobs.”

The Republican governor’s appointees instructed subordinates to stonewall reporters who were asking questions. They even ordered up an actual “traffic study” to chronicle the impact and examine whether closing the lanes permanently might improve traffic flow. The study’s conclusion: “TBD.”

The newly released e-mails do not appear to implicate Christie directly, but they shed new light on the lane closures that rocked the political world this week and threaten the likely Republican presidential candidate’s political future.

A cursory review of hundreds of pages of e-mails and internal documents released Friday afternoon show that:

<snip>

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/01/10/documents-raise-new-questions-in-christie-probe/

[GeorgeGist]

1. Christie must be a real wimp ...

if his subordinates can pull shit like this with impunity.

[Kablooie]

2. He will play the wimp so when he's called up to testify he can say he knows nothing.

He is protecting himself from criminal culpability.
He says he knows nothing and is shocked, shocked.
If no one can definitively prove otherwise in court he can't be charged with anything.

He's sacrificing his political cred for legal protection.

[sabrina 1]

4. He better hope no on involved who is now under investigation, gets immunity. Rats always

jump ship when they find themselves cornered. Anyone who could engage in that despicable, spiteful behavior, isn't going to worry too much about 'loyalty' to their boss when their own rear ends are on the line.

If he wasn't involved in the planning and execution of this travesty, then he is the stupidest man on earth to have been blinded, as he said, by those emails. Unless he meant he never wanted to see them so he could declare plausible deniability.

One thing is certain. His loyal staff did this on his behalf. It seems to me that they would have never done anything he might not approve of.

[Kablooie]

5. I'm sure he's uneasy but he seems to think this is his best defense.

He can't say he ordered the whole thing so he says he knows nothing to distance himself from the whole debacle.

I'll bet he was careful enough not to leave any direct evidence and instructed his staff not to use his name in emails.

He's probably working hard behind the scenes right now to counter any offer of immunity.
I don't know what he can do, (money? future GOP power position?) but I expect he's got minions working on deals right now.

[sabrina 1]

6. If he really did not know what his staff was up to, when he found out months ago

that questions were being raised about the closing of the lanes, you would think he would have learned who had ordered it and why without consulting with him. An innocent man would have been livid knowing how it would affect HIM aside from anything else. The normal thing to do under those circumstances was to fire those stupid enough to do something like that immediately.

But he did the opposite. He was angry about the investigation and complained about it obviously hoping his position and influence would help to do that, iow, cover it all up.

And he did not fire anyone. An innocent man would have ordered his own investigation and gone public right away in order to set the record straight.

Now he wants people to believe that until the emails were made public, he had no clue. It's just not believable.

And if really didn't know what decisions his staff was making then he is not fit to remain in the position he is in and certainly is not qualified for the presidency.

[Kablooie]

7. I am absolutely certain he was involved in the whole thing.

But so far there is no direct evidence of it.
All the indirect evidence says he was involved but that's not good enough to bring him to trial.

[sabrina 1]

9. I agree and I know there is not enough evidence to go to trial with.

Even if it should surface, through witnesses eg, I don't believe there will be any trial. We don't seem to charge Politicians with crimes in this country, just the lower echelons, like throwing crumbs to keep the 'little people' happy.

However if enough people believe he was involved he may end up having to step down.

[Kablooie]

10. We don't charge them unless it's a sex scandal. Then they are ruined for life.

[ChiciB1]

3. Rachel Had Lots Of Coverage On This Tonight.

Yes, it does seem that "more" is on the way.

[spanone]

8. k&r...