HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » MUST READ: The Quashing O...

Tue Jan 14, 2014, 10:35 PM

 

MUST READ: The Quashing Of A Case Against A Christie Ally - NYT

The Quashing of a Case Against a Christie Ally
By MICHAEL POWELL - NYT
Published: October 10, 2013


Bennett A. Barlyn was dismissed as a Hunterdon County prosecutor after claiming that the state attorney general killed an indictment to protect prominent supporters of Gov. Chris Christie.

<snip>

FLEMINGTON, N.J. — Prosecutors sent tremors through rural Hunterdon County when they announced a sweeping indictment of the local Republican sheriff and her two deputies in 2010.

The 43-count grand jury indictment read like a primer in small-town abuse of power. It accused Sheriff Deborah Trout of hiring deputies without conducting proper background checks, and making employees sign loyalty oaths. Her deputies, the indictment charged, threatened one of their critics and manufactured fake police badges for a prominent donor to Gov. Chris Christie.

When the charges became public, the indicted undersheriff, Michael Russo, shrugged it off. Governor Christie, he assured an aide, would “have this whole thing thrown out,” according to The Hunterdon County Democrat. That sounded like bluster. Then the state killed the case.


On the day the indictment was unsealed, the state attorney general, a Christie appointee, took over the Hunterdon prosecutor’s office. Within a few months, three of its most respected veterans lost their jobs there, including the one who led the case.

Not long after, a deputy attorney general walked into a local courtroom and handed in papers that, with little explanation, declared that the indictments were littered with “legal and factual deficiencies.”

A judge dismissed the indictments. Soon after, officials took the unusual step of shipping all evidence to the capital, Trenton.

The killing of an indictment is a rare event...

<snip>

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/11/nyregion/43-count-indictment-of-a-christie-ally-quashed.html


24 replies, 3513 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply MUST READ: The Quashing Of A Case Against A Christie Ally - NYT (Original post)
WillyT Jan 2014 OP
sabrina 1 Jan 2014 #1
arely staircase Jan 2014 #3
ReRe Jan 2014 #4
elzenmahn Jan 2014 #8
Dustlawyer Jan 2014 #6
sabrina 1 Jan 2014 #18
A Simple Game Jan 2014 #14
sabrina 1 Jan 2014 #19
heaven05 Jan 2014 #21
DURHAM D Jan 2014 #2
okaawhatever Jan 2014 #5
imthevicar Jan 2014 #7
elzenmahn Jan 2014 #9
NJCher Jan 2014 #11
Egnever Jan 2014 #10
NJCher Jan 2014 #12
George II Jan 2014 #23
NJCher Jan 2014 #13
bettyellen Jan 2014 #15
proverbialwisdom Jan 2014 #16
polichick Jan 2014 #17
louis-t Jan 2014 #20
George II Jan 2014 #22
Gore1FL Jan 2014 #24

Response to WillyT (Original post)

Tue Jan 14, 2014, 10:52 PM

1. The skeletons are marching out of the closet. Too bad they were ignored when

a Blue State was holding a Gubernatorial election and Dems were falling all over themselves to support the Republican whose bullying ways were far from unknown.

Don't we have any kind of 'opposition research' teams in the Dem Party? Each time a Dem is targeted by the extreme right, Dems cave and quickly distance themselves from the Dem under attack. The targeted Dems are left to fend for themselves against a well-funded machine whose main goal is to destroy the Democratic Party (see Abramoff and Delay on the shutting out of Dems completely).

Voices were raised during that NJ campaign against the 'image' of Christie as a 'moderate' who demonstrated 'bi-partisan' tendencies. But they went unheard.

Why did Christie tout his 'bi-partisan' tendencies? Easy question if you are not so naive as to believe that ANYONE with Christie's ideology could possibly be viewed as a 'moderat'. HE WAS IN A BLUE STATE. See Giuliani when he needed bi-partisan support in a Blue City. By the end of his last term his approval ratings were in the low 20s after voters got to see him in action. He was 'saved', for a while, by 9/11 but the truth is no Republican should ever be viewed as 'moderate' especially when they have aspirations for the Republican nomination for the WH.

Shame on the Dems who supported him. Shame on those who did it out of 'fear of retribution' because if that was really the case, they KNEW they were endorsing a Right Wing Bully and betraying their own Democratic candidate. The word 'caving' comes to mind.

We have been fighting a losing battle, Dem voters I mean. Our party is either complicit or too scared to fight for us. Either way, we are the losers. Now the question is, what should we do about it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 14, 2014, 11:17 PM

3. the skeletons are coming out of the closet like circus clows that keep popping out the little car nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 15, 2014, 12:11 AM

4. Maybe Democrats have as many skeletons....

.... in their closets as the Republicans. Other than total wimpness, that is the only reason I can think of. I swear, I have no idea what we can do about it. Give them some Geritol, I guess, to make 'em stout. It has been my main complaint of politics all my life: Why can't Democrats be Democrats? Why do they envy the right so much?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 15, 2014, 02:10 AM

8. They MOST CERTAINLY DO have skeletons...

...start with alleged Democratic "boss" George Norcross III.

Then continue with the history of corruption in New Jersey over the decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 15, 2014, 12:48 AM

6. Democrats didn't "cave", they were bought off with pork for their Districts.

It all comes back to the corrupt way we elect our politicians! I agree that these Dems should be dead to us!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 15, 2014, 12:50 PM

18. Well that is the other option. Either they are total wimps or they are

tools for big money. Either way they are not representing the Democratic voters who elected them and I agree, they all need to go. But we have no say in our own electoral system anymore, other than to not vote for them or contribute time and money to their phony campaigns.

I was going to say that if we 'wanted a Republican we would vote for one' except we have now reached the point where we are ENCOURAGED to do so, as in Florida and NJ. So, I'm at a loss. I have no solutions right now. I hope others are working on it who are better are resolving huge issues like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 15, 2014, 10:37 AM

14. Now the question is, what should we do about it?

Why keep voting for the candidate with the D after their name of course. They know that 90% of registered Democrats will vote for the Democrat. It doesn't seem to matter what they do as long as they say what the voter wants to hear. What possible reason could we have to disappoint any of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 15, 2014, 12:55 PM

19. At the moment, that does seem to be the only option we are presented with.

And you know we will hear the same, tired old mantra 'well, what are you going to do, let the Republican win'? My answer to that will be 'we didn't LET Christie win, we wanted the Dem to win. But our party wanted him to win and actually endorsed him in HUGE numbers, encouraging Dem voters to vote against their OWN candidate.

If the party is so supportive of Republicans and still touting the old 'bi-partisanship' garbage and they ARE then I dare anyone to preach to us that WE need to vote for THEIR choice of 'democrat' who are usually Third Way/DLCers. I don't think that is going to work anymore.

I saw a poll yesterday showing that now only approximately 33% of Americans identify with the Dem Party while less than that, approx. 29% identify as Republicans. The 'two party' system is falling apart it appears. Those huge numbers in the middle are who will change things imo. And I think they will grow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 15, 2014, 01:32 PM

21. first line?

 

gold. All the rest, factual evidence of political cowardice in the face of rethug bullying. Been going on locally and nationally for far too long. Since 2000 for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Tue Jan 14, 2014, 10:55 PM

2. He was on The Last Word tonight.

look for the video later

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Wed Jan 15, 2014, 12:21 AM

5. I'm glad to see this getting coverage by the New York Times. So much of the Christie stuff is only

being covered by independents and MSNBC. CNN and others are pretty much just paying lip service but not going into detail. Hopefully this story will gain traction as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Wed Jan 15, 2014, 01:00 AM

7. Now that this Scandal has legs,

 

It has become apparent that the GOP owners do not want a POTUS named Chris Christie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imthevicar (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 15, 2014, 02:13 AM

9. Don't be so sure of that yet...

...Christie has the backing of the banks and hedge funds. And it's still 2 1/2 years to the next election, and we know what the overall attention span and short-term memory capabilities are of the American people.

2 1/2 years is plenty of time for Chrispy Christie to burnish his image and mount a serious run. Don't take him lightly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elzenmahn (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 15, 2014, 02:36 AM

11. I agree the banks are formidible

but a few commentators on the political shows on MSNBC tonight said they thought Christie would never have made it through the looney republican hoops to be the nominee. They said his potential candidacy was a moot point because most of the party hates him.

Christie is an effing nut case but not enough of a nut case for them.


Cher

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to imthevicar (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 15, 2014, 02:31 AM

10. Thinking the same thing.

 

but also have to agree with the poster above me. Two years is a long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egnever (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 15, 2014, 02:38 AM

12. it will take 2 years

to get through all the investigatory committees and hearings!

I hardly think he'll be able to reform his image while being beat up in committees.


Cher

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egnever (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 15, 2014, 05:24 PM

23. Two years may be a long time, but it's a lot shorter if Christie winds up resigning...

This reminds me of the Rowland scandal. Everyone (on the R line) said it was nothing, including Rowland himself.

His opponent in his last election said, I believe on election night, that Rowland would not only not finish his term in office, but wouldn't finish it "at large", meaning crimes were committed. A few months later? Resignation, prosecution, plea, and jail time.

Don't forget what Buono said over the weekend - Christie won't serve out his full term, and I know she wasn't implying that he'd be elected President.

As a public servant, one can't do this type of thing for years and years and not get caught eventually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Wed Jan 15, 2014, 02:45 AM

13. you know what hurts about this

whole situation? It's that the are people out there who legitimately want to do their jobs and they are thwarted by the evil that comes from people like Christie.

Barlyn seems like a genuinely decent kind of guy, as do his coworkers who were also fired from their jobs.

Another one is the mayor of Jersey City, Fulop. It sounded like he was excited about his new responsibilities and was looking forward to those 10 meetings. And then they just dropped him. It must have been devastating.

We can see how frustrated the mayor of Ft. Lee was. He, too, seems like a pretty decent guy who wanted to get this economic development thing done.

Still another is the mayor of Hoboken. That one might be the worst--where she asked for 110 million in Sandy funds and got 300,000. I just wanted to cry when I heard that. I feel so bad for the citizens of Hoboken.

The people of NJ are truly suffering with such corrupt leadership at the top.

Christie has to go.


Cher

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NJCher (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 15, 2014, 10:49 AM

15. you know what is sad about Hoboken, the previous Mayor would have probably gotten much more money...

 

the one that served as mayor just 30 days before being arrested for accepting bribes. But god knows he wouldn't have spent it how he was supposed to. But getting that money would have seemed like an accomplishment. Ugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Wed Jan 15, 2014, 12:20 PM

16. O'Donnell covered this on last night's program.

The tv froze (Optimum cable) when the discussion began, so I didn't actually have the benefit of hearing the discussion. Thanks for the link. "...manufactured fake police badges for a prominent donor to Gov. Chris Christie." LE IMPOSTERS? WHY?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Wed Jan 15, 2014, 12:23 PM

17. And the story continues...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Wed Jan 15, 2014, 01:29 PM

20. For a second, I thought the case was against

Kirstie Alley.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Wed Jan 15, 2014, 05:09 PM

22. As for Russo, this gives new meaning to the expression "I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher"!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Wed Jan 15, 2014, 11:43 PM

24. I know it's idiotic,

but every time I see this thread, I read it as "Kirstie Alley."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread