Chris Christie CHANGES HIS STORY On Those 'Dedicated Lanes'

[Segami]

"The fact that one town has three lanes dedicated to it, that kind of gets me sauced." - Christie on Dec. 2, before the Bridget Kelly e-mails broke

In a column in February, I likened our governor's approach to Bridgegate to the Jimmy Buffett song, "That's My Story and I'm Sticking to It." Not so fast. It turns out Chris Christie's views have changed on just when he first learned that there are three access lanes to the George Washington Bridge "dedicated" to Fort Lee. First check out what he said in that infamous "I worked the cones" press conference on Dec. 2:

“I didn’t even know Fort Lee had three dedicated lanes until all this stuff happened, and I think we should review that entire policy. Because I don’t know why Fort Lee needs three dedicated lanes to tell you the truth and I never knew it until this whole happening came about. My urging to the Port Authority would be to review that whole policy. I sat in that traffic, before I was governor, at the George Washington Bridge. And the fact that one town has three lanes dedicated to it? That kind of gets me sauced."

“But I do believe and I told Chairman Samson this, that we should look at this. One lane maybe. Three lanes? I don’t quite get it. I read something in one of the stories that this was host community relations. I mean what’s gonna happen if they get a little bit upset? Are they gonna move the bridge?”

Note the punitive tone toward Fort Lee and the suggestion that its residents are getting some sort of special privilege. Those lanes represent 25 percent of the total access lanes but they carry 26 percent of the traffic. Most of it consists of Jersey drivers from the towns along the Hudson River seeking the shortest route to the bridge. Why would the governor of New Jersey be "sauced" that these Jersey drivers had access to the bridge equivalent to the access granted to the out-of-state drivers on the Interstate highway? I'll take a guess. At this point, Christie was still trying to sell the cover story put forth by his Port Authority appointees David Wildstein and Bill Baroni. That was the contention that this was a legitimate traffic study.



That story fell apart a week later when Port Authority Executive Director Pat Foye testified under oath before a legislative committee that the study was faked. Shortly thereafter Baroni and Wildstein resigned. And then on Jan. 8, the infamous "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee" e-mails surfaced and the whole thing was blown wide open. But consider the fact that as of Dec. 2 Christie claimed to be unaware there were three lanes "dedicated" to Fort Lee. Now consider what Christie said during a Feb. 3 appearance with Eric Scott on NJ-101.5 (go to the 7:20 mark of segment three here.) In answer to a question from a listener, he said "these were three toll booths that are dedicated just to Fort Lee." Does that mean the people of Fort Lee got some special privilege? Anyone who ever drove through that town would have to realize that's not true. Because of those three lanes, Fort Lee residents get stuck with a traffic jam every rush hour as out-of-towners seek short cuts to the bridge. But how could the governor have known that? After all, he told us on Dec. 2 that he didn't know those three lanes existed. All he knew was what he saw while encountering traffic jams when he drove along the main access roads to the bridge.




cont'

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/03/chris_christie_bridgegate_bridget_kelly.html

[Segami]

1. "..So what could it possibly mean when he added, "I didn’t know they were committed to Fort Lee.."?

"....What changed in the interim? Back before he was governor, there were three lanes open to all traffic from Fort Lee, as he witnessed. Now there are the same three lanes open to all traffic from Fort Lee.

Yet back then he didn't realize they were dedicated to Fort Lee. But now he does.

I fear the governor's cover story is no longer providing much cover...."

[Laxman]

2. No, You've Got It All Wrong....

you're trying to find consistency and credibility.It's not fair to track what's been said before. See, you've got the benefit of hindsight. You know what you know today. He didn't know what he didn't know then. Now you're obviously trying to trick the governor by making a comparison to what he said when he didn't know anything to what he says now when knows he didn't know anything! Plus, I believe the entire premise of your question is wrong. Therefore, the governor shouldn't have to answer it. If you just look at things that way, you'll see that this is all just a partisan witch hunt because of Christie's growing national profile.


Of course, the alternative is that he's a lying bastard who can't keep his stories straight. I'll go with option B. But then again, I just don't like the guy!

[Segami]

5. +1000 for "Option B" - "..He's a lying bastard who can't keep his stories straight.."

[cheyanne]

3. Have you seen the TPM article on another reason

for the lane closures?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/is-a-billion-dollar-development-project-at-the-heart-of-bridgegate

Basically, there is a development in Ft. Lee that depended on quick access to the bridge. It seems that the closures might have been a warning to the developers know that Christie could screw their plans and would.

Notice that the report by Christie's law firm did not mention any reason for the closure, except for revenge. To get to the bottom of this, the report should have looked at who had a motive to gain by the lane closures. The report was an attempt to point everyone away from looking for a real motive.

[Segami]

6. Yes. Thanks!

And welcome to DU!

[malaise]

4. Get the popcorn!

[Laxman]

7. Here Is An Interesting Editorial...

from the Star-Ledger. Apparently they aren't buying what Mr. Mastro is selling:

Christie's Bridgegate defense is hardly presidential

Gov. Chris Christie stood in front of news reporters for the first time in nearly three months Friday, and told them a story that was flatly unbelievable.

It wasn’t even his own story. It was pieced together for him by a team of lawyers, who did exactly what they were hired to do: present an entirely one-sided view of events, for the purpose of protecting their client. And it was paid for by us, the taxpayers of New Jersey — at a cost of 1 million bucks.

So forget the reasons Christie ostensibly summoned the media that day. It was obvious that Port Authority Chairman David Samson had to go, and that the agency is in need of reform.

What this was really about is the governor’s credibility. Christie is hoping this internal investigation, the results of which were released Thursday, will rebuild his reputation — that everyone will forget the details of Bridgegate, and trust him on this.

But there are so many holes in his story, it’s hard to know where to begin.

Read the rest here-its well worth it! : http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/03/christies_bridgegate_defense_isnt_very_presidential_editorial.html#incart_most-comments