Christie was in on and part of the plan. Then the plan became to hot to handle. [View all]

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Tue Jan 14, 2014, 06:18 PM - Edit history (16)

As GWBgate sinks in the most perplexing data point is that early on, when th scandal appeared managable, Christie went on the offensive, telling reporters (around Decemeber 9th) that he thinks that Fort Lee should have fewer lanes, and that he was angry that Fort Lee had multiple lanes and maybe something ought to be done about it.

Christie also defended Baroni's charge that Fort Lee perhaps had too many bridge lanes, telling reporters early this month, "We should look at this policy because I don’t know why one town gets three lanes. One lane maybe; three lanes?”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/10/chris-christie-bridge_n_4415953.html

Odd for someone who knows nothin' about nothin'

(Like the wag who once said he and Doris Day went back so far he had known her before she was a virgin, we did get to see Chris Christie before he knew nothing.)

I read Christie's bizarre "maybe they should have fewer lanes" thing as a threat. He was (IMO) doing his active and public part in the GWB extortion racket.

While it was being demonstrated to someone that the government could make Fort Lee unlivable and undevelopable simply by limiting GWB access, Christie signaled the threat to make permanent lane reductions in the future.

1) Here is the effect of having one lane...
2) and we can do this permanently if we want. "We should look at this policy because I don’t know why one town gets three lanes. One lane maybe; three lanes?”


That's not revenge, it is pressure. SHOW what you can do and Threaten a willingness to do it worse the next time.

And the threat was (in practical effect, leaving aside speciffic target/intention) a threat to render a billion dollar project worth very much less. Being located right next to the GWB is very valuable (being mere minutes from Manhattan), but not worth nearly as much if you cannot easily get to and from New York.

Looked at that way, Christie's odd comments were not ass-covering, but rather part of the plan itself. The continuation of the plan. Phase two. To someone dependent on those lanes, Christie saying he wanted to reduce lanes as official lane policy was scarier than the actual closure. More threatening to someone's interests.

We don't know the target of the pressure yet, but this was probably a shake-down. A thing done seeking to influence a subsequent action.

The mistake seems (to me) to have been to not do it quick. They should have shut down the lanes for one or two days then restored them, before the New York side of the port authority got involved.

One day traffic study. We wanted to "study" (meaning to "demonstrate&quot the effect of closing these lanes. The study is over. Nothing to see here. (Meaning, the point has been demonstrated to whoever needed to be reminded what happens if these lanes are closed.)

It may be that the urge to rat-fuck the mayor, as a bonus, caused people to keep the show going too long, to the point where it attracted too much scrutiny.


When the time line of negotiations/planning/actions on the "billion dollar development" project is merged with this bridge fiasco we might get a better idea of who this pressure was being brought to bear on.

(And who was supposed to pay what or do what to protect the Fort Lee access lanes going forward.)


This feels, to me, like old-fashioned mafia-style corruption. Somehow the trash stops being collected in a certain street... permits stop being issued for a certain development... all the workers on one building project call in sick (which is fine if done for higher pay, but was typically done for some Jimmy Hoffa type or political figure to get an envelope of cash)...

Was somebody not getting their "taste" of whatever was going in in Fort Lee development? Was the "wrong" bid on something selected?

IMO.