almost seems purposeful. Are they really so confident of their ultimate vindication that their are comfortable to continue with retaliation as ususal? As this article points out-what the hell were the lawyers in the room-especially the women-thinking when they took the report in this direction?
Whatever Mastro’s motivation for including Kelly’s personal life in his report, it drew nearly universal condemnation as anassault on a woman for no apparent or logical reason, other than to shred her reputation and send a not-so-veiled message that she’d receive more such treatment if she decided to break her silence and reveal whatever she knows about others in the administration and their roles -- if any --- in the lane closure episode.
It all seemed so stupidly unnecessary. Mastro had the goods on her: Her “time for some traffic troubles in Fort Lee,” message and the subsequent e-mail exchanges she had with Wildstein, electronically chortling over the havoc they’d created.
He and his team could easily have pinned the entire scheme on her and Wildstein without the amateur psychoanalysis.
It raises also questions about the judgment of other members of Mastro’s investigative team, particularly the women, who apparently didn’t object to the rhetorical destruction of Kelly.
Didn’t anyone in this roomful of high-powered lawyers utter “Whoa, this is trouble,” upon reading the portrayal of Kelly? Did no one foresee the potential adverse reaction to alleging that Kelly was victimized by her own hormones and couldn’t help herself from retaliating against someone?
Even in his appearance on a Sunday morning news/talk show, Mastro was defiantly unapologetic, defending his work with the snarky observation that some people “can’t handle the truth.”
So, for a million bucks or so, Christie got a guy who can quote Jack Nicholson.
http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/14/03/31/opinion-sexist-portrayal-of-bridget-kelly-puts-bridgegate-back-on-front-page/
= new reply since forum marked as read