Gov. Chris Christie was with the official who arranged the closure of local lanes leading to the George Washington Bridge on Sept. 11, 2013 — the third day of the closures, and well after they had triggered outrage from local officials beset by heavy traffic.
It isn’t known what, if anything, Mr. Christie discussed with David Wildstein that day, when the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey official was among the delegation of Mr. Christie’s representatives who welcomed him to the site of the World Trade Center for the commemoration of the 12th anniversary of the terrorist attacks there.
Mr. Christie’s office didn’t respond to questions about what he and Mr. Wildstein discussed. Mr. Wildstein did not respond to a request for comment.
So what's the big deal about that? Well, it means Christie lied brazenly at his press conference last Thursday.
Also present with Mr. Christie that day were Bill Baroni, the authority’s deputy executive director, who was helping Mr. Wildstein manage the fallout from the closures among local officials, subpoenaed documents show. Also there was David Samson, the Port Authority chairman and close Christie ally, who has said he didn’t learn of the lane closures and traffic in Fort Lee, N.J., until an email from a New York port official ordered the lane closures reversed. Messrs. Samson and Baroni didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Mr. Christie addressed Mr. Wildstein in a news conference last week, saying he had not encountered him “in a long time.”
Ooooooops. In other words, Christie lied flat out when he said he wasn't aware of the lane closures, because he met with the guy who made the lane closures, about the lane closures, during the lane closures. He then lied about meeting with Wildstein.
He's in a lot of trouble here, folks. And this won't be pretty.
Posts
2 comments:
I don't follow this logic. Iran didn't attack us on 9/11. So why is it necessary for Booker to stand up against Iran for the sake of his credibility? What's more, Booker would have a lot more credibility if he would jettison his New Democrat "praise be to Wall Street" thinking and become an economic populist. But then, I've never liked Booker and I think the New Democratic movement has managed to destroy both the Democratic and Republican parties, at least when it comes to economic issues. We now have a conservative party and a reactionary party. When a "liberal" like Booker is as conservative as he is on economic policy, we shouldn't be surprised when the "conservative" party just goes crazy. If he can't even be expected to be a "team player" in the modern Democratic Party, what is he representing a blue state for? (That's a rhetorical question; NJ just voted in Chris Christie. I clearly don't understand what's going on in NJ.)
But I think you are clearly off base saying that we on the far left (at least as defined in this country) were "disappointed in Obama from day one." That's just not true. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for a long time and hoped that he really was playing 11-dimensional chess. But now we know: he was just being naive. But I gave Obama lots of chances. It wasn't until 2011 when he completely abandoned the economy for the sake of the "scary" budget deficit that I decided he was hopeless. My opinion of him has risen slightly since then. Politics may be the art of the possible, but the Democratic Party has defined the possible so far to the right that it hardly makes sense to vote for them anymore. But I am still an outspoken and even proud Democrat. I just expect better.
So you've only been disappointed in him for the last three years, because he's "naive". Okay then
Post a Comment