|
prefect posted:It could be possible that Christie's gang is so used to punishing people who don't go along with whatever they want that it's become reflexive. Maybe they're so good at revenging that he only finds out about special or major incidents. This is an important point, I think. Even if he didn't know about this specific incident, there's no way he wasn't the driving force behind creating a culture in which something like it was carried out. Which in a way reflects worse on him.
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:49 |
|
|
The New Black posted:This is an important point, I think. Even if he didn't know about this specific incident, there's no way he wasn't the driving force behind creating a culture in which something like it was carried out. Which in a way reflects worse on him. The problem is that it allows room for deniability. Most people won't think on such an abstract level where it's a problem that this poo poo was even taken by his staff as acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
prefect posted:It could be possible that Christie's gang is so used to punishing people who don't go along with whatever they want that it's become reflexive. Maybe they're so good at revenging that he only finds out about special or major incidents.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:The problem is that it allows room for deniability. Most people won't think on such an abstract level where it's a problem that this poo poo was even taken by his staff as acceptable. A problem for who? Aggressively arguing that he himself is an astoundingly incompetent executive to the point that it put people's lives at risk sounds fine and dandy to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Like that stopped someone from being elected...
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:I would say there is maybe a 1% chance that Christie didn't okay this specifically (and that 1% chance might be generous... this would be like a "surprise birthday present" scenario or something where all Christie's people got on board without Christie knowing) but the notion that while news reports came out and the traffic study smokescreen caved and he was getting questions from the press about it and his own people were resigning/being fired he stayed blissfully ignorant about it is fantastical. I know D&D hate analogies, but in my mind's eye I've been thinking of Christie's Underlings like Doug from House of Cards. Christie tells them to handle an issue and they work autonomously and report in with results after the fact. Christie knows they are up to no good even if he doesn't know the specifics of how they are up to no good. In this case, I plausibly see Christie telling Bridget Kelley to apply pressure to Ft. Lee, and a few days later she told him to do a flyover of the bridge to see the results.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:A problem for who? Aggressively arguing that he himself is an astoundingly incompetent executive to the point that it put people's lives at risk sounds fine and dandy to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
DeathSandwich posted:I know D&D hate analogies, but in my mind's eye I've been thinking of Christie's Underlings like Doug from House of Cards. Christie tells them to handle an issue and they work autonomously and report in with results after the fact. Christie knows they are up to no good even if he doesn't know the specifics of how they are up to no good. In this case, I plausibly see Christie telling Bridget Kelley to apply pressure to Ft. Lee, and a few days later she told him to do a flyover of the bridge to see the results. I think it was brought up earlier in the thread, but Thomas Becket was whacked because a king was annoyed by him, and some of the king's buddies figured that was issuing the kill order.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Radish posted:Like that stopped someone from being elected... That's not wrong...but most of them have the luxury of pretending it's not true. Christie desperately needs you to believe it's true. That's why I'm counting him out of 2016 now. It's easy to muddy the waters when you can deny something that stupid, it's gonna be something else when you're in the GOP deathmatch primaries and you can't say anything while Rand Paul wonders aloud why anyone wants an Obama hugging Mr. Magoo watching over the NSA. And that's the best case scenario right now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Now that I think about it why even put that much effort into it, just ask everyone whether you want the guy who didn't know what his own chiefs of staff were doing (and apparently didn't care) watching over the FEMA deathcamp state that OBAMA has set up for the past 8 years. Why don't you just re-elect Obama? The end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Yeah I'm crossing really crossing my fingers that's true since I fear a President Christie more than any of the others in their line up of clowns.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
I just don't see it anymore, and I'm beginning to doubt he does either. Every time he's popped up since Kelly's email came to light he's sounded like someone fighting to avoid jail time, not someone fighting for a clean enough break to flush this down the memory hole like he was before the email.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:I just don't see it anymore, and I'm beginning to doubt he does either. Every time he's popped up since Kelly's email came to light he's sounded like someone fighting to avoid jail time, not someone fighting for a clean enough break to flush this down the memory hole like he was before the email.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:He can't really put it behind him unless an explanation comes out that doesn't involve him, which seems unlikely unless Kelly or Stepien is going to go full on Oliver North. I mean, people can and will just forget things but it's not like it won't come up again if he tries to move forward. I just don't think Christie can offer his staffers anything to make them go down the Ollie North route. His underlings are looking at federal prison time and I guarantee that as soon as prosecutors have anything bulletproof on a Christie staffer they will flip so fast your head will spin. I think it's already starting to happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
DeathSandwich posted:I just don't think Christie can offer his staffers anything to make them go down the Ollie North route. His underlings are looking at federal prison time and I guarantee that as soon as prosecutors have anything bulletproof on a Christie staffer they will flip so fast your head will spin. I think it's already starting to happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
This is what I have been saying all along. None of those staffers would do this on their own without Christie's approval. They have to reason to otherwise. Plus remember that this isn't an isolated incident and Christie has done this before on smaller levels to political enemies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
DeathSandwich posted:I know D&D hate analogies, but in my mind's eye I've been thinking of Christie's Underlings like Doug from House of Cards. Christie tells them to handle an issue and they work autonomously and report in with results after the fact. Christie knows they are up to no good even if he doesn't know the specifics of how they are up to no good. In this case, I plausibly see Christie telling Bridget Kelley to apply pressure to Ft. Lee, and a few days later she told him to do a flyover of the bridge to see the results. That's the point Intel&Sebastian was making - it's just as bad if not worse ethically, to have this sort of thing implicitly greenlit by Christie. Something that blatant and huge isn't just a case of overexuberance and unforseen consequences, having the busiest bridge on the planet is something you brag about, it's managed by the port authority who you partially chose, and your direct appointments are up to their eyeballs in it. It isn't like this kind of thing wasn't an oops when applying the screws to someone, and the level of harm done is easily foreseeable. It's less that they thought they could get away with calling it a traffic study and more that they thought this was a way to help their boss - regardless of what he asked and how he asked it. I think he probably had knowledge and involvement but I don't think that's going to come out unless someone starts singing. He clearly isn't going to admit it and his behavior throughout his political career has shown he doesn't give a flying gently caress about lying to the faces of the public or what "the other guys" think of his character. This kind of thing earns conservative votes by the truckload because it's harmful to a whole lot of people they hate, and once you win the primary people give you a hell of a lot more credit than you had before. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Feb 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:That's the point Intel&Sebastian was making - it's just as bad if not worse ethically, to have this sort of thing implicitly greenlit by Christie. Something that blatant and huge isn't just a case of overexuberance and unforseen consequences, having the busiest bridge on the planet is something you brag about, it's managed by the port authority who you partially chose, and your direct appointments are up to their eyeballs in it. It isn't like this kind of thing wasn't an oops when applying the screws to someone, and the level of harm done is easily foreseeable. It's less that they thought they could get away with calling it a traffic study and more that they thought this was a way to help their boss - regardless of what he asked and how he asked it. I wasn't dismissing what Christie is doing and I apologize if the way I phrased that made it seem that way. Christie metaphorically covering his eyes and pretending it doesn't happen is actually in a lot of ways a lot more damning against him than it does help him, surprisingly kind of like House of Cards again.  For as much as Christie could spew the "I did not order him to do this" rhetoric at some point there is no way he could get results from his people like this that didn't point directly to Christie being at least complacent in if not an active participant in the shady bullshit. In this case, even if he didn't directly say "Shut the bridge down" and just wink wink nudge nudged the suggestion, dude is still going to get taken to task for it. Hell, even if he didn't wink wink nudge nudge it and just wanted the to stick it to the Fort Hood Mayor by any means necessary and everything that happened since was his staffers doing he is still totally culpable. Even ignoring the bridge, I think you've got far more damning evidence against him in the Sandy relief stuff that's been coming out and I think it's a whole lot easier to stick that to him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Having a look at where the flyover happened it is under active radar coverage from several sources, it might even be controlled airspace, but I don't have access to a map of that for that area. If you pulled the 'tapes' of any of the radar sources you would absolutely have definitive timestamped evidence if that particular aircraft had entered and the altitude and heading. If it is controlled they would have had to actively request clearance to enter and transit it. All you need is to prove he was on the aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
The State Police released a statement that Christie didn't fly over the relevant area during the week in question.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:The State Police released a statement that Christie didn't fly over the relevant area during the week in question. I thought the helicopter thing was less about where they flew, and more about who flew in the helicopter. Christie's trying to make an argument that he hadn't talked to certain people about certain topics. That position becomes less tenable if they can prove he took a helicopter ride with some of those certain people. I think it's a bit of a wild goose chase, but I kind of see what would make people on the committee look into it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
ErIog posted:I thought the helicopter thing was less about where they flew, and more about who flew in the helicopter. Christie's trying to make an argument that he hadn't talked to certain people about certain topics. That position becomes less tenable if they can prove he took a helicopter ride with some of those certain people. I think it's a bit of a wild goose chase, but I kind of see what would make people on the committee look into it. Such as the illustrious "LOOK AT HOW STUPID I WAS FOR APPOINTING THIS GUY WHEN I KNEW HE WAS SUCH A FUCKUP" Wildstein?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Why is everyone discussing hypothetical helicopter rides? Are you telling me in this the NSA Age where they can tell whether or not I've liked Rice Crispies and read all my email and texts that somehow, some way, Christie's phone was magically passed over? What did he paint it in lamb's blood on the advice of a friendly passing avenging angel? Why can't we make the spooks work for justice for a change? Can't someone subpoena all his data for the month in question? We all know its out there in some database somewhere. Hell I think if you use government computers it has to by law be kept, domestic spying or no.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Why is everyone discussing hypothetical helicopter rides? Are you telling me in this the NSA Age where they can tell whether or not I've liked Rice Crispies and read all my email and texts that somehow, some way, Christie's phone was magically passed over? What did he paint it in lamb's blood on the advice of a friendly passing avenging angel? Why can't we make the spooks work for justice for a change? Can't someone subpoena all his data for the month in question? We all know its out there in some database somewhere. Hell I think if you use government computers it has to by law be kept, domestic spying or no. The broader a subpoena the easier it is to challenge for being overly broad. They probably issued very specific subpoenas so that the served parties couldn't wriggle out of having to produce.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:The broader a subpoena the easier it is to challenge for being overly broad. They probably issued very specific subpoenas so that the served parties couldn't wriggle out of having to produce. Also, there is no way that information mined by the NSA, if it even happened, is going to be able to be used in a case against anyone involved in this without it going to SCOTUS. Just set up a likely sequence of events and subpena based on that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Yeah I know, its just frustrating as all hell to see all this beating around the bush, necessary though it may be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Why is everyone discussing hypothetical helicopter rides? Are you telling me in this the NSA Age where they can tell whether or not I've liked Rice Crispies and read all my email and texts that somehow, some way, Christie's phone was magically passed over? What did he paint it in lamb's blood on the advice of a friendly passing avenging angel? Why can't we make the spooks work for justice for a change? Can't someone subpoena all his data for the month in question? We all know its out there in some database somewhere. Hell I think if you use government computers it has to by law be kept, domestic spying or no. That information could (legally) be used to secretly convict and execute Christie, but not to publicly try him for corruption.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
Yeah - the NSA's dragnet may be of highly dubious legality but typically high-profile investigations like that of a fairly popular governor who also had ambitions for the 2016 presidential election, in one of the most populous states in the union, for loving with the busiest bridge in the world are done by the letter and apostrophe of the law because they are under the magnifying glass.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:That information could (legally) be used to secretly convict and execute Christie, but not to publicly try him for corruption. Lets ask Rand Paul if we can take him out with a drone strike.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Lets ask Rand Paul if we can take him out with a drone strike. Don't he silly, he isn't robbing a seven eleven!
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Caros posted:Don't he silly, he isn't robbing a seven eleven! Liquor store, damnit. Different clientele.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Lets ask Rand Paul if we can take him out with a drone strike. There's no hiding an elephant, and you sure can't change anyone's mind on the color of its hide. Randpaul would simply dissemble into repeated "clarifications" about how drones should "only be used against criminals," with creepy emphasis on the last word as though it had special meaning to him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Lets ask Rand Paul if we can take him out with a drone strike. Do you want to clean up after that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Do you want to clean up after that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Do you want to clean up after that? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aczPDGC3f8U
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
I saw that link and thought "It's gonna be that Monty Python sketch isn't it?" And it was, it sure was. 
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Steve Kornacki found another interesting link in the document pile: http://www.msnbc.com/steve-kornacki/christie-port-authority-fort-lee-wildstein Drip drip drip...
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Gorilla Desperado posted:Steve Kornacki found another interesting link in the document pile: Why the gently caress is all this stuff so heavily redacted. It's not like there's some loving FBI operation going on under the GW bridge or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Gorilla Desperado posted:Steve Kornacki found another interesting link in the document pile: I don't understand why more people don't point out that the George Washington Bridge is also Interstate 80. People outside the Northeast don't know how big the bridge is, but if you tell them that Christie basically shut down the Interstate, they'll get what a massive clusterfuck he created.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:49 |
|
|
Skeesix posted:Why the gently caress is all this stuff so heavily redacted. It's not like there's some loving FBI operation going on under the GW bridge or something. The redactions look like they're from text messages. It presumably means they're not work related or involve non-government employees. Just because they work for the state doesn't mean all their communications get to become public.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 20:09
|
|
