Report: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate probe clears gov

iliveonramen said:

Which one? The IRS one is still "ongoing" but it seems as if the House's MO when it comes to investigations is to throw out tons of charges, collect information, and when they don't find the evidence to support their charges it fizzles out.

As for the Obama administration not being cooperative. I guess I'd need some examples? It seems like this is the cycle for every "scandal" of the Obama Administration.

Something is found...no matter what it's linked to Obama and his administration....there tends to be a lot of speculation and conspiracy theories. Investigations occur and lots of sound bites from House Republicans and Senators. The investigators don't find anything to support the speculation and conspiracy theories. Republican House members and Senators say the reason nothing was found is because stuff is being hidden.

I mean...it's hard to take those investigations seriously.

Click to expand...

So officials pleading the 5th is cooperation?

The Administration refusing to turn over emails.

Refusing to allow internal investigators to testify

And so on.

At every turn the administration has been a stonewall to the investigation.

Ockham said:

Report: Chris Christie?s Bridgegate probe clears gov - Lucy McCalmont - POLITICO.com


Surely just one important step showing the Gov didn't lie (unlike our many other prominent Washington politicians who have). The Christie haters will continue to hate, the Christie supporters will be rewarded for their steadfast support. The media will likely not say much since this denies a smoking gun and the demise of a rising star Republican. Whether or not Christie runs in 2016 probably hasn't changed - from a political standpoint the damage was done; mission accomplished.

Click to expand...

Nice, very good. So a commision probed into it and found no wrong doing. And you feel that this completely shows that he had nothing to do with it. Makes sense.

I'll hop on to the IRS, Bengazi etc threads and explain to them that we've had commissions, therefor everything has been proven to be over, and that everyone is innocent.

sangha said:

Yeah, there's nothing going on there. That's why people are asking for immunity before they testify



:lamo

Click to expand...

So, you agree there's illegal activity going on in the IRS? Lerner is begging for immunity.

eohrnberger said:

I think that was the Democrat's (and biased media) point behind the entire exercise. Don't you?

As to the biased media, do you suppose for even a single second that these findings will be given as much publicity as the maligning accusations they've all made against Christie?

Ha! Not a chance in hell. I suspect that this'll be back page news, effectively buried.

Click to expand...

First let's begin with your viewership/readership/listenership. Are YOU unbiased in your reception of news? Or do you look for news that validates positions you've already taken?

Anyone who views, listens to and/or reads "news" should bloody well know that it is very likely the content will be biased. The particular bias depends on the source. It also depends on the medium. Television "news" isn't news, it is infotainment. If you spend anytime at all viewing TV news you are wasting your time. There really isn't much information there and very, very little depth.

Your federal government is deeply involved in using weapons grade propaganda on Americans via news media. That's a fact and is actually documented. What's more, it is often very successful. Gobbels only dreamed of what has been accomplished by the US government in terms of manipulation of the masses.

"The paper reported that the probe was commissioned by Christie, who selected a legal team from the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. The story notes the firm “has close ties” to the Christie administration.

Christie’s review, announced in January, included 70 interviews — among them, Christie, his lieutenant governor and senior staff— and cost nearly $1 million in legal fees that will fall upon taxpayers. The review did not include interviews with key former staffers Bridget Anne Kelly or Bill Stepien, whose emails linked the administration to the scandal and ultimately led to their departures from the governor’s administration. Along with Kelly and Stepien, David Wildstein, an ex-Port Authority official appointed by Christie, also declined to be interviewed."

So Christie's lawyers at taxpayer expense didn't interview the relevant persons and declared their client is innocent?

A worthless public defense.

Ockham said:

Report: Chris Christie?s Bridgegate probe clears gov - Lucy McCalmont - POLITICO.com


Surely just one important step showing the Gov didn't lie (unlike our many other prominent Washington politicians who have). The Christie haters will continue to hate, the Christie supporters will be rewarded for their steadfast support. The media will likely not say much since this denies a smoking gun and the demise of a rising star Republican. Whether or not Christie runs in 2016 probably hasn't changed - from a political standpoint the damage was done; mission accomplished.

Click to expand...

Read the first paragraph of your quoted story and tell me if that just doesn't sound hilarious.

I disagree that any significant damage was done. Absent a smoking gun, I think it won't have any real effect on his chances to be president.

roughdraft274 said:

Nice, very good. So a commision probed into it and found no wrong doing. And you feel that this completely shows that he had nothing to do with it. Makes sense.

Click to expand...

Is that what I feel? I believe what I stated was the report showed no smoking gun, the damage politically was done, that Christie may still have a political life but not in 2016 most likely. I don't believe I said anything about the reports validity, or that it completely shows anything. Ass-ume much?

roughdraft274 said:

I'll hop on to the IRS, Bengazi etc threads and explain to them that we've had commissions, therefor everything has been proven to be over, and that everyone is innocent.

Click to expand...

As I've already stated, critics of Christies self appointed commission are the supporters of Bengazi, IRS, etc... you weren't aware of the double standard?

Risky Thicket said:

First let's begin with your viewership/readership/listenership. Are YOU unbiased in your reception of news? Or do you look for news that validates positions you've already taken?

Anyone who views, listens to and/or reads "news" should bloody well know that it is very likely the content will be biased. The particular bias depends on the source. It also depends on the medium. Television "news" isn't news, it is infotainment. If you spend anytime at all viewing TV news you are wasting your time. There really isn't much information there and very, very little depth.

Your federal government is deeply involved in using weapons grade propaganda on Americans via news media. That's a fact and is actually documented. What's more, it is often very successful. Gobbels only dreamed of what has been accomplished by the US government in terms of manipulation of the masses.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt that. Looking at the left lean of the media, and I'm convinced of it.

Ockham said:

As I've already stated, critics of Christies self appointed commission are the supporters of Bengazi, IRS, etc... you weren't aware of the double standard?

Click to expand...

Yea, that works both ways... a point that seems to elude you.

eohrnberger said:

I don't doubt that. Looking at the left lean of the media, and I'm convinced of it.

Click to expand...

Actually it didn't begin with Obama. It didn't begin with Bush, but the Bush Administration perfected it. They did a masterful job, truly. All future administrations will use what they have learned from the Bush years, and they will perfect it even more. The Obama Administration certainly has. The beauty of it all is that it has been and is today hidden in plain view. Brilliant, really. In fact it isn't a secret at all.

It was once against the law for the federal government to deliberately use propaganda on Americans, not that it mattered. Washington does what Washington wants. Under Obama and with Congressional support the law now permits your tax dollars to be used to mind **** you and all Americans. Americans don't really care. Americans don't really know. That's the beautify of it. I'd be willing to bet that partisans are the worst victims of it, though all Americans are greatly harmed.

The overarching point is that it doesn't really matter if the American media is biased toward liberals or conservatives. The bias will change depending on who is in the White House. We all must ask ourselves, is it bias in the media that we are opposed to or is it rather media bias that is opposed to our personal bias that we don't like. Anyone who honestly would like to make informed decisions would be opposed to media bias, period.

I would submit that a significant percentage of the American people don't really want to be involved in making informed political decisions. They want it done for them. They pick media that will tell them what they want to hear and will tell them why they should feel as they feel. Americans for the most part DO NOT want their beliefs challenged. Americans want chatty beautiful "news" personalities to entertain them. News has to be a production or Americans won't watch it on TV. Americans won't read long articles full of details in daily newspapers.

Here's arguably the most unbiased daily in the United States.

eohrnberger said:

IRS investigation is presently stonewalled by Lerner only pleading the 5th regardless of which question is asked, although I've heard that a appointing special prosecutor is being considered.

Benghazi is effectively stonewalled by the administration alone.

Click to expand...

From what I've seen Lerner is seeking to give a private disposition to the committee. She's seeking to avoid public attention.

As for Benghazi...The Senate Intelligence Committee report found there was no cover up...yet some Republicans claim they are getting "stonewalled" and there's a cover up.

Risky Thicket said:

Actually it didn't begin with Obama. It didn't begin with Bush, but the Bush Administration perfected it. They did a masterful job, truly. All future administrations will use what they have learned from the Bush years, and they will perfect it even more. The Obama Administration certainly has. The beauty of it all is that it has been and is today hidden in plain view. Brilliant, really. In fact it isn't a secret at all.

It was once against the law for the federal government to deliberately use propaganda on Americans, not that it mattered. Washington does what Washington wants. Under Obama and with Congressional support the law now permits your tax dollars to be used to mind **** you and all Americans. Americans don't really care. Americans don't really know. That's the beautify of it. I'd be willing to bet that partisans are the worst victims of it, though all Americans are greatly harmed.

The overarching point is that it doesn't really matter if the American media is biased toward liberals or conservatives. The bias will change depending on who is in the White House. We all must ask ourselves, is it bias in the media that we are opposed to or is it rather media bias that is opposed to our personal bias that we don't like. Anyone who honestly would like to make informed decisions would be opposed to media bias, period.

I would submit that a significant percentage of the American people don't really want to be involved in making informed political decisions. They want it done for them. They pick media that will tell them what they want to hear and will tell them why they should feel as they feel. Americans for the most part DO NOT want their beliefs challenged. Americans want chatty beautiful "news" personalities to entertain them. News has to be a production or Americans won't watch it on TV. Americans won't read long articles full of details in daily newspapers.

Here's arguably the most unbiased daily in the United States.

Click to expand...

I'd be inclined to agree with that, however, seems to be the one publication that most leftists love to hate.

jmotivator said:

So officials pleading the 5th is cooperation?

The Administration refusing to turn over emails.

Refusing to allow internal investigators to testify

And so on.

At every turn the administration has been a stonewall to the investigation.

Click to expand...

Well that's because it's turning into a witch hunt. So nothing has been found in the investigation of the IRS so now they are investigating the investigators of the IRS scandal? In what realm is that not turning into a circus?

roughdraft274 said:

Yea, that works both ways... a point that seems to elude you.

Click to expand...

No I don't think it does go both ways.

Ockham said:

No I don't think it does go both ways.

Click to expand...

So you accept that there was no administration wrongdoing in Benghazi?

jmotivator said:

So officials pleading the 5th is cooperation?

The Administration refusing to turn over emails.

Refusing to allow internal investigators to testify

And so on.

At every turn the administration has been a stonewall to the investigation.

Click to expand...

That's the House's investigation. The investigation referenced in the OP was Christie's internal investigation of himself. Obama's internal investigation showed no administration wrongdoing, or probably would if there is such thing.

Yet, you only accept one of the two as gospel truth. Hmmm.....I wonder why.

rocket88 said:

So you accept that there was no administration wrongdoing in Benghazi?

Click to expand...

Why would I do that? I'm skeptical of everything, which is why I didn't proffer an opinion on the content of the report nor the accuracy of Christie's report.

Ockham said:

Report: Chris Christie?s Bridgegate probe clears gov - Lucy McCalmont - POLITICO.com


Surely just one important step showing the Gov didn't lie (unlike our many other prominent Washington politicians who have). The Christie haters will continue to hate, the Christie supporters will be rewarded for their steadfast support. The media will likely not say much since this denies a smoking gun and the demise of a rising star Republican. Whether or not Christie runs in 2016 probably hasn't changed - from a political standpoint the damage was done; mission accomplished.

Click to expand...

What, An investigation organized by Christie and carried out by a firm with close ties to Christie says he did do anything wrong. You don't say. I wonder if accused rapists,burglars, murders and other alleged criminals organized their own investigations and had their friends carry it out, how many of them would be cleared of wrong doing?

I think you skipped the part of the story that this was not a impartial/unbiased or even an independent investigation. Anyone with at least an ounce of common sense will laugh at your story.

jamesrage said:

What, An investigation organized by Christie and carried out by a firm with close ties to Christie says he did do anything wrong. You don't say. I wonder if rapists,burglars, murders and other criminals organized their own investigations and had their friends carry it out how many of them would be cleared of wrong doing?

Click to expand...

See your confusing this with Whitewater. That was a totally different thing.

However, this self appointed investigation is just as valid as the IRS investigation by Barbara Bosserman and the FBI. I guess this is the new normal.

Grant said:

The leftist media will still attack him personally under the guise of whether Christie “created or condoned a culture that fostered political intimidation.” This is just the sort of speculation they will feed on over the next couple of years to attack any political candidate who threatens their Democrat favorite.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid a lot of NJ motorists are not "speculating" on anything.

Ockham said:

See your confusing this with Whitewater. That was a totally different thing.

However, this self appointed investigation is just as valid as the IRS investigation by Barbara Bosserman and the FBI. I guess this is the new normal.

Click to expand...

Whitewater was a $80 million INDEPENDENT investigation initiated by Republicans that found nothing on Clinton. What that has to do with Christie "investigating" himself is beyond me.

Independent probes of Clinton Administration cost nearly $80 million - April 1, 1999

Ockham said:

See your confusing this with Whitewater. That was a totally different thing.

However, this self appointed investigation is just as valid as the IRS investigation by Barbara Bosserman and the FBI. I guess this is the new normal.

Click to expand...

So your point of the story is if accused crooks can clear themselves in D.C. then so can accused crooks at the state level?

eohrnberger said:

I'd be inclined to agree with that, however, seems to be the one publication that most leftists love to hate.

Click to expand...

This is another example of you seeing what you want to see.

Every leftist that I know of who knows about the CSM, loves it.

iliveonramen said:

From what I've seen Lerner is seeking to give a private disposition to the committee. She's seeking to avoid public attention.

As for Benghazi...The Senate Intelligence Committee report found there was no cover up...yet some Republicans claim they are getting "stonewalled" and there's a cover up.

Click to expand...

The real issue here is what was told to the people. Obama and his admin rode that Internet Video meme and the 'Spontaneous Demonstration' meme as long as was humanly possible, even though they already knew from the CIA that it was a planned and coordinated terrorist attack.

This misleading of the people may acceptable to some, and granted, as we have grown to know this president better, it becomes less and less of any sort of surprise. But I hardly think that it is acceptable, as do many others.

jamesrage said:

So your point of the story is if accused crooks can clear themselves in D.C. then so can accused crooks at the state level?

Click to expand...

Re-read the OP for my point. My last reply was simply stating if one side does it, why the outcry when the other follows?