Chris Christie Knew About Bridge Lane Closings as They Happened, Prosecutors Say

[Hatuey]

You are asking for a court case, official charges, or impeachment on the claim that Obama has stacked his administration with political hacks.

Republicans can get an impeachment if they want it. The house can vote to impeach. It hasn't. Why?

 

[Fletch]

Actually, yes it does. Before a case gets that far, it's usual that the defendant files a document with the Court, asking the case to be thrown out for insufficient evidence. At which point the Court looks at the preliminary evidence, to see if there IS any. There doesn't have to be much. But there has to be SOME evidence on each and every point of law that must be proven, no matter how slight the evidence.

Cases are thus prevented from proceeding without evidence.

Whether a Court or jury finds that there is ENOUGH evidence, or that the evidence actually proves every point like the prosecutor says, is a different matter. But there is evidence on every point that must be proven in order to win a conviction or a judgment.

This is why sometimes a DA won't file a case for prosecution, even when a case seems strong in the public's opinion. Because there's not evidence on every point that must be proven, which in turn would be accepted by the Court or a jury, calling it insufficient evidence.

But Christie isn't on trial here

 

[danarhea]

But Christie isn't on trial here (yet!!)

There, fixed it for you. :mrgreen:

 

[JumpinJack]

And just weeks before we have an election which Trump looks like he might win we get chin wagging about maybe charges being filed against one of his lieutenants but no actual charges, over three years after the events in question??!!

Ya, I have a pretty good educated guess about what is going on here.

I will wait for confirmation.

Not sure what your point is. But this investigation started shortly after the bridge events occurred. Federal prosecutors investigated for 16 months and reached the same conclusion as the mayor (the one who Christie was seeking revenge on)...that the bridge was closed for days as a personal vendetta because the mayor didn't endorse Christie's re-election bid. The fed prosecutors reached the same conclusion.

Then the lackeys in Christie's office were arrested or whatever and prosecuted. The case is now going to trial, apparently.

This is the way cases proceed. There's nothing out of the ordinary, except that Christie hasn't been charged with anything. One of his lackeys has pleaded guilty and is confessing that Christie was in on it.

The Dems didn't arrange all this. Christie did this to himself. Trump is not involved, unless you count that Christie has endorsed him. Which is a pretty loose connection. I think the David Duke endorsement is far more damaging, and people don't seem to care about that. I also think the Putin endorsement is more damaging, but people don't seem to care that Trump seeks favor from Russia and Putin, in return for financial gain later. They're totally on board with that. So I don't think this is a big deal at all. And I'm 100% certain his supporters won't, either.

 

[JumpinJack]

But Christie isn't on trial here

I didn't say he was.

Someone posted that there wasn't any "evidence" that Christie had knowledge or was involved. So I was merely pointing out that yes, there was.

In this case, eyewitness testimony is evidence. One of the guys has pleaded guilty and spilled his guts, including that either Christie knew or ordered it or was involved. That is evidence.

I was merely explaining that by the time prosecutors give opening statements, if a statement is made about any point, it must be relevant (or the court wouldn't allow it), and there must be evidence on it (or the Court would've thrown the case out).

It may be weak evidence. Or the court or jury may decide the evidence isn't credible. But there IS evidence.

 

[Perotista]

Prosecutors are ready to present evidence that Governor Christie was intimately involved in both the bridge closure and the subsequent cover up.

It's now only a matter of time until Christie is frog marched to his own trial for corruption. Frog marched? Bad choice of words. I should have said waddles.

Article is here.

Whether or not Christie knew anything about bridgegate, it ruined any chance he had to become president. He was sort of the darling of the GOP prior to bridgegate. Without Christie in the New Hampshire primary becoming Trump's bulldog, Trump probably would not have won the nomination either. When one is behind in the polls as Christie was, one attacks the front runner if one has any intention of winning and becoming the nominee, one does not attack the second or third place candidates. That has left me wondering about Christie's intentions all along.

As for bridgegate, it wouldn't surprise me one iota if he knew about it.

 

[Chillfolks]

Republicans can get an impeachment if they want it. The house can vote to impeach. It hasn't. Why?

You would be livid if there was any move whatsoever to impeach Obama. Now your asking why the Republicans haven't tried. You will have to understand why I think you are full of crap. I doubt any proof offered to you would be good enough.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Not sure what your point is. But this investigation started shortly after the bridge events occurred. Federal prosecutors investigated for 16 months and reached the same conclusion as the mayor (the one who Christie was seeking revenge on)...that the bridge was closed for days as a personal vendetta because the mayor didn't endorse Christie's re-election bid. The fed prosecutors reached the same conclusion.

Then the lackeys in Christie's office were arrested or whatever and prosecuted. The case is now going to trial, apparently.

This is the way cases proceed. There's nothing out of the ordinary, except that Christie hasn't been charged with anything. One of his lackeys has pleaded guilty and is confessing that Christie was in on it.

The Dems didn't arrange all this. Christie did this to himself. Trump is not involved, unless you count that Christie has endorsed him. Which is a pretty loose connection. I think the David Duke endorsement is far more damaging, and people don't seem to care about that. I also think the Putin endorsement is more damaging, but people don't seem to care that Trump seeks favor from Russia and Putin, in return for financial gain later. They're totally on board with that. So I don't think this is a big deal at all. And I'm 100% certain his supporters won't, either.

I saw a claim that the Justice Department or some prosecutors are claiming to have enough evidence to charge the fat man, but it might have been on a political hack site cause a fast google does not find it.

I will look into this.

 

[Beaudreaux]

If he didn't know what was happening then he is the most incompetent Governor in New Jersey's history.

:shrug:On that same stream of logic, Obama would be the most incompetent President in the US' history because he didn't know what every person was doing in his administration, like Edward Snowden, which was a hell of a lot worse than the juvenile prank of closing some lanes on a bridge.

Seriously? :roll:

 

[Hatuey]

You would be livid if there was any move whatsoever to impeach Obama.

What the **** does that have to do with whether or not impeachment is possible? Republicans have refused to employ the one means of prosecution they actually have control over. Why is it? When you try this sort of nonsense, I can't take you seriously.

 

[JumpinJack]

I saw a claim that the Justice Department or some prosecutors are claiming to have enough evidence to charge the fat man, but it might have been on a political hack site cause a fast google does not find it.

I will look into this.

If so, that would make sense that the DOJ would look into it reasonably soon after the statements by the lackeys who arranged the bridge closing. If those statements were made and known a year ago, that would be suspicious, I agree.

But I don't think it would affect Trump in any way. Heck, Trump doesn't even LIKE Christie. That's evident. It might end Christie's future in Trump's cabinet, though, in payback for his endorsement.

 

[chuckiechan]

I'm skeptical.

If Obama's DoJ had the proof they would have inducted him if for no other reason he is close to Trump

 

[Hawkeye10]

If so, that would make sense that the DOJ would look into it reasonably soon after the statements by the lackeys who arranged the bridge closing. If those statements were made and known a year ago, that would be suspicious, I agree.

But I don't think it would affect Trump in any way. Heck, Trump doesn't even LIKE Christie. That's evident. It might end Christie's future in Trump's cabinet, though, in payback for his endorsement.

You are aware that since May Christie has been running the Trump Transition Team, they being the ones who populate the Executive Branch if Trump wins?

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — Donald Trump is pledging that the government he appoints will bring sweeping change to Washington's culture. So far, that promise comes with a heavy New Jersey accent.

Despite being passed over for the job of Trump's running mate, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and an entourage of his closest allies could leave a lasting mark on a Trump administration, should he win in November.

As chairman of Trump's transition team, Christie is building a coalition of advisers who will staff key federal government agencies and execute new policy prescriptions if Trump wins the general election. Among them, are two of his longtime aides, Rich Bagger, a lobbyist who helped lead Christie's gubernatorial transition team and Bill Palatucci, a top Christie adviser whose law firm has been showered with government legal work.

Trump transition team led by Christie insiders | Political News | US News

 

[JumpinJack]

You are aware that since May Christie has been running the Trump Transition Team, they being the ones who populate the Executive Branch if Trump wins?


Trump transition team led by Christie insiders | Political News | US News

No. I don't follow Trump's team. But I figured that Trump paid Christie for endorsing him, by promising him a position in the admin., should Trump win.

I still don't think it'll affect Trump at all, since being endorsed by David Duke and Putin didn't affect him. That ordinarily would kill any politician's chances of winning. After all, what American would vote for Putin's choice? Or Duke's choice?

 

[imyoda]

Prosecutors are ready to present evidence that Governor Christie was intimately involved in both the bridge closure and the subsequent cover up.

It's now only a matter of time until Christie is frog marched to his own trial for corruption. Frog marched? Bad choice of words. I should have said waddles.

Article is here.

Well there goes Christie's appointment to SCOTUS...........what a shame

 

[Hawkeye10]

Well there goes Christie's appointment to SCOTUS...........what a shame

Please, we need to improve SCOTUS.

That is to say we need better.

What R U thinking?

 

[Chillfolks]

What the **** does that have to do with whether or not impeachment is possible? Republicans have refused to employ the one means of prosecution they actually have control over. Why is it? When you try this sort of nonsense, I can't take you seriously.

I'm not a Republican and I am especially not a Republican elected to the House or Representatives. Why are you asking ME to answer for the actions or lack of for a group I am not a part of ? If you truly want an answer why not ask them?


Now I have already pointed out that I don't think Obama stacking his administration with political flunkies is illegal. So why try to impeach someone over a legal issue. I said Obama stacking his administration with political flunkies is piss poor leadership.



If you want proof Obama is a piss poor leader then I can offer up his slow response and acknowledgement of the tgreat ISIS is. His end run around congress to change immigration policies. His out right bold faces lying to the public about the effects of legislation he wanted.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I'm not a Republican and I am especially not a Republican elected to the House or Representatives. Why are you asking ME to answer for the actions or lack of for a group I am not a part of ? If you truly want an answer why not ask them?


Now I have already pointed out that I don't think Obama stacking his administration with political flunkies is illegal. So why try to impeach someone over a legal issue. I said Obama stacking his administration with political flunkies is piss poor leadership.



If you want proof Obama is a piss poor leader then I can offer up his slow response and acknowledgement of the tgreat ISIS is. His end run around congress to change immigration policies. His out right bold faces lying to the public about the effects of legislation he wanted.

The irrefutable ultimate proof is the rise of TRUMP.

Liberals and Victim Culture advocates dont what to go there.... NATURALLY.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Donald Trump Stands by Chris Christie Despite Revelations in Bridge Closing Trial

When Donald J. Trump campaigned in South Carolina in December, in a crowded and tightening Republican primary, he made a pointed declaration about one of his opponents, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey. "He totally knew about it", Mr.Trump told his supporters, referring to the 2013 shutdown of the George Washington Bridge by Christie aides, allegedly to punish a political foe. "They're with him all the time, the people that did it."

Yet another flip-flop of convenience by The Donald.

 

[Anthony60]

Boy, I am on the edge of my seat for this one! They should search Christie's garage, I bet they find traffic cones and everything. This can't be the first time!

 

[Hatuey]

I'm not a Republican and I am especially not a Republican elected to the House or Representatives. Why are you asking ME to answer for the actions or lack of for a group I am not a part of?

Because nobody else takes you seriously. Not the FBI, not the DOJ.

 

[coldjoint]

No. I don't follow Trump's team. But I figured that Trump paid Christie for endorsing him, by promising him a position in the admin., should Trump win.

I still don't think it'll affect Trump at all, since being endorsed by David Duke and Putin didn't affect him. That ordinarily would kill any politician's chances of winning. After all, what American would vote for Putin's choice? Or Duke's choice?

Did Bill Ayres or Rev. Wright hurt Obama? When it was Obama there was no guilt by association,(and Obama actually knew these people) what is the problem with that now?

 

[Mr Person]

Attempt to consider:

Poster 1: Every single conservative politician who has served the last 50 years raped puppies before drowning them, at least twice a year.

Poster 2: Citation please.

Do you now understand why "Citation, please" is a valid request and/or point in some (relevant) circumstances?

I always did. I said it was not necessary. What part of that didn't you understand?

Your statement that it was not necessary was hilariously stupid an wrong. What part of that didn't you understand?

Was it the words? It was the words, wasn't it.

 

[coldjoint]

Your statement that it was not necessary was hilariously stupid an wrong. What part of that didn't you understand?

Was it the words? It was the words, wasn't it.

You laugh at some strange things. I bet you think Obama using govt. agencies to further his agenda is funny too. Your opinion is also kind of funny.

 

[poweRob]

No need to prove common knowledge.

That is the most burned out response in conspiracy theory speak.