As you probably know by now, Christie has fired back
“Bottom line — David Wildstein will do and say anything to save David Wildstein,” the email from the governor’s office says, referring to the former appointee who reignited the controversy.
Christie goes on to make much of the fact that Wildstein's lawyer said that "evidence exists" implicating Christie. That wording differs from the oft-heard assertion that Wildstein personally possesses
said evidence. Some consider that distinction very important
, while others will probably mutter something about hair-splitting.
Then, it gets personal. “In David Wildstein’s past, people and newspaper accounts have described him as ‘tumultuous’ and someone who ‘made moves that were not productive,’” the email continues. “David Wildstein has been publicly asking for immunity since the beginning, been held in contempt by the New Jersey legislature for refusing to testify, failed to provide this so-called ‘evidence’ when he was first subpoenaed by the NJ Legislature and is looking for the Port Authority to pay his legal bills.”
The email dips far back into Wildstein’s past to buttress its portrayal of him, even alleging that “He was publicly accused by his high school social studies teacher of deceptive behavior.”
Yeah, but Wildstein was Christie's friend. CC may now want to pretend otherwise, but the effort is pointless. Everyone knows that Christie is the man who put Wildstein in a position of authority -- with a six-figure salary.
If Wildstein is a sleaze, what does that fact say about the man who gave him power?
I cannot come up with a reasonable scenario in which Wildstein would concoct
that claim of Christie's complicity. Even if we posit that Wildstein is an extremely venal individual (and I have no problem doing just that), how could a concoction of this sort help him escape the law?
The Boston Herald says that Christie's presidential ambitions are dead in the water
is asking whether Christie will continue to be governor.
The Star Ledger (NJ.com) chronicles Christie's evolving stories
concerning the key question of when he learned about the bridge closures.
But a review of the governor’s public statements on the controversy shows he has never said precisely when he first heard about the closures, giving slightly different explanations on three separate occasions and at one point describing his knowledge as "an evolving thing."
Yet another scandal?
A week ago, the Star-Ledger directed our attention to a scandal story unfamiliar
to most people living outside of New Jersey. Bascially, a New Jersey prosecutor named Bennett Barlyn says he was punished because he tried to bring a case against a sheriff who was a Christie crony:
Barlyn says that after he secured an indictment in 2010 against Hunterdon County Sheriff Deborah Trout, a Republican with political ties to Christie, he was fired and the case hastily killed by Christie’s appointed attorney general at the time, Paula Dow. The real story isn’t the mundane crimes that were alleged: hiring without proper background checks, making employees sign loyalty oaths, threatening critics and producing fake police badges for a prominent Christie donor. It’s the possible abuse of power by the administration’s head prosecutor.
Barlyn is now trying to compel the state Attorney General’s Office to release the grand jury transcripts to prove his case had legs.
He’s not the only one who says so: Four grand jurors and other dismissed prosecutors have come forward to agree. A judge even ordered the release of the transcripts — yet still, the state is refusing to comply. It has filed a torrent of briefs in an effort to suppress the grand jury record, and will continue this fight at a hearing Tuesday.
Christie’s appointed attorney general is also seeking a gag order on Barlyn and his lawyer, in the event these transcripts must be handed over. Which makes you wonder: What is the administration trying so hard to hide? And just as important, why aren’t other people looking?
Also see here