Gov. Christie internal investigation

[justplugit]

After an exhaustive and intensive investigation of 250,000 emails, documents
including personal computers ,cell phones and 70 interviews has found the Governor cleared of any wrong doing involving the GW Bridge investigation.

If he decides to run in 16, can't wait to see the GOP and National debates.
This man is nobodies lunch meat.

[JohnR]

I was just explaining to my son how the Republicans will (for the most part) say he is OK and how the Democrats will (for the most part vsay it was a sham investigation.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

After an exhaustive and intensive investigation of 250,000 emails, documents
including personal computers ,cell phones and 70 interviews has found the Governor cleared of any wrong doing involving the GW Bridge investigation.

You are talking about the investigation launched by Christie and reviewed by Christie's people before public release?

-spence

[Nebe]

If Christie met a hit man on the sidewalk and "told" him to go murder someone, this same investigation process would clear him of any wrong doing.

There is no paper trail. No recorded statements. So what???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Swimmer]

And the tax dollar paid for it.........what a yoke. Political hooligans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

You are talking about the investigation launched by Christie and reviewed by Christie's people before public release?

-spence

Sounds familiar . There isn't anything there Spence .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

You are talking about the investigation launched by Christie and reviewed by Christie's people before public release?

-spence

Yes Spence, investigated by 7 prosecutors, the head a Dem, and an invitation by Christie,
in his 1 and 1/2 hour news conference, to make available whatever any other investigations want.

John R called it correctly.

Do you fear Joe Biden may have to run against him Spence?

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Do you fear Joe Biden may have to run against him Spence?

There's no way Biden will get the nomination over Clinton...she just pounded the entire GOP field in a Virginia poll.

I've never thought Cristie ordered the thing, but it's interesting how many of his really close people have been implicated. I do think there's still a decent chance he misled when he learned about it.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I do think there's still a decent chance he misled when he learned about it.

-spence

This from the guy who will not concede that Hilary "misled" us when she claimed that she fell under sniper fire at an airport in Kosovo or somewhere.

We have irrefutable proof that Hilary lied. You're more concerned about pure speculation against a Republican.

I won't vote for Christie. Even if he didn't know about it, these are his people, the buck stops with him. Same thing as Obama and the IRS...

[spence]

Yes, because the two situations are really alike...Good lord...

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

There's no way Biden will get the nomination over Clinton...she just pounded the entire GOP field in a Virginia poll.



-spence

"There's no way Biden will get the nomination over Clinton"

true. It's possible another Obama will come out o nowhere and take it from her, but not 'Plugs the Plagiarist'.

"she just pounded the entire GOP field in a Virginia poll."

30 months before the 2008 election, I bet that same poll had her pounding Senator Obama.

I'm not sure she's beatable in 16. But it's a long way off.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, because the two situations are really alike...Good lord...

-spence

Did she lie, Spence? Did she lie?

True, the situations are not alike. In her case, every single person on the planet knows that she lied. In fatty's case, there is absolutely zero evidence that he lied.

The traffic jam is more serious than her lie, people's lives were put at risk as emergency vehicles could not get where they were needed. But we cannot say for sure that he lied.

In her case, we all know (except for you, I guess) she lied, to build up her street cred' I guess. In her words, what does it matter? To you, nothing. Blatant double standard...

We deserve better. There are so many good, decent people out there. We all make mistakes, but we have to set the bar higher.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

I do think there's still a decent chance he misled when he learned about it.

-spence

He fired people immediately and I doubt anybody with his aspirations to become President would be stupid enough to get involved in some cockamaini nonsense.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I've never thought Cristie ordered the thing, but it's interesting how many of his really close people have been implicated. I do think there's still a decent chance he misled when he learned about it.

-spence

Translation: Sure, Hillary was fired from the House Judiciary working on the Nixon impeachment Watergate scandal because the judiciary chief of staff who hired, then eventually fired her, said "she was a liar. She was an unethical dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee, and the rules of confidentiality." I know . . . I know . . . she tried to deny Nixon counsel by saying that there was no precedent that he had a right to it, and when chief judiciary Zeifman gave her the documents that showed that there WAS precedent for counsel, she kind of hid the documents and continued her . . . uh . . . somewhat innocent ploy, and shouldn't really have been fired . . . somewhat of an overreaction. And, of course, there's all that old Whitewater stuff with various evidences of wrongdoing . . . and so many of her really close people were actually the guilty ones, and somehow dying and what not . . . but couldn't be proved she did anything wrong. . . . And when some files that could show the Clinton's involvement went missing for two years, they magically turned up after the statute of limitations expired. Minor stuff like travelgate was to do about not much. So staff of many years lost their jobs to be replaced by Clinton's people. That's the way the cookie crumbles. And . . . oh, yeah . . . the little white lie about being under fire at Kosovo . . . c'mon . . . And my goodness gracious, the overworked fuss about Benghazzzzzzzziii. I mean, some of her really close people died there. True . . . the story the administration weaved was kind of, sort of, proved not to be . . . accurate. What, at this time, does it matter ???

I, of course, never thought Christie ordered the thing . . . but interesting how many of his really close people have been implicated. Still a chance that he misled when he learned about it.

Of course, no way is there a chance that Hillary ever misled us about any of that old news stuff about her.

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by spence

There's no way Biden will get the nomination over Clinton...she just pounded the entire GOP field in a Virginia poll.

I've never thought Cristie ordered the thing, but it's interesting how many of his really close people have been implicated. I do think there's still a decent chance he misled when he learned about it.

-spence

He probably didn't order it, but to have his aides do something like this shows that the behavior has been been condoned in the past, and that those involved felt safe doing what they did, and feared no reprisals.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

He probably didn't order it, but to have his aides do something like this shows that the behavior has been been condoned in the past, and that those involved felt safe doing what they did, and feared no reprisals.

He admitted at his news conference that he chose and trusted a few wrong people. I don't know what behavior was condoned in the past, but if they did feel safe and feared no reprisals they were dead wrong, they were fired immediately, unlike Obama's no fire policy with his Administration's screw ups.

Christie is a no nonsense guy who speaks his mind. He is willing to cross the isle if it will benefit the people. He leads and he gets things done. Not bad in a Dem state where before this debacle had a 50s something approval and I think at one time in the 60's after Sandy.

BTW Debuch, kudos on your last post.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Translation: Sure, Hillary was fired from the House Judiciary working on the Nixon impeachment Watergate scandal because the judiciary chief of staff who hired, then eventually fired her, said "she was a liar. She was an unethical dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee, and the rules of confidentiality." I know . . . I know . . . she tried to deny Nixon counsel by saying that there was no precedent that he had a right to it, and when chief judiciary Zeifman gave her the documents that showed that there WAS precedent for counsel, she kind of hid the documents and continued her . . . uh . . . somewhat innocent ploy, and shouldn't really have been fired . . . somewhat of an overreaction.

I didn't think you of all people would resort to citing a single source story -- which is contradicted by it's own author -- and that has no outside verification.

Funny, from what I read the person quoted earlier said that he didn't fire her and wouldn't have had the power to do so. One would think such actions would be reported to the bar...if they really happened.

And, of course, there's all that old Whitewater stuff with various evidences of wrongdoing . . . and so many of her really close people were actually the guilty ones, and somehow dying and what not . . . but couldn't be proved she did anything wrong. . . . And when some files that could show the Clinton's involvement went missing for two years, they magically turned up after the statute of limitations expired. Minor stuff like travelgate was to do about not much. So staff of many years lost their jobs to be replaced by Clinton's people. That's the way the cookie crumbles. And . . . oh, yeah . . . the little white lie about being under fire at Kosovo . . . c'mon . . . And my goodness gracious, the overworked fuss about Benghazzzzzzzziii. I mean, some of her really close people died there. True . . . the story the administration weaved was kind of, sort of, proved not to be . . . accurate. What, at this time, does it matter ???

Sweet Jesus, it's going to be a long campaign.

Of course, no way is there a chance that Hillary ever misled us about any of that old news stuff about her.

The difference is this still is old news...because no evidence of wrongdoing was ever found. If there's a pattern of behavior established perhaps it's of those seeking to bring them down.

Christie will have to stand the test of time.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Christie will have to stand the test of time.

-spence

Or a weekly a scandal to distract the media. Truth is no one cares about this. Some of us think there is a few slightly more pressing issues in the world .
I wouldn't loose any sleep over this Spence,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I didn't think you of all people would resort to citing a single source story -- which is contradicted by it's own author -- and that has no outside verification.

Funny, from what I read the person quoted earlier said that he didn't fire her and wouldn't have had the power to do so. One would think such actions would be reported to the bar...if they really happened.




Sweet Jesus, it's going to be a long campaign.


The difference is this still is old news...because no evidence of wrongdoing was ever found. If there's a pattern of behavior established perhaps it's of those seeking to bring them down.

Christie will have to stand the test of time.

-spence

"I didn't think you of all people would resort to citing a single source story -- which is contradicted by it's own author -- and that has no outside verification."

Are you kidding? That's one more source than there is suggesting that Christie lied. But you are OK with saying he may well be a liar.

How about her lie about being shot at, when she knew there were dozens of eye-witnesses, and very likely someone with a camera? If you 'd lie about that, you'd lie about anything.

She has no morals, none whatsoever. She'll till be a huge improvement over the current occupant of that position.

Spence, remind me again, what is your apology position about her lie about getting shot at?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by buckman

Truth is no one cares about this.
I wouldn't loose any sleep over this Spence,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes Buck,except the Libs, they know he would be a formable opponent
against any candidate they run in 16. If the only thing the DNC has to tar
Christie is Bridge gate, they will be loosing a lot of sleep.
Now as he is able to get back in the lime light again,people will like who he is and most of what he has to say.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I didn't think you of all people would resort to citing a single source story -- which is contradicted by it's own author -- and that has no outside verification.

There was more than the citing by Calabrese. There were other interviews and citations. There was also corroboration of much of the story by Franklin Pope, a chief Republican counsel on the committee. And, of course, there were Zeifman's diary and book "Without Honor" And Zeifman did not contradict the Calabrese interview.

Funny, from what I read the person quoted earlier said that he didn't fire her and wouldn't have had the power to do so. One would think such actions would be reported to the bar...if they really happened.

He did say in a Sacramento Bee article "if I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her." The rest of the article was not cited, so I don't know if there was any further clarification. He also said in an interview with Neal Boortz "Let me put it this way, I terminated her along with other staff members who were no longer needed. And I said that I could not recommend her for any further positions."

Seems that he retracted the word "fire" and replaced it with "terminated." According to Zeifman, she was "terminated" not "fired."

And he was quoted in a "Accuracy in Media" column that he had a "regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate Bar Associations." The brief Hillary wrote, according to Zeifman, was so fraudulent and ridiculous that she would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge. But there was no need to carry it any further since Nixon's resignation rendered the whole matter moot.

Sweet Jesus, it's going to be a long campaign.

When was the last short one. As usual, there will be lot's of phony rhetoric, twisted "narratives," gross or subtle pandering, outright lies, massive spending, and tremendous waste of our time and enjoyment of daily life. Maybe a horrific story of a dog riding on the top of a car. Or of a super wealthy candidate being out of touch with the "people" because of his wealth. Not that career politicians don't get to the top 1% while they are in office, but that is deserved. Running for office while wealthy makes one out of touch. But gaining wealth while in office is evidence that you have touched (up) the people.

The difference is this still is old news...because no evidence of wrongdoing was ever found. If there's a pattern of behavior established perhaps it's of those seeking to bring them down.

Has Zeitman shown a pattern of lying behavior? And what motive would he have to lie? He was urged by top committee members to keep the Watergate diary which is available for inspection in the George Washington University Library. That was a basis for his book about Hillary's actions "Without Honor." Why would he go through the trouble of faking a diary of the whole Watergate proceedings, then write a fake book about it all? He is a lifelong Democrat. He voted for Bill Clinton. But he later came to regret that the Clintons had "corrupted" the Democrat Party. And he saw the beginnings of their "pattern of behavior" starting with Hillary at Watergate, and the various scandals that followed.

Being "old news" does not make it irrelevant. It is old news which informs us of patterns of behavior that reflect on who we should vote for.

Christie will have to stand the test of time.

-spence

Wow--that's an endorsement for President! There is something to the old adage, where there's smoke, there's fire. That's not always the case. But when there's a pattern of smoky events, the probability of there being fire increases.

Christie's episode has only released a puff. And yet you do think that there's still a decent chance Christie misled when he learned about it.

Hillary has a long trail of smoke, yet you speak of no chance that she has "misled." On the contrary, you dismiss even her verified lie or any responsibility in the "misleading" narrative of Benghazzzzzzzzzzzzi. You spin and dismiss any negatives about her.

I can see why she is such a strong candidate. Her followers brook no doubts. And they view her opponents as suspect, at best. And, more to the point her agenda is attractive to the cultural elites. At least the language of the agenda is. My contention is that the language of the progressive agenda is a rhetorical pastiche which obscures the old top down, smarter than thou authoritative social order. Covered over with the same old vague but good sounding notions of fairness and equality. And elites, of all stripes, Democrat or Republican, are more comfortable with being part of a ruling class and not really "equal" with the lesser folks. It is absolutely fair that they get the lion's share and the ruled are equal in their lesser station. And, after all, being so gullible, they are easy to persuade that it is for their own good. And they really don't have the ability to rise above their station anyway. It IS for their good. Hillary is one of those strong ones who have risen in the ranks of the ruling class by the old method of tenacity and deception. She has stood the test of time. She is one of the elites. And the lower orders can have confidence in her, by her rhetoric, that she is strong enough, and tenacious enough, to do what is good and fair for them.

I, personally, don't see what is so compelling about her to be a President. I really do see her as a manipulative liar who will do whatever it takes, legal or not, moral or not, to get what she wants.

[Raven]

another NIXON = CRASH and Burn

[PaulS]

I was about 25 feet from him Friday night. Unfortunatly, it looks like he put weigh back on. He needs to loose weigh for his health (and longevity) as well as his political career. I don't think the American people will elect someone that heavy. He has to also get control of his bullying problem. At this point there is nothing to indicate that he had any involvement in the decision to close the lanes.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I was about 25 feet from him Friday night. Unfortunatly, it looks like he put weigh back on. He needs to loose weigh for his health (and longevity) as well as his political career. I don't think the American people will elect someone that heavy. He has to also get control of his bullying problem. At this point there is nothing to indicate that he had any involvement in the decision to close the lanes.

Couldn't agree more. It's all about perception now, not substance .
If it were, Rand Paul would be the next President
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device