angrymnk wrote:
Weird, usually you can see the dots where there aren't any. So you think it is impossible, because Christie is way too high up to engage in some petty political payback.
No. I don't think it's impossible. I just think that the investigation has skipped past the whole "did someone actually do something wrong?" part and right to the "find the person responsible!" part.
Quote:
Oh, your face will be so red when it turns out that he wasn't too high for that after all.
Sure. And if it turns out that those lanes really were closed in some kind of bizarre political revenge scheme, committed by members of the governors staff, I'll freely admit that I was wrong and I apparently have no clue how stupid and petty folks in NJ are. And if the governor himself is involved, I'll also freely admit that he's a heavy handed *** hat, and boy are people stupid and vindictive in Jersey.
But I'm the person who looked at the Plame scandal on day one and predicted that it would turn out that no laws were broken, and no one really outed anyone, but they'd find someone in the white house to nail for perjury or some other such silly charge. And that's
exactly what happened.
For the record? That is what a real "phoney scandal" looks like. Now, It's possible that I'm wrong. But if this goes anything like most of the trumped up phoney scandals the left has cooked up go, the "investigation" will mostly involve a couple years of innuendo and cleverly leaked statements designed to be most damaging to the GOP victims involved. They'll keep going over records and testimony until they find someone (or multiple someone's) who lied about something somewhere, even if it's completely unrelated to the original scandal. And then, after enough time has gone by, and most people have forgotten what the original thing was about and are primed to accept a half loaf result, they'll quietly conclude with facts that don't match the original claims, but it wont matter because they'll have trashed several people's careers along the way and gotten a couple years of media cycles where they get to rehash the old "corrupt republicans" meme.
But hey. I could be wrong. Never know.
Quote:
Personally, I gave him the benefit of the doubt until mr. W started to talk. As it stands right now, if you don't see it, you are wilfully blind. That is ok though, we all want to believe in something. Why not Christie?
Who? Seriously. I really don't care that much, nor do I even know who most of these people are. It's just that I've been watching this thing unfold nationally for a month or so now, and every time I read or hear someone talk about it, they skip right from "lanes were closed" to "who knew the lanes were going to be closed" and I've yet to have anyone really explain how merely knowing that some lanes were going to be closed equates to being in on some kind of plot.
I guessing that hundreds of people knew that those lanes were going to be closed. Were they all in on it? Or just the people working for and politically aligned with Christie? Doesn't that seem suspiciously selective? Again, look hard enough at anyone and you'll find something that can be viewed as "suspicious". The issue with a lot of these scandals isn't about what was done by whom, but who the folks investigating decide to focus on. If the Plame scandal had focused on the meeting she had and traced who knew about her from there, they would have arrived at Armitage almost immediately. But instead, they started with the theory that the white house outted her as payback for her husbands Op Eds. Therefore, they focused only on who in the white house knew about her and might have leaked it.
Same deal here. They're starting with the conspiracy theory (they did it to get back at their political enemies) and thus focusing only on looking at people who knew or were involved, and who might be in on such a conspiracy. They should be starting with the work that was done, then looking at who signed off on it. Then looking at who met with those who signed off on it. And then looking at who gave direction to those who were in the meetings with those who signed off on it. I suspect that once you do that, you'll find that there really was a planned traffic study, and someone deep in the bowels of whatever agency in NJ handles traffic issues decided that blocking off selected lanes would give them more/better data, and a bunch of other people, most not involved with the governors office or party in any direct way, all thought it was a good idea as well, and thus it got authorized.
Starting with the top and looking only at people in the governor's circle who knew about it is a really skewed way of doing things if you actually want to find out what happened and why. It's a great way of doing things if your objective is to create a scandal that will damage governor Christie.