Posted on 02/01/2014 7:24:54 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
If I am not mistaken, Governor Chris Christie said in his 100+ minutes speech that he did had knowledge (at some point in the past) of the lane closures -- but that knowledge was related to the lane closures being in connection with a study.
Based upon this, how can Christie's words that he had no knowledge of the lane closures be used against him?
I may be wrong, but it would seem that the only logical conclusion to the two seemingly diametrically opposed statements is that his words (that he had no knowledge of the lane closures) would have to be that he had no knowledge of the lane closures being in connection with a study but instead he had no knowledge of the lane closures being in connection with trying to bottleneck traffic instead.
Does anyone actually believe that he didn’t know?
Does anyone actually believe he didn’t order it himself personally?
I think that is the “parsing” he’s trying to use, now that one of his former aides has come forward. No one who works as a high-level aide to an executive makes moves like this without knowing it’s what their boss would approve of. So there is the question of whether Christie actually knew all the details, or whether he created a climate in which political retribution like this was tolerated or encouraged.
Watch Christie’s general approach to his job, and the answer should be obvious.
what difference at this point does it make?... somebody made a traffic video at the NJ DMV and that caused all of the problems.. the important point is that we make sure it never happens again.. now let’s move on
So if a person does something (whatever it may be) on a regular basis, then it can then be proven by past actions that they will always do this in the future?
If someone accuses Christie then the onus (burden of proof) is upon them to prove it. That is how our system works...
Actually, I don’t really care what the reason. I am glad it looks like he’s been torpedoed from running for President. He doesn’t deserve to represent an alternative to an Obama-like government. Next, I’m hoping Jeb Bush gets the deep six, politically.
Interesting.
That is no answer to either of the questions I asked though.
No, it really isn’t how it works. The seriousness of the charge, and the surrounding innuendo is enough if the liberal media’s efforts are successful.
It depends on what the meaning of the word knowledge is.
Did anybody ever believe Crispy didn’t know?
If this was a legitimate traffic study (quite possible) then it likely was performed by an outside contractor. Why doesn’t someone find the Port Authority contract for that work and what that contract states in regards to when, where and how the work would be performed ?
Apparently so from what I’m seeing.
Funny how people trust known serial liars but hey this is America, and in America in lies we trust.
Good question.
That would certainly seem to exonerate and buttress the honorable gubnuh’s position.
I would think they would have gotten right on that seemingly important information :O
Christie is no dummy. he was way ahead, he wouldn’t expect an endorsement from a Dem mayor -WHO SAYS HE WAS NEVER ASKED-and wouldn’t be stupid enough to do this.
Also he is half Sicilian. Were he to do something like this he would make sure there was no way to connect him
What you said. He wouldn’t have had my voted either way.
Fat boi Liberal Democrat punishes his enemies just like his BFF Soetoro.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.