“Revenge of the Nerd”

This couldn’t happen to a nicer asshole.


This entry was posted in Chris Christie, The Media and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.
  • muselet

    David Wildstein’s lawyer wrote a very artful letter, one which by some random coincidence was sent not just to the Port Authority but also to every news outlet in the known Universe (though I think he may have missed one on Ursa Minor Beta). Part of me wants very much for Wildstein to have proof of Chris Christie’s knowledge and/or involvement in the bridge closure; another part of me thinks Wildstein is just a weasel trying to get back at someone who fired him when he became inconvenient.

    Either way, Wildstein had better really have the goods on Christie. If he doesn’t, he will have annoyed a lot of prosecutors, and they don’t appreciate having their time wasted.

    –alopecia

    • Zen Diesel

      I think Wildstein is a weasel and he probably has some proof that Christie knew through plausible deniability. The real fun for me will be to watch how Joey Squinty Eyes and the Meat Puppets will find a way to polish the turd on Morning Joke next Monday.

      • muselet

        It will be interesting to see what knots Squint and The Meat Puppet (Worst. Band name. Ever!) tie themselves into to keep from admitting that Chris Christie isn’t who they’ve been trying to convince their audience he is.

        Although, honestly, even if I had cable, I’d give it a miss.

        –alopecia

    • Badgerite

      I believe his lawyer is involved in all of this and is trying to get immunity for Wildstein. There may be some embellishment here. But there must be SOME substance to this. I do not think the whole truth has come out yet.
      Christie, at his now notorious press conference spent a good deal of time claiming how ridiculous it was to speculate that his campaign would be interested in a mayoral endorsement from such a ‘small fish’ as the Fort Lee Mayor. But clearly, what happened had no legitimate state motive that anyone can point to. And, as Rachel Maddow has pointed out, there was quite a lot of dishonest bullshit thrown to try to cover up the fact that there was no legitimate state purpose to the traffic lane shutdowns. during the minimal ‘investigation’ that occurred in the legislature
      So Christie’s statements at his press conference seem to me hollow and dishonest. There was no ‘traffic study’ going on there. So it had to be political payback. IT HAD TO BE. No other explanation. That being the case, Christie trying to pretend that that was a ridiculous contention ( a political motive to the traffic shutdown) was
      clearly dishonest.

  • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

    I thank the tenacity of Rachel Maddow for bringing this story to light and it should be noted that this is a bonafide scandal that has legs and not at all like the invented crap from Issa and his lackeys.

  • muselet

    I’m a day late seeing this, but Josh Marshall yesterday called attention to an email he’d received from a reader at the start of the bridge Charlie Foxtrot. Apparently, David Wildstein has always been … well, read the piece and decide for yourself what he’s always been.

    –alopecia

    • nathkatun7

      Sorry, but I don’t trust anonymous sources in this situation. How do I as a reader of this blog, or of TPM for that matter, able to verify veracity of the person who sent Josh Marshall the email? What if he/she is a Chris Christie supporter who is trying to demonize Wildstein for daring to come clean to expose Christie?

      • muselet

        Maybe a Christie partisan wrote the email in question, but if so, he’s not the only one who thinks Wildstein was a little … well

        Thomas L. Adams, deputy mayor alongside Wildstein at the time, in December described Wildstein’s term as “tumultuous.”

        “Sometimes David made moves that were not productive for his career. There was a lot of political bickering,” said Adams, who said he has since had no contact with Wildstein. “Maybe his ambition ran too far.”

        Also, if the email was written by someone trying to defend Christie by putting all the blame on Wildstein, he has an odd way of doing it:

        Either way, some people are questioning Christie’s judgment by giving this guy any power at all.

        That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of Chris Christie. In a way, it’s even worse than saying Christie personally ordered the lane closures and monitored the situation every minute.

        Since Josh Marshall’s piece ran as an “Editor’s Blog” item instead of as a hard news piece, I’m willing to cut him some slack on naming sources. And I didn’t mean to claim it was dispositive (if it seemed as if I did, I apologize for my sloppiness). It’s just another data point to be taken into consideration.

        –alopecia

        • nathkatun7

          “Since Josh Marshall’s piece ran as an “Editor’s Blog” item instead of as a hard news piece, I’m willing to cut him some slack on naming sources.”

          Based on you prior commentaries I respect your integrity. So, if you are “willing to cut” Josh Marshall “some slack on naming sources” I will assume that the e-mail he received was from a reliable source with integrity and Mr. Wildstein should not be believed.

          What puzzled me about the person who wanted to remain anonymous, however, was this thought: Why would any one be afraid of Mr. Wildstein, who no longer has job, and, I assume, no longer has the power to retaliate? Unless, of course Wildstein, has some other powerful outside forces capable of retaliation against his opponents.

          • muselet

            I’m not going to speculate on why the author of that email wanted to be anonymous (I understand New Jersey politics about as well as I understand computational fluid dynamics), although I can think of a couple of reasons why s/he might. Remember too, Talking Points Memo published the original piece in December, when the media by and large weren’t much interested in the bridge story.

            Josh Marshall quotes emails from readers fairly regularly, generally identifying them by initials. He’s also fairly zealous in protecting the reputation of TPM, so I assume he takes some steps to determine what axes the author has to grind. And he always does this in the “Editor’s Blog” and not as news items.

            As an aside, I’ve read TPM since about 2008. Apart from some clickbait headlines and the occasional article that stretches a bit too far to reach a conclusion, I’ve found it to be a reasonably reliable news source. Your mileage, as they say, may vary.

            Again, it’s just another angle on the story which I found interesting.

            –alopecia

      • Badgerite

        I believe Wildstein’s lawyer has been seeking immunity claiming that he has just such information and would like to make a deal with prosecutors.

    • Badgerite

      She’s damned good. Yes?

    • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

      Alo, while I respect Josh Marshall in general, and your opinion in particular, I’m a little surprised that he would post such a speculative email, which was, after all, simply an opinion, and then go on to state “I learned a lot more about the Christie bridge scandal tonight.” after reading it.
      WTF? I didn’t learn a thing from reading that email other than the author either has an ax to grind with Wildstein, or the author is attempting to sway opinion on Christie’s lack of guilt in the matter.

      It is purely speculative.

      • muselet

        You’re not wrong about it being speculative.

        Again, I assume Josh Marshall knows who sent him that email last December. And again, if the author is trying to defend Chris Christie, s/he’s doing a rotten job of it (“Either way, some people are questioning Christie’s judgment by giving this guy any power at all.”).

        I read the email to mean that Christie hired someone who absolutely would have closed entry lanes onto the George Washington Bridge to punish a small-city mayor and, as a corollary, Christie can’t pretend he didn’t know what David Wildstein was capable of. Maybe I read too much into it.

        I found it interesting. That’s all.

        –alopecia

        • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

          Oh hell, alo, I’m just too invested in Christie being guilty, and I’m gonna cry if Wildstein was lying.

          • muselet

            Chris Christie might not have known in advance about the lane closures, but he hired the nasty little people who implemented them. Directly or indirectly, he’s implicated, and there’s no way he can avoid having this story hung around his neck.

            Unless something unimaginably weird happens, Christie’s national ambitions are ashes (I don’t know about in New Jersey) for 2016 and if this gets any worse for him, they’re ashes permanently. That happens even if David Wildstein never said a true word in his life.

            I kind of like the idea that Christie had no idea what his merry band of ratfkers were up to. If he knew, he’s a Nixonian figure and Rs love their elected leaders to be slightly evil and manipulative; if he was out of the loop, Christie’s just a surly buffoon.

            –alopecia