Some very good investigative broadcast journalism from MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Thursday night.
On Thursday morning, New Jersey Governor and, until now, Republican Presidential favorite, Chris Christie gave a two-hour press conference (full transcript here) in which he expressed being “stunned” and “blindsided” Wednesday morning by the blockbuster revelations published that day by Shawn Boburg of the Bergen Record.
The paper’s report included email and text messages [PDF] between Christie’s Deputy Chief of Staff Bridget Anne Kelly and a number of other top appointees conspiring to shut down lanes of the George Washington Bridge leading out of Fort Lee, NJ on the first day of school last September. The messages reveal the staffers appearing to enjoying the pain the shut down was causing the town, joking about the inconvenience to the local children of voters of Christie’s gubernatorial opponent in last November’s election, and otherwise agreeing not to respond to queries from town officials about the closures.
During the presser, Christie announced he had fired Kelly before it began. He said he had done so because she had previously assured him she knew nothing about the traffic closure that went on for four days in Fort Lee, turning the town into a parking lot and delaying emergency first-responders, among other problems it caused. “I’ve terminated her employment because she lied to me,” he explained on Thursday.
What struck me as odd about his answer to questions about his staff’s response to the firing was that he said he hadn’t spoken with Kelly since the revelations came out in the paper on Wednesday morning, before she was then fired on Thursday.
“I’m wondering what your staff said to you about why they lied to you. Why would they do that? What was their explanation?,” the reporter asked.
“I have — I have not had any conversation with Bridget Kelly since the email came out,” he answered. “And so she was not given the opportunity to explain to me why she lied because it was so obvious that she had. And I’m, quite frankly, not interested in the explanation at the moment.”
Not interested in the explanation?…
After his response, I tweeted:
No conversation with his Dep Chief of Staff who lied to him & who he fired? Really? Why? Doesn't want to know more? #PlausableDeniability
— Brad Friedman (@TheBradBlog) January 9, 2014
Christie is a former U.S. Attorney under George W. Bush. He’s a prosecutor who knows how to investigate wrong-doing. He claims that what he “read yesterday” (Wednesday) made him “angry”. This scandal’s been percolating for months. He’s belittled it, joked about it, claimed he didn’t think it was a “big deal”. But on Wednesday, when he read the emails and texts “for the first time”, he realized he’d been lied to by several of his top staffers. He was “stunned”, but didn’t want to speak to the woman, his once-trusted Deputy Chief of Staff, who sent the original email instructing that it was “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee”? Really?
That simply doesn’t seem plausible.
It has also become clear that Christie did not discuss the matter with his two top appointees at the NY/NJ Port Authority either, even though he fired them in early December last year as part of damage control at the time, including the one who actually ordered the lanes shut down after responding to Kelly’s “Time for some traffic problems” missive with the simple reply: “Got it.”
Why doesn’t Christie want to speak to those people if, as he claims, he wanted to get “to the bottom of things” and “spent all day yesterday” trying to do it after being “blindsided”?
Answer: It doesn’t seem like he really wants to get to the bottom of things at all. It seems he may already know what’s at the bottom, or, in the most generous interpretation, doesn’t want to know. I suspect it’s the former. Either way, his claims today — despite his repeated apologies, his expressions of regret and sadness, his assertion that it was “heartbreaking to me that I wasn’t told the truth” and his willingness to answer questions for two hours — don’t seem particularly plausible, given the extent to which he has clearly gone to not learn the truth when he had the opportunity to do so first hand from some of his very closest staffers.
If his Deputy Chief of Staff was in on the conspiracy, along with his Campaign Manager and his top appointees at the Port Authority and several others, and they all lied to him, as he says, wouldn’t he want to find out what else they didn’t tell him before cutting them loose? Who else was in on it? For some reason, Chris Christie doesn’t appear to want to know.
It makes no sense. Unless he’s covering something up. What is he covering up? Maddow may have uncovered a hint tonight.
Until now, the reason suspected for the retaliatory closure of the lanes out of Fort Lee was that it was political payback against their Democratic Mayor who refused to endorse Christie in his re-election bid. But other Democrats had also declined to do so. Both Christie and Fort Lee Mayor Mike Sokolich have claimed to be puzzled by that. Sokolich, while acknowledging that he’d been asked for the endorsement, didn’t think he was “that important” that the Governor of NJ would exact that kind of retribution when he chose to endorse the Democrat instead. For his part, Christie said during his presser that he didn’t “have any recollection of at any time, anybody in the campaign ever asking me to meet with Mayor Sokolich or call him, which was the typical course that was used when we were attempting to get an endorsement.”
It does, after all, seem an incredibly aggressive response to a fairly petty matter, particularly given the landslide re-election victory that Christie believed (correctly) that he would have in November.
“I know who I was pursuing as endorsers. I know who was close and we didn’t get. I know who was never close or we were trying to get. And know the people we got. This guy never was on my radar screen. And I think he confirmed that last night by saying he was never really — he doesn’t have any recollection of being even asked for the endorsement. And that’s — you know, that’s why I don’t get this,” Christie said during the marathon press appearance on Thursday.
So, if that’s true, what was this all was about? Was it something else? Something other than the Fort Lee Mayor’s lack of endorsement? Something that Christie knows about, perhaps? Something that would lead him to not want to have to admit he’d discussed it with Kelly and others before firing them?
Maddow, noticing that Kelly’s “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee” email was sent to Christie’s Port Authority appointee David Wildstein on August 13, 7:34am, wondered what else happened around that time in NJ that might have spurred Kelly to order the lane closures on the world’s busiest bridge first thing in the morning that day?
Here’s Maddow’s report, finding that the evening before, Christie had unloaded on Democrats in a particularly angry press conference concerning the re-nomination battle of a NJ Supreme Court judge, a battle that had been several years in the making. The woman who headed the state Senate Committee causing embarrassment for Christie at the time was NJ’s state Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg (D), who happens to represent…you guessed it…Fort Lee…
The points raised by Maddow are certain to raise many more questions about this entire fine mess, as if there aren’t enough already. But, for now, we’ll leave those for another day.
After offering her alternative theory, explained above, Maddow interviewed Weinberg about them. Here’s that interview…
I don’t claim to be an expert on the man. But, to be frank — having spent a fair amount of time studying Christie in advance of my 2011 exclusive revealing the secret audio tapes of the secret Koch Brothers summit where Christie was the super-secret keynote speaker — while he can certainly be thuggish, a blowhard, and somewhat of a bully when he likes, retribution against a Democratic mayor for declining to endorse him in a landslide election seems a bit overboard, even for Christie.
On the other hand, retaliating against the state’s Democratic Senate Majority Leader, who he likely saw as causing him no small amount of embarrassment in the NJ Supreme Court matter, does seem more in keeping with his style. Even if he didn’t know about it (which is seeming less likely by the hour), his staff surely shared the same frustrations with Senate Democrats that Christie would have (even as he often expertly played Democrats in the state legislature like a fiddle.) Weinberg, for that matter, led the charge in the state Senate after the Secret Koch Tapes story, to pass legislation that would keep Christie from secretly leaving the state again in the future, as he had when he appeared at the Koch Summit in Colorado.
Maddow’s alternative theory is smart, good reporting, might make more “sense” out of this entire matter, and is certainly worthy of further inquiry.
It’s deja vu all over again.Nixon fires Haldeman&Erlichman and claims he had “no idea”about what they were doing!! Christie fires his #2 aide and says he was “shocked” about what she was doing!!The oprea is not over until the “fat women(man) sings.Good-bye fat man.
Whether Bridge Gate was the product of an effort to retaliate against Fort Lee Mayor Mike Sokolich, State Senator Loretta Weinberg, or both, while intriguing, is really not the key issue.
Setting aside the likelihood that Christie knew, and, as Michael Reiner observed @1, like Richard Nixon before him, is engaged in what will likely be a futile effort at damage control, what this scandal does is expose the gaping disparity between the marketed image created by the MSM when it seeks to sell the public on a prospective Presidential candidate and the ugly truth.
As Eric Boehlert points out, over the past four years, the Beltway MSM have depicted Christie as “authentic” and a “straight shooter.”
That fawning coverage continued even over the past month as this scandal was simmering:
The real reason why Christie’s denials are implausible can be found in the gap between that image and a governor whom Boehlert describes as both “vindictive” and “dishonest” — a point that was more amply demonstrated by the following segment from All in with Chris Hayes than by Maddow’s alternative motivation theory.
A civil class action has been filed by six Bergen County residents in a U.S. District Court in Newark, NJ. The lawsuit seeks damages for lost wages occasioned by the GWB lane closure.
The named defendants include Christie, his aides, his Port Authority appointees and state Sen. Bill Baroni.
If the case is not disposed of via a motion to dismiss, it would mean that Christie might have to produce documents and answer questions under oath at a deposition.
It should be noted that defendants in civil actions retain the right to invoke the 5th Amendment.
A belated thank you for the revelation of the 2011 Koch Brothers audio. It’s clear Christie is the Plutocracy’s man for 2016, as such the ultra-reactionary wingnut welfare class has taken to all manner of social media to defend Christie.
Money love the Petty Bully as such their paid pundit class will make sure conservatives do as well.
Exactly, Christie’s narrative makes little sense. He’s acting like he’s a teenager who’s been lied to by a friend so he’s not gonna be their friend anymore or talk to them. That’s not what this is about. It’s so much bigger than his oft-proclaimed “hurt” feelings.
And as somebody mentioned–that a deputy chief of staff can send such a terse email and receive an even shorter response from Wildstein indicating in no uncertain terms that he understands exactly what she’s telling him to set in motion seems to speak loudly and clearly of some weird, vindictive, retribution-as-normal culture. Unthinkable that it all started with Kelly.
Brad,
Christie said during his press conference that others had been cc’d on the Kelly e-mails. You need to find them. Why weren’t they fired for not telling Christie?
Christie didn’t say he fired Kelly because she blocked a bridge – he fired her for crossing him.
Very clever – his presser was a long warning to everyone else around him: I’m okay if you were involved with blocking the bridge, but I’m not okay with you crossing me.
And, he didn’t say he was sad, humiliated, and upset his people blocked a bridge. He was sad, etc. that people crossed him.
Classic low self-esteem behavior.
Just heard Mike Smerconish bring up an interesting point. I guess there’s a report that in December Christie had been in contact with Governor Cuomo complaining that the bridge investigation was being pursued too vigorously and requesting they back off, or something like that?
If that’s true, that sure sounds like the opposite of not knowing anything about it until 5 minutes ago.
Doesn’t anyone remember why they are teaching him a lesson over a minor piece of Jersey political thuggery with a traffic back up. Can anyone here spell Hudson River Tunnel. One of the first things Christie did upon taking office years ago was to cancel the badly needed Hudson River Tunnel already under construction. They may not be too bright on the other side of the Hudson but they do have long memories. When the opportunity presented itself everyone with an interest in the tunnel simply let Christie twist in the wind. The lesson has been taught but has it been learned?
Sam –
Wait. You’re saying that Christie is the real victim here??
That is darling.
Take Bridgegate to the next level: every time Christie or NJGOPers want to do something BAD, activate against it and practically DARE them to snarl traffic in your neighborhood. I just sent an e-mail to my state senator (Addiego) when I learned she wouldn’t override Christie’s veto of humane swine-handling law that she voted for.
People may have already gone farther than me: we thought the Christie-packed Pinelands Commission would approve a pipeline to carry frack-gas to the coast – motion failed! All the commissioners know anything happens to people around them, point a finger at Trenton. Love the show and the dogged determination!
David @7 wrote:
Many of the Emails were heavily redacted. It is unclear precisely why. What is clear is that we are not dealing with matters of national security and that the governmental bodies which have undertaken to investigate this should have access to original Emails that have not been redacted. That would include the identity of those who were cc’d, which could possibly include Christie.
Cover-up?
According to Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal, during the week of December 12, 2013, Christie phoned Andrew Cuomo.
Well, pretty clearly an attempted cover-up, according to the details coming out of the document dump today (hundreds and hundreds of files released by the state legislature): “I am on my way to the office to discuss. There can be no public discourse.”
And, it was a cover-up of something that the head of the NJ Port Authority believed to be both a federal and state crime:
Interesting, the first two videos did not load up neither here nor on the Salon site. Some more of Christie’s work?:-)
I think that “Bully” is a good name for Christie but other than using the “F” word (I don’t mean f**k), he is a mobster, or a DICtator.
Regardless of motive or his ability to insulate himself from the pre-meditation of this petty criminal act, it’s impossible to explain away the callous inaction for four days while Fort Lee authorities (and their own Port Authority) were frantically trying to get any response from the Governor or his administration or appointees. That is as close to proving him unfit for office as it is proving intent to let this disaster play out.
What struck me most about the presser was Governor Christie’s assertion that he determines the level of cooperation for pending investigations based upon his assessment of their merit. Last time I checked that was the purview of prosecutors and legislative committees and they are compelled to cooperate.
Now that we know personal e-mail accounts were being used to conduct government business and possible a criminal enterprise, shouldn’t tghe personal e-mails of all involved parties be subpoenaed and copies obtained from their providers given the likelihood of their deletions like last week?
Brad: The Email (“I am on my way to the office to discuss. There can be no public discourse.”) was submitted by Bill Baroni to Port Authority Executive Director Patrick Foye, a Republican who was appointed by NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D).
Baroni, a Republican, had served as a NJ State Senator until he was appointed by Christie to serve as the Deputy Executive Director of the Port Authority.
The Emails appended to the Molly Reden/Andy Kroll Mother Jones article reflect that it was Baroni who wrote, in relation to a text from Mayor Sokolich about the problem of getting kids to school, “is it wrong that I am smiling?”
Ironically, Boroni is a law professor who teaches “Professional Responsibility” (aka legal ethics) at Seton Hall University School of Law.
Foye is scheduled to testify on Monday before the NJ Assembly Transportation Committee pursuant to a subpoena.
Interesting piece from Peter Hart at FAIR in which he describes recent MSM Christie coverage as “a peculiar kind of reporting, which prioritizes image management over reality/”
Holy moly, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is looking more and more like the USA’s answer to Toronto Mayor Rob Ford. Let’s just hope no video surfaces of Governor Christie smoking crack.
Brad, check out today’s (Sunday the 12th) UP with Steve K today. I think he has the REAL theory. It appears that there is a billion dollar development project ongoing at the foot of those “dedicated lanes” and totally dependent on the stability of them. It kind of looks like Christi’s peeps were not doing payback, so much as trying to muscle in on a piece of the action by showing they have power over that access. Sort of a horse-head-in-the-bed Jersey style.
To me, this sounds more like Christi’s, and indeed New Jersey’s style. Heh
Regarding the cancellation announce of the Hudson Bridge-Tunnel, it was done on the same day when Bret Schundler was testifying under oath. He had proof that CC had lied and his testimony was buried by the announcement of the cancellation. There is no way that was a coincidence and I was always surprised this was never reported.
I’ve been surprised to see people continue to point the the non-endorsement as the catalyst here, while Maddow’s explanation seems much more likely and also explains Christie’s apparent sincere surprise at the non-endorsement narrative. This is just the beginning, but thankfully it’s the end of Christie’s Presidential hopes. Anyone called “A political hero” by Murdoch and Koch’s would be a disaster for average Americans.