BridgeGate extends all the way to the top. Feds gettings involved

Page 4 of 7  
On Thursday, January 16, 2014 10:31:19 AM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:

To a loon perhaps. It's not just one email. It's many emails over weeks. It's references to phone calls in the emails. It's seeing the thread of the messages back and forth. It's impossible to believe that someone other than Kelly was sending those. If you sent an email using someone else's account, how would you be able to know when and how the person receiving it was going to reply? It lead you to believe those involved did it. But, hell if Christie comes to the same conclusion, why something ain't right there. Good grief.
One could certainly make the case that he fired her

No, that's how you libs do things. You put people on paid leave for 6 months or more while you "investigate" yourselves. Then they get their job back. That's exactly what happened with Benghazi. Charlene Lamb who testifed before Congress that the security level in Benghazi, which she was responsible for, was appropriate for the conditions of 9-11. If Christie were in charge, she'd be fired. See the difference?

You're mistaking the standards of a criminal trial to the firing of an employee. Unless the employee has a contract provision or the firing is in a protected class, ie race, age, etc, you can fire an employee just because you don't like them anymore.
Unbelievable the twisted logic you're applying here. Christie couldn't have done anything right to suit you. There was plenty of evidence to justify firing her. If he "interviewed" her, then you'd be here bitching "cover-up". Why was he talking to her? Can't he see the abundant justification to fire her? He's keeping her on the payroll while he "investigates" to keep her from talking, etc.

Imbecile.

Where exactly are all these other Dems that were similarly screwed by Christie? What, they were screwed, but they aren't in front of a media camera? He's been in office 4 years, where are the 25 others?
And once again, we don't know what the real motive here was. I know all you want to focus on is anything and everything that is negative and then use that to speculate in the most jaundiced way possible. But besides the obvious "Where is the rest of me?" outline above, what about the fact that the mayor of Ft Lee says no one ever asked him for an endorsement? What about the fact that Christie says prior to the story breaking, he didn't even know who the mayor was? The mayor hasn't said anything about ever meeting Christie. Ft. Lee is a small town, of no particular importance. So, why Ft. Lee? It could very well turn out that the real motive was some personal beef that someone involved had with the mayor. But, heh, no reason to even think about that possibility, right?

And of course in true bi-partisan fairness, you leave out any mention of the most direct and current comparison, Obama's lies:
If you like your policy, nothing changes, it won't affect you, you can keep it.
If you like your doctor, nothing changes, you can keep him.
Lying that Benghazi was a protest over a movie that turned violent, instead of acknowledging that it was a terroist attack.
Sure, you're bi-partisan and fair. And you really like Christie before this too. Yeah, we all believe that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, January 16, 2014 12:55:34 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:

It wasn't just one email. There were several, back and forth. You also have the emails coming back to her from the other people involved, you have their corresponding emails from the other people's email accounts, etc. It's impossible to believe that someone else was doing this when these went back and forth at various times, over weeks, phone calls are referenced in the emails, etc. If you used someone's email account to send a message, how would you ever be able to intercept and keep replying, etc. without Kelly seeing it? What you're suggesting is implausible.
And Christie did give everyone a chance to tell his chief of staff or chief counsel if they were involved in this or knew anything at all about the bridge affair before he made a public statement on it. That was back in December. They all said no. He did get them on the record. And he gave them the opportunity to talk to two people other than himself, one a lawyer, where attorney/client privilege would apply. That keeps Christie out of it.

I've never seen asking someone to write a report before firing them done in any private business. And this is the governor and it's a *criminal* investigation at this point. The last thing Christie needs to do is involve himself in that. If he starts questioning her, then he's putting himself in a possibly compromising position. Some of the folks here would already being saying "What? He met with her after finding this out? Cover-up!" He had plenty of cause to fire her. If by some miracle, which is about equal to winning the Powerball JAckpot, she wasn't involved, he can always give her back her job.


Hell, you couldn't pay the commuting costs, taxes, etc making that. I'd bet the average is easily twice that for people commuting. The problem with a class action is how do you establish that you were one of the class? Seems there would be plenty of people piling on and no easy way to verify it.

My understanding is it was 3 lanes of local traffic feeding into the tolls at Ft Lee, reduced down to one. So, if anything, it would have helped ease the traffic for people already on I-80 coming west.
One additional irony in all this is that in the emails, Wildstein at POA asked the engineering dept to make the plans to reduce the lanes. They came back about 2 or 3 weeks later and sent him an email saying they could reduce three to two, or if he really wanted it, to just one. He chose one. So, there are a couple interesting parts to that. They had weeks to reconsider and think about what they were doing. And the other is that had Wildstein not been so stupid as to take it down to just one lane, there is a very good chance they would have gotten away with it. With two lanes, it would have been just another typical jam up. But when it created 4 hour delays for kids in school buses, etc and it went on for 4 days, the media took notice. And anyone looking at it could see there was no construction, nothing to justify it. So, by going for the one lane option, instead of the two that was also offered, Wildstein screwed them all.
It's also hard to understand how those involved could have been so incredibly stupid to see the horrendous effect it was having and not back it off after just one day. Again, if they had done that, they might have gotten away with it. It finally took the head of POA, a NY appointee, to order those lanes re-opened. Without him, God only knows how long these dummies would have kept it up.

IDK, those are all good questions. My general understanding is if you decided to commit some similar act, say vandalism, and there is a group that throws rocks through someone's windows, then as you say they are jointly and severally liable. You would have to show they were actually involved though, not just that they resigned.
Speaking of vandalism, did you see what happened to Justin Beber? He's apparently been pissing off the neighbors with loud parties, noise, etc for a long time. So, few days ago, apparently he and/or some folks in his house egged the neighbor. How you do $20K in damages with eggs, IDK, but that is what the neighbor is claming. So, *12* cops raid his house the next morning. And his rapper buddy who was there got busted for illegal drugs. I'm amazed that you'd have a bust with 12 cops for an egg throwing incident. But, it just shows that once you start doing things you shouldn't who knows what will happen.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 22:13:23 -0500, "Robert Green"

I didn't get that either until just now. She was just made for this job.
They don't call her BRIDGEt for nothing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 22:13:23 -0500, "Robert Green"

I thought the last we heard about this is that there were liberal organizations that also got questioned just as strongly as conservative ones, and that there were more conservative ones because more of them were created to take advantage of a recent court ruling. IOW, there was possibly nothing to to the IRS "scandal". That's why no one was fired.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, January 13, 2014 12:31:58 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:

If they in fact treated all organizations the same way and there was nothing to the IRS scandal, then why did Lois Lerner take the fifth before Congress instead of just saying that?
Actually, what she did very likely means she can be recalled and forced to testify, if the House wants to take that route, because she didn't really take the fifth. What she did was to first give her self-serving testimony, denying that she had done anything wrong, etc, then refuse to answer any questions at all on what she had just said. Most constitutional lawyers that I've heard opine on that have said that by doing that, you've waived your constitutional rights. It's like allowing a witness to take the stand at a trial, answer questions that his own defense counsel asks that present his side of the story, then refusing to answer when the prosecution has it's chance to cross examine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 08:32:01 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

There are several possible reasons, including avoiding mere embarrassment. If you believe in the Bill of Rights, we're not supposed to draw negative conclusiosn from someone's doing that, asserting his Constitutional right, any more than from someone who has the right to stop it not permitting his home to be searched. You wouldn't want your home searched on someone's speculation about your activities, would you.

So she didn't take the fifth, even though you just said she did.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You can't do it in court. I don't know if this has been adjudicated wrt congressional committees.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The more I think about this, the more important it seems. There is plenty of law on the 5th Amendment and self-incrimination. Lots of case decisions. But I'll bet 98% of them revolve around court trials amd don't deal with congressional committees. Unless this very topic has been adjudicated wrt con. committees, there is no rule against it.
Because it's certainly not obvious.
The law in court aiui is that one can't even answer, What is your name? or you lose your 5th Amendment right. Who would think that without prior knowledge of the fact.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:45:41 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:

So, it's less embarrassing to answer questions and explain that you've done nothing wrong and certainly nothing criminal, than to plead the fifth? That's a new one.
If you believe in the Bill of Rights, we're not

Show us where it says anything like that in the Bill of Rights. It says that you can't be forced to *testify against yourself*. It says nothing about not drawing negative conclusions about that, outside of an actual trial. It's silly to claim that it's not appropriate to draw a negative conclusion from a govt offical that pleads the fifth before Congress.
any more than from someone who has

You

Completely different situations. Lois Lerner worked for the IRS, was responsible for the unit at the IRS and Congress has every right to ask questions of govt workers. It's part of their oversight duty. What do you think would happen in a private company, if management brought in some manager and asked questions about some operation they were responsible for that had problems and the employee invoked the fifth, refusing to answer questions? They'd be fired and out the door that day.

Good grief. Do you even understand the facts? She claims she took the fifth. Her lawyer claims she took the fifth. Those are the words she used, asserting her fifth ammendment rights. She clearly used the fifth to avoid answering questions. Whether it would hold up if Congress chose to pursue it, recall her, force the issue into court and get a ruling, is the point I brought up. Because what she did, most constitutional lawyers and case law say you can't do. You can't give your own self-serving testimony and then use the fifth to answer questions about what you just said.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:16:21 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

I checked and you're wrong. Or at least the way your phrased it doesn't apply here. Denial of guilt is not testimony, aiui.
In my words, testimony refers to speaking about what one witnessed. Denial of guilt is about what one didn't witness.
At any rate, the lawyer can say it better than I can.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/lois-lerner-invokes-fifth-amendment-in-house-hearing-on-irs-targeting/2013/05/22/03539900-c2e6-11e2-8c3b-0b5e9247e8ca_story.html "Lerner’s lawyer, William W. Taylor, adamantly disagreed with suggestions that his client had opened herself up to contempt charges.
'The law is clear that a witness does not waive her Fifth Amendment rights not to testify as to facts by asserting that she is innocent of the wrongdoing with which she is accused,' Taylor wrote in an e-mail."
It was the chairman of the committee, Issa, I think, who claimed she may not do what she did, but Issa is not a lawyer and what little law he thinks he knows comes from the three times he was arrested, for auto theft, carrying a concealed weapon, and grand theft,
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:12:40 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:

9247e8ca_story.html

Wow, there's a surprise. Lerner's own lawyer says she didn't waive her rights by what she did. I'm really impressed. What an unimpeachable source.
Let's see what Alan Dershowitz, who has no dog in the fight, has to say:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/301557-dershowitz-irs-chie f-lerner-can-be-held-in-contempt-of-congress
"Dershowitz, who helped advise O.J. Simpson's defense team, said Lerner "sh ould never have been allowed" to make her opening statement.
"You can't simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject," Dershowitz said. "On ce you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amen dment right... you've waived your self-incrimination right on that subject matter."
Who should we believe? Alan Dershowitz, who teaches constitutional law at Harvard and is certainly no Issa loving Republican, or Lerner's own lawyer. Good grief.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you follow Dershowitz, he likes being the center of attention, even if he's the odd man out, and sometimes he's wrong. I've checked with other lawyers and he's wrong this time.
So far neither of us have looked up any precedents, and I'm pretty sure they are there to be found.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 1:45:37 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:

0b5e9247e8ca_story.html

"Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right... you've waived your self-incrimination right on that subj ect matter."

Then why don't you go find them instead of coming in here and presenting what Lerner's own lawyer says on the matter of her rights? I mean how dumb can you be to cite that as a reference? What the hell do you expect her own lawyer to say?
As far as case law, I have confidence that Alan Dershowitz isn't just shooting off his mouth. But that's what you're good at. In another thread, you start preaching about what the media did or didn't do in the new accusation about Christie and then it turns out you didn't even know the source of those new accusations, haven't read the actual letter, etc. Good grief.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

<nice snip>

So you're saying that you know more about the law than Dershowitz. When a lefty says their side screwed up, you know it's bad. Yet you know better.

Get busy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 10:21:09 AM UTC-6, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

5e9247e8ca_story.html

Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Am endment right... you've waived your self-incrimination right on that subjec t matter."

Again .. if she has done something wrong .. how come the lame ass retards a ren't doing something about it ? 130 hearings on these fake scandals and no t ONE charge . even for a parking ticket , has been found .
Put up or shut up .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 1:53:40 PM UTC-5, Daring Dufas: Hypocrite TeaBi llie on welfare wrote:

0b5e9247e8ca_story.html

"Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right... you've waived your self-incrimination right on that subj ect matter."

not

I think that's been explained many times now, hasn't it? The IRS investigation is still ongoing and you have the Obama administration investigating itself. Only a couple weeks ago, did the justice dept appoint someone to head the investigation and that person is a Democrat who contributed $6K to Obama's campaign. The FBI just got around recently to starting to interview the Tea Party people who were targeted.
In the case of Christie, he has a federal prosecutor who works for Holder investigating him. And the prosecutor is a Democratic party fund raiser. See how that works? With the Obama administration they investigate themselves and it drags on forever. With a Republican, they get quickly investigated by a Democrat who works for Holder/Obama.
See the difference? Does that seem right to you?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

She should have made it clear she was invoking the fifth *before* she appeared. She still may have been called, for the show, but her position shouldn't have been hidden. She looked like the fool she is.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:31:29 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote:

0b5e9247e8ca_story.html

"Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right... you've waived your self-incrimination right on that subj ect matter."

She did make it clear. Her attorney sent a letter to Congress before she appeared indicating that she was going to take the fifth. But then when she showed up she proceeded to read a self-serving denial of doing anything wrong, denied lying to Congress, stated that she didn't violate any IRS rules, etc. In essence she started to tell her side of the story and then claimed the fifth. She chose to try to have her cake and eat it too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 16:05:58 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

Then her speech shouldn't have been allowed at all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:41:38 PM UTC-6, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote:

3b-0b5e9247e8ca_story.html

id. "Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fif th Amendment right... you've waived your self-incrimination right on that s ubject matter."

Expand in you own words why. Impress us your extensive knowledge of court p rocedures .
Or simply acknowledge you are full of shit and simply repeating bullshit he ard from FakeNews opinions .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.