On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 18:55:42 -0800 (PST), "Daring Dufas: Hypocrite
If she were going to "plead the fifth", her testimony was irrelevant
beyond a statement that she was going cop the plea. She shouldn't
have been *allowed* to say anything else, by either the committee
_OR_HER_LAWYER_. Is that in small enough words for you to understand,
No, shit is your specialty, moron. You taste it every time you open
On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:32:01 AM UTC-6, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I know this is hard for retards to understand ... but IT WAS HER RIGHT .
Those RIGHTS just aren't for old WHITE MEN.
Then she walked out of the fake, staged hearing and retired on a $100k salary
a year !
How is that a royal FUCK YOU to ISSA !!!
In short , it was put up or shut up - and the RightTards are still fumbling in the dark because they have NOTHING .
On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:52:52 PM UTC-5, David Smith Jr. wrote:
It was her right to take the fifth from the beginning and not answer
any questions. Again, according to the constitutional lawyers that
I've heard and the case law they've cited, it's not her right to first
give her own self-serving testimony and then refuse to answer any
questions about what she just said. There is an important difference
there and she could be recalled and compelled to testify.
And no one said it wasn't her right to plead the fifth. But when
a govt employee pleads the fifth instead of answering questions,
you know perfectly well that something at least potentially criminal
That's how you want your govt to work? IRS officials caught up
in scandal just plead the fifth? Of course if it were a Republican
administration, why you'd be singing a whole different tune.
I wouldn't crow just yet. The FBI is just starting to interview
people involved. The DOJ just appointed a lawyer to head the investigation.
And Congress is still investigating. Of course with the way Obama and
Holder pursue justice, you might be right. Playing by their rules,
Nixon would have gottem away with Watergate too, but that doesn't make
Apology accepted. I don't remember ever saying anything directly
about them. I have mentioned one or more a couple of times in contexts
such as earlier in this thread when someone was taking a conservative to
task for something whilst studiously ignoring BIFF on their side. But
that was to point out inconsistencies more than to excoriate the Pres.
I have had some things to say about how the Pres handled the
aftermath, which as I mentioned is a part of leadership and fair game
when discussing an incident. But as to BIFF itself, please feel free to
look around and find something different. I don't think it exists.
Fairly is a relative term. Actually I think the IRS is a good
example of the point. Both this and the bridge look to be the results of
an overacting underling who thought they were doing the right thing
because of their personal views, but not anything the executive knew
about or certainly condoned before it broke.
The part open for debate, is how they handled it after the story
This is a bogus argument. It was ONGOING program that the Obama
administration had backed and indeed expanded. F&F was entirely Obama,
although it continued Bush's Opeartion Wide Receiver. Putting both of
those together, they ran from 2006 and 2011 so well over half of these
years were under the Obama administration.
Actually this is one of the better illustrations of the differences
(at least so far, I will admit that Bridges is still developing).
Christie took ownership of the problems and acted. Obama tried to off
load it on the Bush administration, refused to let Holder talk to
Congress using executive priviledge (another chuckle-worthy event for
those who lives through the howls of Dems during RMNs administration,
but I digress) and has generally tried to avoid responsibility.
And in FF it was the Attorney General. At least as much of an
inseperable closeness. He was senior legal advisor to Barack Obama
during Obama's presidential campaign and one of three members of Obama's
vice-presidential selection committee.
Not sure how this fits. RMN was well known long before becoming
pres as being somewhat less than a forgive and forget person (you won't
have me to kick around any more). That was one administration where it
truly stunk from the head down.
You don't have any direct evidence of vindictiveness on the part of
Christie. At least any more than any other candidate?
Yeah and left's obsession with EVERYTHING GW (which as illustrated by
FF and the economy continuing to this day) is healthy and not at all the
It is a continuation of the downhill trend in politics that started
with RMN and (with the exception of Carter and Ford because even
politicians don't like to kick puppies-grin) continues.
Yeah Reid's decision is political and not really a part.
YOU find it highly unlikely but he still needs to be fried. Yet you
give your buds a pass. Can I get at least some consistency>
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.
The trouble is you've slid from "impossible to know everything" to "he
didn't know this" and the second might be true but doesn't follow from
The reason there is an email to the other guy is that they work in
different buildings, on different floors, or at least in different
offices. OTOH, it's likely she worked in easy walking distance from
Christie's office and instead of emailing, she would walk over to his
office. After all, chortling is much more fun in person.
And discussion of plans works better in person or on a phone or
conference call than by email.
Her short email that we know about must have followed another email that
gave details, or more likely, a phone or personal discussion. where they
decided whether to close one lane or two.
None of this says whether Christie was involved or not.
There's also a presumption that someone like CC would know a little more
about what one of his direct deputies was doing. This is a person who was
often seen in close physical proximity to the Governor, and not someone in
charge of a long-standing remote operation in the Western states. I'll
agree with Kurt that husbands often don't know what their wives are doing
but if she's standing next to you, possibly wrecking your career by
supervising a rather stupid revenge plot, you OUGHT to know.
Christie's a former USDA. He's most likely smart enough to demand anything
as explosive as Bridgegate be discussed "off line." Even so, his staff
*wasn't* that smart. That could work for him to help prove he knew nothing
and against him if he's trying to convince voters he could assemble a staff
of competent subordinates.
I suspect that fewer and fewer people believe that he can build a competent
staff based on how the investigation seems to be widening. One thing
working against him is that if she was "paid off" any money trail will
probably be exposed by 2016 - and you can bet reporters will be looking at
where she ends up to try to determine whether she was bought off to take the
I thought it was sad that one of them was stupid enough to write in an email
"don't use emails!" D'oh. When I was a reporter for my campus newspaper, we
had police radios to monitor the activities of the campus cops. After I was
stopped by one of them and they discovered my Regency scanner, he radioed
back to HQ - "be advised to be careful about the content of radio
transmissions because the Diamondback reporters are monitoring our radio
calls" to which came the reply "Then they must have just heard your report
over the radio." Same dumb thing as the guy involved in Bridgegate. When a
co-conspirator says not to use email, there's a pretty strong implication he
knows what he is doing is wrong and that he's too stupid to realize he's
just incriminated himself.
Yes, the brief "time for traffic problems" call does tend to indicate that
there was off-line planning of the event and the phone call was simply meant
to kick off those plans.
But it happened on his watch, RIGHT UNDER HIS NOSE (and not 1,000's of miles
away) and that does not speak well of his managerial or hiring skills.
There has to be some consideration given to the fact that Kelly and others
appeared to at least think the boss wouldn't be too upset to see traffic
snarled on the GWB. Would they have engaged in that sort of behavior if
they knew Christie strongly disapproved of taking revenge for perceived
political slights? I don't think so. Based on how unhappy this news item
is making some people on the right, it's pretty obvious to me that *they*
think this will harm his chances to get to the Whitehouse. I think that for
once, the right is correct! (-:
Interestingly enough the CC story went from being number one on Google's
list of trending news items yesterday to being off the list completely
today. Something tells me it's not going to stay that way. Christie's
gotten what is the PR equivalent of a bad case of malaria. It will appear
and reappear, sapping his strength and blurring his message each time a new
revelation is made.
Why? Other than the obvious reason... he is Republican. Again, I
haven't seen the first indication that he was supervising the plot.
Please feel free to point it out.
Plausible deniability.. rampant at all levels of government. But again,
you assume he knew about it ahead of time and that he was involved..
with no evidence.
And if there is no payoff, you will of course apologize profusely.
And for FF (grin).
But most of the genesis for most of the Obama things that he didn't
konw about and you accept that at face value, happened in DC itself.
Even most of the hooha about Benghazi (which even I don't understand)
still was talking about what the State Department hierarchy knew and did
(or did not) do about it
Gee these things have a shelf life. Who knew? (grin).
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 1:08:44 PM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
Holder wasn't close to Obama?
And why restrict comparing it to Fast and Furious?
How about comparing it to Benghazi. Wasn't Susan Rice close to
Obama? The BS talking points that were edited the day before
she was wound up and set out to 5 Sunday talk shows were done
at the White House. And 5 days after Benghzi they are curiously
consistent with Obama's own statements, where he never called
it a terrorist attack, ie trying to spin it from the start.
Or how about the IRS scandal?
The IRS commissioner, who has already lied to Congress, was at
the WH hundreds of times. How close are those?
Then Obama should have known about IRSgate, F&F, and the lies made
up about Benghazi. He should even have known that the security
situation in Benghazi was greatly worsening, because we now know
the CIA told the WH about it. And Hillary should have known that
the security in Benghazi was totally inadequate. Amabassador Stevens
as well as security people onsite in Libya had asked State for
increased security many times. Stevens talked to Hillary, if
Christie is supposed to know about what his deputy chief of staff
was doing, then it directly follows that Hillary, who spoke many
times to Stevens herself, should have known that he needed more
security. Let's see, he keeps asking for more security, instead
they draw it down. And he *never* brought that up with Hillary?
Never? Really? They blew up the British ambassador's car with
an RPG, blew up the Red Cross, blew up the US consulate outer
wall twice with IEDs, one of Steven's last reports was "The
Guns of August", that described the worsening situation, there
were Al-Qaeda flags flying over parts of Benghzi and
he never talked about the requests for more security with Hillary?
You find that credible, but we're supposed to infer that Christie
knew what his aid was doing? Sure, you're fair and balanced.
Oh, BTW, just the other day you said I don't have a right
to say that the security level in Benghazi was inadequate
because I'm not a security expert. THAT is probably the best
indication of how totally, hopelessly biased you are. The
only one who I know of that says the security was adequate
is Charlene Lamb who told that to Congress. She got paid time
off and then her job back. Even the state depts own investigation
into it agreed the security was inadequate. You can add the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the list now. Yesterday
they issued their report that says multiple intelligence
agencies had the situation right, that Benghazi's threats
were increasing, that they were ignored, that the security
was *inadequate* and they blamed the state dept. So, even
Diane Feinstein agrees. And the bi-partisan Senate committee
also agreed that some of the militias who attacked the
consulate are linked to Al-Qaeda and that there was no
"peaceful demonstration" that turned violent. Wow, how
That's your inference, because you're a lib and biased against
Christie. Otherwise the inference could be that being a former
US Attorney for NJ, he was smart enough not to be involved at
all in something so dumb and pointless.
Even so, his staff
The latest poll just taken *after* this was all over the news
shows his approval rating at 59% in NJ. What's Obama's approval
I can live with 59%.
OMG, more total speculation without a shred of evidence. Which
is more credible? That Chritie paid off the deputy chief of staff
he just fired, or that Ambassador Stevens must have told Hillary
in at least one of the phone calls he regularly had with her
about all his requests for increased security being turned down?
See how that works?
Good grief. What a strange way your brain cells must be connected.
You have to wander in the wilderness to get from point A to B.
Everyone who has seen the emails, what was said knows that those
involved had to know what they were doing was wrong from the very
beginning. Simple as that.
What happened before that is the most interesting thing we
need to know. Right now, it's pure speculation that the motive
was that the mayor didn't endorse Christie. The parts there that
should concern anyone looking at this fairly are that the mayor
says he was never asked for an endorsement by anyone. Christie
says he didn't even know who the mayor was until this story broke.
Ft. Lee is a little town of no particular importance. So, why
of all people would they choose the mayor to go after? It
could very well turn out that there was some personal beef involved
between one of the participant and the mayor.
Where are the similar posts about what's happened on Obama's
Fast and Furious
BTW, Christie fired people, 4 people involved are out of their
jobs and his scandal just started. Three of the Obama ones have
been going on for years, the IRS one for 9 months. Who exactly
has Obama fired or held accountable? No one. See the difference?
Would whoever did IRSgate, drew up the lies about Benghazi, have
done it if they didn't think Obama was OK with it? In the case of
Fast and Furious, it's even better. Obama has used *executive privilege*
to block Congressional investigators from getting the information
they have requested. How does *that* sit with you versus pure speculation
over what *might* have happened with Christie?
Based on how unhappy this news item
Yes, a big smiley face from the liar who claims that he liked
Christie before this. Sure you did. FYI, Christie is not even liked
by the right because they don't think he's a true conservative.
Have you seen many conservatives jump to his defense?
What conservatives can't stand is the double standard in how
this is being investigated, covered by the media, compared to
how Obama's scandals are being covered. I just saw one analysis
that showed the 3 major networks and CNN devoted more airtime
in 24 hours to the Christie affair than they have in the entire
period since IRSgate started in June. In the case of IRSgate,
you have the administration investigating itself. They finally
appointed a guy to head the investigation. He donated $6K to
Obama's campaign. With Chrisite, he gets investigated by the
US attorney, a democrat fund raiser, who works for Holder.
See the difference?
Where are the similar comments about the many scandals sapping
Obama's strength and ability to lead?
On Saturday, January 11, 2014 5:00:54 AM UTC-5, email@example.com wrote:
eans to make it appear that the September closing of lanes leading to the G
eorge Washington Bridge was part of a traffic study, even though their priv
ate communications suggest the move was purely political, according to docu
ments released on Friday.
hidden, including the insistence by one official of the Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey in an email that communications about the matter sh
ould not be conducted by email or discussed publicly.
There were two PA officials involved. Both resigned in December.
The one where the media and talking heads keep saying that he was
a childhood friend of Christie, that Christie has been best buddies
with him since then he did talk about. He said they went to the same
high school and he knew him back then, but he wasn't one of his close
friends and he lost contact with him for the next 20+ years.
No, I didn't see him directl say that either. But he strongly condemned
what they did, said he was humiliated by it, it was unacceptable, etc.
So, I wouldn't read too much into him not directly saying it. The
investigation into who did exactly what is still ongoing and parts of
it are unclear. The fact that his deputy chief of staff lied to him,
he knows directly and personally to be well established now. So, that
is probably why he focused on that as the basis for firing.
ays of snarled traffic, titled ï¿½EARLY assessment of the benefits of
I don't think so because I think everyone acknowledges there was
no traffic study, it was a sham. Besides, what kind of traffic study
requires closing lanes?
Almost 100% guaranteed there are criminal laws that can be applied to
this. Among them could be manslaughter. A 90 year old woman having
a heart attack died. The media is reporting that the ambulance could
not reach her home and only caught up with her at the hospital. The
exact timeline, I haven't seen, but potentially there is a case there.
I doubt those subooenas are going to uncover anything that the Feds,
legislature, etc that are looking into it won't. But I agree they
probably have a case. But
we don't know the facts yet. If the woman was stone cold when she got
to the hospital and had been dead overnight, that obviously would
Another interesting aspect of it is that the media are reporting that
some of the exchanges back and forth it's hard to tell who said what
or what some of the comments were referring to. I started wondering
why that would be? Was it that they didn't know who the owners of
some of the email accounts were? Multiple people using the same
account? Well, it's even better than that. The documents were
redacted by Wildstein, the guy at the PA that the request to close
the bridges went to and who has now resigned.
That tells you something about the way the whole PA is being run,
doesn't it? I mean you have the state legislature conducting an
investigation and either requesting or subpeonaing emails, etc.
and the guy that they let redact them is the guy that the illegal
request to close the lanes went to? It's unimaginable that PA
attorneys didn't collect all the requested documents, decide if
anything needed to be redacted, and then the lawyers would do it,
not the person involved! Also hard to imagine what privacy concerns
in something like this justify redaction to begin with.
On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 05:02:58 -0800 (PST), " firstname.lastname@example.org"
I think the Port Authority is holding some of the Al Queda prisoners
from early on. Congress passed a law that they couldn't be brought
from Cuba to the US, but everyone agreed the Port Authority property
wasn't really in the US. They're held in the caissons that the
uprights of the GW Bridge rest on. Also in some small tunnels off of
the Lincoln and Holland tunnels.
This is why the emails had to be edited.
of New Jersey [State Department] went to elaborate
means to make it appear that the September [September 11]
closing of lanes [attack on Benghazi embassy] leading to
the George Washington Bridge was part of a traffic study,
[result of a movie that was shown] even though their private
communications suggest the move was purely political, [move
was gross neglect of our armed forces] according to documents
released [not released until forced to] on Friday.
true motivation hidden, [the documents also show a concentrated
effort to keep their true motivation hidden] including the
insistence by one official of the Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey in an email that communications about the
matter should not be conducted by email or discussed publicly.
[Including the imsistence.... ]
after three days of snarled traffic, titled “EARLY assessment
of the benefits of the trial.
[Among the documents..... ]
Let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
On Saturday, January 11, 2014 8:32:14 AM UTC-5, Stormin Mormon wrote:
I can't help but add, that in bridgegate, the two Port Authority
officials involved resigned in December. Christie just fires his
deputy chief of staff and told his former campaign manager, who
was about to become GOP state chair, to get lost. Christie lambasted
the lot of them in his news conference, said he was appalled by
what they did, humiliated, etc.
In the case of Benghazi, who has been held accountable?
Those responsible for the total lack of security at the consulate
got a paid vacation for 6 months, then they got their jobs back.
The State Dept dummy responsible for security actually had the nerve
to testify to Congress that she believes the security they had
there was appropriate for the conditions at the time. She's
either a liar or totally stupid. Yet, she's back at her govt
job, doing God knows what further damage to the country.
Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS, not one person has been
fired. The most we had was Lerner resign and retire after
taking the fifth before Congress.
See the important differences?
On 01/11/2014 09:04 AM, email@example.com wrote:
There is no meaningful difference. All politicians are liars and crooks.
They will cheat and lie and steal until they get caught.
Once caught, the finger-pointing begins.
Often they fire a scapegoat or two in an effort to save their own bacon.
Lather, rinse, repeat...
On Saturday, January 11, 2014 11:58:55 AM UTC-5, Mike Hunt-Hertz wrote:
BS. In the case of Christie, two PA people resigned, he fired his
deputy chief of staff, he told his former campaign manager that was about
to become GOP chair to get lost. He condemned their actions over and
over again in a two hour press conference.
Who exactly has Obama fired or held accountable for:
Fast and Furious
AFAIK, only one person resigned, actually retired, and that was
Lerner after she plead the fifth in front of Congress.
Again, who exactly has Obama fired for his scandals?
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.