Skip to main content

View Diary: Christie was with Wildstein on 9/11/13 during Bridgegate (454 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Seriously, you think this proves a lie? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mconvente, mattinjersey, Pi Li

    First, is September 11 "well before" the November 5 election?  

    Even if it's not, it's kind of ridiculous to say, "Aha!  You said you had no contact -- but you were at the same event with a whole lot of other people!!!!! And you might have even said something to a group  of people while he was standing there!!! "  I think most people don't consider that to be a lie.  I think most people think that "contact" means something Christie might actually remember, like an actual conversation with Wildstein or an email (even if it was not about the traffic issue), not this guy being in a large group of people (part of a delegation) an event.

    This seems kind of an overreach, to me. I can't imagine that it would play as some kind of "gotcha" except among people who hated Christie even before this.   If you want to tout it among people here, sure, that's fine -- people here will respond well, because they are among those who hated Christie before this.  But I seriously doubt that in the "real world" (and Dkos is not always the "real world"), like among the independents and Democrats who voted for Christie, this is some kind of "gotcha."  

    Again, don't get me wrong, if Wildstein ADDS to this picture by saying that they actually spoke to each other about anything substantive on that day -- that he had actual contact with Wildstein, rather than with a group of people that included Wildstein --  THEN this picture means something.  THEN you might have something.

    All by itself, the picture is pretty meaningless.  It only means something if Wildstein says something more about it.  

    •  You think most people (27+ / 0-)

      think chatting to someone doesn't count as contact? If you are standing talking to someone, even if it's just briefly to say hi, that is not "no contact." It might not be a lot of contact, but it's not zero.

      It doesn't prove Christie knew about everything, but it does suggest that his description of his relationships with some of the players might not be completely accurate.

      •  Which, in my opinion, is what really counts here: (25+ / 0-)

        Regardless of what they may or may not have discussed at that event--and it is entirely plausible, in fact even probable that they did not discuss the lane closures at that event--Christie said he had no contact with this person and yet here they are in a photo together, at an event together, standing in close proximity. Any closer and one of them could have gotten pregnant.

        What counts here is that clearly, Christie lied, and I think it is perfectly reasonable to then ask the question "what else did Christie lie about?".

        Pope Francis: the Thumb of Christ in the eyes of the Pharisees.

        by commonmass on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 10:20:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  If there was a conversation (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pi Li

        with Wildstein specifically, that would probably be contact with Wildstein. And by "conversation," I mean something more than "hi, how are you" and/or some amusing quip to a group of people when Wildstein was standng there.

        So, like I said, if Wildstein or anyone else says that Christie had an actual conversation with Wildstein that day, then sure that would count as "contact"within the meaning o that whole paragraph by Christie.

        If he said something amusing to a group of people of which Wildstein was one, while he was going around saying hi to people, no I don't think that's "contact" as Christie was using it if you read his whole quote.  And I don't think that anybody else reading that whole quote thinks that, if he said something amusing to a group of people of which Wildstein was one at an event they both attended, he was lying.  

        •  What do you call contact coffeetalk? (17+ / 0-)

          Stripped naked in a bed?   Give us a break .   If the judicial system is this far removed with word games as you make it appear, then we can never ever expect justice anywhere , anytime because I can take any word..any word and twist it to my way of speaking.  
          You really do sound like Scott in that deposition.

          We the People have to make a difference and the Change.....Just do it ! Be part of helping us build a veteran community online. United Veterans of America

          by Vetwife on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 10:37:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, here's what I call contact with Wildstein (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bensdad

            within the meaning of Christie's whole quote (of course, you wouldn't take one phrase out of context and use it to mean something Christie didn't mean, because that's no better than what people here accuse Fox News of doing):

            "Hey Wildstein, what's going on with that traffic jam"?

            Hey, Wildstein, what's going on with [anything Wildstein is charged with doing]?"

            Or even "hey, Wildtein, how's you wife and kids" [making that up.

            In other words, some conversation directed from Christie to Wildstein, or vice versa.  

            Now maybe that happened.  This picture doesn't prove it does or it doesn't.  You can surmise that somebody in that group said something amusing.  But who said it, who it was directed to, whether it was a passing comment or Christie stood there and had a conversation, you can't tell.

            Again, if you are looking or any instance of when they were together in the same group of people, yes, this picture shows that happened.  

            But I don't think that being in the same group of people at an event two months before the election makes this a lie:

            I have had no contact with David Wildstein in a long time, a long time, well before the election,” which was held Nov. 5, Mr. Christie said last week. “You know, I could probably count on one hand the number of conversations I’ve had with David since he worked at the Port Authority. I did not interact with David.”
            He's clearly talking about INTERACTING with Wildstein, like having a conversation with him that's more than "hi how are you."  
            •  Agree. (0+ / 0-)

              Christie meant interaction. More importantly, this picture shows contact AFTER THE EVENT was in motion. If Christie interacted with Wildstein prior to the event, that's one thing, but his meeting him in a public place en route to a commemorative ceremony means nothing other than that he did have contact with him.

              This doesn't look like the kind of meeting where Christie would instruct Wildstein to shut down the lanes. In fact, that had already happened (the shutting down -- we don't know if Christie instructed Wildstein to do this).

              We got nuthin'.

              If you hate government, don't run for office in that government.

              by Bensdad on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 11:08:28 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  You could also summize.....if we are gonna parce (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil, blue aardvark, a2nite, Chi

              words.  If the CDC asked
              Christie if he had any contact with this person and he said , " NO" then I would believe he cared enough about some disease to tell the truth.   He was close enough to get the flu and that is contact.

              We the People have to make a difference and the Change.....Just do it ! Be part of helping us build a veteran community online. United Veterans of America

              by Vetwife on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 11:49:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  The inference that Christie tried to put across (0+ / 0-)

              in his press conference was that he had no contact with    Wildstein, that is that he did not have the opportunity to address the issue with Wildstein.  He was attempting to keep himself as far removed from the players in this scheme to bolster his innocence regarding the scheme.  This contact with all three of his PA appointees, while the crisis was in full swing, undermines the impression Christie tried to create.  That is its significance.

        •  Come on (11+ / 0-)

          Most people are not going to read his full paragraph and consider the spirit (rather than the letter) of what "no contact" means. They will see that he said he had no contact and then look at a picture of him standing yakking with the guy and recognize that his statement might not be fully accurate. Now, is that because this incident slipped his mind because it was so minor, and therefore it was an error rather than an intentional lie? Possibly. But maybe it's because he wanted to distance himself from the guy and let him take the fall. We don't know. Basically this photo breaks off another chunk of the increasingly small piece of ice that he is standing on. Pretty soon he is going to be in the water.

        •  Why would Wildstein go to a meet-n-greet? (13+ / 0-)

          Wildstein works for Christie.  He's not some doe-eyed fanboy there just to get a glimpse of the big guy and maybe, just maybe shake his hand.  He wasn't a campaign donor there to get some face time and ask for a favor.  Why would he go there "just to say hi"?

          That photo does not show Wildstein in a greeting line, as Christie rushes past shaking hands.  It doesn't show Wildstein as a small part of a large crowd listening to a Christie speach.

          It shows Wildstein inside the huddle of a very small, familiar group.  Wildstein is not standing there just to say "Hi Gov, how are you?", before rushing off to check on the bridge tieup.

          You are right that this photo doesn't prove the bridge was discussed.  But don't be ridiculous about it.  That wasn't some quick 30 second meet.

          •  It wasn't a "meet and greet" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pi Li
            It isn’t known what, if anything, Mr. Christie discussed with David Wildstein that day, when the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey official was among the delegation of Mr. Christie’s representatives who welcomed him to the site of the World Trade Center for the commemoration of the 12th anniversary of the terrorist attacks there.
            How do you know this?
            That wasn't some quick 30 second meet.
            I'm sure the commemoration of the 12th anniversary of the terrorist attacks was more than 30 seconds.

            But how do you know (1) when during that commemoration this took place (was Christie getting there?  leaving?  I can't imagine it took place DURING the commemoration); and (2) whether the interaction among this small group among the far larger group attending was more than 30 seconds?

          •  Yes. (3+ / 0-)

            Wildstein was the Executive Director of the PA, appointed by Christie.  He would be knowledgable and perhaps responsible for knowing Christie's movements to the 911 site and the PA has a vested interest in the 911 site since they owned the towers that fell.

            Come on people.  It's not this hard to connect the obvious.

            Of course he's there as a VIP official -- along with Christie.

            Duh.

        •  So you dismiss this with literal parsing. However (12+ / 0-)

          if you were prosecuting this, would you not press on this?

          You said "no contact."

          Here's a pic of you with him DURING the lane shutdown.

          How is that "no contact?"

          I get that your gig is to parse and fine print this.

          meh

          Pragmatic Centrists? meh. Clive all hat no horse Rodeo? He's cool ~ JV

          by JVolvo on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 11:11:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actually, I'm a lawyer and if I did that in cross (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            joynow, SpamNunn, aclarson, Woody, Pi Li

            I'd look pretty stupid.

            First of all, to your question, "you said no contact," any witness who has been prepared would answer, "no, did not say "no contact" ever.  You're not telling the truth about what I said.  I said, no contact for a long time before the election. And two months is a long time in an election.  And I said in that same statement that I DID have contact with him -- I said I had some conversations with him, that I could count on my hand the number of times.  So, trying to paint me as saying I had 'no contact', period, is a lie, Ms. Coffeetalk."  

            And if the other lawyer had done a horrible job of preparing the witness to answer that question (malpractice), then the other lawyer would do it this way. He'd read this to witness:  

            I have had no contact with David Wildstein in a long time, a long time, well before the election,” which was held Nov. 5, Mr. Christie said last week. “You know, I could probably count on one hand the number of conversations I’ve had with David since he worked at the Port Authority. I did not interact with David.
            and here's he questions he might ask:

            Two months is a long time in an election cycle isn't it?  So this was a long time before the election? So if this was "contact," it was a long time before the election wasn't it? Jut like you said, right?

            But let's get specific. You didn't have a conversation with Waldstein, did you? You didn't interact with Wildstein, did you?  

            I'd look pretty stupid using that to try to paid a witness as being a liar, when the other side has the whole quote to make me look stupid.

      •  If he had a conversation with (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SpamNunn, Pi Li

        Wildstein specifically, then I think that would be different.

        If this picture showed him talking one on one to Wildstein that would be different.  If somebody said that Christie even stayed with that group and talked for more than a few seconds -- like he had a five minute conversation with that whole group -- that would be different.

        At best, this picture indicates that somebody said something in that group of people.  Was he passing by? On his way in or out?  was it more than a passing comment to a group of people?  

        You can imagine all of those things.  This picture doesn't prove anything, however, without something more, like somebody SAYING that there was an actual conversation.

    •  This says a lot about his governing ability. (7+ / 0-)

      Governors, even bad ones, are hyper aware of events impacting the public. Christie is on record over and over saying he is aware of how a community feels about his initiatives. So now we have Christie flying over a massive traffic snarl on a designated national security zone on 9/11 and he doesn't know anything about it. Fine. He can say that all day.

    •  The "well before" is in the context of the traffic (19+ / 0-)

      problem, which is ongoing right when this picture is taken.

      Denying that you can have anything to do with Wildstien's actions regarding event X, because you had "no contact" with him to communicate regarding event X - and that's what the "no contact ... well before" denial is about - is utterly, absolutely, completely, totally shown to be a lie when you meet with him DURING event X.

      You are being very disingenuous, but I guess it's nice to know what Faux Noise is going to say in advance.

      I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

      by blue aardvark on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 10:29:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here's where I think you are stretching it. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SpamNunn, Pi Li
        is utterly, absolutely, completely, totally shown to be a lie when you meet with him DURING event X.
        If Christie "met with" Wildstein during the traffic jam, that would be a really, really big deal.

        Being at the same event, in the same group of people, is not "meeting with" that person under any normal use of that term that I know.  

        I've been to lots of meetings, and I've been part of groups at lots of events like that.  I think most people understand there's a difference between the two.  

        •  The two men met (19+ / 0-)

          That is what the word "meet" means.
          I have a picture that show the two men meeting, right up there.

          If you've never worked in a place where work gets done outside of scheduled meetings in conference rooms I feel pity for you. But in the way the English language works, "meet" does not require an appointment.

          I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

          by blue aardvark on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 10:37:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's a connotation (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pi Li

            "I met Joe Smith" means I was introduced to him, or I said, "Hi, I'm coffeetalk, what's your name?"

            "I MET WITH" Joe Smith means we deliberately came together to discuss a particular topic.  "Hey, Joe, can I talk to you about that traffic jam"? can be "meeting with" Joe Smith.

            If I go to the commemoration of the Battle of New Orleans (just last weekend) I don't say I "met with" the people around me at that commemoration.  Most people would say, "I went to the commemoration, and I saw Joe Smith there."  Nobody I know would call that "meeting with Joe Smith" or as you said "met with" David Wildstein.  

            You said he "met with" Wildstein.  That may have happened, but this picture doesn't show that.  It shows that they were in the same group at the commemoration of 9/11.  

        •  You're sadly trying to defend this buffoon (16+ / 0-)

          Christie in the most obtuse way.

          Here's a photograph showing the man is a liar. And you are defending him with all sorts of "This shows nothing."

          That means one thing to me, very clearly. And I'm sure everyone can see what you're doing for what it is.

          "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

          by YucatanMan on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 11:01:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Shades of her (iirc) Zimmerman performance. (9+ / 0-)

            Fugh.

            Pragmatic Centrists? meh. Clive all hat no horse Rodeo? He's cool ~ JV

            by JVolvo on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 11:16:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Believes the Laffer Curve - nearly universally (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JVolvo, CenPhx, Unca Joseph, bluezen, Tonedevil

              deriden by any reputable economists - has validity.

              That's BS and has been proven over and over. Kennedy tax cuts had little to nothing to do with the economic engine that the end of WWII had set up for the USA and a recovering world by the time the 1960s arrived..

              "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

              by YucatanMan on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 02:02:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  That isn't a Christie defense! It is a sharpening (0+ / 0-)

            of the accusations though and is not obtuse.

            The photo doesn't show he is a liar. It raises questions and eyebrows but it does not contradict what christie said

            I have had no contact with David Wildstein in a long time, a long time, well before the election,” which was held Nov. 5, Mr. Christie said last week. “You know, I could probably count on one hand the number of conversations I’ve had with David since he worked at the Port Authority. I did not interact with David.”
            The picture was 2 months before the election (well before the election)
            It shows them being in the same place, not them having a conversation even
            It doesn't show that they had conversations more than he could count on one hand.

            I don't know the poster you are accusing but I know me pretty well and I agree with his points.
            and I think this scandal will and should bring him down.

        •  You're being ridiculous at this point (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CenPhx

          Christie did meet with Wildstein during the imbroglio as the photo attests.  They had the opportunity to discuss it if either were inclined because they were at the same place at the same time by each other's side.

          If you were at a meeting with a group of people and had an issue to discuss with one of them, you would take the time to address the issue with that person.  This photo shows opportunity.  If Christie did not take that opportunity to raise the problem with any of the PA appointees, it raises the question, why not?  All of your parsing over the meaning of "meet" is unavailing.

    •  It may not be conclusive by itself. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue aardvark

      But pieces of evidence add up.

      The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

      by lysias on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 11:49:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site