Skip to main content

View Diary: Christie spokesman says he believed lane closures were for traffic study, was told of staffer role (33 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I listened to live to some of the testimony. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sea note, JohnB47, bobatkinson

    The single biggest bombshell IMO was that Drewniak told Christie that Wildstein said the governor had knowlege of the closure while it was going on because Wildstein said something to him about it on Sept 11.

    So Christie knew in December that he himself HAD been implicated by Wildstein openly (to Drewniak) along with Stepian and Kelley when he gave the  December news conference.

    Now here is the $64,000 question that as far as I can see was missed by everyone on the panel and wasn't asked.

    If Wildstein was correct about Kelley and Stepian, as he proved to be, why would he be incorrect regarding Christie? Not that it's impossible, but right now he is batting 2 out of 3.

    Doesn't it also gives a little insight as to why Christie was so invested in protecting his staff in December and why he was sick when concrete proof of the idiocy (in the form of emails) was revealed in January?

    “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

    by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Tue May 13, 2014 at 02:41:32 PM PDT

    •  so did Drewniak tell Christie about traffic study? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bobatkinson

      doesn't that mean they were both in on the manufactured alibi? When did Drewniak first hear about the 'study'? Did Drewniak talk about a study the night he dined with Wildstein? How did Christie know about study when he supposedly said he couldn't remember every 'traffic study'? Sounds like they're building a case of deniability rather than coming clean.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site