OK

This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.

ATTENTION: READ THE RULES.

  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

Though I believe bridgegate (and all the other associated gates) should and will likely result in Christie's resignation from office, I have been somewhat dismayed by the analysis of the letter from Wildstein's lawyer, Alan L Zegas.  

Perhaps I approach these letters differently because I am a criminal defense lawyer.  In any event, allow me to place the letter in full context.  

Below the squiggly, I engage in an exercise of extreme parsing (as we lawyers are apt to do).

Intro

You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

First observation:  the references to evidence against Christie were entirely gratuitous to the stated purpose of the letter, i.e., asking the Port Authority to pay Wildstein's legal bills.

In the letter, Zegas notes that the Port Authority had rejected Wildstein's requests that his legal bills be paid ostensibly because it had found that "it was apparent" that such reimbursement would not be authorized by the bylaws.  Zegas proceeds to dispute there was any basis for that finding.

Whether Christie personally was involved in the lane closures - or knew about them at any particular time -- is wholly irrelevant to the determination whether the Port Authority bylaws require the payment of Wildstein's legal bills.

Second observation: since Christie's knowledge is irrelevant to the payment of Wildstein's bills, Zegas plainly mentioned that issue for ulterior purposes.

This part of the story I think has been adequately reported.  Simply put, Zegas (quite understandably) is trying to get immunity for his client by insinuating that he has significant evidence.

Third observation: despite tantalizing language, the letter falls well short of promising that Wildstein has personal knowledge or unreported evidence that Christie knew of the lane closures at any particular time.

Let's look at the key language once more:

In the first portion of the initial sentence in the much-quoted paragraph, Zegas begins by saying "it has come to light that [an administration employee] communicated an order" [to close the lanes]."  The second clause in that sentence states, "and evidence exists as well tying Mr. Christie to having knowledge of the lane closures during the period when the lanes were closed," contrary to Christie's claims in his press conference.

That first clause of the sentence plainly refers to already-disclosed information.  The second clause of the sentence, importantly, not only does not describe the evidence of Christie's knowledge, it does not even state that Wildstein possesses the evidence.  Simply put, it is entirely reasonable to interpret that key sentence as stating merely that the evidence of Christie's knowledge is already in the public domain.

Of course, the language is also vague enough to support the interpretation assumed by the media to be true: i.e., that Wildstein has evidence not publicly disclosed yet.  But before adopting that interpretation, one should ask, if Wildstein possesses evidence not yet disclosed, why did the letter not say that unequivocally?

Zegas could simply have said, "we possess" or "Mr. Wildstein possesses" evidence that Christie knew of the lane closures when they were happening.  But the only remark like that is the closing sentence in the paragraph, "Mr. WIldstein contests the accuracy of various statements that the Governor made about him and he can prove the inaccuracy of some."  And that leads to..

My final observation: the only evidence of Christie's lies that Zegas claims to possess concerns statements Christie made about Wildstein.

Again none of this rules out the possibility that Wildstein can prove Christie lied about his knowledge of the lane closures.  Indeed, I personally believe that Wildstein quite likely does have such evidence.  My only point is that the media has jumped to a conclusion not supported by the letter.

Extended (Optional)

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.