Cross-Posted on Blue Jersey
If you look up from this article you will see Blue Jersey's motto "All the news that slips from print." It is in that spirit that I highlight a story that should have made news but didn't for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was Coptergate.
This Friday will be the one week anniversary of a staggering reversal, nay - an epic monumental elephantine 180 - by Chris Christie.
Last Friday Chris Christie publicly embraced a man he openly and repeatedly proclaimed was a criminal: George Norcross. Yes, it was a public event and yes, a genuine 'you should be in jail not in society' criminal.
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe George Norcross is a criminal. In fact, in my view he didn't break the law at all. But that was NOT the view shared and constantly espoused by then U.S Attorney Chris Christie.
When U.S Attorney Chris Christie went on a corruption busting spree, which may or may not have been related to future political plans, he focused in on the Camden County Democratic Organization (machine if you like) eventually coming up with a conviction for former Senate Budget Committee Chairman Wayne Bryant. But Christie's central target was Camden County power broker George Norcross.
State officials, notably Attorneys General John Farmer (Whitman, DiFransesco) and Peter Harvey (McGreevey) had pursued a case against Norcross which culminated in a widely reported sting operation where Norcross was secretly recorded by Palmyra councilman John Gural during a conversation about South Jersey politics. While the language was entertaining, nothing said on the tapes constituted a crime according to the investigating authorities. When all was said and done Attorney General Peter Harvey did not think there was a winnable case against George Norcross and when asked, turned over the case to eagerly awaiting Christie.
After reviewing the evidence the U.S Attorney with the perfect conviction record also decided not to bring charges but when it became clear Christie would not have that Norcross feather in his cap he went ballistic. From the New York Times:
In a scathing letter dated Tuesday, Christopher J. Christie, the United States attorney for New Jersey, wrote that his office would be unable to bring charges against Mr. Norcross because lawyers for the state attorney general had mishandled their investigation under two administrations before turning it over to his office in 2004.
The implication, clear as day, being that George Norcross had broken the law but that the investigation was so flawed he couldn't be convicted. So Norcross is a criminal but Christie's hands are tied. Typical face saving? No!
Christie went even further with his accusations not only alleging that Norcross was a criminal but that Peter Harvey had sabotaged his own case:
His letter also harshly criticized state prosecutors for deciding not to secretly tape conversations at a Camden County Democratic fund-raiser in 2001, where Mr. Norcross and his associates were expected to discuss a wide variety of political deals. Mr. Christie said that that decision was so inexplicable that it raised the possibility that state investigators were trying to shield political figures.
STOP THE TAPE! Yes, Christie was so strong in his view that Norcross broke the law that when a case could not be made in court he claimed it was not because there had not been a crime but because law enforcement and prosecutors - as high up as the Attorney General - were engaging in an ILLEGAL coverup to protect George Norcross.
That's that bold decisive leadership we've been hearing about. Christie had a conviction (figuratively of course), he believed it and he said what he believed regardless of the consequences, let the chips fall where they may...
So what happened last Friday again?
(More after the Jump)
What happened last Friday was the other side of Chris Christie. The one you generally don't read about.
What Christie really believes or thinks about George Norcross is hard to figure but what is clear is that he made an open alliance with Norcross Friday (some claim there was already a secret one) even partnering on education policy and union reform.
But that raises even more questions between U.S Attorney Christie and Governor Christie:
A. Is Governor Christie now agreeing to partner and align himself with a Criminal???
OR
B. Was U.S Attorney Christie impugning an Innocent Man's character and reputation?
BONUS: Was Attorney General Peter Harvey engaging in an unethical, immoral and illegal coverup or did he do his job and there was no 'there' there?
All good questions especially now that Christie has seemingly reversed himself and stopped calling George Norcross a criminal and started calling him a partner.
Then again, I guess the rules the rest of us have to live by never apply to Christie. He can, as a sitting United States Attorney, throw apparently wild unfounded accusations at public figures, including the Attorney General and when it becomes politically expedient disregard everything he said.
Will this story continue to slip from print?
(Photos by JOHN ZIOMEK/Courier-Post)