As I've said on numerous occasions, I believe it is time for Chris Christie to resign. After all, if Christie is telling the truth about being kept in the dark about his staff's involvement in Bridgegate, he is tacitly admitting that he can't control his own people. The more I've thought about it, I've wondered--is his failure to keep a lid on his staff an impeachable offense? On paper, it may be. But as we all know, impeachment is as much a political exercise as it is a legal one. At this point, while I think it may be too soon to draft articles of impeachment, you can make a pretty strong argument either for or against impeaching him even if his involvement can't be directly proven.
The case for impeachment
One can argue that impeaching Christie is the only way to both send a message that it is not acceptable for a governor to have a rogue staff, as well as to restore public confidence in government.
New Jersey's governor is probably the most powerful governor in the continental United States. The state constitution concentrates so much power over day-to-day administration in his hands that the executive branch is essentially an extension of his authority. Seen in that context, while this whole affair is firmly in "what did he know and when did he know it" territory, an equally important question is "how could he not have known?"
State assemblyman John Wisniewski has maintained from the start that he doesn't think Christie's narrative passes the smell test. Why? Well, consider what you'd have to believe if Christie is telling the truth. A lot of very senior members of Christie's staff were emailing back and forth before and during the closures--and nobody thought to let Christie know, especially so close to the election. If that's the case, then you have a governor with a rogue staff. And even without this happening on 9-11, it is inconceivable that anyone would even attempt such a stunt, knowing that it would put innocent people in danger, unless there was an environment that made such behavior acceptable. It's very common for higher-ups in the private sector to get fired or brought up before a judge for misdeeds by their subordinates. It can be argued that government should be no different, especially given the stakes involved.
The case against impeachment
The biggest argument against pressing for impeachment now is probably the need to wait until more evidence comes in regarding the attempted shakedown of Hoboken. If Kim Guadogno was the hatchet woman in the attempt to extort Hoboken into endorsing a development project as a condition for getting Sandy relief money, she's about the last person you want in the governor's chair for any period of time unless Christie resigns. If this business is as bad as it looks, then it can be argued that it's best in the long run to amass enough evidence to throw Christie, Guadogno and their whole crew out of office in one blow. That's the view I take--it's better to use a bottle of Roundup rather than pull these weeds out one by one.
If Christie were to be impeached, it would take 26 votes in the state senate to remove him. If there is even one iota of proof that Christie was involved in the closures and the cover-up, no Republican would be able to vote against impeachment or removal and keep his job. After all, would you want to look like you were defending a guy who was involved in such a dangerous and unlawful act? By contrast, it would be a tough sell to get enough Republicans to support impeachment and removal of Christie for having a rogue staff. If it comes out that someone did die in Fort Lee because the ambulances were delayed (so far, there's no evidence of that yet), it could be a different ball game altogether.
So those are the arguments for and against pressing for impeachment of Christie based on what we know now. Thoughts?