Skip to main content

Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey speaking at an event hosted by The McCain Institute in Phoenix, Arizona.
Via The Bergen Record, two developments in the Chris Christie lane closure scandal investigation:
Federal prosecutors investigating the George Washington Bridge lane closures have demanded documents from Governor Christie’s office, he said Monday, a development that puts him at the opposite end from the kind of probe he once led as the state’s hard-charging U.S. attorney.

Christie acknowledged the subpoenas during a radio interview Monday evening, as news broke that his former deputy chief of staff, Bridget Anne Kelly, would not turn over documents in response to a subpoena issued by state lawmakers in a parallel investigation.

An attorney for Kelly — who wrote the message “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee” — cited Kelly’s constitutional protection against self-incrimination. She joins Christie’s campaign manager as the second person to put up a roadblock to an ongoing legislative probe.

Worth remembering: Invoking the Fifth Amendment doesn't prove Kelly is hiding anything incriminating. Yes, it's true that Republicans forgot that truth when IRS official Lois Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment rights during their "investigation" of tea party targeting, but they were wrong.

Kelly isn't the only figure in the state legislature's investigation to invoke the Fifth. David Wildstein, the former Port Authority official that she emailed about creating traffic problems in Fort Lee also invoked the Fifth as did Bill Stepien, Christie's campaign manager and former top political operative. Meanwhile, others are requesting extensions to comply with the legislature's investigation. And when The Bergen Record asked Port Authority Chairman David Samson—a key Christie ally whose law firm represents the real estate developer at the center of Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer's allegations about Hurricane Sandy aid corruption—whether he was seeking an extension, his office declined to comment.

Also worth noting: The focus of federal investigators appears to be on Christie and his office, not on Kelly. According to her attorney, Kelly hasn't received any federal subpoenas. Meanwhile, as Christie acknowledged, the U.S. Attorney's office has issued subpoenas to his administration.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:20 AM PST.

Also republished by Christie Investigations.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  If Christie doesn't cooperate or turns in redacted (17+ / 0-)

    or manipulated materials, then what?  How will investigators get to the truth?

    That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

    by concernedamerican on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:22:22 AM PST

  •  Didn't know the fifth amendment could apply (14+ / 0-)

    to the production of documents.  I thought it only applied to testimony,

    •  You're basically right .. . (8+ / 0-)

      This claim is unlikely to prevail.

    •  Good question, I've never heard of that either. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rb608

      Is that what she did?  Or is the reporter conflating her 5th Amendment plea with her refusal to hand over docs, which I would have thought are two separate things.  She can be charged with contempt for refusing to hand over the docs, but not for pleading the fifth by refusing to testify.  

      I gotta think the reporter confused the two actions.

      "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi, 6/30/07 // "Succeed?" At what?

      by nailbender on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:40:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The portion of the 5th amendment that applies: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rb608
        "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
        nor shall private property be take for public use is very nebulous. I am not sure emails or other documents if related to a criminal investigation applies to the 5th. That's why lawyers charge so much. I think if they sent emails from a private email account I am not sure that is public use or not either since you are sending over a public internet connection.
        Thankfully, I don't have to deal with that as a layman.

        Solitude is painful when one is young, but delightful when one is more mature...Einstein

        by tazz on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:01:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  that clause applies to emminent domain, not (0+ / 0-)

          to self incrimination.  I think they're falling back on this interpretation of the 5th:

          The Act of Production Doctrine

          Under the Act of Production Doctrine, the act of an individual in producing documents or materials (e.g., in response to a subpoena) may have a "testimonial aspect" for purposes of the individual's right to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to the extent that the individual's act of production provides information not already in the hands of law enforcement personnel about the (1) existence; (2) custody; or (3) authenticity, of the documents or materials produced. See United States v. Hubbell.

          "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi, 6/30/07 // "Succeed?" At what?

          by nailbender on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 01:53:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  INAL but the 5th can apply to documents (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rb608, westcoastdefender, cablecargal

      Taking the Fifth with Documents

      Fifth Amendment Privilege
      Well-established case law holds that if a person voluntarily creates and possesses self-incriminating documents, he or she may nevertheless have to produce them in response to a subpoena. That is the law notwithstanding the privilege against self-incrimination, because the creation of such documents is not "compelled" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. (See Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 409-410 (1976).) Even so, the act of producing documents may compel a person to implicitly or inherently admit that responsive papers exist, are in that person's possession or control, and are authentic. In such circumstances, the production of documents is testimonial and, because compelled, may be privileged under the Fifth Amendment. Whether the privilege applies turns on whether the act of production is likely to be incriminating. (See United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36-37 (2000) (affirming dismissal of charges, based on Fifth Amendment violation.)
      and if anyone can make heads or tails of that, I'd love to hear it.

      "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress Chris Christie. But I repeat myself." ~ Mark Twain, (with a twist) ;o)

      by Terre on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:42:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  New Jersey: "fifth" in the nation! n/t (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rb608, David54, Frank Palmer

        Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

        by JeffW on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:49:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That' a window admitting the penumbra of (0+ / 0-)

        a right that turns out to be, in most cases, a slim reed.

        Courage is contagious. - Daniel Ellsberg

        by semiot on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:51:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  If merely producing the documents (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TofG, Terre, rb608, live1, Frank Palmer

        is incriminating, then you can take the 5th.

        For a stupid example, suppose you are subpoenaed for "documents proving you cheated on your taxes." And, indeed, you have such documents. You don't have to produce them, because producing such documents is in itself incriminating.

        But if you were subpoenaed for documents about a certain named real estate deal, you'd have to produce them, even though the prosecutors could use the documents to prove you cheated on your taxes.

        At least, that's the way I understand it.

        •  A key factor, I have to believe, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TofG

          is whether the documents are personal documents or documents created in one's role as a government employee.  In the latter case, I doubt Kelly would have a leg to stand on.

          You can't spell CRAZY without R-AZ.

          by rb608 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:15:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I am not sure emails or documents (0+ / 0-)

          that were sent by others is captured under

          "act of producing documents may compel a person to implicitly or inherently admit that responsive papers exist, are in that person's possession or control, and are authentic. In such circumstances, the production of documents is testimonial and, because compelled, may be privileged under the Fifth Amendment."
          How about any time you email someone, that is no longer private information, or documents that was shared by others. Also, you may have used those documents or emails in the course of your duty as a "government" official. In the course of their governmental duties, are not those officials "public servants acting on behalf of the public" and therefore covered under the Freedom of Information Act? Really thin layer of ice those lawyers have to skate.

          Solitude is painful when one is young, but delightful when one is more mature...Einstein

          by tazz on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:22:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks. (0+ / 0-)

          That is a very clear explanation.

          I hope it is correct.

      •  The way I read this... (0+ / 0-)

        ...is that the government must already know that the documents in question exist. If they do not know specifically what documents you have, they cannot compel you to turn over anything. This prevents them from going on uncontrolled fishing expeditions.

    •  5th and document production (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OregonWetDog, indie17, rb608

      To the extent the production of the documents is "testimonial" in nature, they are potentially  protected as well.

      It's a complex issue - here's a review:

      UNPACKING THE “ACT OF PRODUCTION” DOCTRINE
      http://www.lrrlaw.com/...
    •  Another question (0+ / 0-)

      Since Bridget Kelly worked in Christie's office, would the federal subpoena also cover her documents?

      Government towards Bank of America "like overindulgent parents who refuse to believe their 40-year-old live-at-home son could possibly be responsible for those dead hookers in the backyard." Matt Taibbi

      by dotsright on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 12:09:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I read one or two comments to the effect that (0+ / 0-)

      in the case that there was a legislative hearing as well as future potential criminal proceedings that the individual could restrict access to the documents by a leg. body if they might figure into a future plea agreement or immunity deal.
      If she surrendered them to the committee, then she'd be SOL in regards to an immunity deal.

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 12:10:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  He said that he will comply. (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shoeless, ColoTim, TofG, JeffW, rb608, Fury

    The question is what does that mean? To what extent will he provide information? Any apparent gaps could be a real bad thing for him and his office. His attorney is pretty good at this stuff, but the feds are pretty good at figuring out when people are dicking around as well.

     

    Please don't piss all over my shoes and tell me it is raining. I know better. And you're getting my shoes wet.

    by kaminpdx on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:28:17 AM PST

  •  How long before Christie takes the fifth? Tick tic (8+ / 0-)

    I'm putting the under/over line at Feb 28...

  •  there is only one way to get to the bottom of this (13+ / 0-)

    and that is with a federal grand jury.

    Let them all go in there including CC and Samson..

    all of them - no one gets a pass - this is way too large now that the Sandy funds are all pulled into it..

    There is no other way. We will see how far up they go - for now, my guess is Baroni is as high as Jail time will go...

    too bad - they should at least throw Samson in there too if not the pufferfish himself..

  •  Looks like he saying (0+ / 0-)

    if Wildstein shows his fat head on the street I'll pop it like a fucking balloon.

    •  Republican presidential primary debate (6+ / 0-)

      Rick Santorum: Governor, you have said on many occasions, and you have elaborated on it at length, that people who you appointed to highly responsible positions in your administration and the Port Authority, people who you tasked to implement the policy and powers of your office, are idiots, pathological liars, insane and psychopaths. How do you feel that reflects on your suitability to be President of the United States?

      Chris Christie: Piss of you pantywaist Bible fetishisist. I don't have to deal with shit scumbags like you.

      •  That actually sounds plausible, I can see Christie (0+ / 0-)

        going off on Man on Dog. I would actually have to give him some credit if he refers to Santorum as Man on Dog and Santorum refers to Christie as Governor Bully.  LOL

        Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at http://keystoneliberalsforum.aimoo.com/

        by wishingwell on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:57:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  OT - sidebar (0+ / 0-)

    yahoo.com message connect refused

    I went to google search yahoo.com cache and when I did
    the topic search reports.... yahoo. compromised, yahoo breached...

    is that the problem common to everyone trying to access or only west coast?

    If you want access to affordable health care then you should vote for a democrat. If you don't want access to affordable health care then you should vote for a republican.

    by anyname on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:31:30 AM PST

    •  now can access some of yahoo (0+ / 0-)

      but not parts of it!

      If you want access to affordable health care then you should vote for a democrat. If you don't want access to affordable health care then you should vote for a republican.

      by anyname on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:40:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Correction to the diary: (11+ / 0-)

    Samson's law firm, Wolff & Samson (which also employs Lori Grifa, Christie's ex-Community Affairs comish who was intrumental in the Hoboken mess), has been fired by the Rockefeller Group, specifically due to the jeopardy W&S has put them in around the Hoboken controversy (and likely others as well).  They were given the heave ho late last week.

    "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi, 6/30/07 // "Succeed?" At what?

    by nailbender on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:31:50 AM PST

  •  The 5th Amendment is a right not to incriminate (7+ / 0-)

    yourself- it's NOT a right not to testify.

    The Fifth Amendment protects criminal defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony. A witness may "plead the Fifth" and not answer if the witness believes answering the question may be self-incriminatory.
    Link

    This is factually incorrect

    Invoking the Fifth Amendment doesn't prove Kelly is hiding anything incriminating.
    The 5th Amendment is a right against self-incrimination. The mere act of pleading the 5th means, if you testify, you will be giving testimony that implicates you in a crime. The 5th doesn't give you the right not to testify because you don't feel like it, or because you are busy that day- it's very specific
    nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
    So, yeah- pleading the 5th means Bridgett-Ann Kelly (and David Wildstein and Bill Stepien) believe they have done something criminal and are refusing to give testimony to that fact.

    Lawyers- correct me if I am wrong please.

    The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy. -Charles de Montesquieu

    by dawgflyer13 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:35:34 AM PST

    •  Pleading the 5th would NOT in and of (10+ / 0-)

      itself be something that would provide "probable cause".

      To plead the 5th means you believe you MIGHT BE vulnerable to criminal charges, NOT that you believe you have committed a criminal act.

      This may sound like hair splitting but it is important. If it didn't work this way, it would make the 5th amendment useless. Invoking the 5th could then be used as an admission of guilt.

      Please don't piss all over my shoes and tell me it is raining. I know better. And you're getting my shoes wet.

      by kaminpdx on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:43:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BvueDem

        It wasn't my intention to argue that point, and that is important hair-splitting.

        And you can't be charged for pleading the 5th.

        The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy. -Charles de Montesquieu

        by dawgflyer13 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:57:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Right, Wrong, No Matter to the Public. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rb608, wishingwell, Fury

      Right, Wrong, No Matter to the Public.
      Taking the 5th is tantamount to a confession in the American subconscious.
      Why else would a criminal court judge be so diligent in instructing juries whenever a defendant does not testify during a criminal trial, if not to correct this legal misconception.

      Nuclear Reactor = Dirty Bomb

      by olo on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:11:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "state’s hard-charging U.S. attorney." (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, JeffW, a2nite, Hillbilly Dem

    Chris Christie Hard-charging RINO?

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:35:51 AM PST

  •  Question: If they continue to take the 5th will (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shoeless

    email, etc. ever be turned over, ot do they get away with it?

  •  Are they claiming the 5th Amendment for their (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, shoeless, PsychoSavannah, JeffW, rb608, DRo

    work emails and work correspondence as well?  I had heard that there were efforts being made to not turn over private materials, like diaries, personal cell phone records and the like, but if they're using those to conduct official business, I would want all that to be covered.  I don't care if it's their private phone - if they were conducting official business, it should be fair game.

    Then we could go back at the Bush administration which was famous for using non-governmental emails to conduct business just so they could avoid having those records be subject to requirements to preserve them.

    •  And, I should think, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ColoTim

      the fact that Kelly specifically used a personal email account to order the traffic problems, she's wide open to subpoenas there.

      You can't spell CRAZY without R-AZ.

      by rb608 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:23:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Gmail & Yahoo can be subpoenaed directly. n/t (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rb608, ColoTim

        Nuclear Reactor = Dirty Bomb

        by olo on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:30:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Gee. I wonder if the NSA could be so-subpeoned? (0+ / 0-)

          They almost assuredly have complete records of this, and this should be a perfect case for them proving they're doing this for law enforcement purposes.  However, they'll probably prefer to remain silent because they don't want to have to produce records for every other federal case now and in the future and, secondarily, they want to retain deniability that they do, indeed, have this.  

          The idea that maybe they're just incapable of sorting through this mountain of data to tease out the threads of this clusterf*ck?  No, they don't want that to come out either, because maybe they'd lose the whole program as well.

  •  Looks like Gastric Bypass surgery didn't work (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shoeless

    Wasn't Christie expected to lose a lot of weight with his gastric bypass surgery?  He must be eating non-stop with all these crises hitting him all at once.  Might make him lose track of the train of lies, like he did on the radio last night.

    •  My best friend and her husband had that surgery (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fury, viral

      a year ago. I just saw them over the holidays and my best friend looked as thin as when I knew her in college and she was around 105 lbs. I did not even recognize her husband as he lost so much weight. And I have known them both for 30 yrs and when her husband answered the door, I did not recognize him and he looked so good.

      I know there is a special diet to follow with this surgery and that is to eat protein, veggies and so on ...as you fill up fast and you need to eat stuff that is nutritious.

      Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at http://keystoneliberalsforum.aimoo.com/

      by wishingwell on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 12:00:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Aw hell, this is like watching (7+ / 0-)

    Watergate unfold (only faster).

  •  All of this "breaking news" was on the radio here (0+ / 0-)

    in NJ two days ago.   Time to clean out the recycle bin, Jed.

    “Most people are willing to take the Sermon on the Mount as a flag to sail under, but few will use it as a rudder by which to steer.” ― Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

    by SpamNunn on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:42:53 AM PST

  •  "Christie eager to see what Feds learn ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nailbanger, a2nite

    from subpoena of his office"

    Just paraphrasing his (un)timely radio interview from yesterday.

  •  I don't see (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, Nailbanger, myeye, rb608, askew

    how government employees can fall back on a right to privacy defense regarding business conducted on personal email or phone. And I think the threat from Kelly's lawyer, that she has highly sensitive materials that should never be read, is the juiciest of today's developments.

    •  Hmmmmm (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib
      I don't see how government employees can fall back on a right to privacy defense regarding business conducted on personal email or phone.
      Which "right to privacy defense" are you referring to?

      Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

      by Pi Li on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:22:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  as regards the fifth & documents.. (6+ / 0-)

    Lawrence O'Donnell pointed out that the subpoenas are often issued not with the expectation that the documents will be produced..

    They are issued to protect those documents from alterations or destruction..he said that once a grand jury subpoena is issued .. then a person can be found guilty of obstruction in the event the above occurs - that in and of iteslf carries nasty legal consequences.

    So.. don't be surprised if the documents aren't produced..but no one better be found tampering with them (Arthur Andersen's shredding & alterations come to mind) or they will be in jail regardless of any other outcome of the  investigation.

    This is going to get very ugly for them all.. and it will last a long time too.

  •  Gov. Traffic Jam becoming Gov. 5th Ammendment (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, shoeless, JeffW, a2nite, rb608, wishingwell

    and maybe soon ex-governor...

    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

    by tekno2600 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:44:47 AM PST

  •  Hmm: "Mistakes were made." Now who said that... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shoeless, a2nite, Hillbilly Dem

    Reagan, Ron Ziegler, Chris Christie? Oh wait, not Christie until he's subpoened.

  •  I think she is in contempt now (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, indie17, NewDealer, rb608, hester

    Invoking the fifth only gives you the right to remain silent it does NOT give you the right to withhold evidence, even if its inculpatory.  By acknowledging that she has the documents/evidence requested in the subpoena she is confirming their existence.  

    Should get interesting since I believe that the legislature must rely on the Attorney General to enforce its subpoenas.  I don't practice in New Jersey so I don't know what their particular procedures are.

    •  . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rb608

      It sounds from other discussions here that what you are saying may not be exactly right.  She may or may not have the right to withhold documents.  It's probably up to the lawyers and judges at this point.

  •  He is so done. (5+ / 0-)

    And he doesn't even know it.

    "For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it." - President Barack Obama, Second Inaugural Address, January 21, 2013.

    by surfermom on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:48:31 AM PST

  •  If everybody pleads the 5th, (15+ / 0-)

    we'll have to ask the NSA to tell us what happened.

    ''Over the last 30 odd years, Democrats have moved to the right and the right has moved into the mental hospital."-Bill Maher

    by shoeless on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:51:01 AM PST

  •  I guess (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NewDealer, rb608

    once Christie's attorneys assured him that Kelly and Stepien were not going to supply documents, he decided he could make another public denial.  It was a big day for liars and coverups.

    Christie can't give you a timeline, but he's got that high priced attorney doing an investigation for him.  He's in a big hurry to find out what happened!  He'll "roll out" documents as soon as the team has read through them all and destroyed any evidence.

    It's past time to hear what Wildstein has to say.  Looks more likely by the day that he'll get some form of immunity to show us what he's got.

  •  To bad Bridget Kelly took the 5th (0+ / 0-)

    She would have been the greatest thing since Jack Nicholson's Colonel Jessup on the stand with her anger issues and compulsive use of profanity.

    In loyalty to their kind, they cannot tolerate our minds. In loyalty to our kind, We cannot tolerate their obstruction.

    by mojave mike on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:17:59 AM PST

  •  Fifth amendment (0+ / 0-)

    Yes, the Fifth protects you from having your testimony subpoenaed. (Well they can subpoena, but you don't have to comply.) Does it also protect you against subpoenas for documents?

  •  Immunity (0+ / 0-)

    I bet they are invoking the 5th until their immunity from prosecution is in place.  When that is arranged heads will roll.  Christie will be singing a different song, possibly in soprano. He's looking at the big house.  His passport should be stripped so he doesn't flee the country.

    His former cronies in crime are not gonna take a fall for this guy. Why should they when he threw them to the dogs?

    "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness," Allen Ginsberg

    by Hermenutic on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 03:10:55 PM PST

  •  When virtuous people really apply themselves... (0+ / 0-)

    
    Instant Clusterfœck!

  •  Lesson from Penny Stock Cases - Backup tapes key (0+ / 0-)

    One of the biggest successes of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)  in the late 80s, early 90s was the prosecution of the Blinder & Robinson brokerage firm, which led a massive fraud using penny stocks.

    It took multiple trials, but they were found guilty.

    The key evidence that led to their downfall were the backup tapes from the computer system, since they had not been erased or destroyed.

    Just saying, relying on potentially guilty parties to voluntarily submit e-mails that might indicate their guilt seems problematic.

    Get the backup tapes from any and all e-mail systems used.

    Regards,
    Virginia Common Sense

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site