Someone explain this to me.
The sh*t hit the fan for Christie Inc. on Wednesday January 8th, 2014 when various and sundry emails were released revealing for the first time concrete proof that some in his immediate circle were involved in the infamous lane closures on the George Washington Bridge.
Here is a news item from that exact date, just to refresh memories:
Now we have learned from the newly released Mastro report that Christie and members of his inner circle convened an emergency meeting that day to discuss the ramifications of the breaking media maelstrom.
Something rather strange happened at that meeting. Join me below to discuss what I think is a pretty strong rend in the cloth of the Christie protestations of innocence.
From the always great reporting of NorthJersey.com we discover that:
When Christie gathered his top staff, Samson and his campaign chairman, Bill Palatucci, at Drumthwacket, the governor’s mansion in Princeton, on Jan. 8, there was a discussion over whether Kelly and Stepien should hire attorneys because of all the media attention the incident was drawing, according to O’Dowd’s interview notes.So, does this not appear that all these top folks, including Christie and Samson, are involved in discussions about how to protect and draw the wagons around the 2 staffers who would be publicly cast out into the wilderness with scorn and derision just 1 day later in the January 9th press conference?
Someone – O’Dowd does not recall who – suggested they hire attorneys Walter Timpone and Kevin Marino. Kelly and Stepien went on to retain those attorneys, though Kelly has since replaced Timpone with Michael Critchley, a top criminal defense lawyer in the state.
Christie told his investigators about the Jan. 8 meeting and said he and his staff decided it was best not to talk to Kelly or Stepien, but the notes on his interview make no mention of the discussion about whether they should retain legal counsel.
- See more at: http://www.northjersey.com/...
If Christie and his staff decided it was best not to talk to Kelly and Stepien how was it that they in fact hired exactly the same attorneys as the groups consensus?
If Kelly and Stepien were truly rogue agents acting without the authority, knowledge and oversight of those higher-up, why would the group be concerned about them at all, especially to the level of deciding their legal representation?
The Mastro report does the very opposite of exonerating Christie et al, in my opinion. It raises many more questions then it answers.