Unlike the leftists here that refuse to ever admit Obama and his henchmen might be lying, I think Christie is lying. His in house investigation carries as much credibility to me as Obama appointing a huge Obama supporter to investigate the IRS.

Even if Christie has credible deniability, he certainly set the tone for those right under him to do what they did. Just as Obama set the tone for the IRS abuse. Libs follow the party line as far as Barry goes, I refuse to act like a sheep.


New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, on the heels of an internal review that cleared him in the still-churning road closure scandal, told Fox News he feels exonerated and indicated the ordeal will not impact his decision on whether to run for president in 2016.

“There’s no baggage here because I didn’t do anything,” the Republican governor told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly on “The Kelly File” when asked whether the scandal would hinder a presidential run.

The governor spoke with Fox News on Friday just hours before giving his first press conference since the scandal broke in early January. A day earlier, a law firm he brought in to examine last year’s controversial lane closures near the George Washington Bridge concluded that Christie was not involved, and faulted the two officials long at the center of the scandal – former Port Authority official David Wildstein and ousted Christie aide Bridget Kelly.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/...gage-here/

(03-28-2014 10:18 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Unlike the leftists here that refuse to ever admit Obama and his henchmen might be lying, I think Christie is lying. His in house investigation carries as much credibility to me as Obama appointing a huge Obama supporter to investigate the IRS.

Even if Christie has credible deniability, he certainly set the tone for those right under him to do what they did. Just as Obama set the tone for the IRS abuse. Libs follow the party line as far as Barry goes, I refuse to act like a sheep.


New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, on the heels of an internal review that cleared him in the still-churning road closure scandal, told Fox News he feels exonerated and indicated the ordeal will not impact his decision on whether to run for president in 2016.

“There’s no baggage here because I didn’t do anything,” the Republican governor told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly on “The Kelly File” when asked whether the scandal would hinder a presidential run.

The governor spoke with Fox News on Friday just hours before giving his first press conference since the scandal broke in early January. A day earlier, a law firm he brought in to examine last year’s controversial lane closures near the George Washington Bridge concluded that Christie was not involved, and faulted the two officials long at the center of the scandal – former Port Authority official David Wildstein and ousted Christie aide Bridget Kelly.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/...gage-here/

So he is going to run? Oh joy.

(03-28-2014 10:18 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Unlike the leftists here that refuse to ever admit Obama and his henchmen might be lying, I think Christie is lying. His in house investigation carries as much credibility to me as Obama appointing a huge Obama supporter to investigate the IRS.

I'll take a slightly different tack. He may be lying, he may not be, I don't know. And I won't know until the evidence is on the table, and even then it may well be a matter of opinion--this email sorta suggests that maybe he did, but it doesn't really say exactly that either. What this investigation represents is exactly the kind of in house investigation that we've been told over and over again "settles" Benghazi and Fast and Furious and the IRS scandal.

That being the case, I am going to remain open minded until the evidence is produced, but I want to see the evidence. If the evidence proves that he did, or leaves the kind of gray area discussed above, then I would not support him and I would hope that he has the good sense not to run.

What I will not support is what the Obama regime has done--stonewalling the evidence and then crowing that the other side can't prove anything without the evidence that they've stonewalled. I don't think the left-leaning media or the democrats in the New Jersey legislature are going to allow Christie the luxury of doing that. I wish the media applied the same standards with equal vigor to Obama. Does anyone seriously believe that the media have pursued Benghazi, or Fast and Furious, or the IRS scandal as relentlessly as they have pursued Christie about two lanes on a freeway being closed for a period of time? Seriously?

So we are all behind Christie right?! The Boss for prez!

(03-29-2014 06:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 10:18 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Unlike the leftists here that refuse to ever admit Obama and his henchmen might be lying, I think Christie is lying. His in house investigation carries as much credibility to me as Obama appointing a huge Obama supporter to investigate the IRS.

I'll take a slightly different tack. He may be lying, he may not be, I don't know. And I won't know until the evidence is on the table, and even then it may well be a matter of opinion--this email sorta suggests that maybe he did, but it doesn't really say exactly that either. What this investigation represents is exactly the kind of in house investigation that we've been told over and over again "settles" Benghazi and Fast and Furious and the IRS scandal.

That being the case, I am going to remain open minded until the evidence is produced, but I want to see the evidence. If the evidence proves that he did, or leaves the kind of gray area discussed above, then I would not support him and I would hope that he has the good sense not to run.

What I will not support is what the Obama regime has done--stonewalling the evidence and then crowing that the other side can't prove anything without the evidence that they've stonewalled. I don't think the left-leaning media or the democrats in the New Jersey legislature are going to allow Christie the luxury of doing that. I wish the media applied the same standards with equal vigor to Obama. Does anyone seriously believe that the media have pursued Benghazi, or Fast and Furious, or the IRS scandal as relentlessly as they have pursued Christie about two lanes on a freeway being closed for a period of time? Seriously?

To your last question ‘seriously’ – my answer is yes. In my opinion there is nothing more un democratic then when a politician/government uses their power to punish non supporters.

I am still not clear on the right wings issues with Benghazi, Fast & Furious & the IRS Tea party thing.

Benghazi – **** happens. Compared to the Bush administration, only a handful of Americans have died in overseas attacks.

Fast & Furious was started under Bush, regardless I have no problem with the Government doing undercover sting operations. The underlying issue here was that the GOP had no intention of reducing illegal gun sales.

The IRS’s job is to sort out fraud. The Tea party is a political organization. The bureaucracy crosses administrations & runs the government. Liberal groups were also targeted. That is their job.

One of the few things Obama has impressed me – is his justice department going after corruption. Three DC council members have already gone to jail. The current mayor I think will be at some point. They have also hit in PG County and many other areas. They have been blind to party or race.

That said I am neutral on Christie. I think he is smart enough to only provide verbal communication versus written communication.

(03-29-2014 06:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 10:18 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Unlike the leftists here that refuse to ever admit Obama and his henchmen might be lying, I think Christie is lying. His in house investigation carries as much credibility to me as Obama appointing a huge Obama supporter to investigate the IRS.

I'll take a slightly different tack. He may be lying, he may not be, I don't know. And I won't know until the evidence is on the table, and even then it may well be a matter of opinion--this email sorta suggests that maybe he did, but it doesn't really say exactly that either. What this investigation represents is exactly the kind of in house investigation that we've been told over and over again "settles" Benghazi and Fast and Furious and the IRS scandal.

That being the case, I am going to remain open minded until the evidence is produced, but I want to see the evidence. If the evidence proves that he did, or leaves the kind of gray area discussed above, then I would not support him and I would hope that he has the good sense not to run.

What I will not support is what the Obama regime has done--stonewalling the evidence and then crowing that the other side can't prove anything without the evidence that they've stonewalled. I don't think the left-leaning media or the democrats in the New Jersey legislature are going to allow Christie the luxury of doing that. I wish the media applied the same standards with equal vigor to Obama. Does anyone seriously believe that the media have pursued Benghazi, or Fast and Furious, or the IRS scandal as relentlessly as they have pursued Christie about two lanes on a freeway being closed for a period of time? Seriously?

He seems pretty confident about this. It signals to me the he either has covered his ass and is sure one can prove it ...or he is telling the truth. My instincts are the later. We will see.

(03-29-2014 12:57 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 06:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 10:18 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Unlike the leftists here that refuse to ever admit Obama and his henchmen might be lying, I think Christie is lying. His in house investigation carries as much credibility to me as Obama appointing a huge Obama supporter to investigate the IRS.

I'll take a slightly different tack. He may be lying, he may not be, I don't know. And I won't know until the evidence is on the table, and even then it may well be a matter of opinion--this email sorta suggests that maybe he did, but it doesn't really say exactly that either. What this investigation represents is exactly the kind of in house investigation that we've been told over and over again "settles" Benghazi and Fast and Furious and the IRS scandal.
That being the case, I am going to remain open minded until the evidence is produced, but I want to see the evidence. If the evidence proves that he did, or leaves the kind of gray area discussed above, then I would not support him and I would hope that he has the good sense not to run.
What I will not support is what the Obama regime has done--stonewalling the evidence and then crowing that the other side can't prove anything without the evidence that they've stonewalled. I don't think the left-leaning media or the democrats in the New Jersey legislature are going to allow Christie the luxury of doing that. I wish the media applied the same standards with equal vigor to Obama. Does anyone seriously believe that the media have pursued Benghazi, or Fast and Furious, or the IRS scandal as relentlessly as they have pursued Christie about two lanes on a freeway being closed for a period of time? Seriously?

He seems pretty confident about this. It signals to me the he either has covered his ass and is sure one can prove it ...or he is telling the truth. My instincts are the later. We will see.

The thing that makes me feel most strongly that he is telling the truth is that he fired the lady who he he says lied to him immediately, without even talking to her to get her side. If he's linked to it, she knows. And he's given her every incentive to rat him out. And so far... crickets.

He's daring her to rat him, and she's not doing it. That's pretty powerful.

Doesn't mean he's innocent, he'll have to be vetted a lot more thoroughly before I'm willing to give him that. But he's either incredibly gutsy, or incredibly stupid, or innocent. There just aren't any other possibilities.

Why he would ever commission an investigation into his own possible misconduct is beyond me. Is there no independent commission available to do the investigation?

(03-29-2014 02:13 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Why he would ever commission an investigation into his own possible misconduct is beyond me. Is there no independent commission available to do the investigation?

Pretty much standard practice. Get a report that's friendly to you on the table before the mud slinging starts.

(03-29-2014 02:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 02:13 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Why he would ever commission an investigation into his own possible misconduct is beyond me. Is there no independent commission available to do the investigation?

Pretty much standard practice. Get a report that's friendly to you on the table before the mud slinging starts.

Makes no sense though. He knew going in that no one would believe the results since he's the one that paid for it.

(03-29-2014 04:39 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 02:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 02:13 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Why he would ever commission an investigation into his own possible misconduct is beyond me. Is there no independent commission available to do the investigation?

Pretty much standard practice. Get a report that's friendly to you on the table before the mud slinging starts.

Makes no sense though. He knew going in that no one would believe the results since he's the one that paid for it.

Regardless of credibility, it's out there now. And anyone who wants to reach a different conclusion is going to have to take the time and effort to refute it. So it serves a useful purpose.

As I say, the biggest single thing here is that he fired the lady that he says lied to him, without even giving her a chance to tell him her side of the story. That's the kind of thing that makes an enemy, and if there's anyone who can bring him down over this, it's probably her. So he's either very gutsy, or very stupid, or very innocent. And so far not a peep from her, which tends to push me toward the latter of those three options.

I guess this means that PMSNBC will be going back to wall-to-wall coverage of traffic cone-gate.

(03-28-2014 10:18 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  His in house investigation carries as much credibility to me as Obama appointing a huge Obama supporter to investigate the IRS.

(03-29-2014 06:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What this investigation represents is exactly the kind of in house investigation that we've been told over and over again "settles" Benghazi and Fast and Furious and the IRS scandal.

The report by the Gibson-Dunn law firm is not -- and should not be -- the final word on this, but it has a LOT more credibility than your standard "in-house" investigation. Gibson-Dunn is a major law firm with an independent reputation that long predates Christie. They are not going to throw that away over this.

Quote:what the Obama regime has done--stonewalling the evidence and then crowing that the other side can't prove anything without the evidence that they've stonewalled.

It's worked so far.

Quote:I wish the media applied the same standards with equal vigor to Obama.

Never happen, not in a million years. The whole point of dominating the media in the first place is to give their side a free pass when needed.

(03-29-2014 10:13 AM)dcCid Wrote:  In my opinion there is nothing more un democratic then when a politician/government uses their power to punish non supporters.

That is precisely why the IRS scandals have provoked so much anger.

Quote:I am still not clear on the right wings issues with Benghazi, Fast & Furious & the IRS Tea party thing.

Of course you're not.

Quote:Benghazi – **** happens.

Wow. Just wow.

(03-29-2014 12:57 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  [Christie] seems pretty confident about this. It signals to me the he either has covered his ass and is sure one can prove it ...or he is telling the truth.

Not sure which it is, but I agree it's one of the two.

Christie is a pompous bully, but that's probably a habit of necessity. At times, his press conferences border on Rob Ford-style antics. He's often wrong but never in doubt.

To many outside the Acela corridor, Christie is emblematic of the problems of the northeast. He's robustly loud, irreverent, and often seen as corrupt.

(03-29-2014 05:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 04:39 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 02:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 02:13 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Why he would ever commission an investigation into his own possible misconduct is beyond me. Is there no independent commission available to do the investigation?

Pretty much standard practice. Get a report that's friendly to you on the table before the mud slinging starts.

Makes no sense though. He knew going in that no one would believe the results since he's the one that paid for it.

Regardless of credibility, it's out there now. And anyone who wants to reach a different conclusion is going to have to take the time and effort to refute it. So it serves a useful purpose.

As I say, the biggest single thing here is that he fired the lady that he says lied to him, without even giving her a chance to tell him her side of the story. That's the kind of thing that makes an enemy, and if there's anyone who can bring him down over this, it's probably her. So he's either very gutsy, or very stupid, or very innocent. And so far not a peep from her, which tends to push me toward the latter of those three options.

I agree. Christie either has some other really damaging dirt on her in his pocket that is keeping her quiet...or....He is telling the truth. Either way? Her continued silence plays in his favor.

(03-30-2014 03:57 AM)supertiger Wrote:  Christie is a pompous bully, but that's probably a habit of necessity. At times, his press conferences border on Rob Ford-style antics. He's often wrong but never in doubt.

To many outside the Acela corridor, Christie is emblematic of the problems of the northeast. He's robustly loud, irreverent, and often seen as corrupt.

He is what they love in NJ. He is not scared to be confrontational...right or wrong.

(03-30-2014 03:57 AM)supertiger Wrote:  Christie is a pompous bully, but that's probably a habit of necessity. At times, his press conferences border on Rob Ford-style antics. He's often wrong but never in doubt.

To many outside the Acela corridor, Christie is emblematic of the problems of the northeast. He's robustly loud, irreverent, and often seen as corrupt.

I'm not a Christie fan but at least he has press conferences and answers questions with concise, no BS responses. He had a 90 minute presser after this first broke. We need a lot more irreverence.

(03-30-2014 09:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 05:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 04:39 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 02:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 02:13 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Why he would ever commission an investigation into his own possible misconduct is beyond me. Is there no independent commission available to do the investigation?

Pretty much standard practice. Get a report that's friendly to you on the table before the mud slinging starts.

Makes no sense though. He knew going in that no one would believe the results since he's the one that paid for it.

Regardless of credibility, it's out there now. And anyone who wants to reach a different conclusion is going to have to take the time and effort to refute it. So it serves a useful purpose.

As I say, the biggest single thing here is that he fired the lady that he says lied to him, without even giving her a chance to tell him her side of the story. That's the kind of thing that makes an enemy, and if there's anyone who can bring him down over this, it's probably her. So he's either very gutsy, or very stupid, or very innocent. And so far not a peep from her, which tends to push me toward the latter of those three options.

I agree. Christie either has some other really damaging dirt on her in his pocket that is keeping her quiet...or....He is telling the truth. Either way? Her continued silence plays in his favor.

She spoke out yesterday (her Lawyer did). Regardless I think Christie is smart enough noy to have any written evidence.

(03-30-2014 09:45 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 03:57 AM)supertiger Wrote:  Christie is a pompous bully, but that's probably a habit of necessity. At times, his press conferences border on Rob Ford-style antics. He's often wrong but never in doubt.

To many outside the Acela corridor, Christie is emblematic of the problems of the northeast. He's robustly loud, irreverent, and often seen as corrupt.

He is what they love in NJ. He is not scared to be confrontational...right or wrong.

Yep. Know your constituency. IMO, his persona isn't unlike how I would generalize a typical northeasterner. It doesn't play well in the Midwest or South where people tend to be more reserved.

Holy crapola dc. you did not write this entire mess did you.. and you BELIEVE IT?

(03-29-2014 10:13 AM)dcCid Wrote:  I am still not clear on the right wings issues with Benghazi, Fast & Furious & the IRS Tea party thing.

Benghazi – **** happens. Compared to the Bush administration, only a handful of Americans have died in overseas attacks.

WHAT??? Dude.. have you not paid attention to the coverup involved in this?

Quote:Fast & Furious was started under Bush, regardless I have no problem with the Government doing undercover sting operations. The underlying issue here was that the GOP had no intention of reducing illegal gun sales.

WRONG again... Operation Wide Receiver was under Bush (and had an entirely different aim). Operation F&F was under Obama.

And again, ask yourself.. how many times have Holder refused to explain the operations to Congress?

Quote:The IRS’s job is to sort out fraud. The Tea party is a political organization. The bureaucracy crosses administrations & runs the government. Liberal groups were also targeted. That is their job.

SAY WHAAAA>..... Again, LOOK AT THE NUMBERS and then all the pleading of the 5th by Lerner, and the (lack of) responses by Holder (again).


Back to Christie again. I do not trust him to not abuse his power, but I still think that Shizzle had it right.. He fired the lady that lied and she hasn't come back with anything to defend herself (at least not to my knowledge).

The one thing about Christie I like is that typically if he makes a decision, he defends the decision without any hemming-and-hawing.

Would I vote for Christie if he's the Republican candidate. Possibly. Would i vote for him in a primary run. Not if I can avoid it.