Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

avebury

(10,952 posts)
Fri Jan 10, 2014, 08:40 AM Jan 2014

After a lot of thought, this is what I think happened.

No matter who all was behind bridgegate, this was plan was thought out in advance.

It does not make sense for Christie to take political payback from the Mayor of Fort Lee because the Mayor was not that big a factor in Christie's re-election campaign.

Given Rachel Maddow's disclosure of the war that Christie started with the Democrats on the State Supreme Court Justices, it does make sense that the target of the payback was the Democratic Majority Leader whose district includes Fort Lee.

I think any discussion of the Mayor of Fort Lee was added strictly to act as a smoke screen should anything go wrong. It gives Christie plausable denial because he can claim that he really does not know the Mayor and the Mayor was not even on his radar.

What people do know is that, in August, Christie went on a public meltdown relating to his decision to not nominate Justice Hoens for a lifetime tenure on the NJ Supreme Court. It was right after that, the emails started to fly and bridgegate occurred. This is a story that could grow legs if the main stream media (beyond Rachel Maddow) picks it up and runs with it. If you tie bridgegate to the NJ Supreme Court war it becomes harder for Christie to play dumb. The timing is too spot on. That is the story that has the potential to gain traction and steam role over Christie.

Even if Christie was not in on the original plot I just don't buy his claim to have only learned about it a couple of days ago. If he became aware anytime after the incident and before the release of the emails then he becomes a co-conspirator after the fact because he was trying really hard to kill the story. Remember his phone call to Cuomo?

In his effort to try to maintain an air of plausible deniability he comes across as a incompetent buffoon who has no business running a state let along anything else.

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
After a lot of thought, this is what I think happened. (Original Post) avebury Jan 2014 OP
Yes, and I hope Rachel's take on it spreads elfin Jan 2014 #1
Sorry, but that makes no sense... brooklynite Jan 2014 #2
It was obvious for the audience it was intended for. JoePhilly Jan 2014 #3
+1 Blue_Tires Jan 2014 #8
I think the sole reason this happened was a distraction babylonsister Jan 2014 #4
During his first term BumRushDaShow Jan 2014 #6
I agree with you. Rachel exposed the truth. Stuart G Jan 2014 #7
I REALLY hope that the democrats knew something like this would happen, and that is why loudsue Jan 2014 #5

elfin

(6,262 posts)
1. Yes, and I hope Rachel's take on it spreads
Fri Jan 10, 2014, 08:44 AM
Jan 2014

But I doubt that will happen because it isn't as simple to understand by a mass audience as the first reasoning involving just a mayor.

brooklynite

(94,738 posts)
2. Sorry, but that makes no sense...
Fri Jan 10, 2014, 09:04 AM
Jan 2014

...there's no point in pulling a stunt like this if you're not trying to send a message, and if it's not obvious who the message is directed at, you're ruined your opportunity. Targetting the Majority Leader, but then making it look in INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS like the target of an implicitly illegal action is actually someone else is just silly.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
3. It was obvious for the audience it was intended for.
Fri Jan 10, 2014, 09:31 AM
Jan 2014

Think about how a mob boss operates.

Everyone knows that they are the mob boss. But, there is no direct evidence that they are in fact the mob boss.

Favors are traded. Grudges are held. And retribution is dealt out, but its dealt out some what unpredictably.

The goal is to ensure that the right people know this was political payback, and yet leave little to no direct evidence for it.

"Accidents happen" has to be one of the possible reasons the "bad thing" happened.

The idea is to make sure everyone is afraid of ever crossing you, because if they do, they know their chances of having an accident increase significantly.

And after a bad thing happens, those who see it might not know what the specific reason for it was, but that doesn't really matter.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
8. +1
Fri Jan 10, 2014, 10:55 AM
Jan 2014

cheap, petty, overly blatant "politics of retribution" aren't something we see that often these days, but it used to be WAY more commonplace a generation or two ago...It's funny to see how many people are thinking this is some kind of "new" thing

"Prince of Providence" for example is chock full of revenge politics from cover to cover, ranging from really ugly to borderline humorous...

babylonsister

(171,093 posts)
4. I think the sole reason this happened was a distraction
Fri Jan 10, 2014, 09:46 AM
Jan 2014

from what Christie did the previous day regarding the second SC justice. And it worked until Rachel exposed that last night. I for one was not aware that Christie had made himself king.

BumRushDaShow

(129,518 posts)
6. During his first term
Fri Jan 10, 2014, 10:25 AM
Jan 2014

he used the state police helicopters to attend his son's ball games -



and for other sundry purposes.

He balked at paying for any of it until the shit hit the fan.

Stuart G

(38,448 posts)
7. I agree with you. Rachel exposed the truth.
Fri Jan 10, 2014, 10:28 AM
Jan 2014

I believe that that truth will win. Also, the line...........................

"I Am Not a Bully" will also have staying power.
That is almost a bigger lie than the one about the bridge.

loudsue

(14,087 posts)
5. I REALLY hope that the democrats knew something like this would happen, and that is why
Fri Jan 10, 2014, 10:02 AM
Jan 2014

they didn't support a dem opponent to Christy in the election.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»After a lot of thought, t...