Christie was in on and part of the plan. Then the plan became to hot to handle.

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Tue Jan 14, 2014, 06:18 PM - Edit history (16)

As GWBgate sinks in the most perplexing data point is that early on, when th scandal appeared managable, Christie went on the offensive, telling reporters (around Decemeber 9th) that he thinks that Fort Lee should have fewer lanes, and that he was angry that Fort Lee had multiple lanes and maybe something ought to be done about it.

Christie also defended Baroni's charge that Fort Lee perhaps had too many bridge lanes, telling reporters early this month, "We should look at this policy because I don’t know why one town gets three lanes. One lane maybe; three lanes?”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/10/chris-christie-bridge_n_4415953.html

Odd for someone who knows nothin' about nothin'

(Like the wag who once said he and Doris Day went back so far he had known her before she was a virgin, we did get to see Chris Christie before he knew nothing.)

I read Christie's bizarre "maybe they should have fewer lanes" thing as a threat. He was (IMO) doing his active and public part in the GWB extortion racket.

While it was being demonstrated to someone that the government could make Fort Lee unlivable and undevelopable simply by limiting GWB access, Christie signaled the threat to make permanent lane reductions in the future.

1) Here is the effect of having one lane...
2) and we can do this permanently if we want. "We should look at this policy because I don’t know why one town gets three lanes. One lane maybe; three lanes?”


That's not revenge, it is pressure. SHOW what you can do and Threaten a willingness to do it worse the next time.

And the threat was (in practical effect, leaving aside speciffic target/intention) a threat to render a billion dollar project worth very much less. Being located right next to the GWB is very valuable (being mere minutes from Manhattan), but not worth nearly as much if you cannot easily get to and from New York.

Looked at that way, Christie's odd comments were not ass-covering, but rather part of the plan itself. The continuation of the plan. Phase two. To someone dependent on those lanes, Christie saying he wanted to reduce lanes as official lane policy was scarier than the actual closure. More threatening to someone's interests.

We don't know the target of the pressure yet, but this was probably a shake-down. A thing done seeking to influence a subsequent action.

The mistake seems (to me) to have been to not do it quick. They should have shut down the lanes for one or two days then restored them, before the New York side of the port authority got involved.

One day traffic study. We wanted to "study" (meaning to "demonstrate&quot the effect of closing these lanes. The study is over. Nothing to see here. (Meaning, the point has been demonstrated to whoever needed to be reminded what happens if these lanes are closed.)

It may be that the urge to rat-fuck the mayor, as a bonus, caused people to keep the show going too long, to the point where it attracted too much scrutiny.


When the time line of negotiations/planning/actions on the "billion dollar development" project is merged with this bridge fiasco we might get a better idea of who this pressure was being brought to bear on.

(And who was supposed to pay what or do what to protect the Fort Lee access lanes going forward.)


This feels, to me, like old-fashioned mafia-style corruption. Somehow the trash stops being collected in a certain street... permits stop being issued for a certain development... all the workers on one building project call in sick (which is fine if done for higher pay, but was typically done for some Jimmy Hoffa type or political figure to get an envelope of cash)...

Was somebody not getting their "taste" of whatever was going in in Fort Lee development? Was the "wrong" bid on something selected?

IMO.

[cthulu2016]

1. .

[cthulu2016]

21. .

[cthulu2016]

23. .

[rocktivity]

2. He KNEW the plan? "Governor Soprano" PLANNED the plan!

Last edited Tue Jan 14, 2014, 03:48 PM - Edit history (2)

He planned it right down to making sure no evidence pointed directly to him or to anyone who reported to him directly. That way, he can "truthfully" say that no one told him anything -- it was the other way around, HE told THEM. He's no Georgie Bush, waiting for a Rove, Cheney, or Rumsfeld to manipulate him: he's a Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld salad with Don Corleone dressing!


rocktivity

[malaise]

4. That simple

And he will be caught

[cthulu2016]

8. With a chief executive that distinction vanishes

I phrased it the way I did because I don't know who planned it. All I am saying is that Christie approved it and acted in furtherance of it.

With a chief executive there's no "following orders" category, so the distinction between planning and approving a plan is a question of process, not of executive culpability.

Christie is just as guilty no matter whose idea it was originally, and I did not man to imply that his culpability is any less.

But I edited the headline in light of your post because it is cleanest to say he was "in on it"

[rocktivity]

14. We don't have him nailed as a mastermind or conspirator yet

but we do know for sure that he knew there was no traffic study and that he participated in the coverup.

Hopefully, he'll finish burying himself with his state of the state address, which starts in half an hour.


rocktivity

[dem in texas]

19. Yes! Governor Soprano

That's is exactly what I was thinking. I remember the episodes where Tony and his crew disrupted the construction site. That's how they do in New Jersey.

[TheOther95Percent]

5. Tucker Development

Last edited Tue Jan 14, 2014, 03:37 PM - Edit history (2)

Okay, I did some quick research on one of the companies behind the Fort Lee Project, Tucker Development. Tucker Development is developing the western half of the property. This company was founded by Richard H. Tucker, Highland Park, IL. The company has a commercial real estate portfolio exceeding $1B in value with properties in NJ, IL, PA and WI. Richard Tucker's campaign contributions show a strong preference for democratic candidates; although he has provided financial backing to candidates from both parties. I see a substantial contribution to Cory Booker's 2013 Senate campaign.

Richard H. Tucker Federal Election Campaign Search Results

http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/qind/


According to the New Jersey campaign donations database, neither Richard Tucker or Tucker Development have donated to any candidates for state or local office races.

So maybe this was sending a message and that message was: get out your checkbook.

[rocktivity]

7. Or the maybe message is "GET OUT

Last edited Thu Apr 3, 2014, 04:42 PM - Edit history (2)

because we have the financing of the GOP-happy Koch Brothers waiting in the wings."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4317406


rocktivity

[rocktivity]

25. UPDATE

Last edited Thu Apr 3, 2014, 04:41 PM - Edit history (2)

"Or maybe the message is "GET OUT because we have the financing of the GOP-happy Koch Brothers waiting in the wings?" I stand corrected.

What I should have written is "Or maybe the message is GET OUT because we have the financing of a developer represented by then-Port Authority chairman David Samson is waiting in the wings!"


rocktivity

[cthulu2016]

9. I am curious what decisions the mayor or city council made or

had pending that one would want to influence (or see un-done), around that time.

If a show of force/pressure that the governor had veto-power over practical development (by controlling the bridge), what decision was it to influence?

Who was supposed to get what contract? Hell, it doesn't have to be about the main contract. Who sells the concrete? Who hauls away the refuse? What other parcel of land gets what road built where?

Very old-school stuff.

[TheOther95Percent]

15. This is so very much like Watergate in that "Follow the Money" Kind of Way.

The timing of the lane closures also the week before more than $200M in financing was secured. Tucker Development announced the financing transaction closed on September 16, 2014. Another possible angle is Mary Pat Christie's new job at a company that specializes in real estate financing transactions.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-22/mary-pat-christie-juggles-roles-as-political-facilitator.html

Mary Pat Christie in 2011 earned $307,372 from Cantor Fitzgerald LP, where she was a part-time vice president in Summit, New Jersey. She joined New York-based Angelo Gordon in September[2012], where she works full time on strategic planning and marketing, focusing on bank debt and distressed funds.

[pnwmom]

13. I'm confused. How can the database say Richard Tucker hasn't donated to any candidates

and yet there was a "substantial contribution to Cory Booker's 2013 Senate campaign"?

[TheOther95Percent]

17. Two databases: federal and state

The federal database has quite a few campaign contributions by Richard H. Tucker. State races wouldn't show up in the federal database so I check the NJ State database for campaign contributions. Nothing there for Tucker. So Tucker donated to Cory Booker's 2013 senate run but didn't give Christie's campaign anything.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. I agree with your reading

I also agree with pundits who note the seeming forethought implied by the Kelly email.

Multitude of factors at work here, I think, but somebody should certainly look into the form of corruption you're describing.

Great post!

[cthulu2016]

24. thank you

[ProSense]

10. Put it this way,

"Christie knew the plan. "

...it strains credibility that anyone is still wondering if Christie knew. It was a massive traffic jam on the GWB, EMS delays, angry constituents, police being used as pawns, and everyone in his inner circle frantically communicating about the situation.

It also involves the Port Authority, which is controlled by the Governors of NJ and NY, and the busiest toll brigde in the world.

Former Gov. Huntsman: 'Something Doesn't Connect' With Christie's Knowledge Of Bridge Closure
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024329851

The lies are giving him away. Confirmation is all that's standing in the way of Christie and impeachment, resignation and/or indictment.

[cthulu2016]

11. I edited to "was part of" which subsumes "approved"

He obviously approved it because when a chief executive is in on something he can control then it is his plan.

I don't know whose idea it was originally, but obviously it was Christie's plan since he was in on it. The OP phrasing is meant to convey tat Christie knew what was going on, and was an active part of an overall plan.

That Christie's comments were phase B of a multi-front plan.

[napkinz]

12. to quote Boner, "Are you kidding me????"

[rocktivity]

16. He didn't even ask, "Did you clear it with your boss?"

In fact, why WOULD he ask Bridget Kelley if he didn't know who was responsible -- wouldn't he go to HER boss first? But then again, why ask questions you already know the answers to?




rocktivity

[s-cubed]

18. If I remember right, the funding for the Tucker piece was to be finalized the week of

the traffic "study". It was finalized the next week. Again, you have to ask, when you have a hostage situation, what does the hostage taker want in exchange? We don't know, but somebody does. Fort Lee's mayor might, but he's not talking - yet.

[Voice for Peace]

20. I know Sokolich has been specific about not seeking higher office, but if I were Christie I'd see

him as a threat anyway, ergo the anti-development move
could in part be an attempt to derail his political career.

He's a charismatic guy, from what I have seen. In the
New Jersey style.

[mountain grammy]

22. He withheld disaster relief funds for political purposes. Fry the bastard!

[cheyanne]

26. The pressure was on Hudson Lights Development project . . .

Here is a quote from a Talking Points Memo article on the reason for the closures.

Is a Billion Dollar Development Project at the Heart of Bridgegate?
talkingpointsmemo.com/.../is-a-billion-dollar-devel...?
Talking Points Memo

The Hudson Lights project is a billion dollar project because it offers unparalleled access to the George Washington Bridge. But take away that access and it’s no longer a billion dollar project.

Mark Sokolich knew this back in September when the toll lanes from Fort Lee had been cut from three down to one. He asked Port Authority Deputy Executive Director Bill Baroni on September 12: “what do I do when our billion dollar development is put on line at the end of next year?”

He begged Baroni to respond. He gave him two office numbers and his home and cell number. Baroni gave him silence.

This is the first mention of Hudson Lights in the documents released so far under the NJ Assembly Committee subpoena directing Wildstein to produce all materials related to the GWB closures.

We know that because of its location, the long-term viability of this project could be threatened by any permanent changes to the GWB toll lanes that negatively impacted the on-ramp adjacent to the site.

But something else was going on here during these weeks in August and September that hadn’t been discussed until today’s show.

On August 15, two days after the go was given to cause traffic problems in Fort Lee, Mayor Sokolich and the Fort Lee town council held a meeting during which the redevelopment project’s contract was discussed. We don’t know what happened, as it was a closed session. But one week later, on August 22, the mayor was authorized by the council to finalize documents relating to how one phase of the redevelopment was to be financed.