Christie and His Cronies In Deep Trouble?

According to this they are: Uh Oh Christie

Would love to see the big barking bully go down in ignominy.

Can't help but notice that whether or not someone is "tough" or a "bully" always seems to align with preexisting political viewpoints.

Anyway, I wonder if it's at all significant that I can't seem to find this news story on most reputable political news sites yet. All the ones I'm seeing are more like editorials (otherwise they wouldn't be able to use a pejorative like "cronies").

Well, bully could be descriptive of his way of speaking to people at times I suppose, although I consider his tough, straight talk act to be tiresome. At any rate, The Star Ledger reported on the Esquire story--not that that lends any credence to the story itself--and the WSJ recently reported that a federal grand jury had been impaneled exclusively for the bridge closings, an addition to the grand jury already impaneled to hear about the closings and other matters.

Yeah, as you say the Star Ledger's just reporting on the reporting. And it might be telling that it says it "could not confirm this report after making numerous phone calls."

Anyway, the part I'm wondering about isn't that there's an investigation or a grand jury (there is, and there should be), but the part about it "closing in," and the editorial's general suggestion that the hammer's about to drop. The Esquires and Salons of the world are always breathlessly claiming (often based on unnamed sources) that some investigation is about to devastate one Republican or another. They've been hilariously wrong about Scott Walker, so I'll wait until a more credible organization, publishing a news story rather than an editorial, weighs in.

If and when that happens, things get serious.

Yeah, who are the sources and what's their intent, but clearly two federal grand juries is serious business. Not up-to-speed on the Walker legalities but he has an election pretty soon so the voters could make all that practically moot.

Grand juries are certainly serious business for somebody--the only question is whether or not that somebody is Christie, or a staffer. I honestly have no idea of the likelihood of that, I just know that editorial wishcasting is a cottage industry.

Yeah, we'll see, although an indictment and/or conviction of a Christie staffer or staffers would spell major trouble for Christie's presidential aspirations. I always thought that a good ad campaign using what we already know could decimate Christie anyway, something to the effect that if you believe all of Mr. Christie's denials regarding the scandals in NJ we have a bridge to sell you.

Hehe. Witty.

I'm a tad more agnostic on what kinds of things doom candidates. On paper Clinton was positively scandal-ridden as Governor, but he got by it through sheer force of personality. And it still seems incredible that the last GOP candidate was a guy who enacted a statewide health insurance mandate. It certainly isn't a positive, and it could get worse. But I'm done being surprised by the kinds of hurdles skilled politicians manage to jump.

Romney wasn't too surprising as the monied establishment seems to decide the GOP pres races regardless. (Pretty much true of the Dems as well which is why many say we only have two sides of one corporate party.) A difference with the bridge scandal as opposed to the usual state ones is that it's something everyone can easily relate to. Holding commuters in traffic to settle a political score is not something I'd like to defend. But, yeah, who knows how this will all go down.