Chris Christie Knew About Bridge Lane Closings as They Happened, Prosecutors Say (1 Viewer)

[Hatuey]

Not if Trump wins and runs the DOJ like Obama.

An admission from a Trump supporter about his fearless leader's true intentions? Lead the DOJ like he believes Obama does but has no evidence to prove it with?

 

[coldjoint]

You'd do well in legal matters that finally determine the matter we discuss, if it get's that far: Judge: "What is your legal citation"? coldjoint: "You know that is not necessary."

Since it will never come to that, you go right ahead and indulge your fantasy.

 

[coldjoint]

An admission from a Trump supporter about his fearless leader's true intentions? Lead the DOJ like he believes Obama does but has no evidence to prove it with?

It is no such thing it is an indictment of Obama politicizing every government agency he could. Finishing with the FBI.

 

[coldjoint]

Attempt to consider:

Poster 1: Every single conservative politician who has served the last 50 years raped puppies before drowning them, at least twice a year.

Poster 2: Citation please.



Do you now understand why "Citation, please" is a valid request and/or point in some (relevant) circumstances?

I always did. I said it was not necessary. What part of that didn't you understand?

 

[Hatuey]

It is no such thing it is an indictment of Obama politicizing every government agency he could. Finishing with the FBI.

Prove it. K thanks.

 

[Napoleon]

I hope this is not just another partisan chase down another rabbit hole. What any prosecutor may say is irrelevant. What they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt is all that matters. All the Democrat lawyers in the NJ State Legislature couldn't find any evidence, why should I believe this guy is any different?

If it's proven he knew what was happening, not the lane closings themselves but why they were being closed, then he should be run out of office. I've not seen any evidence of that so far. We'll see what happens.

If he didn't know what was happening then he is the most incompetent Governor in New Jersey's history.

 

[coldjoint]

Prove it. K thanks.

No need to prove common knowledge.

 

[Hatuey]

No need to prove common knowledge.

No need to prove common knowledge known to like 12 Trump supporters on the internet? You really are going to have a hard time at DP.

 

[coldjoint]

No need to prove common knowledge known to like 12 Trump supporters on the internet? You really are going to have a hard time at DP.

I guess that is my problem then.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Prosecutors are ready to present evidence that Governor Christie was intimately involved in both the bridge closure and the subsequent cover up.

It's now only a matter of time until Christie is frog marched to his own trial for corruption. Frog marched? Bad choice of words. I should have said waddles.

Article is here.

Three years after it happened prosecutors are finally ready to go, we hear.

And yet so many folks cant figure out why Trump is here.

 

[jimbo]

Not if Trump wins and runs the DOJ like Obama.

This is a state matter.

 

[Chillfolks]

Prove it. K thanks.

What would it take to prove it to you?*

Folks who lean left and support Obama will require more proof than someone who thinks Obama is an empty shallow petty politician.

 

[Hatuey]

I guess that is my problem then.

Which is why we are here. With you not offering any evidence and telling us it's common knowledge that you can't be bothered to find.

:lol:

 

[Hatuey]

What would it take to prove it to you?*

Folks who lean left and support Obama will require more proof than someone who thinks Obama is an empty shallow petty politician.

A conviction. Charges. Court case? Maybe an impeachment? Something more than lip service to the masses. I'm not hard to please.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I hope this is not just another partisan chase down another rabbit hole. What any prosecutor may say is irrelevant. What they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt is all that matters. All the Democrat lawyers in the NJ State Legislature couldn't find any evidence, why should I believe this guy is any different?

If it's proven he knew what was happening, not the lane closings themselves but why they were being closed, then he should be run out of office. I've not seen any evidence of that so far. We'll see what happens.

At least so far politically motivated prosecutions against high officials have been largely failing, the case against McDonnell being just the latest. I have no idea if their is a good case against Christie based upon evidence, but the fact that it took over three years to charge him is not a good sign.

 

[coldjoint]

This is a state matter.

So was Ferguson. Obamas DOJ goes wherever political points can be gained.

 

[coldjoint]

Which is why we are here. With you not offering any evidence and telling us it's common knowledge that you can't be bothered to find.

:lol:

So you are admitting the proof is out there. Like I said, common knowledge. Thanks.

 

[JumpinJack]

Prosecutors are ready to present evidence that Governor Christie was intimately involved in both the bridge closure and the subsequent cover up.

It's now only a matter of time until Christie is frog marched to his own trial for corruption. Frog marched? Bad choice of words. I should have said waddles.

Article is here.

Of course he did. Who would've dared do that in his office w/o his knowledge?

Some will say it's no big deal. But think about it. A politician with power, in order to seek revenge against someone else, stopped thousands of people on a bridge for hours. Without water or food, some would have been ill. There were children trying to go to school, stuck for hours. People were late for work, holding up business for hours and costing businesses thousands of dollars, if not more. And for what? Not because of some emergency. Because of a petty politician using his power for a personal vendetta, without regard for the safety and comfort of the citizens, and without regard for the cost to both the people and businesses. This is a big deal.

 

[Carleen]

Prosecutors are ready to present evidence that Governor Christie was intimately involved in both the bridge closure and the subsequent cover up.

It's now only a matter of time until Christie is frog marched to his own trial for corruption. Frog marched? Bad choice of words. I should have said waddles.

Article is here.

It's really hard to believe that Christy who bragged about his having his pulse on everything that is going on in his administration didn't know about any if this.

 

[apdst]

Prosecutors are ready to present evidence that Governor Christie was intimately involved in both the bridge closure and the subsequent cover up.

It's now only a matter of time until Christie is frog marched to his own trial for corruption. Frog marched? Bad choice of words. I should have said waddles.

Article is here.

There was no intent.

 

[jimbo]

So was Ferguson. Obamas DOJ goes wherever political points can be gained.

Fat is not a protected class. Neither is white.

DOJ will not touch this one.

 

[JumpinJack]

Just because a prosecutor makes a claim during opening statements doesn't mean he has the evidence to back it up. We will soon know if he does or not. But it never made sense to me that Christie wouldn't have know about this. And I don't know what is worse--that he would agree to something that inconveniences millions of commuters as payback for a political sleight; or that he would put into positions of power people who would do such a thing behind his back.

Actually, yes it does. Before a case gets that far, it's usual that the defendant files a document with the Court, asking the case to be thrown out for insufficient evidence. At which point the Court looks at the preliminary evidence, to see if there IS any. There doesn't have to be much. But there has to be SOME evidence on each and every point of law that must be proven, no matter how slight the evidence.

Cases are thus prevented from proceeding without evidence.

Whether a Court or jury finds that there is ENOUGH evidence, or that the evidence actually proves every point like the prosecutor says, is a different matter. But there is evidence on every point that must be proven in order to win a conviction or a judgment.

This is why sometimes a DA won't file a case for prosecution, even when a case seems strong in the public's opinion. Because there's not evidence on every point that must be proven, which in turn would be accepted by the Court or a jury, calling it insufficient evidence.

 

[coldjoint]

Fat is not a protected class. Neither is white.

DOJ will not touch this one.

You have a couple of good points there.:lol:

 

[Chillfolks]

A conviction. Charges. Court case? Maybe an impeachment? Something more than lip service to the masses. I'm not hard to please.

You are asking for a court case, official charges, or impeachment on the claim that Obama has stacked his administration with political hacks. That seems a little unreasonable and being extremely hard to please. I don't think what Obama did was illegal. It just shows he is a piss poor leader who put politics over people.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Actually, yes it does. Before a case gets that far, it's usual that the defendant files a document with the Court, asking the case to be thrown out for insufficient evidence. At which point the Court looks at the preliminary evidence, to see if there IS any. There doesn't have to be much. But there has to be SOME evidence on each and every point of law that must be proven, no matter how slight the evidence.

Cases are thus prevented from proceeding without evidence.

Whether a Court or jury finds that there is ENOUGH evidence, or that the evidence actually proves every point like the prosecutor says, is a different matter. But there is evidence on every point that must be proven in order to win a conviction or a judgment.

This is why sometimes a DA won't file a case for prosecution, even when a case seems strong in the public's opinion. Because there's not evidence on every point that must be proven, which in turn would be accepted by the Court or a jury, calling it insufficient evidence.

And just weeks before we have an election which Trump looks like he might win we get chin wagging about maybe charges being filed against one of his lieutenants but no actual charges, over three years after the events in question??!!

Ya, I have a pretty good educated guess about what is going on here.

I will wait for confirmation.