I have no idea how this one will turn out... but I do wonder if some are jumping the gun on this one.
I am trying to sort through all the new stories about Governor Christie today -- the headlines sure are explosive. If you just read the headlines, you think, "he is toast."
Here is what I don't get: is the accusation that he KNEW about the lane closings DURING the closings? If so, didn't just about everybody? The closings had a big impact on traffic in New Jersey into New York and I figure just about everybody in the region knew about it DURING.
Aren't these the questions:
1) Did he know about it BEFORE it happened? Was he part of some dirty political stunt? (So far, he has denied this and I see no evidence to the contrary.)
2) Did he participate in any cover up? (So far, he has denied he has and I see no evidence to the contrary.)
3) Did he make a material misstatement during his long press conference? (Note that I included the word "material" -- language from the law -- since in a long Q and A someone could make a mistake about an inconsequential matter.)
So far, we have lots of allegations flying but the facts seem squishy.
Governor Christie needs to answer more questions... and we need to see if there are any documents to corroborate or disprove what he says. Of course people in his inner circle should be questioned and I think under oath.
What strikes me as the strangest part of this is that the cover story by those alleged involved was to shut down the lanes to study the traffic. Why would anyone buy that? Even buy it enough to put a cone down on the road? If you study traffic, you leave it as is to see what it is. You don't change the traffic (e.g. shut down lanes) -- you do just the opposite. So why did the Port Authority agree to do this, whether by order of the Christie Administration or not without asking a lot of questions?