Update 12-6-16 (8:45 p.m.)
NJ Advance Media reports “Citing newly released polls, Assemblyman John Wisniewski (D-Middlesex) renewed his call Tuesday evening for Gov. Chris Christie to answer questions from lawmakers under oath.
Wisniewski, a 2017 candidate for governor, cited an FDU PublicMind poll released Tuesday that found 71 percent of voters thought the governor should have been a defendant in the federal Bridgegate trial.
Christie has maintained he knew nothing about the lane closures before or during the four-day traffic jam, which resulted in the conviction of two top allies and a guilty plea of a third.
“We didn’t need a poll to tell us what we already know,” said Wisniewski in an email sent to media.” Read more HERE.
As co-chair of the Legislative Bridgegate investigative panel and his knowledge of what a poll revealed, why didn’t John Wiesniewsk call Governor Christie to testify before his committee?
Were e-mails sent to the Investigative Committee received by the members and were they included in the evidence presented by the committee?
E-mails, click here.
New Jersey.com reports “Christie should have been Bridgegate defendant, poll finds. Nearly three-quarters of registered voters think Governor Christie should have been a defendant in the George Washington Bridge lane-closure trial, according to a new poll that also showed Christie’s job approval at yet another low and tied for the second-worst in recent history.
Christie’s approval ratings and popularity among voters have been on a downward trajectory since emails published in January 2014 showed high-ranking members of his administration were involved in or knew of the lane realignments at the bridge in Fort Lee, which federal prosecutors say were designed to create a traffic nightmare as punishment against the borough’s Democratic mayor for not endorsing Christie for re-election.
Christie was not charged in the case. He has maintained that he did not know the extent of his staff’s involvement until the emails were first published by The Record, but during the trial six people — including two former top aides and his chief strategist — testified that they did tell him before January that senior staff were said to be linked to the scheme.” Read more HERE.
Christie “has maintained that he did not know the extent of his staff’s involvement until the emails were first published by The Record.”
Wouldn’t it have been prudent of him to exercise his judgment and common sense to look further into the matter before the “extent” appeared in the media?
A conversation with Governor Christie was had in Dover NH forum on September 13, 2015, during his presidential campaign, regarding our veterans and the need for enforcement of the law. Another whitewash!
An e-mail was sent to Governor Christie – October 13, 2015 regarding the conversation of September 13th.
An e-mail was sent to Governor Christie – January 8, 2016 in reference to correspondence sent via e-mail to Governor Chris Christie on October 13, 2015. A call to the Governor’s office was made. The e-mail of October 13th “is not in the system.” Where is the e-mail? Isn’t the “loss” of e-mails an issue with “Bridgegate?”
If the “traffic study” was a lie and there are two different accounts relative to this being a scheme due to the Mayor of Fort Lee not endorsing Christie – and contradictions to this reason – then what could be the motive behind this? Could the “scheme” generated have been to protect Prosecutor Molinelli in the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office for cover up of criminal activity involving Fort Lee? And the County Coroner’s failure to uphold N.J. state law? Afterall, Christie was running for the Presidency and if this evidence were to surface…his public service would be over! Is there more political maneuvering behind the scenes?
Why didn’t Governor Christie take action as to a possible motive for “Bridgegate” long before the “extent” was first published by The Record”?
New Jersey “Bridgegate” Trial – View commentaries and documents.