Why Would Crispy Keep On Still Denying Any Knowledge Of The Bridge Lane Closings If There Is A.....

[global1]

chance that some bit of the subpoenaed documents can implicate him? Isn't he digging himself a bigger hole by this? Cause if anything is revealed that he in fact had some knowledge of the closing that contradicts any of his prior statements - he's toast.
Who would be advising him of this strategy to continue to deny and to try and discredit people that he in fact had something to do with their being hired?

I just don't get it.

[bigdarryl]

1. Maybe he truly didnt know BUT that makes him incompetent

And has no control of his staff people.And if he runs in 2016 you can bet the other republican candidates will bring that in to light.Santorum has already brought it up

[Laura PourMeADrink]

4. I think it's very possible he might not have known - or let me restate - he knows there is

no proof he knew/participated. The guy's a ex-prosecutor....he would have to be really
stupid to leave proof. Like I said before....that is why he was so pissed at Kelly - she
broke the cardinal rule - left proof

[SummerSnow]

18. I can hear it now, "if you can't control your state, then you can't control the country"

[goldent]

20. The argument that if he didn't know, he is imcompetent

never seems to work. I've seen it tried many times, and bottom line, if there is no proof showing he had his hands in it, the issue will fade away.

[Geddy Ringo]

2. Because the real truth is worse

If he ends up taking the fall for the bridge closure, maybe the investigations stop there and no one will find out the truth that they don't want anyone to find out.

(hint: an unnamed major political party played fast and loose with sandy relief money)

[Dawson Leery]

3. If he really did not know, he is incompetent.

[okaawhatever]

5. He doesn't email and rarely texts for that very reason. he doesn't want records of what was said and

done. That's why he has people around him day and night doing the texting. He meets with people face to face or over the phone. that being said, I think the reason it took him so long to respond initially was because he was checking to see what incriminating info was out there. I think at this point there may not be a document that comes from him stating the plan (that's too obvious for a former federal prosecutor like him) but there might be a document where one person says something about him knowing. Like, Christie is okay with bridge plan, etc.
However, that investigation has opened the door to so much more. I really think he didn't expect it to get this big or else he wouldn't have denied it during that press conference on Sunday. He was confident at that point that there wasn't a smoking gun out there on him. He didn't anticipate Wildstein being as pissed as he was or having Kornacki or other journalists dig up as much as they did. I think when Christie started the whole denial thing he thought it would be over in a week or two and the blame would fall on his employees.

[marions ghost]

19. Plausible scenario

...that's about what I think.

[bluestate10]

6. Christie's story keeps shifting in subtle ways. He said just over a month ago that no one

in his office knew about what happened at Fort Lee. But tonight he said that he became aware there was a problem when Pat Foye, the New York State Executive member sent out email about the lane closings. If one believes Christie's story from tonight, he would have been in the middle of the email exchanges concerning the lane shutdowns. Christie, a person who micro-manages, knew nothing about the closures - hard to believe.

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. Because every prosecutor knows ...

when caught in a lie ... the liar must keep telling that same lie. And for just the reason you indicate ... "Why Would Crispy Keep On Still Denying Any Knowledge Of The Bridge Lane Closings If There Is A chance that some bit of the subpoenaed documents can implicate him? Isn't he digging himself a bigger hole by this?"

It's called "reasonable doubt."

[davidpdx]

8. He was born in de-Nile, lives in de-Nile

and will die in de-Nile.

[SummerSnow]

9. Because,

Rethugs think if they say something enough it will come true

[lindysalsagal]

12. Like trickle-down economics, and it was Sadam's fault, and guns are OK.

"You have to catapult the propaganda over and over.". G.W. Bush

[SummerSnow]

17. lol...so so true. Let's call it trickle down bullshit

[Cha]

10. Same reason he came out in the 2 hours presser and denied everything

and said he knew nothing and neither did his staff. He thought he could get away with it.

Rachel caught him in at least one lie right away.

'Cause that's all he has is playing dumb.

[Logical]

11. I said it on day one! He didn't know! nt

[flamingdem]

13. He's hoping to survive with "he said she said"

since that's his only chance. He may know there's nothing on paper to incriminate him and he'll just keep attacking hoping he looks semi innocent.

[tblue37]

14. Panic and desperation, combined with the hubris of never having been called to account before. nt

[NobodyHere]

15. Well...

IMO if a smoking gun gets revealed Christie is done anyways, no matter what he does. So he's not really "digging himself a bigger hole".

If a smoking gun doesn't get produced, Christie and his allies will just call everything a partisan smear campaign against him. The left will still hate him and the right will still love him. The moderates won't care in the end, after 2016 is still a long ways away. His stance enables him to walk away with more credibility than if he went the Wildstein route and screams for immunity.

[marions ghost]

21. Independents ARE watching...

and everything goes back to the governor, smoking gun or not.

Also the exposure of Sandy money mishandling is beyond labels of a "partisan smear campaign."

Christie has little credibility in this. He's playing the Poor Little Me game. Doesn't get you much respect. Somebody call the Wahhhhmmmbulance.

And I don't think the right (business element) is exactly loving him. The tea party has never been big supporters amirite?

----------
Christie is dead meat. Watching the corrupt narcissist fool twist in the wind is refreshing. For once we get to see karma bite a big Rethug bully right in the ass.

[justiceischeap]

16. Why does any politician lie when caught in a scandal?

Look at Anthony Weiner and the story he concocted--which was quickly and easily disproved.

The problem is, even if Christie didn't know, that makes him look incompetent and there will always be doubt about what he did or didn't know following him like a plague. I doubt he'll get away from this scandal. And besides, it's always the cover-up that brings them down, hardly ever the initial act itself.

Also, this scandal has people digging and it looks as though the misappropriation of Sandy funds is going to be bigger if it can be proven.

[WinkyDink]

22. Because he isn't yet under oath, is why. Right now it's all P.R.

[Gothmog]

23. Christie never sent e-mails because they are easy to produce

Last weeks report from the NYT discussed the fact that Christie never sends e-mails only texts because texts were harder to trace http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/nyregion/for-christie-politics-team-kept-a-focus-on-two-bids.html?_r=0

Mr. Christie himself tended to the smallest of details. He personally oversaw appointments to the State Board of Physical Therapy Examiners, legislative leaders said, and when he wanted to discuss something with lawmakers, he texted them himself. (He told one top legislator that he had learned from his experience as United States attorney not to email; texts were harder to trace.)

Christie was running an enterprise where he knew that e-mails were not safe. I have a feeling that we may not find any papers with Christie's fingerprints on them.