A friend sent a link to a Salon item, "5 reasons Chris Christie might be lying." You can read it, but I see most compelling, a reason six, his butt was on the barbeque grill and he knew it. He could feel the heat. Biggest cause he had to compromise absolute candor, especially if he was in on the bridge closure as instigator and ongoing monitor of progress.
If so, would an experienced prosecutor having such culpability leave a paper or email trail? Okay, no such unequivocally tying trail, but does that say "innocent," or "experienced?"
Dismissive, unimpressed, and "inattentive" to finding detail of "a traffic study" for months since the September situation - the instigation and four day continuation of a major traffic impediment with clear adverse consequences that the press took notice of, asking the obvious questions a seasoned prosecutor not only did not ask, but belittled. So what, to the NJ guv, "traffic study" sits fine with him, why follow-up. Then, heat arises in a specific email trail he cannot discredit and minimize, and next day he shows up in front of a press corp and spins for two solid hours.
Shocked. SHOCKED! Yeah.
Spinning about having fired two people. About not knowing until the day before - when he read the emails the press had published. You have to believe that he did NOT know there was any kind of an email trail, that you have to believe or his initial ploys might have differed. Likely so.
That pattern of delayed shock suggests either being behind things and lying, or turning as long as he could a blind eye for not wanting to see and to know that which would demand reasonable action from a former U.S. Attorney known for his keenness and intensity to get to the bottom of things.
And, Guv says, this was a detail and he does not micromanage? It was an accusation that would not go away, over months, despite his prior showing of blind-eye indifference and mockery of the credibility of questioning, never mind accusations or suggestions that way being taken to heart.
Mockery and belittling failed?
Okay.
Shift to plan B, and take a day to make sure loose ends are neat. Then, showtime.
Sure it is all circumstantial inference. No smoking gun. Yet.
However, pattern jury instructions exist that circumstantial evidence is as sound as direct evidence.
A policeman says, I heard a shot while walking up the stairs, entered the room and saw the accused holding a smoking pistol while standing above the dead victim. That's circumstantial. The cop never saw anybody shoot anyone. Circumstantial evidence surely can be more remote, as with New Jersey's former U.S. Attorney, current Governor.
But, really ...
... unless you really, really, really, REALLY want to believe him, as your political friend or ally ...
Can you?
__________UPDATE_________
Should you need help answering that plain question; the bookies have responded, "Replacing Christie in the No. 1 slot? Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, with 4 to 1 odds."
