The post-Bridge(t)-Gate Indictments edition of Chris Christie is back on the job(s) of being New Jersey governor and trying to be United States president. Venturing out on first town hall meeting in weeks, he bragged that "
I'm not proud or happy of what happened, but I'm going to stop apologizing for it too...I'm moving on from it now because I've lived through 15 months of three investigations that have now confirmed everything I said 15 months ago." Except that even his own investigation didn't involve the people who were indicted. Anyway,
he's back at work:
Quote:
Gov. Christie vetoed (a) bill...designed to stop New Jersey public officials from delivering lucrative pension deals to their campaign contributors...The legislation also would have required the pension system to fully disclose all Wall Street fees, a provision Christie said would be "disadvantageous."
...Already, a Securities and Exchange Commission rule effectively bars financial firms managing state pension money from donating to governors who oversee pension investment decisions. The legislation Christie vetoed would have strengthened New Jersey's state version of those federal rules...
“The fund managers and investment advisers already must abide by federal campaign contribution laws,” Christie wrote in a memo explaining his decision. “Because the federal campaign contribution laws pre-empt state law in this area, I cannot approve of such a provision.”
...(A)t the same time, his administration faces a new investigation into New Jersey pension fees paid to financial firms, some of whose executives made contributions to Republican groups backing Christie.
|
And some of those firms even went so far as to employ his wife -- until VERY recently. So not only does the public not have a right to know what their own public funds are being spent, the state doesn't get to strengthen their own laws protecting them? This law would be to Christie's disadvantage, all right!
Quote:
Christie billed state $85K on VIP boxes; GOP reimbursed it
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie spent $85,000 in public money to entertain in luxury boxes at sports venues between 2010 and early 2012, when state Republicans started to pay for the expenses and reimbursed the state for those already incurred. The money came from an account, worth $95,000 a year, that Christie can use to pay for official entertainment or other expenses associated with his job...
Much of Christie's spending from the account is used to pay for entertaining at the governor's mansion, known as Drumthwacket. Though Christie does not live there, the state's budget provides money for the property's maintenance, official receptions and "other expenses." The expenses are allowed by state law and do not include the cost of using luxury boxes at MetLife Stadium, Prudential Arena and the Izod Center, which are provided to the state for use by the governor...
The Christie administration decided in 2012 to stop using the account to pay for food and other expenses at the arenas...(T)he New Jersey Republican State Committee repaid the state for the expenses accrued in 2010 and 2011, minus $3,367.22 which it reimbursed the Department of the Treasury this week after the governor's office discovered the discrepancy while reviewing the documents requested by (the Associated Press)...
(L)awmakers (have) introduced a bill...that would require the governor to file a written report with the State Ethics Commission about use of the funds each year...
|
Arrogance unto the gods: after spending on things the state already provided him with AND having the GOP reimburse him, paying income tax on it is the LEAST he could have done! Or is reimbursed money not considered income?
It has long been my theory that head prosecutor Paul Fishman has not offered immunity to the Christie Crony Crew because he can nail Christie without having to rely on snitches. That theory has just been bolstered:
Quote:
NorthJersey.com: When federal prosecutors charged three former allies of Governor Christie's with orchestrating vengeful lane closures at the George Washington Bridge, they created a series of looming questions: Who are the unidentified “others” that court papers indicate were also involved in the conspiracy? Why weren’t they charged too? Are they still working in government? And when, if ever, will their names be known?
...(I)n her first public remarks...(Bridget) Kelly said it would be “ludicrous” to believe she was the only one in the governor’s office who knew about the lane closings, suggesting she is being singled out. And Baroni’s attorneys said they want to know who else the government believes is involved but decided not to charge.
“The government will not prosecute Mr. Baroni in a vacuum,” (his) attorneys Michael Baldassare and Jennifer Mara said in a statement...Baroni “will use every means available to discover who the prosecution thinks was involved,” the lawyers wrote, adding that their client is innocent...
|
Bridget is right, of course, and Baroni's lawyers are taking the correct course of action, indeed -- especially since, being innocent, they would have no idea of who else might be involved. Unfortunately, without immunity from prosecution, they can't defend themselves without implicating others, and they can't implicate others without incriminating themselves. The specific legal term for that is GUILTY, which leaves them no recourse but to throw themselves on the mercy of the federal court.
"Give us immunity and we'll tell all!" they've been crying out for a year. To which Fishman has replied, "Sorry -- we don't have any immunity deals in stock. But we have plenty of nice
plea deals." Wildstein blinked and took one. Now the fun REALLY begins...