Chris Christie's Culture Of Intimidation...?

[Alceste]

That makes me wonder as well. If we were talking about some top secret info that even an oversight committee isn't privy to then I wouldn't have a problem...but we're talking about a situation surrounding a public bridge and a state government. So I guess it's out of the question to get the unedited documents at this.

I used to have the job of proof reading redactions on FOI disclosures to comply with privacy regulation. It was in the UK, but these laws are pretty similar around the western world. You are obligated to disclose the requested info, but there are loopholes big enough to drive a herd of buffalo through. Certainly large enough for one chubby governor. The media could argue that it is in the public interest to know who was involved in this communication, but they're gonna need lawyers. If law enforcement decides to investigate, they get clean files with all the names named, and some of that could become public record during a trial.

Anyway, I know who usually gets to wield the marker from experience, and my best guess is that the name was blacked out by clerical staff before the documents even left Christie's office, probably to avoid embarrassing someone "important". The person with the marker usually leaves it to the lawyers or FOI department to figure out a legal exemption that might apply.

 

[Revoltingest]

I still don't like Christie. (Don't really hate'm either.....just another big gov Republican.)
If no evidence turns up contrary to his claim of uninvolvement in Trafficgate, he's handling
it masterfully. He gives me the impression that he's deeply disturbed by the wrongful
shutdown, & plans to correct underlying problems. I contrast this with Obama, who seems
unconcerned about the IRS mess or NSA domestic spying, & has no drive to fix it.
Now, I don't know what really goes on in the mind of Obama or Christie, but I marvel at the
difference in how each publicly handles their controversies. Christie's career is over if he's
just playing us. But if he's legit, he might have a helluva future. If it's the latter, then I
wonder about his agenda for national issues, particularly foreign policy.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I still don't like Christie. (Don't really hate'm either.....just another big gov Republican.)
If no evidence turns up contrary to his claim of uninvolvement in Trafficgate, he's handling
it masterfully. He gives me the impression that he's deeply disturbed by the wrongful
shutdown, & plans to correct underlying problems. I contrast this with Obama, who seems
unconcerned about the IRS mess or NSA domestic spying, & has no drive to fix it.
Now, I don't know what really goes on in the mind of Obama or Christie, but I marvel at the
difference in how each publicly handles their controversies.

WOW....!!!

First off there was no IRS controversy. Not only did it come out that the manager responsible for the scrutiny identified himself in the hearing as a "Conservative Republican" but then we later found out that more liberal groups were scrutinized than what was reported and we also discovered that Darell Issa was releasing drips and drabs of information to paint a particular narrative but when Representative Cummings began to release the information with more details it put things into context which is why you don't hear anything about IRS anymore. Additionally the new top person at the IRS has made reforms that were recommended by the IG (the same IG Obama appointed to investigate the situation and to come up with some solutions).

As far as not dealing being concerned about the NSA...Well I would give you props on that if you knew what you were talking about. It's easy to make a statement here at RF and expect others to buy the mis-information your pushing but not with all of us. Yes, Obama is concerned about it and dealing with it and has been dealing with it all along. I'm not sure you hear that from the sources you read....


Obama's NSA plan to pre-empt privacy board

It looks like President Obama will propose changes to National Security Agency surveillance programs before his independent privacy board issues its own recommendations.

The Obama-created Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which met with the president on Wednesday, said in a statement it will issue its report in late January or early February.

Obama is scheduled to outline NSA changes before his Jan. 28 State of the Union message, and perhaps as early as next week, aides say.

In a statement, the administration said Obama listened to the privacy board's views. Obama "noted he looked forward to the release of their report, and made clear that it will be factored into the Administration's thinking as we move forward," the statement said.

Obama speaks with congressional lawmakers about the NSA on Thursday.

The president also met Wednesday with intelligence-gathering officials. The administration described that meeting as "an important chance for the President to hear directly from his team as he begins to make final decisions about how we move forward with key intelligence collection programs."

While Obama can use executive authority to make some changes, others may require congressional approval.

In a statement, the privacy board said it "will make recommendations for legislative and program reform."

"The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board members met with Obama today to discuss how to alter the National Security Agency's collection and use of bulk phone records, such as numbers dialed and call durations. They also talked about operations of the secret court overseeing surveillance. .

"A separate White House advisory board recommended in a Dec. 18 report limits on the NSA, including prohibiting the agency from collecting and storing billions of phone records. Instead, the data should be held by Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ), AT&T Inc. (T) and other U.S. carriers or another third party and only accessed by the NSA with a court warrant, the panel said."

Obama to hear out 'fierce libertarian' concerns on NSA | TheHill

"I’ve set up a privacy and civil liberties oversight board, made up of independent citizens including some fierce civil libertarians," Obama told Charlie Rose in an interview that aired Monday. "I’ll be meeting with them. And what I want to do is to set up and structure a national conversation, not only about these two programs, but also the general problem of data, big data sets, because this is not going to be restricted to government entities."

​

:sad:

 

[Revoltingest]

WOW....!!!

By Jiminy!

First off there was no IRS controversy.

To lefties who favor anti-conservative IRS policy there wasn't.
But this is to deny what happened & how a great many perceive it.

Not only did it come out that the manager responsible for the scrutiny identified himself in the hearing as a "Conservative Republican" but then we later found out that more liberal groups were scrutinized than what was reported and we also discovered that Darell Issa was releasing drips and drabs of information to paint a particular narrative but when Representative Cummings began to release the information with more details it put things into context which is why you don't hear anything about IRS anymore. Additionally the new top person at the IRS has made reforms that were recommended by the IG (the same IG Obama appointed to investigate the situation and to come up with some solutions).

Why were reforms made if there was no controversy? Nah, I don't buy your denial of sins by Saint Obama.

As far as not dealing being concerned about the NSA...Well I would give you props on that if you knew what you were talking about.

This from the guy infers the opposite of what is clearly said.
I doubt your qualifications to doubt my qualifications to hold forth on the matter.

It's easy to make a statement here at RF and expect others to buy the mis-information your pushing but not with all of us.

Those in glass houses.....

Yes, Obama is concerned about it and dealing with it and has been dealing with it all along. I'm not sure you hear that from the sources you read....
Obama's NSA plan to pre-empt privacy board
Obama to hear out 'fierce libertarian' concerns on NSA | TheHill
:sad:

You're entirely ignoring my point about how Christie owned the fiasco (presuming he's not hiding a dark secret), while Obama appears unconcerned. I'm dealing with Christie's superior political savy.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

To lefties who favor anti-conservative IRS policy there wasn't.

What are you going on about..There was no there, there to be concerned about. There was no attempt to squash conservatives considering the guy who was in charge was appointed by Bush and the manager that came up with the way to scrutinize the applications is a Conservative Republican.

But this is to deny what happened & how a great many perceive it.

It didn't deny anything. It was obvious what happened per the testimony of the manager. There was no attempt on his part to single out applicants from his own party.....and the perception you're talking about was fostered by many who were putting out drips and drabs of information for their own political agenda.

Why were reforms made if there was no controversy?

Because of the procedures the manager was using to scrutinize the influx of applications. All agencies need reform over time..which is why we have various oversight and reform committees to deal with them.

Nah, I don't buy your denial of sins by Saint Obama.

But what does Obama have to do with it?

This from the guy infers the opposite of what is clearly said.
I doubt your qualifications to doubt my qualifications to hold forth on the matter.

Then issue a correction. You clearly believe that Obama "seems unconcerned about the IRS mess or NSA domestic spying, & has no drive to fix it."

If I have it wrong surly you can correct my misunderstanding of your statement. All I did was respond to this claim in relations to these two agencies to show that your "perceptions" are inaccurate.

You're entirely ignoring my point about how Christie owned the fiasco (presuming he's not hiding a dark secret), while Obama appears unconcerned. I'm dealing with Christie's superior political savy.

He didn't "own" this fiasco. This has been out there for months. When he was originally questioned (on more than one occasion) he joked and/or shrugged it off. There was no attempt made by him to deal with the situation when it was revealed last year when the mayor of Fort Lee was calling, emailing and writing his office. The firing was recent and that was after more documents started to surface showing a pattern by those in his trusted circle. And what superior political savy are you talking about. That press conference was all about him yesterday. He showed little remorse for the trouble his underlings inflicted on the surrounding communities. And you haven't shown that Obama is unconcerned about the situation at the NSA whereas I just just gave you two articles showing that he is in fact meeting with people this week to discuss recommendations on the matter......:sad:

 

[metis]

Some seem to forget that by law a president cannot in any way interfere with IRS operations or investigations.

 

[metis]

I do not know if Christie was involved in either the "scandal" or any cover-up. Supposedly there are going to be more e-mails released today, plus we now know that there's an investigation on this matter that is going on in N.J. and Washington.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Some seem to forget that by law a president cannot in any way interfere with IRS operations or investigations.

Exactly.....:yes:

And it's already been revealed that the actions of the IRS had nothing to do with the administration which is why I'm sure Issa and his crew have moved on to other things to talk about.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Don't you just love the political system in the US? I know I do.

 

[Revoltingest]

What are you going on about. There was no there, there to be concerned about. There was no attempt to squash conservatives considering the guy who was in charge was appointed by Bush and the manager that came up with the way to scrutinize the applications is a Conservative Republican.
It didn't deny anything. It was obvious what happened per the testimony of the manager. There was no attempt on his part to single out applicants from his own party.....and the perception you're talking about was fostered by many who were putting out drips and drabs of information for their own political agenda.

You don't see it. I do.

But what does Obama have to do with it?

I was comparing how Christie & Obama handle problems.[/quote]
Chrisite gives a greater impression that he owns them.
Obama doesn't seem to take any personal responsibility.

If I have it wrong surly you can correct my misunderstanding of your statement. All I did was respond to this claim in relations to these two agencies to show that your "perceptions" are inaccurate.

I find your perceptions to be inaccurate due to partisanship.
So it seems we won't agree on it.

He didn't "own" this fiasco. This has been out there for months.

Perhaps you missed his recent press conference & its reception.

When he was originally questioned (on more than one occasion) he joked and/or shrugged it off. There was no attempt made by him to deal with the situation when it was revealed last year when the mayor of Fort Lee was calling, emailing and writing his office. The firing was recent and that was after more documents started to surface showing a pattern by those in his trusted circle. And what superior political savy are you talking about. That press conference was all about him yesterday. He showed little remorse for the trouble his underlings inflicted on the surrounding communities.

I got a different impression.
You're welcome to disagree about his showing skill as a politician.
But I see Christie showing great skill in handling it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't you just love the political system in the US? I know I do.

I hate it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You don't see it. I do.

There's nothing to see in the way of the IRS situation. There are some real concerns when it comes to the NSA but if Obama wasn't concerned about it I would agree with you but the evidence says you're wrong.

I was comparing how Christie & Obama handle problems.
Chrisite gives a greater impression that he owns them.
Obama doesn't seem to take any personal responsibility.

That's not the impression I get. He didn't seem concerned when the mayor of Fort Lee was bringing it to his administration's attention. Maybe they kept him in the dark and he had no idea what was going on...during the days the lanes of one of the most busiest bridges were closed for partisan reasons. I'm also wondering if his office received calls from citizens during the lane shutdown.

And I have seen Obama on plenty occasions take responsibility. It happened with the IRS when he tasked the IG to look into the situation and make recommendations. It's happening with the NSA, which you seem to be unaware that he's dealing with. It also happened with the two instance surrounding the ACA (the roll out and the canceled insurance policies situation)

I find your perceptions to be inaccurate due to partisanship.

It's no secret I don't care for Christie but my tone has been an easy one in this thread. I'm not coming out and calling him names or bashing his policies. I actually tried to keep the thread and my comments focused on the situation and his possible involvement. I didn't touch on anything to do with partisanship until you tried to make a gross inaccurate comparison of the two devoid of any factual evidence to substantiate your claim.

So it seems we won't agree on it.

We rarely do.....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I hate it.

Me too..!


(uh oh..there's that rare occasion where we agree)...

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I hate it.

So do I. It's hard to see sarcasm in a forum posting.

 

[esmith]

It appears that there are those that follow the idea of guilty until proven innocent for one political spectrum while reversing it for the other side. If Christie is found culpable in this then his political career is basically over (however that has not always been the case...Marion Berry comes to mind). I at least give Christie kudos for accepting responsibility and taking immediate action against responsible parties, not unlike various other entities within the government.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I at least give Christie kudos for accepting responsibility and taking immediate action against responsible parties, not unlike various other entities within the government.

Actually he didn't.

When did you first hear about this situation...when...recently?

This was brought to his attention months ago. He launched no investigation into the matter when it was brought to his attention. The Mayor of Fort Lee called, emailed and wrote his office months ago concerning this situation...during and after the lane closure. The lane closure was in the news as people were sitting in their cars. When he was questioned by the press months ago he joked it off and thought their questions concerning the lane closures were ridiculous. This was a well planned and orchestrated effort by those in his administration for political reasons.

My question now is why the documents from a local governors office are so highly redacted. In my view it's understandable when something is top secret and very few people, even those put in position to provide oversight, aren't privy to such sensitive information. Even so, those with top secret access can at least view the un-redacted documents behind closed doors away from the public. I'm interested in a time when the 2000 or so documents recently released can be seen in their un-redacted form.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/nyregion/christie-bridge.html?_r=0

The former Port Authority official who personally oversaw the lane closings at the George Washington Bridge, central to the scandal now swirling around Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, said on Friday that “evidence exists” the governor knew about the lane closings when they were happening.


In a letter released by his lawyer, the former official, David Wildstein, a high school friend of Mr. Christie’s who was appointed with the governor’s blessing at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which controls the bridge, described the order to close the lanes as “the Christie administration’s order” and said “evidence exists as well tying Mr. Christie to having knowledge of the lane closures, during the period when the lanes were closed, contrary to what the governor stated publicly in a two-hour press conference” three weeks ago.

If all this is true...then Ouch!

 

[Revoltingest]

So do I. It's hard to see sarcasm in a forum posting.

I saw yours, but just gave a straight response.
(Please excuse my dullishness.)