Jersey Shore Drama: Chris Christie Aides Caught Up In Traffic Jam Scandal

**Quixon** · 2014-02-04 09:37

Lol. 1.2.3.4....Fiiiiiiiiif

**Priran** · 2014-02-06 00:13

add this one to the pile:

http://newbrunswicktoday.com/article...-new-brunswick

also he's paying for his lawyer for the bridge thing with taxpayer money

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf..._attorney.html

**Salodin** · 2014-02-06 12:46

Why wouldn't he pay for it with taxpayer money?

**Waraji** · 2014-02-06 13:11

Originally Posted by Salodin

Why wouldn't he pay for it with taxpayer money?

Because we all know this case will probably end up showing that Christie did know about it, therefore would fall under personal liability. (I would think, I'm no Paralegal.)

He is really believing his own story, its astonishing how deep he's digging. For him not have been involved in this from the very start, would be unimaginably fantastical. Which leads me to believe they did their best to completely cloud any and all suspicion from Christie from the start.

**Quixon** · 2014-02-06 13:22

This is the same dumb ass who took the tax payer paid Helicopter to get to his kids baseball game. Tax payers footing his legal bill fits right in.

**Salodin** · 2014-02-06 13:24

I'm saying in general, its a terrible idea to make an elected official pay for their own defense when the case is related to something on the job. If he's found guilty after the fact, sue him for the money spent, but before hand no; taxes should pay for the defense until such time he's proven guilty.

**Drex** · 2014-02-06 20:28

Originally Posted by Quixon

This is the same dumb ass who took the tax payer paid Helicopter to get to his kids baseball game. Tax payers footing his legal bill fits right in.

it's actually completely different than using it for personal purposes

Originally Posted by Waraji

Because we all know this case will probably end up showing that Christie did know about it, therefore would fall under personal liability. (I would think

actually we all know innocent until proven guilty

**ringthree** · 2014-02-07 10:18

Originally Posted by Salodin

I'm saying in general, its a terrible idea to make an elected official pay for their own defense when the case is related to something on the job. If he's found guilty after the fact, sue him for the money spent, but before hand no; taxes should pay for the defense until such time he's proven guilty.

That is pretty much a free ticket to corruption.

**Meresgi** · 2014-02-07 10:24

Originally Posted by Drex

actually we all know innocent until proven guilty

America? Also you can't honestly thing he's innocent. With just how corrupt NJ as a whole is, this isn't far fetched at all

**Waraji** · 2014-02-07 10:47

Originally Posted by Meresgi

America? Also you can't honestly thing he's innocent. With just how corrupt NJ as a whole is, this isn't far fetched at all

He just means from a legal point of view. Therefore it is only procedural that he would use taxpayer money to defend against the claim. I think that him paying his own defense in a situation like this would be confirmation of guilt, which he more than likely has no intention of revealing until the very end.

We all know OJ did it, he even wrote a book about it. We all know Christie is a slime ball that more than had somewhat to do with it.

If that one tiny weeny piece of hard evidence linking him to actually knowing without reasonable doubt, surfaces, he more than definitely will have to pay for this out of his own pocket, let alone do some jail time. How large of a sentence does perjury carry, especially in a Federal case?

**Serra** · 2014-02-07 11:01

Except he hasn't committed perjury yet.. There's nothing illegal about having a press conference and saying you didn't do something. And unless I'm mistaken, he's only talked about this at press conferences.

**Meresgi** · 2014-02-07 13:06

Originally Posted by Serra

Except he hasn't committed perjury yet.. There's nothing illegal about having a press conference and saying you didn't do something. And unless I'm mistaken, he's only talked about this at press conferences.

Not illegal, pretty rough on your ability to run for president though.

**Salodin** · 2014-02-07 14:49

Why? If he's innocent this does nothing but help him.

My opponents tried to stop me by making false claims, but I fought through them and am here to bring the change I promised!

**Meresgi** · 2014-02-07 15:10

Originally Posted by Salodin

Why? If he's innocent this does nothing but help him.

My opponents tried to stop me by making false claims, but I fought through them and am here to bring the change I promised!

Obviously I was implying "if he's found guilty"....because it's New Jersey, why would you ever think someone from Jersey was innocent of a corruption scandal?!

**Priran** · 2014-02-07 17:16

Originally Posted by Salodin

Why wouldn't he pay for it with taxpayer money?

Because the public is already paying for the prosecution
Because Christie totally has the money himself and is such a cheap asshole with government spending that there are robberies and shootouts in broad daylight in the state capital and the police force is too understaffed to investigate them
Because it incentivizes not prosecuting public officials

**Salodin** · 2014-02-08 00:00

Making a public official pay for their own defense encourages baseless accusations that they have to spend their own resources battling.

State pays for it, sue him if he's guilty fixes all problems and creates none.

**Acevalefor** · 2014-02-08 01:14

Originally Posted by Salodin

Making a public official pay for their own defense encourages baseless accusations that they have to spend their own resources battling.

State pays for it, sue him if he's guilty fixes all problems and creates none.

Why is it ok for major corporations to make "baseless accusations" against smaller companies or individuals without the resources to battle it, but not ok to make "baseless accusations" against public officials? Let's not be dense here. The accusations are clearly not baseless and it is no different than me having to spend my own money defending myself if the company I work(ed) for suspected me of theft and had enough evidence to compel charges.

**BaneTheBrawler** · 2014-02-08 02:16

government is not a corporation, no matter how badly people want to treat it that way.

the rules are different with governments.

**Priran** · 2014-02-08 07:14

Originally Posted by Salodin

Making a public official pay for their own defense encourages baseless accusations that they have to spend their own resources battling.

State pays for it, sue him if he's guilty fixes all problems and creates none.

yeah I'm totally sure that the only reason every public official in the land isn't constantly in a courthouse fighting frivilous lawsuits is because the people who'd otherwise be filing them are super conscious of budgetary concerns

**Salodin** · 2014-02-08 09:37

I never said that was the case. I am only stating why its stupid to make a public official use his own money to fight a claim against him when its related to his job.

He is a government employee, he defends himself with government money and if it turns out he did something illegal he gets impeached, sued, etc to make up for it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thread: Jersey Shore Drama: Chris Christie Aides Caught Up In Traffic Jam Scandal

Thread Tools

Latest Threads

Up & Coming Threads

Hottest Threads