Aide Blows Christie Scandal Wide Open

A major bombshell has just dropped in the Bridgegate scandal. David Wildstein, Governor Chris Christie’s appointee to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, has publicly claimed that Governor Christie knew about the improper and illegal lane closures on the George Washington Bridge.

In a letter Wildstein not only relays that Governor Christie knew about the lane closures – which is in direct contradiction to what Christie said in his marathon press conference – but that Wildstein has evidence to back up the charge.

In a letter released by his lawyer, the 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 true, that fact would not only undermine Governor Christie’s political future but possibly subject Christie to impeachment proceedings if not criminal prosecution.

Wildstein, through his attorney, has already expressed interest in an immunity deal with various law enforcement agencies. He seems quite willing, perhaps even desperate, to talk to authorities under the condition he not be prosecuted for his involvement in Bridgegate. Wildstein has already been implicated by various officials in the scandal and emails he provided to a New Jersey Assembly Committee proved further involvement both by Wildstein and Governor Christie’s deputy chief of staff, Bridget Kelly, in the lane closures.

It could be a he-said, he-said deal at the end of the day.  Unless he does have hard evidence.

  1 comment for “Aide Blows Christie Scandal Wide Open

  1. Brett
    January 31, 2014 at 10:42 pm

    It depends on what the definiton of “knew” is.

    I have a big enough problem with the whole “culture” thing to think Christie is not fit for public office.

    But I can see a plausible narrative even with Wildstein’s indication that he has “evidence.”

    Christie may very well have been aware of traffic issues at the time they were occurring but as far he “knew” at that time, were the result of some legitimate traffic study. He only “knew” the closures were an unauthorized retaliatory action at some later time.

    Do I buy that? No. But plenty of people will want to.

What do you think?