Even the best-case scenario for Chris Christie isn’t pretty: It could take weeks or months to sort out new allegations that he knew more about a growing New Jersey traffic scandal than he has let on, casting an even larger pall over a man thought a few weeks ago to have a decent shot at becoming the next president.
Just when the so-called Bridgegate controversy seemed to be receding slightly, and Christie was set to bask in the limelight of his home-state Super Bowl this weekend, a new claim Friday reignited the scandal into a full-blown media firestorm.
Christie’s onetime ally and appointee David Wildstein claimed the governor – contrary to past public assertions – knew about the traffic jam operation in real time. Christie’s office denied it a few hours later, but not before people in both parties were speculating anew about whether Christie’s national ambitions – or for that matter, his governorship – are now in even more serious jeopardy.
(Also on POLITICO: Chris Christie denies accusations)
At first blush, the new allegations appeared to push the scandal into a far more serious direction for Christie, threatening to expose his seemingly forthright news conference as something much less than that. But these claims – produced on Friday without any supporting evidence from someone trying to avoid prosecution himself – also could unravel.
That possibility did not stop the Washington spin machine from cranking into high gear Friday evening.
“I think it’s a killer, really,” said John Podesta, a veteran Clinton ally and now a special adviser to President Barack Obama, in surprise remarks to Bloomberg TV. “If that was true, I don’t think there’s any coming back.”
Wildstein’s allegation, presented in a letter by his attorney, raised tantalizing new questions about what Christie knew about the four-day traffic snarl that, emails among aides and allies suggest, was orchestrated as payback against a Democratic mayor who declined to endorse the governor’s reelection.
Charles Krauthammer, a conservative commentator, said that the new claims have “potential” to worsen the situation for the governor, who has already sustained a barrage of criticism for his aides’ and allies’ apparent roles in the scandal and has the ratings drop to prove it.
(QUIZ: How well do you know Chris Christie?)
“This is kind of nasty, and it’s got potential,” Krauthhammer said on Fox News. “Christie has lived for almost a month one email away from utter ruin. There could be an email. There’s no evidence that there is.”
The claims came in a lawyer’s letter on behalf of Wildstein, an old high school acquaintance of the governor’s who served at the Port Authority until recently. Wildstein has already been linked to helping carry out the lane closures, which are now under state and federal investigation. He pleaded the Fifth at a state legislative hearing on the matter, and said through his lawyer that he will talk if he receives immunity.
There is evidence, the lawyer said, “tying Mr. Christie to having knowledge of the lane closures, during the period when the lanes were closed,” apparently contradicting Christie’s public statements that he didn’t learn about the lane closures — let alone suggestions they were part of a political plot rather than an ostensible Port Authority traffic study — until after they were over.
“Mr. Wildstein contests the accuracy of various statements that the Governor made about him and he can prove the inaccuracy of some,” the lawyer said in the letter, which was published by The New York Times and other outlets.
(Also on POLITICO: Chris Christie ally invokes Fifth on subpoena)
But it’s not clear what evidence Wildstein and his lawyer, Alan Zegas, are referring to, or whether it exists outside the trove of documents Wildstein already provided to state lawmakers in response to a subpoena. Zegas did not return messages from POLITICO on Friday.
“Mr. Wildstein’s lawyer confirms what the Governor has said all along – he had absolutely no prior knowledge of the lane closures before they happened and whatever Mr. Wildstein’s motivations were for closing them to begin with,” Christie’s office said in a statement late Friday. “As the Governor said in a December 13th press conference, he only first learned lanes were closed when it was reported by the press and as he said in his January 9th press conference, had no indication that this was anything other than a traffic study until he read otherwise the morning of January 8th. The Governor denies Mr. Wildstein’s lawyer’s other assertions.”
The exchange fails to shed any new light on the more serious question of who knew about the lane closures’ apparent political motivations. As Christie’s office’s statement indicated, he maintains that he accepted the explanation that the lane closures were part of a traffic study until subpoenaed documents this month suggested otherwise.
No end to scandal in sight for Christie
No comments:
Post a Comment