They should impeach Fatty but fatty will resign before he gets impeached.

We may find out soon if this is true

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local...GreatJobloveOD

Key members of the New Jersey Assembly have begun researching whether or not to bring articles of impeachment against Gov. Chris Christie, NBC 4 New York has learned.

This follows early testimony in the George Washington Bridge scandal trial, which some Assembly members believe shows the Republican governor had more knowledge of the lane closures in Fort Lee during and after that week in 2013 then he has led the public to believe.

One committee chairman who did not want to be named said "clearly obstruction of justice" would be an obvious charge against the governor.

The legislator told NBC 4 New York the chances are probably 50-50 that the assembly would pursue impeachment.

Yeah this sounds right. My boy revots called it fatty knew. They will drop a dime on his ass. Can't wait to see this fat **** go down. It will be a resignation.

If you think Christie didn't know what was happening, you are an idiot or a fool, and you should get out more.

Probably should have realized earlier that Christie knew he was going to get done over by this investigation and that's why he rolled the dice on that whole Reek act with Trump.

Reek act?

It's hard for fatties not to smell bad.

trump really surrounds himself with the best people. Just the best people. Criminals all of them, much like Trump himself.

Game of Thrones reference. A character gets tortured and psychologically broken by another and ends up his slave. Stockholm Syndrome type deal. Follows him around looking tormented.

Former Christie ally behind bridge closings testifies that Christie knew

Ruh roh...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/13/politi...te-new-jersey/

Noodle:

Isn't the current criminal trial of Bill Baroni and Bridget Ann Kelly expected to wrap up by the end of this month? It will be more great news for Trump if two former aides to one of his top advisors are found guilty literally days before the election. (Maybe "President Trump" wants Christie to be his Attorney General so Christie can put "Crooked Hillary" in jail. Ha! Ha!)

http://www.northjersey.com/news/brid...uped-1.1678385

http://www.northjersey.com/news/stil...ions-1.1678667

Do any of you New Jersey folks believe Bill Baroni's "I was duped by the devious and scheming David Wildstein!" defense? It's hard to read juries, (and it only takes one dissenting juror to get a hung jury), but does anybody believe the jury is buying this malarkey? (I can't wait for Bridget Ann Kelly's testimony. It's going to be interesting hearing her explain her "Time for Traffic Problems in Fort Lee" email.)

Bridget Kelly narked on the fat boy.

http://abc7ny.com/politics/bridget-k...arted/1566488/

DAMN.

Looks like traffic must have cleared up, cuz she just threw him under a bus!

hearing reports that bus came off worse

Hahahaha cuz he's a fatty fat huh? It's funny cuz he is fat huh?

yes that is correct

Now It Makes Sense!

I'm (clearly) not a lawyer, but this trial is confusing. I don't understand Bill Baroni and Bridget Ann Kelly's defense strategy. I understand why the prosecution is trying to convict Baroni and Kelly. In the scheme of things, the "big fish" - the one the Government is really after - is the unindicted co-conspirator: Governor Chris Christie. Prosecutors know lower level staffers, political appointees, would not undertake a stunt like this without the full knowledge (and consent) of the man at the top. It's common sense. You don't go off (on your own) committing a hare brained scheme like this - that's virtually guaranteed to embarrass your boss - without, at a minimum, running it by your boss first. You broach the idea with your boss. If he/she says "Yea, that's a great idea! Check it out and report back to me!" If you get that kind of explicit go ahead, you proceed to the next step. If your elected boss, who [theoretically] has to answer to his constituents, responds with something like: "What!? Are you crazy!? That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard! What are you trying to do - get me impeached!?" If your boss responds like that, then you drop it - possibly after everybody has had a good laugh. Whatever the case, political hacks - appointees - don't undertake something like this on their own. They just don't. (On second thought, I suppose it's possible you might do something like this on your own initiative - if you're intentionally trying to get fired from your cushy $300,000 a year job.)

The prosecutors almost certainly attempted to persuade Kelly and Baroni to plead guilty to much reduced charges in exchange for their testimony against the Governor - along with a promise of a recommendation for leniency in sentencing. (In other words, both Kelly and Baroni were probably offered the same deal Wildstein is getting.) Kelly and Baroni, for whatever reasons, both chose to roll the dice (with a jury) and take their chances. So now, if they are convicted, they face the possibility of real jail time rather than conviction on a single charge [each] with a sentence that could be as lenient as 100 hours of community service.

So now they get in court and both Baroni and Kelly, as best I can tell, offer a defense which basically amounts to: "Sure, we're guilty - we actively planned and participated in this dastardly scheme along with Wildstein - but we did it all with the Governor's full knowledge and consent, so please find us 'Not Guilty'. We were just following orders!"

I'm not sure what the logic or rationale is for this defense strategy. If their aim was to try and shift blame off of themselves and on to the Governor, then why didn't they go ahead and reach a plea agreement with the Government and go ahead and testify against the Governor exactly as they're testifying now? That's what they appear to be doing - testifying against the Governor by insisting that he was fully informed and totally in the loop.

There have been cases where defendants are offered a plea bargain deal by the Government, their attorney recommends that they take the Government's offer, but the defendant decides to reject their attorney's advice. Even though the attorney may disagree with his/her client, the attorney is still obligated to give his or her client the best possible defense. Bridget Ann Kelly's lawyer, Michael Critchley, is reputed to be a top flight litigator. I have a hard time imagining Mr. Critchley would have recommended to his client that she accept the Government's [presumed] offer - and Ms. Kelly intentionally chose to reject her lawyer's advice! But, at the same time, I also have a hard time imagining why she and Baroni would be pleading "Not Guilty" - hoping for an acquittal on all charges - and then testifying "Oh yea, we did it - but we did it with the Governor's full knowledge and implicit [if not explicit] approval."

None of this makes sense ... But maybe that's what they're hoping the jury thinks ... that all of this is so convoluted and difficult to decipher - with so much conflicting testimony - that it's hard to know who's telling the truth (and who's lying) so how can we convict anybody? Ah, so that's the answer ... confuse the jury. Now it makes sense!

I don't know about Baroni, but the Bridget Kelly defense seems to be:
1) Yes we did it, but we were following orders. It wasn't Bridget's idea.
2) Bridget was constantly bullied by Christie. He even threw things at her in a rage. So she was completely intimidated and would do anything he asked.
3) Bridget Kelly was not high up enough to know what this was being done for. She thought there really was a traffic study being done. When she wrote her email "Time for some traffic" she was just following orders regarding the traffic study implementation without knowing why. And she was too afraid to question it.

AKA Not Guilty!!!

If she took a plea, my guess is that there would be jail time involved. She is trying to avoid that.

I have no idea what Baroni is up to. It may just be that he is going to fall on his sword and isn't testifying as to what he and Christie actually discussed which may be a lot worse than what we are reading about...

According to this article:

http://www.politico.com/states/new-y...e-trial-106726

the trial doesn't appear to be going well for Bridget Ann Kelly. Of course, anything can happen once jury deliberations commence, but it appears - if these press accounts are accurate - that both Kelly and Baroni stand an excellent chance of being convicted. If both of them are convicted on all nine counts, they could be facing substantial jail time - which begs the question: Why did Kelly and Baroni decide to roll the dice and refuse a plea bargain deal with the Government? Are they any less "guilty" or complicit than Wildstein - who did strike a deal?

I have a theory which might make sense. It revolves around Chris Christie, the Governor. Once it became known that Wildstein had agreed to cooperate with prosecutors, Christie - being a former prosecutor himself - knew that it would be fatal [to him] if Baroni and Kelly both reached a plea deal with the Government. If all three of them were cooperating with the Government, that would greatly increase the chances that the Governor himself would be indicted - and possibly convicted. However, if Christie could limit the damage to only a single [former] aide testifying against him, it would be easier to beat the rap. (When you've got only one accuser, you can always dismiss that individual as a "disgruntled" former employee. When there are multiple accusers lined up against you, defending yourself becomes more problematic - just ask Donald Trump ...)

OK, here's my theory. I could be wrong on this (I'm not a lawyer) but my understanding is that the Governor's pardon power is absolute - he can pardon whomever he pleases and not have to give a reason or a rationale for his decision. So let's speculate that Christie managed to get a "message" to both Baroni and Kelly that amounted to: "Go ahead and plead 'Not Guilty' to the charges and fight the Government. Don't worry about a conviction. If either one of you are convicted, I'll pardon you - even if that means I wind up getting impeached."

I suppose some might say that such a "theory" is preposterous, but other wise and learned folks were saying the same thing about Nixon and Watergate.

Governor can't pardon someone convicted of a federal offense.

Both guilty of all charges

what does this mean for the fat man himself?

will he be going on trial next?