LOL BUT IT FITS THE STATUTE CITED FOR SURE!

It's like I'm talking to a ****ing wall. Just because he is authorized to conduct traffic studies for legitimate reasons does not mean that he is authorized to conduct them for pretextual reasons as political vendettas. Are you honestly contesting that point?

Are you really so naive as to believe that politicians are routinely prosecuted to the full extent of official misconduct statutes?

so are you, ahhhh, taking a contrarian position??

Yes, I am contesting that point because of the way the law is written.

And I'm struggling for how I could possibly explain how you could think otherwise because you apparently don't think he will be charged either.

**** just got real.

Nope, because those official misconduct statutes aren't nearly as solid as you think they are.

I'm talking about getting elected, not the concerns of holding the office. Christie was leading the early republican presidential polls before he decided not to run. Had none of the poll respondents seen a photo?

And it's not as if NJ voters said, "Gee he's fat and the probability is fairly high that he will keel over while in office... but he's only the governor - so no big deal". They voted for him because they liked him and/or his positions.

People take concerns about holding office into account when they vote, especially for President. That's one of the many reasons why it was such a boneheaded move for McCain to nominate Palin.

He thinks they're so solid that folks likely won't get charged? Seems legit.

I don't think that Christie will be charged for many reasons. First, he may not have known exactly what was going on until after the fact, which would weaken the case. Second, even if he knew, there may a deal (implicit or explicit) in which Christie steps down to avoid prosecution. Third, as a high level politician, he may be able to exert some influence on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, especially if it remains unclear as to whether Christie gave advance authorization. Fourth, this is not top tier of misconduct. It's not as if Christie was directly lining his own pockets with public money.

These reasons are all consistent with what I have said so far in this thread.

tdomeski will escrow imo

From the WSJ:

State law could prove more useful for prosecutors. In New Jersey, a public servant can be convicted of "official misconduct" for a breach of a prescribed duty related to the office with the intention of "injuring or depriving" another person of a benefit. The crime of official misconduct is a second-degree offense that can carry a prison sentence of five to 10 years.

"If it were to be shown that someone ordered a [lane] closing to create traffic issues and cause havoc to an individual who is out of favor, it would certainly raise the specter of this provision," said Edward Kologi, a veteran trial attorney and former municipal attorney in Linden, N.J.

"People often get into political office and are inclined to exact retribution upon their political enemies, but that's no longer considered playing politics," he said.

The official misconduct statute has been used against a New Jersey clerk who altered a public record, a teacher who displayed sexually explicit images to students, and government attorneys who corruptly advised their clients, according to legal records.

A New Jersey ethics rule prohibits state employees from engaging in political activity that conflicts with their official duties. Employees can be fined, fired and sued for violations.

C'mon. If somebody is charged under this statute, do you think his defense will be "But we technically had the authority to shut down the lanes, therefore the statute does not apply"? Seems pretty clear that "in an unauthorized manner" could be applied to what is currently known.

Defendants get the benefit of the doubt in our legal system.

I know this is a big scandal, but for some reason it just makes me love Christie even more. That fat, glorious bastard.

lol

that's not clear at all

I mean basically the whole legal profession is built on the opposite assumption

As to the facts, yes. As to the meaning of the law, no. The concept of "reasonable doubt" is completely unrelated to the legal interpretation of the scope of a criminal statute.

PVN, you could not be more wrong. Concepts of "reasonableness," "appropriateness," or "you can do it for X reason but not Y reason" pervade various areas of the civil and criminal law.

Well, there is more meat on the SC bone. A nice history to allow the revenge to build up to high levels of ignorance.

We are speaking of apparent non-rational actions here, so the motives could be more vague than just one issue. For example, as a result of a range of partisan conflicts which influenced acrimony to build up over time.

Whoever thought up the traffic study lie made the liar's mistake of telling a really stupid lie.

I won't lose any sleep over not knowing wtf people were thinking, but it may be educational to find out.

Ikes and PVN,

Here is a question for you. I know that you know nothing about the law, but based on your interpretation of the official misconduct statute, would you have advised David Wildstein to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights (as he recently did)? Assume that his testimony would have been consistent with the most rational interpretation of the publicly disclosed emails.

It certainly seems so. "Ya, I think this is the right thing to do. I can't imagine it coming back to bite us."

Of course? What does that have to do with anything? There's no reason to take any risk because of the 5th.