Yeah, is this like when Harry Reid knew for a fact that Romney hadn't paid taxes for 15 years or whatever?

That would seem to be a poor comparison here.

+1

The word, so I heard, is Christie does bizniss by text message and not email because "it's harder to investigate", so the evidence is presumably a string of back and forth messages over it.

If they can link him directly, game over man game over.

DID YOU ORDER THE CODE CONE?

YOUR GODDAMNED RIGHT I DID! I THOUGHT IT WAS SOME KIND OF ICE CREAM VALUE MEAL THING!

You need him on that beach! should be in there somewhere.

Does anyone have a good rachel maddow reaction gif for this?

I'm guessing he doesn't have immunity yet. This feels like further pressure to achieve immunity. More of a taunt. You want him, I have the goods, give me blanket immunity and it's yours. "Evidence exists" just strikes me as calculated language for a deal not yet done.

Christie response: see, that's what i told you

WHERE IN THE WORLD IS JIM RUSSELL?????

https://www.google.com/search?q=Chri...sm=93&ie=UTF-8

Disgruntled ex-aide claims Christie knew of the bridge closings while it was happening.

NSA though

Not going to happen.

That type of inspection of personal data can only be granted in cases of terrorism or threat of terrorism.

Also, I'm pretty sure Obama handed Christie a get out of jail free card...

I just gotta bump this post cause it was spot on

I think you're right napoleon. I was watching "Hardball" earlier this evening on MSNBC. Chris Matthews interviewed New Jersey assembly member [Steve?] Wiesnewski and investigative reporter Michael Isikoff. Isikoff pointed out that the letter from Wildstein's lawyer was not specific - other than to say "evidence exists" that Governor Christie knew about the lane closures at the time they were occurring. Wildstein (through his lawyer) then attempted to make a big deal out of the fact that Governor Christie denied having any contemporaneous knowledge of the bridge closure during his two-hour January 9th news conference. Wildstein's clear implication, via his lawyer's letter, is that Chris Christie was lying during his January 9th presser.

Assemblyman Wiesnewski was bewildered as to what evidence Wildstein was referring to since Wildstein had not revealed such "evidence" in heavily redacted documents which Mr. Wildstein previously submitted in response to a subpoena from Mr. Wiesnewski's Transportation Committee. The clear implication was that the reason for the redactions was because the blacked out lines and paragraphs contain information which may very well incriminate Mr. Wildstein. If that's the case, Wildstein's lawyer would absolutely be waving a carrot in front of assemblyman Wiesnewski, (i.e. my client has assurred me that "evidence exists" which implicates the Governor), in an effort to obtain blanket immunity for his client.

It appears that there is a bit of cat and mouse legal maneuvering going on here ...

Someone give me odds on Christie resigning if this is true.

5-1. If he resigns, I win. If he doesn't resign, you lose.

Lol at the naïveté of the sheeple

Not sure what level this is on. Obv the NSA wont be involved. But also obv they can get all that data with a simple court order to the service provider even if the other guy didnt save the messages, exactly the same as how they used a court order to get the private GMails of the staff involved.

Still no Jim Russsssstle????

How happy is Hillary right now? Paul Ryan might actually have to run in 2016 so that there's at least one not super to the right person that the GOP can vote for.

Orly

Omar:

I believe it's true and that Christie will be forced to resign if Mr. Wildstein's allegation is proven, but proving it is another matter ...

When detectives are arguing with a prosecutor to go ahead and aggressively press charges, the prosecutor (always striving to build a stronger case) will say to the officer: "There is what you know, what you think you know, and what you can prove." The sticking point in this case is what they can prove. Because this case is so high profile, prosecutors are not going to bring any charges against Christie that they can't prove. Using a Shakespearean reference, they won't strike out at the King unless they can kill the King.

Somebody pointed out last night that aides to a politician do not go off on their own and pull a stunt like this without the full knowledge and consent of their boss. They do those kind of boneheaded things to please their boss, but they sure as hell don't do those kind of things without their boss's full knowledge and consent. If Christie's aides had hatched and carried out this asinine plot on their own and kept their boss totally in the dark as to what they were up to, he would have (very publicly) fired them all - in a fit of rage - on the first day of the bridge closure rather than waiting months later for it all to be spilled out on the front page of the Bergen Record.

I'm convinced Chris Christie knew, but the problem will be proving what he knew - and when he knew it. Just as was the case in Watergate, the prosecutors need a smoking gun - and/or a John Dean type witness. Mr. Wildstein is volunteering to be the John Dean of Bridgegate, but he's demanding blanket immunity before he starts singing.

At current trends, by 2016 Ted Cruz will be a moderate conservative.