lol sorry to get in the way of your circle jerk.

2C:30-2. Official misconduct
A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with purpose to obtain a benefit for himself or another or to injure or to deprive another of a benefit:

a. He commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized or he is committing such act in an unauthorized manner; or

b. He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.

Official misconduct is a crime of the second degree. If the benefit obtained or sought to be obtained, or of which another is deprived or sought to be deprived, is of a value of $200.00 or less, the offense of official misconduct is a crime of the third degree.

So they weren't authorized to shut a lane down for a traffic study? Seems like they did have that authority. That kind of charge seems unlikely given what we know.

It seems like something else needs to come out for criminal charges here.

The "traffic study" was an LOL pretext from everything that I have read. I bought that Christie said yesterday that he didn't know whether this was a traffic study that morphed into a vendetta or a vendetta that morphed into a traffic study. Either way, the traffic study explanation is a joke.

Because it is a much more disruptive for a president to die in office than for a governor to die in office? Because being President requires more stamina than being governor?

Ikes, if they were running a traffic study and they are authorised to do that, why were they fired?

You're missing the point. I'm not claiming that they weren't trying to mess with the city. I'm claiming since those officials probably do have the right to schedule traffic studies, they can't be charged under that statute.

Because they abused that authority and did something wrong? Not all wrongs are criminal philliam.

Jesus christ ikes. You don't need to take the contrarian position in every thread just for the sake of it. You're going to end up looking like a jackass.

LOL man. No. Charges will be filed against David Wildstein.



#GOPtimism

Kiss my ass dude. Really the only thing I want to know is what they'd be charged with. Haven't seen anyone come up with a charge that fits the facts known. That could change obviously but you guys need to do more work.

I'm missing the point? You are missing the point. The fact that you may be authorized to take an action for a legitimate reason does not give you carte blanche to take the same action for a pretextual reason. That's what abuse of power is all about. The governor may be authorized to take a state-owned helicopter to survey hurricane damage. That doesn't mean that he is authorized to take a helicopter to the shore for a vacation.

pretty sure AHERN is going away tho

I cited the ****ing statute. I have no idea who, if anyone, will be charged, or whether the facts ultimately will fit the statute (at least for Christie), but there is no other "work" to be done at this point unless you have access to Christie's emails.

You cited a statute, it doesn't fit nearly as well as you think it does.

Wow ikes. Wow

I'm a lawyer. You are a doctor. It seems entirely possible to me that closing traffic lanes for a pretextual reason is an "unauthorized exercise . . . of official functions."

But please carry on. I'm sure that you are right.

(I'm not saying that anyone will be charged, btw. I actually think that it is unlikely.)

lol so despite a clear crime occurring in an extremely unpopular and public way, you don't think charges will be filed, even though the law clearly fits?

Yeah, you just showed exactly how well you think that statute fits.

I think there are plenty of possibilities for charges to be filed, but there has to be something more to this story.

lolikes

I have no idea whether the facts will fit as to Christie. In any case, even if they fit perfectly, the most likely scenario would be that he leaves office to avoid charges. It is rare for the top person to get charged in the absence of pecuniary gain.

Perhaps you can explain why you believe the statute does not fit even the conduct of Kelly, the Port Authority guy, etc.

Everyone seems pretty sure about charges being filed, I'm interested in prop bets. give me names and odds plz.

Because he was authorized to conduct traffic studies. Do you think he'll be charged under that statute? Because I read your prior post as to saying that he wasn't going to be charged.

Obviously something else needs to happen before Christie would ever be charged.

Bridgazi as Game of Thrones

Man charges could be filed, but for what against whom is really up in the air imo.

How many times do I have to say that I am not at all sure? My guess is that there will be no charges against Christie. I am less certain about the others, but if I had to guess, I would say that no one will be charged. I would not be surprised if the lower level people received immunity in exchange for cooperation.