David Wildstein, it seems, is not going quietly. Not when he might be able to cut himself a deal that could net him immunity in the New Jersey “Bridgegate” scandal.
While the headline seems to be evolving, the gist of what Wildstein’s lawyer seems to be saying that the evidence exists that Christie knew about the George Washington Bridge lane closures in Fort Lee. At what point he knew is left unclear, but Wildstein’s lawyer is claiming that Christie knew at some point that these lane closures were happening.
Christie’s office issued this statement in response:
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. 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.
Wildstein, who was the former director of interstate projects, resigned back in December when the news broke. Governor Christie shed no tears for him in his explanatory press conference, either, and promptly tossed him under the proverbial bus. Christie also downplayed their personal connections extensively (Christie and Wildstein attended high school together – whether they knew each other or were friends is a matter of much debate), and Wildstein, who might have decided to take the fall for a friend, certainly won’t do it for someone who has disowned him publicly.
If that evidence exists, of course.
With other evidence about Christie’s management, like Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer’s supposed diary, now thrown into question, the only question is not whether or not evidence truly exists that Christie himself knew that the bridge lane closures were a farce, but whether people believe that Christie is capable of this kind of political payback.
And with the kind of attention every single revelation gets about this story, I think we already know the answer.
Recall “I didn’t have sex with that woman.” At the time, my overwhelming impression was “Oh, yes you did!” I have a similar one about this. How do they get this idea that we want them to keep lying to us, as if we like it and wouldn’t be able to deal with it?
1 Comment