Last year, several lanes on the George Washington Bridge were closed for four days, supposedly for some kind of traffic study. In reality, that study apparently did not exist: instead, the closings almost certainly were an act of political vindictiveness against the (Democrat) Mayor of Fort Lee. This quickly came to be known as “Bridgegate”.
No one disuptes that the orders to close those lanes came from people in Governor Christie\’s office. And it was assumed – certainly by Christie opponents but also, I would think, by many Christie supporters as well – that Christie himself ordered the lane closings.
Governor Christie denied having anything to do with the closings, and immediately fired several people involved in the incident. Though great suspicion remains, to this day no evidence has surfaced linking Christie to the closings (and, God knows, it has been looked for in every way imaginable.)
This single incident – a few lanes closed for four days – created a media frenzy like nothing we have seen since Watergate and Iran Contra. Non-stop coverage every day. Countless articles, features, editorials, panel discussions, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. We could not put on our TV or radio or read a newspaper or go on line without learning “the latest about Bridgegate” – even when there was no “latest” to report.
Why am I rehashing this now? Because today, the New York Times – and all credit due them for it – has published a Page 1 story about New York Governor Andrew Cuomo\’s office stopping an investigation in its tracks, because the investigation might wind up embarrassing Mr. Cuomo politically. I am calling it “Investi-Gate”.
Hereis the beginning of the article:
WithAlbany rocked by a seemingly endless barrage of scandals and arrests,Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo set up ahigh-powered commission last summer to root out corruption instate politics. It was barely two months old when its investigators,hunting for violations of campaign-finance laws, issued a subpoena toa media-buying firm that had placed millions of dollars\’ worth ofadvertisements for the New York State Democratic Party.
Theinvestigators did not realize that the firm, Buying Time, alsocounted Mr. Cuomo among its clients, having bought the airtime forhis campaign when he ran for governor in 2010.
Wordthat the subpoena had been served quickly reached Mr. Cuomo\’s mostsenior aide, Lawrence S. Schwartz.He called one of the commission\’s three co-chairs, William J.Fitzpatrick, the district attorney in Syracuse.
“Thisis wrong,” Mr. Schwartz said, according to Mr. Fitzpatrick, whoseaccount was corroborated by three other people told about the call atthe time. He said the firm worked for the governor, and issued asimple directive:
“Pullit back.”
Thesubpoena was swiftly withdrawn. The panel\’s chief investigatorexplained why in an email to the two other co-chairs later thatafternoon.
“Theyapparently produced ads for the governor,” she wrote.
Thepulled-back subpoena was the most flagrant example of how thecommission, established with great ceremony by Mr. Cuomo in July2013, was hobbled almost from the outset by demands from thegovernor\’s office.
Did “Investi-Gate” really happen? Well, the New York Times is a strong supporter of Governor Cuomo, so it would be hard to fathom it putting out a piece like this without being certain it was true.
So, where are we?
As it now stands, at least one key person Governor Cuomo\’s office has made sure the investigation was “hobbled” – maybe others. And, though no evidence is presented, there clearly is a possibility that Mr. Cuomo himself was involved.
Does “Investi-Gate” look eerily like “Bridgegate” – except for the fact that the accusations against the Cuomo people are far, far more serious than a couple of lane closings on a bridge? I\’d say so – how about you?
Now comes the fun part. Let\’s see how much coverage “Investi-Gate” gets. Or do you think you already know?
I will be blogging about the extent of “Investi-Gate” coverage over the next several days.
