THE NEW YORK TIMES HIT PIECE(S) ON CHRIS CHRISTIE

Let me start with the fact that an investigation of the George Washington Bridge lane closings, which is instituted by the Christie administration and conducted by people of its selection, is not a credible investigation. 

It is not that I have evidence that it fudged the facts or glossed over incriminating material to make Governor Christie come out looking good when he should not have.  It is that I never trust a referee who is almost certainly rooting for one side over the other.  Do you?

That said, I would like to show you two items which appear in today\’s New York Times, both of them relating to the aforementioned investigation – which exonerates Governor Christie.

First we have the page-one headline and sub-head used by the Times for its article: 

ReportDetails

Ex-Ally\’sClaim

AboutChristie

      _______

That Governor Knew of

Ft. Lee Lane Closings

Does that suggest in any way that the report exonerates Christie? 

Nope.  You have to get three paragraphs down to read that the report indicates fired aide David Wildstein claims to have told Christie about the lane closings on September 11 (the third day it was occurring – it ended the next day), but that Christie does not recall him doing so.

Let\’s think about this: 

-The Times\’ sub-head informs readers who decided not to get into the body of the article that Governor Christie was in on the lane closings – the exact opposite of what the report says. 

-Further, since the sub-head has no timeline, it also eliminates the obvious conclusion that Christie couldn\’t have been in on the lang closings because even if Wildstein mentioned them and Christie remembered it full well, this occurred three days after they started.

Therefore, the New York Times took a report, however suspect, which exonerated Chris Christie – and led its readers to believe it incriminated him.  Nice going, guys.  High-end professional journalism at its finest.

Then we have the Times\’ lead editorial, which also deals with the report. 

Let me give you just a taste of what it says – in rust, with my comments in blue.

Thereport lays the blame for this entire scandal on two of Mr.Christie\’s former colleagues, who refused to be interviewed. Onewas Bridget Anne Kelly, who was Mr. Christie\’s deputy chief ofstaff until he called her a liar at a news conference and fired herin January. The other was David Wildstein, a former Christie ally andappointee to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey whoresigned last year. Yep, that\’s what the report says.  So where is yourevidence that it is wrong? Where is your evidence that Christie knewa thing about the lane closings? If you had any it would be in thiseditorial – but it isn\’t.

Similarly,Mayor Dawn Zimmer of Hoboken, N.J., who is cooperating with federalinvestigators, declined to talk with the governor\’s legal team.Earlier this year, she charged that Mr. Christie\’s administrationhad threatened to cut Hurricane Sandy recovery funds to her cityunless she supported a development favored by Mr. Christie\’sallies. Without her side of the story, the report neverthelessconcludes that her allegations are “demonstrably false” and “donot match objective reality.”  Uh, you leftout the fact – and it is a huge one – that just one week before making this charge, Mayor Zimmer, a Democrat, saidthe exact opposite about Christie. Specifically, she told CNN “Idon\’t think that\’s the case. I don\’t think it was retaliation and Idon\’t have any reason to think it\’s retaliation”. Does thatnot show you her allegations are “demonstrably false”? Doesn\’t it at the very least give you an inkling of why Zimmer might not have wanted to answer questions about the charges she made?  How come you aren\’t attacking herhonesty?

TheMastro report reveals that Mr. Wildstein told Mr. Christie\’s presssecretary that he did inform Mr. Christie about the traffic tie-upsas they were happening. The report said Mr. Christie did not rememberany such conversation, and simply leaves it at that. Let\’stake Wildstein at his word (which you are doing, even though you mustknow he is trying to save his own neck here). Suppose he mentionedto Governor Christie that there were traffic tie-ups on the George WashingtonBridge.  Do you guys ever drive to Jersey?  Traffic tie-ups at the George Washington Bridge are about as common as chickendroppings at a Perdue processing facility. Why is it not plausiblethat this information would not be memorable to Christie months later?

Mr.Christie has a long way to go to regain public trust and clear hisname in this scandal. Doesn\’t there have to besome evidence that he did somethingbefore Christie can clear his name? You provide none. Zero, zip,nada. But demand that he clear himself of what you have notprovided. Did someone on the New York Times editorial board travelto Colorado recently, and bring back a gift for its members to puffon?

This, folks, is what the New York Times has become.  Amazing, isn\’t it, that these people accuse anyone else of operating on a low-end basis?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *