Hearing today

Chris Christie: A BRIDGE TOO FAR

This should be interesting. I couldn’t think of any legal basis for the argument, but I’m not a lawyer:

Lawyers for a state legislative panel investigating a political payback scandal say a former aide to Republican Gov. Chris Christie has shown no valid legal reasons for refusing to comply with a subpoena.

In a court filing Monday, the lawyers said former Deputy Chief of Staff Bridget Kelly is not entitled to the broad exemptions she has asserted as she seeks to quash the subpoena.

“The real problem here is that Ms. Kelly does not believe there is any proper subpoena that can be issued to her,” the lawyers wrote.

The legislators want Kelly to turn over emails, text messages and other documents that involve a plot to block traffic near the George Washington Bridge for political retribution against a Democratic mayor who didn’t endorse Christie for re-election and whose town experienced the gridlock.

Kelly and Bill Stepien, Christie’s two-time campaign manager, have refused. They’re asserting their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination in attempting to quash the subpoenas. They say they fear the possibility of criminal prosecution amid an ongoing federal criminal investigation.

Oral arguments are set for Tuesday.

One thought on “Hearing today

  1. My concern about the US Att. running a parallel investigation of the Port Authority/ BridgeGate/ Christie scandals is that with christie’s old friends still in place and running the investigation from the US atty. office that they are helping him run out the clock by providing cover for the Christie gang to hide behind the 5th amendment and thus thwart the legislative investigation.
    I can envision a situation where, either because of Court rulings or agreement between the Leg and US atty’s office, that while under the “threat” of criminal indictment the christie cartel is allowed to keep the evidence out of the hands of the legislative investigation. After 18 months or so when the election cycle is upon us the US atty. office decides that there is no criminial indictment and the leg. is in the middle of an election. Aterwards it is a new legislature that would require a new authorizing act by the legislature to investigate “old” issues that the US atty. already “proved” that no laws were broken.
    Then Christie’s gang skips off scot free and may actually sue for lost wages, legal fees and libel all because Christie’s pals at the US atty. office ran interference for him.

Comments are closed.