Sassenach wrote:I don't really give a damn about Christie other than the fact that it's an interesting story to speculate about for a political junkie like me. I do think this will finish him though.

As it happens I'm a big critic of Obama's foreign policy myself so the linkage you're trying to make is irrelevant to me. It's possible to take an interest in Christie's misfortunes without endorsing Obama's handling of world affairs.

Doctor Fate wrote:http://t.mediaite.com/mediaite/#!/entry/it-was-just-her-time-91yearold-womans-daughter-doesnt-blame,52cf0859b7d8d24162c146e1/1 The family doesn't blame Christie.

I know no liberal wants to discuss Benghazi.. People died, Obama lied and lied and lied. Oh, and the attack could have been anticipated. Everything I said months ago is vindicated by the Senate report.

How inconvenient.

Doctor Fate wrote:But, what's REALLY important is what happened in Jersey, right? After all, if the President lied to the American people during a Presidential campaign, who cares? #liberalpriorities

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:But, what's REALLY important is what happened in Jersey, right? After all, if the President lied to the American people during a Presidential campaign, who cares? #liberalpriorities

Again, it goes back to motive. Political payback is one thing, but political payback that abuses the public trust and that hurts thousands of citizens is completely different.

Most (all?) of the Obama scandals are the results of mistakes, errors, incompetence, and perhaps coverup of same, but not malice.

The closest we got was the IRS, where initial reports said that they focused on right wing groups, but eventually showed that they were looking at all political groups applying for an inappropriate tax status

Over the two years between April 2010 and April 2012, the IRS essentially placed on hold the processing of applications for 501(c)(4) tax-exemption status received from organizations with "Tea Party," "patriots," or "9/12" in their names. While apparently none of these organizations' applications were denied during this period,[Note 2] only 4 were approved.[48] During the same general period, the agency approved applications from several dozen presumably liberal-leaning organizations whose names included terms such as "progressive," "progress," "liberal," or "equality."[48][49] (However, the IRS also targeted several progressive- or Democratic-leaning organizations for increased scrutiny, leading to at least one such organization, called Emerge America, being denied tax-exempt status.[47] Instructions to screeners obtained by The National Review obtained instructions to IRS screeners, and NR's reading of the instructions was that conservative and liberal groups were treated differently. The instructions stated that applications of tea-party groups should be sent "to group 7822" for additional scrutiny, but the National Review's interpretation was that screeners could approve liberal groups on the spot.[6])

A November 2010 version of the list obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word “progressive,” screeners were in fact instructed to treat “progressive” groups differently from “tea party” groups. Whereas screeners were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status “may not be appropriate” for applications containing the word ”progressive” – 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from conducting any political activities – they were told to send those of tea-party groups off IRS higher-ups for further scrutiny.

That means the applications of progressive groups could be approved on the spot by line agents, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were “currently being coordinated with EOT,” which stands for Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive groups were not.

The AP reported earlier on Monday that “Terms including ‘Israel,’ ’Progressive’ and ‘Occupy’ were used by agency workers to help pick groups for closer examination.” That appears to be misleading, as there is no indication from the list examined by NRO that progressive groups were singled out for heightened scrutiny in a manner similar to tea-party groups. Cases involving healthcare legislation, however, were. “New applications are subject to secondary screening in Group 7821,” the list notes.

Why people in power do things, and who is impacted by those things, is important.

You can reasonably complain that the nation is not holding Obama and his people to a high enough standard, but none of these scandals really compare to the NJ scandal in terms of motive.

Doctor Fate wrote:

You can reasonably complain that the nation is not holding Obama and his people to a high enough standard, but none of these scandals really compare to the NJ scandal in terms of motive.

Please. Benghazi? He lied to the whole country for one reason: to win reelection. He used the levers of government to lie to the American people to win reelection.

...

The President? He lied to all Americans and allowed/caused Susan Rice to do the same.

geojanes wrote:Again, I go back to motive: Did Obama want Americans to die in Benghazi? Did he do something to actively degrade their safety on purpose? Or was it a mistake, or incompetence? I think there's a huge difference. I don't think even you, with your deep hatred, believe that he did something so terrible (and completely without reason). He may very well have spun the events (e.g. lied) to make it look better than it was or for a different reason, but that spinning had no impact on the fact that people died: they're just as dead. That's the cover-up, that's not the crime. Christie's crew is in trouble for the crime: they fully intended on abusing their power, and their citizens to exact political payback. The difference is material.

"Did Christie want the 91 year old to die in Ft. Lee?"
"Did he do something to actively degrade their safety on purpose?"

Doctor Fate wrote:Back to Christie; if he is shown to have lied, he should resign or be impeached.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Back to Christie; if he is shown to have lied, he should resign or be impeached.

I don't actually agree on this. It depends on the actual lie involved as to whether it is serious enough for impeachment. If every politician who ever told a fib had to lose their job, we'd be having special elections every week.

Now, he could be completely vindicated, but I don't know whether a 'legal' standard applies in the court of public opinion.

Sassenach wrote:

"Did Christie want the 91 year old to die in Ft. Lee?"
"Did he do something to actively degrade their safety on purpose?"

In answer to the first question, no of course not. The second question is rather different though. It seems probable that he very much chose to degrade their safety on purpose. I'm assuming of course that he did know about the scheme to create the traffic jams, but I'm guessing by now that most people share that assumption. Degrading the safety of the citizens wasn't the reason he did it of course (or the reason it was done I suppose, since we don't yet have proof of complicity), but nevertheless it was a direct result of a vindictive act which targeted ordinary people.

Having said all this, I don't think this incident is really that big of a deal. It's spiteful and petty and casts doubt on Christie's suitability for high office, but in the grand scheme of things it's not the biggest scandal in the world. Had it been any other governor the whole thing would have blown over by now.

geojanes wrote: The big difference here is that it impacted thousands of common taxpayers, which this kind of payback normally doesn't, and there was blowback. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Hah!

geojanes wrote:I hate this kind of "whataboutery" (a word I learned from Danivion, but which I like very much).

Archduke Russell John wrote:

geojanes wrote: The big difference here is that it impacted thousands of common taxpayers, which this kind of payback normally doesn't, and there was blowback. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Hah!

And this is the problem I have with this entire thread in a nutshell. I do not remember Geo creating a new thread to comment about how despicable it was that the White House impacted thousands of common taxpayers by closing public parks in a ridiculous, pathetic, and petty attempt to make the sequester as painful as possible.

Nor do I remember him going back multiple times to defend that position.