Comments about ‘Christiegate: Scandal continues to haunt New Jersey governor’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Jan. 14 2014 1:09 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Vanceone
Provo, UT

I don't like Christie and I won't vote for him. Nevertheless, this entire episode is illuminating. Christie's little Bridge incident is headline news for days, tons of investigations, the full MSM witch hunt is ongoing.

Obama and any of HIS scandals? Like the IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, etc? Crickets.

This is why we need Republicans in government. The media hates them, so will actually do their job exposing political stuff, like they are with Christie right now. Democrats in office? The government can literally let people die or kill them and get hosannas and phrases like "We all thought he is the Messiah!" --quote from Barbara Walters. If you like accountability in your government, vote Republican. If you like media shilling and coverups, keep voting democrat.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

IMO for the most part these "Scandals" (as the network news calls them) don't exist because they need to exist (because government or the people would suffer if they were not investigated)... they exist because some powerful people in the media WANT them to exist.

The use of the money for the New Jersey tourism advertising campaign was OK'd at the time. That will come out eventually... but not before the media has had their fun with it (and Gov Christie has suffered the full affect of the media and the politicians playing their games with it).

It's too bad that when one of these "scandals" dies... the media never covers that, or at least not as much as they do when they don't know all the facts... and they can conjecture anything they want on the air.

Bridge-Gate has already been handled... but some people in the news media won't let it go. They will continue wondering (on the air).. if there isn't more to this story than we know.

There will always be some hint of innuendo coming from the media even after it's explained.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

" Like the IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, etc? Crickets."

Take Benghazi. Are you saying that there have not been media investigation, or congressional investigations or FBI investigations or Senate armed services investigations?

I recall hearing about non-stop investigations. Hardly Crickets. You just didn't hear what you wanted.

Vanceone
Provo, UT

JoeBlow: Indeed, what I heard was endless charges of "Republicans are politicizing this! Witchhunt against Poor Hillary! What difference does it make?"
There has been exactly ONE Mainstream media reporter who has done any true investigative work: Sheryl Atkinson of CBS. Everyone else has been trying to shove it under the rug. They are forced to cover it because the Republicans are trying to push it, not because they want to.

And why shouldn't the Republicans push it? Only the murder of a US Ambassador who spent months begging for increased protection. A rush to blame something completely unconcerned. Jailing a man who was innocent for almost a year. Lying to the world. Yet somehow, this is a Republican "made up scandal" according to the media and Democrats (but I repeat myself). If Nixon had done what Obama has done over Benghazi, he would have been sentenced to death.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

re:Vanceone
"Obama and any of HIS scandals? Like the IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, etc? Crickets."

A simple search of "Chris Christie" and "bridge" also came up in 30 New York Times articles and 27 Washington Post articles, and 778 times in newspapers and wire stories across the country.

We decided to focus on the week after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, which occurred Sept. 11, 2012. It’s a little bit longer of a time period to track (the Christie news broke mid-week so we have just four days of search results), but stick with us.

Using the same news outlets we tracked for Christie, we found 250 transcripts that mentioned "Benghazi." Again, CNN led the way with 100 mentions.

There were more than 2,800 stories that contain "Benghazi" in newspapers and wire services, though that also includes international newspapers. Domestically, the New York Times wrote 69 stories and the Washington Post had 49.

Mainstream news outlets also gave airtime and space to Republicans who alleged a cover up on the part of the administration. During Oct. 18-25, 2012, when accusations were especially frequent, CNN and MSNBC referred to "Benghazi cover up" a combined 13 times."
(Politifact)

Vanceone
Provo, UT

TruthSeeker: I never said they didn't cover it, I said they whitewashed it and did their best to defend the administration. There's a huge difference between "Republican Christie Scandal! Embattled Republican fends off charges of political malfeasance!" and "Republican drum up outrage for political gain, while Administration sets record straight" headlines.

I don't honestly know, but it sounds like you are trying to say that the media is not an arm of the Democratic party that pretends to be objective. Everyone knows that. It's why there is so much bitterness and hatred towards "Faux News"--it's the one major network that isn't full of Democratic Party sympathizers, toadys, or relatives of them.
Still, just compare the Christie scandal with Benghazi. In Christie, it's the reporters digging and reporting. In Benghazi, it is the opposing party who is doing the digging and providing information to the media--they aren't doing anything on their own. Why, it's like they don't want to find out the truth, isn't it?

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

I hope this doesn't take anything away from the Benghazi investigation.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "Whether or not Christie is the GOP nominee in 2016, the coming political roller-coaster should be extremely interesting to follow."

Yeah, particularly since Christie has demonstrated he can give as well as he gets.

It will certainly be entertaining to watch him blast back at the disingenuous, Soros-funded, Hillary-controlled, captive-media propagandists that have already begun the 2016 presidential campaign.

Let the mud fly! In both directions!

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

re:Vancone
"TruthSeeker: I never said they didn't cover it,"

The term "crickets" implies silence.

I don't know where you were, but the media (not just Fox) covered the Benghazi and conspiracy story for weeks. (Although later there were competing news events such as the upcoming election and Hurricane Sandy).

"In Christie, it's the reporters digging and reporting."

Except the reporters at Fox.
Actually, the New Jersey Assembly launched an investigation into the bridge closure back in Nov. When did you become aware of the bridge issue?

The media was digging and reporting on Benghazi, and Congressional committees, headed by Republicans held hearings on Benghazi, covered by the media, for weeks and weeks--including interviews with Republicans. The FBI immediately launched an investigation after Benghazi. There is a huge difference in the national security sensitivity and public information involving a secretive CIA operation in a foreign land and a public bridge closure within the U.S.

But, thank you for sharing the Fox/Limbaugh/etc version today.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

I agree with procuradorfiscal... If you are looking for entertainment... he would be a good candidate. If you are looking for a great President... not so much.

Maybe we should make him Vice President. Then we can be entertained by his antics (like we are with Joe Biden)... but we don't have to worry about him shooting himself in the foot with his silly comments in front of foreign dignitaries. Joe is also known for controversy (remember the plagiarism incident he denied but was later proven without a doubt). Or some of his totally befuddling comments over the years. Didn't hurt HIS political aspirations. Just made him a more entertaining target for the media.

So for entertainment value... Christie is great. But do we really want him running the country and meeting with our allies entertaining them with his 3-stooges type banter? I don't.

Of course the media loves him. They want interesting. They want controversy. They want scandal. They want innuendo. They want people who shoot from the hip, try to be funny, and stumble frequently (like Gerald Ford and George Bush) that give them something funny or contraversial to write about.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

This really is second rate corruption and payback. It's new jersey; they can do better than that.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

"...Faux News"--it's the one major network that isn't full of Democratic Party sympathizers, toadys, or relatives of them...".

Just full of Republican Party sympathizers, toadys (sic), or relatives of them...

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

"it sounds like you are trying to say that the media is not an arm of the Democratic party that pretends to be objective. Everyone knows that."

Vanceone, that is a very odd comment. "Everyone knows that." I mean that is just strange. Perhaps you don't understand what "media" means, and you don't understand what everyone knows.

SCfan
clearfield, UT

Amazing that Christie has spent more time answering press questions about a traffic jam than Obama, Clinton, Panetta, ect. have spent answering about all their scandels.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

SCfan,
Democrat scandals don't count. Only Republican scandals need to be run out for daily cometary and in depth analysis by the political contributors of the various networks. The rest only come up when they can't be covered up anymore, and then go away as soon as possible. The rest need to be milked for all they can get out of them.

A traffic jam, and advertising campaign... of course those need to be in the news daily for weeks.

But 4 Americans (Including an Ambassador) killed in a terrorist attack... just send out somebody to explain on all the Sunday political shows that it wasn't a terrorist attack, it was just a protest that got out of hand... and accident really. And then let it drop off the radar. And when that story turns out to be completely false... try to keep it off the air as much as possible, and if you must discuss it, deflect it as much as possible, or just focus on nits and details not the incident itself (to avoid any blowback to any Democrats). But if it's a Republican..... Get all you can out of it!

VST
Bountiful, UT

Meanwhile the Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Democrat Diane Feinstein, just released their report regarding the Benghazi fiasco. It is not a pretty report for the State Department, U.S. Military, or the Intelligence Community.

So much for all the hype about Benghazi only a Republican cooked-up distraction.

Additionally, according to sworn testimony by General Dempsey and Defense Secretary Panetta, the President was initially informed that same evening by them that the Benghazi attack was terrorist driven and NOT protest driven.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

VST, I'm going to just take a wild guess that you haven't read the report. Can you provide the quotes from Dempsey and Panetta's testimony that says what you claim?

Can you also refer to the parts of the report that discuss the information dealing with rather the attack was terrorist driven, or a reaction to a protest. I'll tell you, it's not quite what you are saying.

VST
Bountiful, UT

Mark,

It is all contained within a recently declassified report on 13 Jan 2014 of the sworn testimony of General Carter Ham [Commander of AFRICOM at the time of the attack] before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on 20 Jun 2013.

In that report General Ham specifically stated that “I met with Secretary Panetta and with General Dempsey as soon as we learned of the first attack on the special mission facility in Benghazi.”

Then of pages 34-39, there is an ongoing dialogue between Chairman Buck McKeon and General Ham, wherein General Ham stated:

- He was not aware of any demonstration.
- AFRICOM had diverted a drone to Benghazi to observe what was happening.
- It became apparent to him and AFRICOM that this was an attack & not a demonstration.
- General Ham met with General Dempsey [Joint Chiefs Chairman], then Secretary Panetta.
- General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta had already scheduled a meeting with President Obama.
- The President was informed by Dempsey and Panetta that this was an attack.
- Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the attack.

General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta also testified accordingly at other times with no contradictions.

This release was also referenced in the New York Daily News, 14 Jan 2014.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

No, I understand, but you said Dempsy and Panetta testified THEY told the president this. But as you show in your second post they didn't testify to this, General Ham testified that HE told Panetta and Dempsy this, Dempsy and Panetta did NOT testify they told the president this. But it's moot anyway. The CIA was giving different information during this time. In other words the White House was getting conflicting information.

Frankly. I don't think people still know what happened over there or why. I know, there are a lot of different people claiming to know. But as far as I've seen there is NOTHING definitive.

VST
Bountiful, UT

Mark,

As I indicated in my comment, above, BOTH General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta also testified before those same Committees (House and Senate), reiterating the same things that General Ham testified about regarding the events of that evening – without contradiction. Furthermore, there have been declassified video clips of both Dempsey and Panetta on national television testifying to the same thing. I saw them on television making those same statements.

The bottom line is the President was told by both Dempsey and Panetta that evening that this was an attack, not a demonstration, as was testified by both of them under oath.

Your problem is this just does not fit your paradigm of the events for that evening, and I can understand that.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments