World News Korner

Chris Christie's slut shaming of Bridget Kelly, and how that may lead to his eventual downfall.

As I am sure all of you know by now the investigative report, commissioned by Chris Christie to absolve him of any blame for the George Washington bridge scandal, came out on Thursday.

This is how the Daily Beast reported on that "totally unforeseen" exoneration:

When the results of the internal Bridgegate investigation, commissioned by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie were released Thursday, it included a curious revelation. Bridget Anne Kelly, Christie’s former Deputy Chief of Staff whom he fired on January 9 after the release of her smoking gun “time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee” email, had been involved in an affair with Bill Stepien, Christie’s former campaign manager.

The report, which cost New Jersey taxpayers $1 million, states that “Kelly and Stepien became personally involved, although, by early August 2013, their personal relationship had cooled, apparently at Stepien’s choice, and they largely stopped speaking.”

State Senator Loretta Weinberg, one of two co-chairs of the joint legislative committee investigating Bridgegate, told The Daily Beast that she believes this was an attempt to assassinate the character of Kelly.

“Maybe that’s what’s making me so angry,” Weinberg said in a phone call Thursday. “They’re talking about ‘a personal relationship’ and they put in the report that Mr. Stepien was the one who ended it—how do they know that? How do they know that? And was that done to add to the credence that this was some crazy woman, some woman who is no longer in control of her emotions?”

Now Chris Christie had originally thrown Bridget Kelly under the bus during his January press conference on the bridge scandal.

At the time I remember thinking, "Man he must have her locked down, to treat her like that and not expect her to go public with what she knows." And at the time she didn't.

However former Christie Port Authority appointee, David Wildstein felt no such loyalty and publicly claimed that the Governor knew about the bridge closings, and that his administration had orchestrated them.

Further more Wildstein said he is willing to tell all to the investigators if they will grant him immunity.

Bridget Kelly on the other hand has remained quiet and has refused to cooperate.

And then this report was released.

This was the statement released yesterday by Bridget Kelly's lawyer:

Having reviewed the report of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, as well as listened to the comments of Randy Mastro, Esq., we note that by Mr. Mastro’s own admission, he did not have access to all information. Of course, without reviewing all pertinent evidence, any conclusions that are to be drawn are by definition incomplete. The report’s venomous, gratuitous, and inappropriate sexist remarks concerning Ms. Kelly have no place in what is alleged to be a professional and independent report.

There appear to be two distinct versions of the George Washington Bridge lane closings. On the one hand, Mr. Wildstein, through his counsel, has taken one clear position. On the other hand, Mr. Mastro has staked a different view. Thus, Ms. Kelly’s evidence could be critical to verifying either of the two competing versions of events. A preemptive strike to isolate Ms. Kelly and impugn her credibility is not surprising. Despite Mr. Mastro’s editorialized comments to the contrary, Ms. Kelly is not a liar. She is a single mother of four children who was deeply devoted and committed to her job at the Office of the Governor. She worked tirelessly to pursue the goals of the Office during her tenure.

The only credible investigation into the lane closings is being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office. If Ms. Kelly were provided with the appropriate procedural safeguards, she will be fully cooperative and provide truthful and complete answers to any questions asked of her by the appropriate law enforcement authorities.

Okay now here is where I am a little confused.

If Christie had thrown Kelly to the curb initially, and she had remained loyal and refused to help the investigators go after Christie, what in the world would make him slander her a second time, this time about her personal life?

I mean does he REALLY think she has nothing to offer the the U.S. Attorney's office that would help them prove that Christie knew about the bridge closings? Or is he such an arrogant prick that he thinks he can simply treat her like some one night stand doing the walk of shame at three o'clock in the morning and she will continue to cover for his fat ass?


Because I think that now he is well and truly FUBAR'D.

And it could not happen to a more deserving pile of shit.

Source