Nice Denial About Knowing You Shut Down That Bridge, Chris Christie, Shame If Anything Were To Happen To It
When Chris Christie's Best Friend Forever (Forever), this guy David Wildstein whom he'd never met, went before the hearings on Chris Christie's shitty petty bullshit nonsense of closing the lanes to the George Washington Bridge as shitty petty bullshit nonsense political payback, he (David Wildstein) pleaded his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself. Like, a lot. "Oh hey fellas," he said, "I might know some stuff about some things if'n you wanna quid pro quo me some whatchamacallit, amnesty or immunity or whatever the one is that you get for crimes, not for being Mexican." (Direct quote.)
Well, perhaps he did know some stuff about some things! Perhaps he did! Because now his lawyer is releasing letters that are incredibly not exciting, and also crap-written, but they seem to intimate some stuff! About some things! And everybody is mighty excited!
The entire letter is all about how the Port Authority, Wildstein's old employer, needs to pay his legal fees because of how he was working for them when he and Christie's deputy chief of staff, Bridget Jones or whoever, colluded to shut down the lanes and trap the people of Ft. Lee, New Jersey, in four days of Snowjam.
Give me some money, says the letter, then buried way the fuck down, in VERY POOR WRITING, is this:
According to this lawyer, "evidence exists as well tying Mr. Christie to having knowledge of the lane closures, during the period when the lanes were closed, contrary to what the governor stated publicly in a two-hour press conference[.]"
And then everyone was like ZOMG that is proof Chris Christie liiiiiiiied! Well, no. Based on our many viewings of 20 years worth of Law & Order, someone saying "evidence exists" is not evidence that any evidence exists. We think it might be hearsay. Or maybe spousal privilege. One of those two.
No, the reason we know Christie was lying was because he is Chris Christie.
So just hold tighter. It'll all come out in the wash.
[Â NYTÂ ]
Well, it speaks for itself, doesn't it.. .
<i>We think it might be hearsay. Or maybe spousal privilege.</i>
If we&#039;re just tossing legal-type words out there, I kind of like <i>Force Majeure</i> myself.