I’m a little confused by this. Generally speaking when you throw someone under the bus and you want them to play along, you add as much padding to the process as possible. That doesn’t appear to be the Chris Chrisitie way. The main fallperson turns out to be former deputy chief of staff Bridget Kelly. And the “report” prepared by Christie’s lawyer not only places all the criminal liability on her (along with David Wildstein). It also goes out of its way to say that she is, to put it bluntly, emotionally unstable and loose.
The whole thing is vaguely reminiscent of David Brock’s notorious line that Anita Hill was “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty.” (If that line is before your time, Brock long since recanted, repented and a bunch else.)
I’m not sure whether I need to be thinking of the LA Law or The Sopranos playbook to understand the motivation here. Kelly’s lawyer says she’s ready to talk to federal prosecutors about the Bridge Scandal so long as she’s “provided with the appropriate procedural safeguards.” So she seems ready to talk. Her lawyer thinks the attacks on Kelly’s character are a warning shot that they’ll tear her apart if she agrees to testify against Christie or his still protected associates. And that does seem like the most likely explanation.
But which would you prefer, public character assassination or multiple years sitting in federal prison?
- Contributions allow us to hire more journalists
- Contributions allow us to provide free memberships to those who cannot afford them
- Contributions support independent, non-corporate journalism