When is a security risk not actually a risk? When Christie Christie decides so of course. For years, the Governor, his office and attorneys have fought the release of travel records on the taxpayer dime because they needed to protect the Governor:
Four months ago, Superior Court Judge Mary C. Jacobson ruled that past records of the EPU’s meals, lodging, and transportation could create ain the future. The troopers assigned to protect Christie often take the same flights and stay at the same hotels as the man they guard. In court, Jacobson said she based her decision on a confidential sworn statement submitted under court seal by State Police Capt. Kevin Cowan, head of the EPU. “He unequivocally swears in that certification that release of the information would increase the risk of harm to the governor,” said the judge.
That seems pretty clear, not much room for interpretation right? Even if many disagreed? Well now that the Governor is seeking his next office, he doesn’t seem as concerned with protecting his travel secrets:
Yet those are the same types of details provided in the Christie campaign’s report to the FEC, publicly available online at the commission’s website. The record includes the name of the business, address, type of expense, and amount paid — though it does not identify the individual guests.
Pretty amazing. Private records and payments are public, yet in the same breath they will argue public records and public funds spent are considered private. That leads to an interesting paradox, as NJ Spotlight notes:
The hotels, restaurants and airlines patronized by Christie and his campaign staff with private money are a matter of public record. Yet details of the public cost caused by Christie’s White House run are kept secret by court order.”
Makes sense, right?