|
If you haven't been following the eerie and interesting developments regarding Chris Christie's warrantless monitoring program while he was US Attorney, you've been missing out on how Christie's office was following the Bush Justice Department's "Big Brother is watching you" mantra.
And last night on Blue Jersey radio, Catherine Crump, lead ACLU attorney on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit which brought to light the government's warrantless tracking of New Jerseyans - using their own cell phones - under then-U.S. Attorney Chris Christie dropped a few more bombshells about the case.
I strongly recommend you take a listen to the show, especially the last 10 minutes, which was kicked off by a question by one of the Blue Jersey radio listeners (thanks much, Frank) about whether Christie's office lied about this program while he was still US Attorney.
Ms. Crump's first comment provided a timeline of events that culminated in the release of a letter indicating that not only was there a widespread use of warrantless monitoring of cell phones by US Attorneys' offices around the country, but Chris Christie's office utilized this warrantless monitoring program far in excess of any other US Attorney office.
But that wasn't all she divulged. When asked about the timing of the release of this letter (as some Christie supporters have hinted at due to the Republican primary in a few weeks), she indicated that the initial request in 2005 resulted in the ACLU being told by Christie's US Attorney office that there were NO instances they could find of warrantless monitoring of cell phones, only to have his successor provide this information after Christie's office was sued for this information AND Christie left office.
Oh yeah, the Court ordered the information be provided not once, but twice, in September 2007 and again in October 2008. And just to repeat, Christie's office was sued while he was US Attorney, and only provided the information after he left office.
Let's review this timeline again:
- December 2005: ACLU submits Freedom of Information Act request for records from the Justice Department, the FBI and the National Security Agency;
- 2007 (per Ms. Crump): Additional Freedom of Information Act request to Chris Christie's office to release information related to warrantless monitoring of cellphones;
- 2008 (per Ms. Crump): ACLU received response from Chris Christie's office that it had "no records or documents related to warrantless monitoring of cell phones";
- July 2008: The ACLU files suit to obtain records about the federal government's tracking of cell phones;
- November 2008: US Attorney Chris Christie announced that he will step down as US Attorney, effective December 2, 2008.
- December 31, 2008: US Department of Justice letter issued indicating the depth and breadth of NJ's US Attorney's office warrantless monitoring program. Per Ms. Crump, "NJ is being more aggressive than essentially any other state we could find in using this tracking technology"
Why is this such a big deal? Well, according to Ms. Crump (link to DOJ Reply to ACLU request here as well): "Tracking the location of people's cell phones reveals intimate details of their daily routines and is highly invasive of their privacy," Crump said. "The government is violating the Constitution when it fails to get a search warrant before tracking people this way."
On the show last night, Crump also revealed that the warrantless monitoring of cell phones can provide information related to when someone leaves for work, what time they get home, what friends they are visiting as well as other habits and associations.
On top of all of the other questions that Christie's supposed responses, reactions and justifications for this program, it creates some very serious questions as to his view of the law when it applies to his own actions.
Why was Christie stonewalling the ACLU on their Freedom of Information Act request, even after his office was sued? Why was this information still withheld even after there was a court order to provide such information? And why did Christie's office indicate that there was absolutely no documentation about a program that Christie revealed just recently to be something that he not only knew about, but gave conflicting answers on what groups or individuals he was monitoring without a warrant?
And how can Chris Christie still claim to be taking the high road and having respect for the rule of law when time after time after time shows how he has used his connections and office to step right up to the line of stretching the law. There are too many coincidences - whether it is this, the no-bid contracts, the way he was on and off the US Attorney firing list or his brother's non-indictment - and a clear pattern of abuse has developed.
Was he lying then, or is he lying now? And if he wasn't (or isn't) lying, then how does he explain his knowledge of this widespread practice going on within his office at a time when his office was denying that any record of this widely utilized program even existed? |
