Did Christie use Dwek to get himself off "Rove's list"?

Monmouth County voters need to know (4.00 / 2)

This is info Monmouth County voters need to know.  Dwek burned alot of people there.

People in Monmouth have been crying for years for answers as to why prosecutors were not moving foreward on Dwek, and more importantly doing little to nothing to assure as much restitution when and if they did move foreward.

In short, people who could ill afford it lost bundles and bundles of money in Monmouth -- apparently to help fund Christie's sting.  That's the kind of disproportionate revenue scheme we can expect more of from Christie in Drumthwacket, too.

This is info they need to know about Christie, but dollars to donuts, their local paper the Asbury Park Press won't tell them -- and will pass right by this on its editorial endorsement.

Someone also should dig a little deeper into the role Sen. Joe Kyrillos may have played.  He's MonCo's current favored GOP powerhouse, very close Christie family friend, and, I think, a chair in Christie's gubernatorial campaign.

---

by: Jim33 @ Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:09:42 PM UTC

the one "hole" in this so far (0.00 / 0)

and a reason why I dropped it over the summer until now is that I don't know how we can find out what happened after he was busted to make/have him start bribing politicians in other areas of the state.


Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

---

by: Adam L @ Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:44:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

another Monmouth connection/"coincidence" (0.00 / 0)

Christie's first big public "splash" was the Operation Bid Rig sting operation, which largely hit Monmouth County municipalities and to a lesser degree, the county government. At that time, the Freeholder board was all Repubs, as was the county prosecutor and the county sheriff. The Bid Rig sting was an on-going investigation when Christie took over the USA's office, but was prematurely ended when law enforcement at the county level (can't rcall precisely if it was the prosecutor or sheriff's office) interfered and blew the cover of the informant, necessitating the shut down of the investigation and presumably keeping the notoriously corrupt Republican county government from further scrutiny.

I mentioned to Mr. Lilybart just yesterday how very coincidental it is that Christie's tenure as USA was book-ended by oddly truncated sting operations.

---

by: lilybart @ Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 15:35:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just spitballing here... (0.00 / 0)

but isn't it possible that Dwek was the only high profile developer with a reputation that fit the mold of the entirely necessary 'FBI Informant'?

You REALLY think he 'got off easy' because of a $500 contribution (to Bush's campaign, no less)?

It's a stetch from where I sit.

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 14:26:08 PM UTC

no, I think the contribution has little (0.00 / 0)

to do with it other than a very odd (and yet another) "coincidence".

I do think that all of the other things here gave Christie the opportunity to save himself from being fired and help himself politically in the future though.

Look at everything else - even without the contribution.

He is on the list in 2006.  He talks to Rove in 2006.  Dwek is busted in 2006 - around the same time.  Dwek wasn't involved in the political bribery end of things at all - so why was he made into an informant on what became a "new" initiative?  And why was most of this in areas of the state he wasn't previously involved in either?

And no, I don't think he was the only developer that fit the mold - but even so, this was pretty high level for him to get any break from the supposed "no-nonsense" Christie.

Ponzi schemes rip off unsuspecting people.  Bank fraud is pretty damn serious.  Money laundering - especially on an international level is really damn serious.


Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

---

by: Adam L @ Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 15:09:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd love to know... (4.00 / 1)

if they approached Kushner when they had him over a barrel.

But I don't think he was in quite as much trouble as Dwek.

But it would be interesting to know if he was approached about informant status as well.

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 16:25:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

that's a real good question (0.00 / 0)

although I'd bet the answer is "no".  Back then, seeing who WASN'T fired and why is probably just as important as who WAS fired.

Busting (even on trumped up charges like with Don Siegelman) Democrats was Rove's M.O. back then so it would seem like Kushner would have been one to "stick it to" as opposed to giving him the option to cooperate.  

What year was the Ashcroft no-bid deal?  If that was also 2006, then it was quite a year for Christie.  I may try to put together a timeline.

When was Kushner busted?

Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

---

by: Adam L @ Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 17:21:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I forget... (4.00 / 1)

But that was a different ballgame.... I think his brother in law went to the authorities when he tried to blackmail him...

(Point is, I don't think the genesis of the investigation was made by a government agency)

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 17:48:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What Christie said (4.00 / 2)

I once asked Chris Christie directly about his place on the firing list.  Based on his body language -- you know, like the way his eyes go off to the side when he's lying -- my take is that he was only marginally partisan before the summer of 2006.  I certainly think he stopped Bid Rig's work deliberately, but until 2006, I think he found legit reasons to peg such actions on, at least nominally.

I am pretty sure he was lying when he told me he had no idea he was on the firing list before it became public, after the '06 general election, if I remember right.  I'm pretty sure he knew at least that he had to fake the Menendez "federal investigation" for political propaganda to keep his job, even if he may not have known there was a formal "list."

But as of the revelation of the list and the new boss (Gonzales) who was even more partisan than his old boss (Ashcroft), Christie put his partisanship into super high gear.  Prior to this, he was allied with a couple of famously non-partisan career prosecutors high in the DoJ, but after this it appears he was brazenly all politics, all the time, and no longer had those relationships with career prosecutors.  

As Adam brilliantly points out, Christie's all-politics, all-the-time stance coincides with his meeting with Rove.  I think we're right to wonder if this meeting didn't violate alot more than just the Hatch Act.  It may have been the moment he sold his soul to the devil.

---

by: Jim33 @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 16:38:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, none (0.00 / 0)

I didn't think Dwek was really much of a developer.  He was running a Ponzi-type scheme primarily purchasing existing properties, not building, at least at the end.  I thought the intent was flipping, originally, but the mass of cash he ended up handling was too tempting for him and he was spending it, not paying his non-union labor, and also not making payments on real estate transactions that then ended up locked up in the criminal case and inaccessible to foreclosure.    With his prosecution stonewalled, they just kept losing money.

Because he had handled such large deals, the last bank cashed his rubber check for some incredible amount, and he was nabbed because his Ponzi gravy train ran out of track.

It makes no sense to any of us in Monmouth County why any of these people in the sting would have believed the ploy, if they knew who he was.  I've been wondering if these recordings show Dwek using his real name.  I haven't seen any report confirming this one way or the other.

That's my admittedly superficial take on it.

---

by: Jim33 @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 15:58:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You make an especially good point (3.00 / 1)

I passed by it on my first read, but you end with the most salient point, Adam.

Dwek wasn't a "cooperating witness."  Christie essentially bribed Dwek to work for him on an unrelated sting in exchange for some special treatment -- or at least deferment -- of his own criminal liabilities.  I don't think that's kosher in Justice, no pun intended.

And, as I said, the people paying the price for this were the Monmouth County property owners Dwek duped, because they lost fortunes while Christie kept Dwek's prosecution in limbo.

In short, these property owners made compulsory campaign contributions to Chris Christie, the way I see it.  I hope those victims are actively campaigning for Daggett or Corzine, but, being Monmouth County, they might not be bright enough to see that light.

---

by: Jim33 @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 16:13:09 PM UTC

that's real interesting (0.00 / 0)

how many people lost how much money because of this relationship.  Were there many, or was it all bribes for development that hadn't yet happened?


Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

---

by: Adam L @ Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 14:04:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dwek was a bigger (0.00 / 0)

contributor to Pallone ,and Menendez...so what does it all mean ?

---

by: speedkillsu @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 18:57:22 PM UTC

the contributions have little to do with it (0.00 / 0)

it is a curious item though - and obviously he didn't know that Christie was going to be the US attorney when he made the contribution.

But how about everything else written in this and the prior post instead of picking on one minor item and diverting attention?

Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

---

by: Adam L @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 18:59:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]