What Would Chris Christie Do?

Coordinated response from DOJ (1.00 / 1)

Understandably, this is going to have to be a coordinated response from the Justice Department. The deferred prosecution agreement is not a Christie policy but a Dept. of Justice policy. So the DOJ must coordinate their response in the manner they see fit.

Personally, I think these deferred prosecution agreements stink. They should be discontinued. I prefer to see investigations, indictments and convictions. I don't want to defer a thing. I say prosecute, prosecute, prosecute.

I hope our outstanding Congressman Frank Pallone kills the whole deferred prosecution program. Or at the very least, institutes extensive reforms.

As Nick Acocella of Poltifax said on the NJN Reporter's Roundtable TV show last Sunday, "Christie did not break any laws", when implementing this stupid deferred prosecution agreement. If there is a problem here, it is the law itself, not the U.S. Attorney.

I have already questioned what the heck the greedy Ashcroft firm is supposed to do for a whopping $27 million to $52 million? That's a lot of monitoring. Ashcroft deserve's a swift kick in the panse for his greed.

---

by: TerryMalloy-OnTheWaterfront @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:21:05 AM UTC

More Concern Troll Bullshit/Spin (4.00 / 2)

All you're doing is deflecting blame/responsibility/accountability from your corrupt de facto patron Chris Christie by pretending to have "concern" for related wrongdoing that can be attributed elsewhere.    That's exactly what a concern troll does.

The only question is whether you're a professional paid troll or an amateur fanatic.

If you're being paid; Juan should sue you for stealing ad revenues from the site.  Your employers should just pay Juan directly for the space to defend Christie from Huntsu's spotlight of truth and common sense......better yet; they should issue a press release defending Christie which I'm sure we would all enjoy reading!

If you're not being paid; you should simply fess up and admit that you're not really a lifelong progressive Democrat; but rather a fan of Christie.  

Meanwhile, your lying fraudulent MO has been busted for quite a while.

BTW Your above  "substantive" defense of Christie for evading Congressional hearings like a common criminal is so pathetic on it's face; there's no need to rebut it.  

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:33:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, no (0.00 / 0)

As the USA for NJ, Christie should be well aware of what DOJ policy is regarding deferred prosecution.

The need to "coordinate" a response implies that USA's don't know it, don't understand it or use it to suit their own ends.  To borrow a line from DBK, it smells fishy.

Assuming, arguendo, that Christie both knew and understood the DOJ policy, he made a blatant mockery of it with the Ashcroft settlement terms.

Settling a case is not always bad.  Each side has to determine its long term goal.  Included in that calculation are the questions:

What is the best way to stop bad behavior?

Is it worth it to incur the horrendous costs of litigation when the outcome, no matter what the evidence, is always a matter of chance?  (Exclude GITMO here, but include OJ.)

I could be very wrong here but the UMD (You Might Die) settlement seems to be working.  Pile on here, folks; I'm on shakey ground.

That does not mean that deferred prosecution is a good way to resolve a case.  At the very least, it needs to be reworked as a policy.  Perhaps, as Rep. Pallone says, it should be killed.

Here's a bit of advice on your prose: cut out the adulatory adjectives, whether you use them to describe Christie, Menendez, or the "outstanding Congressman Frank Pallone."

People will pay more attention to your arguments.  After all, a "coordinated response from DOJ" has its adherents - I'm just not one of them.

---

by: SmartyJones @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:47:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

UMD Settlement (0.00 / 0)

The UMD settlement appears to be working, but that's not the issue.

This settlement with Zimmer and Ashcroft may work as well.

The question is whether the decision to award the contract to Ashcroft had any strings, either expected or delineated.  

As I note below, the Coniglio plumbing contract was legal by itself.  From what I understand the work was completed as well so it was working.

But Coniglio got the contract, it is alleged, not for the work but for the use of his public position to help the hospital.

As for whether a settlement is better than a court case, I actually have a definitive view on that.  

These settlements appear to be focused entirely on the corporation, and absolve the executives of any wrongdoing.  That is completely wrong.

It was not the corporation that conceived and carried through with illegal activities, but the executives.

If the execs get off scott free, including having their defenses and penalties paid for by the corporation, then this is ridiculous.

I don't mind settlements, but the guilty shouldn't get to keep their jobs and have no penalties.

---

by: huntsu @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 13:34:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd have to agree... (0.00 / 0)

It would be nice to hold the actual people who made decisions to break the law, responsible. However, each corporation does bear responsiblity for oversight of its officers. I think it's often difficult to prove in a court that executives broke the law of their own volition.
That said, I think deferred prosecution does have its place, there are certain times and places where prosecuting a firm out of existence is not in the public interest.

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

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 14:28:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think we (0.00 / 0)

both can agree with huntsu on the main point:

Its not that deferred prosecution is per se bad; its the abuse of the process that is problematic.

The question becomes, "What is the quid pro quo for awarding the contract?

Personally, I am also mildly outraged at the amount of money Ashcroft & Co will earn.  Of course, compensation should be determined by experience and ability, but its difficult to believe that the firm is that good.

Hell, give the contract to me. I know enough lawyers, accountants and business people to put together a team that would more than adequately monitor the settlement.  And, I have no money, no political contacts, no ability to "pay back" Christie.  Ergo, no conflict of interest.

---

by: SmartyJones @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 14:53:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree there too... (0.00 / 0)

I remember going back a couple years an NJ blogger (NJ Justice, maybe?) who wrote some things I thought were outrageous. Specifically, he defended Charles Kushner in a post.
But he also wrote that Chrisie awarding the UMDNJ monitoring contact to Howard Stern was a big winfall. At the time, I didn't give it much credence (given the Kushner defense posting), but this issue has been around for some time and plainly is ripe for abuse, it should be addressed in some fashion. But I do think deferred prosecution has a place somewhere in the solution.

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

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 16:44:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Would you believe... (0.00 / 0)

I found the blog and one of the posts....
http://newjerseyjustice.blogsp...

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

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 16:47:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reading the blog again... (0.00 / 0)

Two things are clear.
This guy defended Kushner in a lot of posts... but he also brings up many of the same things Huntsu has about Christie...
Huntsu, were you formally BlackJack?

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

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 16:53:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Finally, (0.00 / 0)

we get to disagree.  I went to the blog and thought the post was pretty good.

I didn't come away with the sense that BlackJack was defending Kushner but rather, s/he was going after Tom Moran for sloppy journalism.

Lazy reporting becomes that much easier when the target is someone like Kushner, whose actions are  hard to defend under any circumstances.

Just MHO.

---

by: SmartyJones @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 17:26:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

nope, never blackjack (0.00 / 0)

---

by: huntsu @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 20:01:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not the issue ... (0.00 / 0)

Let's say Christie did nothing wrong.  It is still the job of Congress to provide oversight and review.

In a much earlier post I asked who polices the police.  In this case, it is the House Judiciary.

If Christie decides to investigate an innocent person not knowing that he was innocent, that person is still obligated to cooperate and provide information to the USA.

That is what the DoJ, Christie and Ashcroft are delaying and avoiding.

But as always, behavior that in a local elected official or legislator is evidence of corruption is considered upstanding and righteous for Christie.

As for whether Christie did anything wrong, we don't know if he did or didn't.  The simple award of the contract to Ashcroft was not illegal in itself.

Of course, the contract Coniglio had with the hospital was not illegal in itself.

For Congilio, there was a quid pro quo that made the contract award illegal.

We're just looking to find out if there was any favoritism in the Ashcroft award.

And "Look away, nothing to see here!  Trust me." is not a defense even for an innocent man.

---

by: huntsu @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 13:27:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Subpoenas, anyone? n/t (0.00 / 0)

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:18:54 AM UTC