MO paper: Christie is the problem, not Ashcroft

by: Juan Melli

Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:29:42 PM EDT

The Columbia Daily Tribune says their former governor John Ashcroft is taking part in a shady deal, but that US Attorney Chris Christie - not Ashcroft - is the one who owes the Justice Department some answers.

I like John Ashcroft and have supported him often during his political career, but now he is involved in a sweetheart Washington deal that raises serious questions.
Ashcroft's firm was chosen by a U.S. attorney who formerly worked for Ashcroft in the attorney general's office. [...] The contract was awarded with no public disclosure or bidding.
It would be hard to concoct a deal with more obvious conflicts of interest. [...]
The real culprit here is not Ashcroft...In this case U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie made a deal that reeks of conflict and excessive money. Ashcroft is the happy beneficiary, but he is not one of the officials who approved the deal. He huffs and puffs before the committee because he wants the deal to stand. Who can blame him? The Democrats on the committee no doubt savor their juicy target, the former controversial attorney general, but they should look beyond Ashcroft into the actions of Christie, who so sweetly engineered the deal. He could have shopped more diligently for a contractor or designed a more modest payment schedule. If anyone must justify the deal with Ashcroft, it is Christie, not Ashcroft.

Juan Melli :: MO paper: Christie is the problem, not Ashcroft

Tags: John Ashcroft, Chris Christie, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

MO paper: Christie is the problem, not Ashcroft | 5 comments

Well said (0.00 / 0)

I would agree that Christie is the one who needs to answer for the deal.

by: Jason Springer @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 18:00:55 PM UTC

The NY Times agrees (0.00 / 0)

The Times (3/15. editorial) calls for Mr. Christie to appear:

"Congress should now insist on hearing directly from Mr. Christie, who knows better than anyone why Mr. Ashcroft got the contract."

by: rustycat @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 18:08:20 PM UTC

they'd love to question Christie (0.00 / 0)

but he's hiding behind the cloth Ashcroft draped over Juctice's boobs.

by: huntsu @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 19:36:49 PM UTC

'obvious conflict of interest' (0.00 / 0)

Yes, I agree, the deal reeks of favoritism and political payback. But I fail to see the 'obvious conflict of interest', Christie doesn't benefit personally in any way, shape, or form, as such, he has no interest, correct?
Take him to task for his selection process, determine what criterion (if any) were used to select Ashcroft's firm..etc. But there is no conflict of interest here unless Ashcroft's firm turns around in the future and funds some future Christie political campaign. But until that happens, no conflict.
(maybe I'm arguing semantics, but the Ed. Board should know better, right?)
Or did I miss some benefit that Christie secured through this selection?

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

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 00:08:18 AM UTC

Christie is the Problem (0.00 / 0)

I am covering all bets on this question: Whether or not sometime in the Late Winter/Early Spring of 2009, Chris Christie gets a well-paying job with John Ashcroft's firm. Hey no conflict of interest here...right....nothing to see....just keep moving....

by: martcofmaplewood @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:13:07 AM UTC