Chris Christie's Investigations Since 2002

Extremely impressive (0.00 / 0)

This excellent research proves that the man only does one thing. He fights corruption in any form and without bias.

I hope this puts to rest many of the questions regarding Mr. Christie's character and motives.

With Christie on the job at least there is hope !

---

by: firstamend07 @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 09:38:04 AM CDT

Re: Extremely impressive (0.00 / 0)

firstamend:

You are one day late with your April Fools joke.

Otherwise, not bad.

---

by: Poly @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:26:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Christie an Unbiased Corruption Fighter???? (0.00 / 0)

These statistics have no bearing whatsoever on Christie's character. As to his motives, they do prove that he is more interested in investigating Democrats than he is in investigating Republicans even though he achieves a 72% conviction rate of Republicans and only a 39% conviction rate of Democrats. This excellent research does indeed prove one thing and that is that he goes after Democrats as much as possible and Republicans only when he has to.
Anyone who thinks these statistics exonerate or extol Christie may be in great denial or is really only interested in issuing propaganda for Republicans.
Has Juan checked any IP addresses lately?

---

by: billbrown201 @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:28:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

lets take a look under the hood (0.00 / 0)

The US AG scandal warrants a look under the hood as Senator Lautenberg so aptly said. If the criteria for US Attorneys was "loyal Bushies" what is Christie up to? There is smoke here it is not unreasonable to check for fire.

---

by: Ann R @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 10:46:06 AM CDT

When exactly was it ...? (0.00 / 0)

When was it that Gonzo & Co. started examining Iglesias, Lamm, etc?  We need a timeline like the ones Cooperative Research www.cooperativeresearch.org is so good at. 

Because I notice something interesting in your data, huntsu. 

As of the week Christie decided to beat the clock with an election-timed subpoena of records on that nonprofit Menendez rented to -- apparently for the express purpose that Christie's office could "leak" the lie -- er, "inaccuracy," as Sen. Orrin Hatch would say -- that "Menendez was under federal investigation," .... well, check what happens to the numbers on D v R under investigation from September 2005 on.

Interesting, huh?  Only 3 Republicans compared with 53 or so (I lost count) Democrats, not counting each Assembly office. 

What's the % on R/D since 9/05?

And, the set of Republicans immediately before 9/05 are  Operation Bid Rig, which was half investigated before Christie showed up and account for about 1/3 of Christie's GOP notches in one swoop.  Did Bid Rig tick off some partisan to make such a drastic change in direction from that single grand jury onward?

Now, go back up just a little before Bid Rig and there's John Bennett -- what do you know! -- the guy Christie just let off the hook last week despite the public records showing Bennett's billing fraud -- er, innocent double billings -- against the taxpayers of Monmouth County.  Did Bennett ever give that stolen -- er, sorry Orrin Hatch, "inaccurate" -- money back? Penalties and interest? I wonder.

Huntsu, this is a fabulous piece of data reporting. Thank you!

---

by: anonymous3 @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 19:25:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Question (0.00 / 0)

The Patterson Housing folks, where was their party affiliation IDed?  I didn't see it in the Record. 

---

by: rmfretz @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:37:56 AM CDT

By location and job (0.00 / 0)

Most of these we found linked in stories, but the ones from Patterson we assumed were D because of the town is so Democratic and the strong aspect of patronage.  Either way, I'm glad they got caught. 

---

by: huntsu @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 18:21:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Forgot to say ... (0.00 / 0)

This is a rough draft of our document, and there may be mistakes or bad assumptions.  If anyone can find a bad affiliation (I found two in the last few days that I had to change) or wants to dispute something listed, I am happy to make the change.

I want to get this to be clean as a whistle and as accurate as possible.

---

by: huntsu @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 18:24:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Twisting Statistics. (0.00 / 1)

It's amazing how far some liberals will go to manufacture a point-of-view!

So what can we say about this unbiased analysis of Christie's tenure as US Attorney?

* That more Democrats were investigated because more Democrats hold elected office than Republicans?

That number (# of elected Democrats versus Republicans) is not mentioned or seemingly relevant to the author.

I wonder why?

Mr. Christie's conviction rate of Democrats is 39% versus a 72% conviction rate of Republicans. That piece of information was conviently missing as well.

In other words, Mr. Christie is convicting Republicans at a higher rate of success than Democrats! I guess that makes him.....successful in his job?

In a state that is overwhelmingly Democratic, to suggest because more Democrats have been investigated is absurd. Grand juries hand down indictments. Grand juries decide who is put on trial and how tax dollars are expended on the prosecution of public officials. Most voters are Democrats.

Liberals lose all sense of reality as they try to construct conspiracy theories such as these.

Let me give you a better example.

If you were the Hudson County or Essex County Prosecutor and you were investigating public corruption, you would be investigating elected Democrats probably 90% of the time since few Republicans hold public office in either county. Does that suggest a bias?

Do you see how ridiculous this whole exercise has become?

It's really insulting to even the most partisan of Democrats.

---

by: BigDaddyDem @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 12:00:52 PM CDT

statistics (0.00 / 0)

That more Democrats were investigated because more Democrats hold elected office than Republicans?

That number (# of elected Democrats versus Republicans) is not mentioned or seemingly relevant to the author.

Do you know how many Democrats and Republicans there are in elected office in the entire state (and non-partisan offices, too)? We're trying to find out, but don't know yet. Please share whatever information you have. Thanks in advance.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 12:06:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The conviction rate statistic you cite... (0.00 / 0)

...doesn't support your point.  In fact it hurts it.

That statistic actually supports the claim that Christie goes after Republicans only when the case is a "slam dunk", while pursuing Democrats even when the case is very weak.

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 13:45:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Conviction rate. (0.00 / 1)

Christie has an overall conviction rate of about 55%. The ability to prosecute is based on garnering indictments.

The real issue is how many investigations lead to indictments?

Is he on fishing expeditions or are these grand juries securing indictments?

Seems to me he is getting the indictments.

How many elected officials in New Jersey?

There are about 500 plus municipalities. I would estimate about 3,500 local officials. Another 250 elected county officials and 120 members of the legislature, the governor, the US Seantors and thirteen members of Congress for roughly 3,900 elected officials not including school trustees (which would be another 4,000) for about nearly 8,000 elected officials of which Christie has prosecuted less than 200?

Hardly a witch hunt by any standard....

To get the exact amount of elected officials, you need to contact the following organizations:

* League of Muncipalities

* NJ School Boards Associations

* NJ Association of Counties

* NJ Legislature

* US Congress

* Office of the Governor

---

by: BigDaddyDem @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 15:16:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Huh? (0.00 / 0)

He has an overall conviction rate of 55%?  What does that mean?  He has convicted or gotten a guilty plea on everyone he's sought an indictment for (who didn't die), so that would be 100%. 

But with fewer than 70 convictions and more than 150 people investigated I don't know where you came up with 55%. 

As for the checks of party affiliation we did review all county, state and federal positions and it comes to 58% Democratic and 42% Republican.  That includes Freeholders, county Constitutional officers, other county electeds, state Assembly and Senate, the House of Reps, the US Senate, and the Governor.

All school board elections are non-partisan, so I don't think including those or fire districts would really help.

If anyone wants to kick in some time doing municipal officials, we'd love the help.  Though the job is so complex and fluid that it may not be worth it.

---

by: huntsu @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 18:30:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A Couple More Things (0.00 / 0)

None of those orgs have a breakdown of all officials by partisan affiliation.  We know how to get their names.

Next, please don't exagerate out claims regarding Christie.  It's not that he is on a witchhunt, or indicting people who aren't crooks.  It's that he appears -- and we have certainly not proven it yet even to my satisfaction -- to use the publicity endemic to his office to affect the outcome of elections.

We're not saying he's trying to destroy the Democrats in NJ, or to take down the Governor to insert his party's standard bearer.

But it is interesting when he throws a ton of subpoenas at Dems for a year (note how few recent Reps there are) and then goes on a speaking tour calling on people to throw the rascals out.  Who do you think people will think the rascals are after he's been papering the Democratic leaders of the state?

It's not massive, it's not pervasive, but at the least there is an appearance of an issue here.  Trying to shut it down before we have completed our investigation just makes no sense.

---

by: huntsu @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 18:35:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

More straw men. (0.00 / 0)

Nobody said there was a widespread witch hunt.  Just because he is more willing to investigate Democrats than Republicans doesn't at all imply witch hunt.  But thanks for dodging my point.

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 23:47:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wasn't Aware of Any Twisting ... (0.00 / 0)

BDD -- since this comment is a direct reply to my post, I assume you are suggesting that it contains some twisting.  It's just numbers with no interpretation at all. 

Some folks in comments have done some stuff, but you should stop assuming things that aren't said. 

I challenge you to actually come along for this ride with an open mind.  You might learn something if not about Christie than about how we're doing the research and whether we are being straightforward about it or not.

---

by: huntsu @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 18:26:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Party Affiliation Break-down (0.00 / 0)

if you solicit counties and the legislative leadership in both parties, often times they can provide a list.  I know Bergen County has an official handbook with all elected officials from municipal to federal with affiliation and contact.

"That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be-it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be." -Saul Alinsky

---

by: BlueBergen @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 20:01:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just the numbers (0.00 / 0)

As was said, these are just numbers.

The numbers say one thing to me.

Christie is fighting corruption and he is doing one hell of a job.

Those who are interpreting these numbers for their own partisan " anti-Christie" purposes should just step back and understand that this guy is wearing the White Hat.

The numbers say one thing to me, " Good job!"

 

---

by: firstamend07 @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 05:45:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Then firstamend07: (0.00 / 0)

You MUST be worrying about why Christie opted not to pursue getting an indictment against former primary GOP state power broker John Bennett, right?

You are so ambitious in crime-busting that you must have found that odd that Christie just dropped the ball on that big fish despite hard facts on public record that he knowingly double billed Monmouth County to collect the tune of $7.1 million over, what?, 8, 10 years and tried to lie about it.  He could have cleaned up NJ of one more, right?  The least he could have done was take the evidence he had to a grand jury to decide -- was it you or someone else that said, hey, he doesn't decide, the grand jury looks at the facts and ...?

I'll bet you don't answer this one, or if you do you'll red herring it instead of a simple yes/no.

---

by: anonymous3 @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 07:19:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not a lawyer here...but... (0.00 / 0)

Isn't it possible that although we 'know' that John Bennet double billed, it's impossible or difficult to prove he did so with malice?
I'm not defending John Bennet. But it struck me as equally obvious when Jim McGreevey was taped saying Machivelli as a code word to Mark Halper. The whole world knew at that moment that the ED case on the Halper farm was rigged, and eveyone from Jim McGreevey down to the person who made the improved buyout offer was crooked, but no one was prosecuted there either.
All I'm saying is that it seems it's not quite black and white who is able to be prosecuted and who is not, regardless of whether or not we KNOW they are guilty.

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

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 08:39:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

not to defend John Bennett ... (0.00 / 0)

Not to defend John Bennett (a nauseating thought if there ever was one...), but he was the municipal attorney for Marlboro Township (not the county) and the double billing was for an amount around $10,000 (not over 7 million). More significant was his re-codification scam, under which he billed the town at his hourly rate ($150) for reviewing the town's municipal code, while the work was either out-sourced to a less expensive lawyer ($60/hr, with Bennett pocketing the difference), or not performed at all - that little project cost the town well over $100,000 and IIRC, the work had to be completely scrapped and begun again once Bennett stepped down. (For example, see http://orig.app.com/...)

---

by: lilybart @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:38:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The full picture on Bennett (0.00 / 0)

Lilybart, your information on Bennett is just a small portion.  I'm no expert, but check this source report: http://orig.app.com/...

Marlboro was just one of many towns as well as many Monmouth County agencies he worked for.  All totaled with his state salaries and pensions, he raked in $7.1 million in salary and billings -- including double billing and  billing for work the newspaper found never was done (quite like a "no-show job," wouldn't you say?) -- from taxpayers in just 10 years.

He double dipped so much on the books, outside of the contracted legal fees of $5+ million, that he planned to be eligible for a pension of $100,000 a year from taxes on OUR wages to take care of him in high style the rest of his life.

He also got jobs for his family and friends using his position of power.  If you read through that link I cited above, you'll see he brags about all this, says it was all his deliberate strategy to pad a good pension and he was "legal" (said nothing about moral, ethical or a good public servant, though).

In comparison, the "evil" Sen. Bryant's terrible scam to pad his pension entitles him to $81,000 pension, almost $20,000 less than Bennett if public resentment hadn't forced him out of the Senate before he raked in the full $100 g.

Bryant gets indicted and banner headlines today posing the 150-year jail term possible, or some such thing, while Christie decided not to let a grand jury even look at Bennett. 

The scandals seem comparable to me.  Granted, I don't like one any better than the other, but what am I missing about the disparity of justice here?

When I compare the facts of each case, I'm having trouble not seeing Christie as partisan.

---

by: anonymous3 @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 20:55:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If it is OK with Christie...... (0.00 / 0)

It appears that in the " case" against Bennett you have become the prosecutor, the judge , and the jury !

Chris Christie's record speaks for itself. If Bennett was not indicted there must be a reason.

Sorry, but I will take the judgement of C.C. over your judgement.

As I search the Web far and wide you very well might be the biggest Christie detractor in the State.

Give it up. Give the guy his due. You are losing your credibility on this one. 

---

by: firstamend07 @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 16:18:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Losing credibility? (0.00 / 0)

Look, I have no problem with Christie not busting Bennett.  I'm pretty sure that the case was either not provable or wasn't a federal violation.  Hell, it may have just been a mistake.

But Bennett is, for me, beside the point.  Busting him at this point doesn't really matter one way or the other because he has already lost his legislative seat and a lot of work.

I think, however, you need to look to your own credibility, however.  Anyone reading the things we've put out in the past few weeks -- not this post above but the others -- has to admit that there is smoke even if there is no fire.

By 100% refusing to admit the possibility that Christie has stepped over the line, you take a position that is not really tenable. 

I don't know if I will be able to demonstrate that Christie has stepped over the line.  It's entirely possible I won't even convince myself of this.  But I am willing to go through it, and I need you and our other readers' honest help in making sure my data is accurate and my conclusions are not idiotic.

But, frankly, since you have a slavish devotion to defending Christie I just don't trust your judgment on this.  I also worry about people who are 100% opposed to him.  This issue is shades of gray, and it is only though actually working the facts and timelines through that we will be able to come to a real conclusion.

We can disagree on this, but no one who has reached Christie's level is as pure as the driven snow.  Backing him 100% simply isn't reasonable, even if you think what he is doing more than makes up for any smoke that is out there.

---

by: huntsu @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 17:43:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fair (0.00 / 0)

Your research is extensive. The research does need to be talked about. Everyone can draw a conclusion.

I look at the numbers as a way to defend Christie, others look at the numbers and want to denigrate him.

Then there are a few who have a partisan  agenda , and to those few the numbers are meaningless.

Maybe you are on to something, maybe not. You must now follow your insticts to see if smoke and fire go together.

Good luck.

 

---

by: firstamend07 @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 19:16:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

firstamend, you say.... (0.00 / 0)

"It appears that in the " case" against Bennett you have become the prosecutor, the judge , and the jury !"

No one here.  The only person I see taking it upon himself to be judge and jury is Christie when he opted not to even present the evidence to a grand jury to decide.

It could be that he knows something that would have prevented successful prosecution, but I haven't heard or read about him citing such a point.  Since you seem to have so much Christie knowledge, firstamend, perhaps you can fill me in on why he let this big fish off the hook.

---

by: anonymous3 @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 21:11:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's not that clear (0.00 / 0)

Again, I want to point out that we are not trying to demonstrate that Christie is putting all the weight of his office behind destroying Democrats and supporting Republicans.  That's ridiculous on its face, and easy to disprove.

But there is a pattern emerging through these various pieces of research we are doing that indicate the office is impacting elections and doing so far more in one direction than the other.

So far we haven't gone through all these numbers yet, and they may demonstrate what you say.

But you have to look deeper than the surface of the pond.  A beautiful, still pond at the top tells you nothing about the flora and fauna and much underneath.  You actually have to do research and not just a cursory look.

---

by: huntsu @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 09:14:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

you go, huntsu! (0.00 / 0)

If you don't already have a Ph.D., this research should get you one.  Bravo!

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

---

by: DottieG @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:55:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]