The Star Ledger has an editorial today looking at some of the recent Christie news and what it means for his image:
A high horse is a difficult thing to ride, as Chris Christie is finding out. After building his image as a white knight rescuing New Jersey from the dragon of corruption, Christie is showing some gaps in his armor.
The editorial says that the current loan controversy may well blow over, but they believe that the larger issue for Chris Christie is the politicization of his office and communications with Karl Rove along with the further questions those communications raise:
Of more concern is the disclosure that, while New Jersey's top federal prosecutor, Christie spoke with Karl Rove, political guru to George W. Bush.
Christie says they never discussed legal cases; Rove says they talked about Christie's interest in running for governor. That raises questions about whether Christie took steps toward a campaign while still U.S. Attorney, in possible violation of the Hatch Act.
There's no legitimate reason for Christie -- or any U.S. Attorney -- to have spoken with Rove. While at the White House, Rove bulldozed the wall between the Justice Department and politics, rating U.S. Attorneys for "loyalty" and pushing to fire some who wouldn't mount politically motivated prosecutions. This has given new life to Democrats' claims that Christie unfairly subpoenaed U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) during his 2006 election campaign in a probe that did not result in charges.
The Christie campaign wants people to believe that these were just casual conversations, but the editorial drives home the point that no explanation by Christie serves as a legitimate reason to talk to Karl Rove.
But might Christie discussed running for Governor with Rove even earlier? From a 2003 NYT profile of Christie:
Unlike some United States attorneys who prefer to cultivate an apolitical image, Mr. Christie remains a die-hard Bush supporter, with photographs of the president prominently placed in his office. One shot from the Texas governor's mansion shows Mr. Christie with Mr. Bush in front of a painting of the last stand at the Alamo. Mr. Christie noted that the photo was taken by Mr. Bush's omnipresent political adviser, Karl Rove.
The whole Christie-Bush-Rove photo session sounds so adorable, but the question of whether or not they discussed a bid for Governor or his duties as U.S. attorney is more important, because, as the the New Jersey Star Ledger writes, "Christie had been attracting buzz as a promising GOP candidate since 2003."
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) asked the Office of the Special Counsel ("OSC") to investigate whether former United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey Chris Christie violated the Hatch Act by discussing a run for Governor of New Jersey with then-White House official Karl Rove while he was still the U.S. Attorney.
And their Executive Director was pretty blunt in her assessment:
CREW executive director Melanie Sloan stated, "The Hatch Act is intended to ensure federal employees do their jobs without regard to partisan politics. Mr. Christie's actions call into question whether the New Jersey U.S. Attorney's Office investigated and prosecuted cases based on application of the law to the facts, or because certain prosecutions might have enhanced his prospects of securing the Republican nomination for governor."
We had plenty of coverage of the Governor at Netroots Nation yesterday. Yesterday while there for the panel, he met with a group of progressive bloggers and sharply criticized Christie's discussions with Rove: (Via Think Progress)
It is hard to understand how a lawbreaker gets the reputation of being the king of law enforcement, and uses that as a platform. It's the Hatch Act.
This is how you want to arrive at Netroots Nation - the former Yearly Kos - the now-massive annual mojo-booster for progressive political blogger titans and titans-to-be. Clammyc - oh, hell, let's just call him Adam - and I rolled in this afternoon, and promptly started drinking, and connecting up.
And it's a buzzy night here right now. New Jersey is on the front page of DailyKos, in a great diary by Jake McIntyre: NJ-Gov: The Other Shoe Dropping for Christie. So ... Chris Christie's got a little Karl Rove problem. Please go read it, add your own New Jersey-flavored comment, and then shoot that bad boy to 10 of your bestest friends. Especially the ones leaning toward Christie.
It's important to understand what the stakes are here: Karl Rove, Republican strategist, architect of the Bush White House, and pit bull for the man who appointed Christie the US Attorney, said on the record to the House Judiciary Committee July 7, 2009, that he spoke to Christie several times over several years. That is, apparently, while he was United States Attorney. US Attorneys are barred by the United States Justice Dept. from engaging in partisan politics while in office. It's a safeguard to avoid undue influence, impropriety, even the appearance of impropriety. Given that Christie is running on his record as USA, a violation of the Hatch Act further soils his credibility.
Word spreads fast here in Pittsburgh. I just walked through the lobby and got high-fived by five people. Everybody knows Jon Corzine is coming to Netroots Nation Saturday. He'll be here to talk economy, but the buzz has already started that the truth will out when it comes to what Chris Christie doesn't want voters to know about. Christie was George Bush's hand-picked - and now we find out, hand-fed - man in the Garden State.
It's no secret that Blue Jersey has had our eye on Chris Christie for many years. Much of that work was led by the efforts of huntsu, whose work exposing the real Christie was years before it's time. Take a look at what huntsu said in April of 2007 after Christie announced a speaking tour:
Clearly for someone covered by the Hatch Act, which prohibits certain federal employees from engaging in politics, this speaking tour is patently unethical and should be stopped immediately.
Often the "appearance of impropriety" is enough to generate an investigation of a public official by a prosecutor. Given how he got the job, how his investigation and conviction rates have changed, and his public speaking tour there is no way anyone can say that there is no appearance any longer.
Now at the time, Christie would have said that anyone suggesting any violations was just playing pure politics. But given the revelations in the House Judiciary Documents that Karl Rove and Chris Christie spoke about Christie running for Governor while he was US Attorney, those questions raised by huntsu and the Hatch act become that much more relevant:
Guidelines spelled out in the Hatch Act prohibit federal employees organizing political meetings or assembling campaign staff. The prohibitions also apply to preliminary political activities that set a candidacy in motion, said Erica Hamrick, deputy chief of the Hatch Act Unit in the Office of Special Counsel in Washington.
"Any kind of preliminary activity that leads to formally becoming a candidate can be considered candidacy in terms of the Hatch Act and would be in violation," said Hamrick.
Preliminary activity, such as having discussions years before you announce your candidacy and sending people to campaign for you at your party's national convention? Leading to formally becoming a candidate, such as the campaign Christie is running right now? Add those two up and you get a violation of the Hatch Act and that's not huntsu saying it, that's the Office of Special Counsel. Again I'll ask, who was playing politics again? The people who questioned Christie's actions and motives, or the man himself who was carrying them out?
Updated by Jason: It looks like Thurman Hart was ahead of his time as well and he got Christie on the record too back in December of 2008 after Christie quickly announced his resignation:
It was alleged that Mr. Christie engaged in these preliminary activities regarding a candidacy for Governor of New Jersey while still employed as a United States Attorney.
Allegations such as those described above ordinarily would trigger an investigation by OSC and, if the facts warranted, a recommendation to the President of the United States for disciplinary action. However, because Mr. Christie is no longer a federal employee, OSC would be unable to obtain meaningful disciplinary action against him, even if our investigation were to substantiate the allegations described above. Consequently, we have decided not to inquire further into those allegations and have closed our file in this matter.
So, the allegations - which were simply reports from New Jersey media sources - that Chris Christie was, in fact, running a shadow campaign for Governor while still a US Attorney cannot be pursued because Christie no longer is a US Attorney. I am notified of this barely ten working days after Christie's resignation becomes effective. So which came first - the phone call notifying Christie that he would be investigated for Hatch Act violations or his "decision" to abandon his job at an inopportune time (nice to do Christmas without a paycheck, don't ya know) and in a hurried manner?
In their own response, they practically admit that if the information available now was known then, it would constitute an investigation and possible disciplinary action.
On November 18th, Chris Christie dropped a minor bombshell - he said he would give up his US Attorney seat effective December 1. This is strange timing - and incredibly fast - for a US Attorney to turn over his office.
As for the time-line - it's barely two weeks, and one of those weeks is Thanksgiving. Anyone who has been around a government office on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving knows that there are only two work days that week. So we are talking about roughly seven work days to turn over the entire US Attorney's office. That's fast. Even if you have an assistant that knows what's going on, that's fast. Consider for comparison that David Inglesias, who was fired, announced he would leave "in the next few months". Apparently, he expected it to take months, not weeks, to turn over the reins of his job. Why would Christie's job be any easier to turn over?
And the timing - sure it's good for the family to have Thanksgiving and Christmas, but what about the agency you are leaving? They get everything dumped on an assistant in December, then in January a new boss will come in and overhaul everything. Instead of a steady, slow transfer of power, you get two jerking, heaving movements within sixty days. And it's difficult not to notice that the list of NJ US Attorneys contains only one name of someone who filled the job because of the "Vacancy Reform Act". The current one. Now, to be fair, that law has only beeen effective since 1998 - but that means that neither Christie's predecessor, Robert Cleary, nor his predecessor, Faith Hochberg, left their office in such a lurch.
Why would Chris Christie do such a thing? Particularly if, as Christie's reputation would seem to say, he has such a stick in his butt for corruption and the investigation into Ferriero/BCDO - which has the potential to completely overhaul Jersey politics - is in its infancy? And why not hang around and get some credit for the terrorism trial of the Fort Dix terrorists? Let's be clear that jumping ship before the end of your term is not typical US Attorney behavior:
At least 54 U.S. attorneys appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate left office before completion of a four-year term between 1981 and 2006 (not counting those whose tenure was interrupted by a change in presidential administration). Of those 54, 17 left to become Article III federal judges, one left to become a federal magistrate judge, six left to serve in other positions in the executive branch, four sought elective office, two left to serve in state government, one died, and 15 left to enter or return to private practice.
Of the remaining eight U.S. attorneys who left before completing a four-year term without a change in presidential administration, two were apparently dismissed by the President, and three apparently resigned after news reports indicated they had
engaged in questionable personal actions. No information was available on the three remaining U.S. attorneys who resigned.
William Weber has asked an honest question about Blue Jersey's ongoing expose on Chris Christie's attempt to use his office to become the next Governor of New Jersey. The question is a very good one: When does a campaign actually begin?
The Hatch Act, itself, does not explain such details. It is literally impossible to write a law that would cover all the possibilities. Instead, the authority to investigate and issue rulings is given to the Office of Special Counsel. These rulings have the force of law, unless and until they are overruled by a court with appropriate jurisdiction.
After the jump, I'll look at what the OSC says about when elections begin.
A week and a half ago, we discovered that Jon Corzine's tin ear couldn't hear an ethical freight-train speeding towards him at full-tilt. Fortunately, the people with whom he deals are not quite so immune to the sound of good sense. We can now claim that this ethical crisis has been safely averted - but we have to ask if it should have even come up in the first place.
Think about it. You are the guy (or gal) who awards government contracts. One of the proposals has your boss's boss listed as one of the directors. Your boss's boss has donated millions to this potential contract - enough to have an endowed chair given his family name. Hell, he helped start the damn thing!
You feel lucky, punk? You want to test your boss's boss's ethics and see if you don't get fired for spurning his pet project? Go ahead. Make his day.
For the record, I don't think Corzine would be stupid enough to retaliate against someone for a bid proposal that he acts like he was totally unaware of existing. It isn't actually a question of Corzine's ethics. It isn't even a question of appearances. It's a question of why we would want to put our career civil servants in such a position.
Let's say that Paul Sarlo never exerted any influence in the decision to award his employer a nice fat state contract. Even if you believe it - and I'm totally neutral on the issue - then you have to admit it looks bad. Not only does it look bad, but it puts Paul Sarlo entirely dependent on someone else's ethics. Someone he doesn't even know is going to decide whether they feel pressured enough to allow his name to influence their decision.
That's a bad place to be. It's a stupid ethical trap to leave waiting to snare the unwary. It's time are legislators took action to remove the temptation from that mouse trap. It's time New Jersey passed a statewide Hatch Act to promote ethical awareness and prevent destructive partisan influences from destroying our civil servants.
