And so it is no surprise to many of us here - and most in the country by now- that Tom Ridge now reveals the Bush administration tried to force him to raise the country's terror alert level just in time for the 2004 Presidential election vote. Ridge, Bush's first Secretary of Homeland Security, describes mounting tension in the White House as Attorney General John Ashcroft and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld pushed him to do what was clearly politically expedient for a President facing re-election.
Ridge withstood that pressure and did not raise our terrorist threat level. He refused to play politics with our national security. And in fact, the following month he resigned. In Christie, I think we have someone considerably more willing to cooperate.
This is the way George Bush behaved as President. How he led. With Karl Rove firmly in command of our his direction and strategy, too many national decisions were made with political self-preservation at the fore.
These are the names that emerge in a picture of how a smart but inexperienced Freeholder, who could not get re-elected, kept his federal job when less-cooperative US Attorneys did not.
What price did we pay for Christie's loyalty to the Bush White House? What did Christie do for them, to keep his job? Or, is he such an unthinking partisan they didn't even need to pressure him? How did Chris Christie get off the list?
George Bush used the Department of Justice - Christie's workplace - to investigate hundreds of Democratic elected officials, at a rate of 7:1. They changed the electoral map, hauling in few of their own party. It's the way these people operate. It makes a person wonder what Christie knew about the timing of the July political corruption sweep. Were events shaped to help his political future?
UPDATE #2: It's over, and it was nearly four hours of testimony, some of it deeply contentious. Christie was on the hot seat, and he clearly didn't like that much. He did not last the entire session. Congressmen Bill Pascrell and Frank Pallone were ... simply outstanding. Argued the need for their own legisation, which calls for much greater transparency, and rules in place to avoid many of the abuses that were discussed and detailed in today's testimony. We will have the full video of today's proceedings, barring any glitches, up as soon as we can.
UPDATE: To get LIVE streaming video, go to the House Judiciary Committee website, and click the Watch Video Webcast button. Note: This will NOT work with Quick Time. You'll need Real Player.
Chris Christie is finally going to have to answer some questions today about his abuse of the Deferred Prosecution Agreements he arranged while he was United States Attorney for New Jersey, a post he held for seven years, resigning just months ago to run for Governor.
Today he appears before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, an appearance delayed from its original date this spring, so that he could avoid having to do so during the Republican Primary.
The most egregious of Christie's abuses include forking over a $52 million contract to the firm of John Ashcroft, his former boss at the Justice Department, though Ashcroft had no experience with DPA's. Ashcroft testified last year, but Christie declined to do so, shielding himself from it by allowing the Justice Department to send someone else.
There is also a deal in which it appears he offered a lucrative contract to former US Attorney David Kelley, who let Christie's brother off the hook in a stock fraud case in which 15 others were indicted.
We have no doubt Christie abused the process - largely secret - of awarding DPA's for his own political gain. Remember, that Justice Department employees - particularly those serving as US Attorney for the state jurisdictions - are to conduct themselves completely without politcal priority. And Chritie gave out seven no-bid, multi-million dollar contracts to his political friends and allies, including Herb Stern, another of Christie's mentors, like Mark Sanford is. John Inglesino, long-time friend of Christie's is a partner at Stern's firm and both are top fundraisers of Christie's campaign. Inglesino is also accused of trying to bribe Rick Merkt to drop out of the Republican primary for Governor, just weeks ago.
As he prepares to testify during a hearing of the House Judiciary subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law about deferred prosecution agreements he entered into as US Attorney, the AP is out tonight with a synopsis to help guide us:
, John Ashcroft. Christie's former U.S. Justice Department boss made $28 million to $52 million or more in 18 months for monitoring Zimmer Holdings, one of five medical device manufacturers accused of giving kickbacks to surgeons for using their replacement hips and knees.
, David Kelley. A former U.S. attorney in Manhattan, Kelley investigated a stock fraud case involving Christie's younger brother, Todd, but declined to prosecute him. Kelley was later picked to monitor Biomet Orthopedics Inc., another of the medical device makers.
, Bristol-Myers Squibb. A $300 million fraud settlement Christie negotiated with the New York company included a provision that Bristol-Myers endow a professorship at Seton Hall Law School, his alma mater. The U.S. Justice Department subsequently issued guidelines barring such requirements as part of out-of-court corporate crime settlements.
, David Samson. The former Republican attorney general and party fundraiser was a monitor of medical device maker Smith & Nephew Inc. His firm is now on Christie's payroll for legal work: the candidate's pre-election finance report last month listed expenditures of $9,439.40 in legal fees/rent and $18,439.40 still owed to Wolff & Samson of West Orange.
, Herbert Stern. Christie mentor got $10 million contract to monitor University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, accused of double-billing for services covered by Medicare. Christie close friend and fundraiser John Inglesino, a partner in Stern's law firm, was paid $325 per hour for his work as counsel on the monitorship. Stern, Inglesino, another partner and their wives later gave $23,800 in donations to Christie's campaign for governor. The donations were matched, 2-1, under New Jersey's campaign finance laws, bringing the total amount to $71,400.
, Debra Wong Yang. Like Kelley, Yang, a former U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, is a former Christie colleague. The Republican-connected prosecutor and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner, who had ties to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, was chosen to monitor Deputy Orthopaedics Inc.
, John Carley. A former Cendant Corp. vice president and Federal Trade Commission lawyer under President Reagan, Carley was on Sen. John McCain's 2008 New York fundraising team. He oversaw a nonprosecution agreement involving Stryker Orthopedics.
While much of the attention has been paid to the Ashcroft, Stern and Kelley prosecution agreements, the Seton Hall one could raise some eyes as well. The Seton Hall agreement spurred a change in the guidelines because of the contribution Christie required. It turns out that two years after the deal, Seton Hall presented Christie with the St. Thomas More Medal for outstanding contributions to the law, the community and the Catholic Church. I'm sure this and many other questions will be asked at the hearing tomorrow.
Gov. Jon Corzine's poll numbers are not good. The bearded New Jersey Democrat maintains a 40 percent approval rating in a blue state. These numbers, combined with the state's high-tax rate, suffocating property taxes, and high unemployment, make the 2009 governor's race an obvious target for the GOP.
Enter Chris Christie, the rotund former U.S. attorney credited with taking a bite out of the rampant corruption in New Jersey and putting away 130 government officials. Republicans have looked to run Christie for elected office for years, and now he walks into the governor's race leading Corzine 45-38 percent in recent polls. He leads Republican primary challenger Steve Lonegan in the most recent poll, down from 18 and 23 percent earlier.
Christie has received glowing early reviews from the press. For instance, the New York Times recently wrote that Christie "won widespread admiration for his aggressive fight against political corruption."
But Newark's White Knight is not quite the shoo-in for governor he appears to be. Christie's tenure as U.S. attorney was marred by significant ethical lapses which exposed Christie as the same type of "pay-to-play" politician that he rails against.
The most blatant example is his rewarding former New York U.S. attorney David N. Kelley with an advantageous no-bid contract after he agreed not to press criminal charges against Christie's brother Todd and after Kelley had left public office for private practice in 2005.
But Christie has some 'splaining to do, in the immortal words of Ricky Ricardo. The point of ethics laws, as with his suggested ban on public jobs for politicians, is not merely to avoid impropriety, but to avoid the mere appearance of impropriety. And in this case, Christie created the appearance of impropriety every bit as much as Paris Hilton creates the appearance of a celebrity airhead.
Oh, he certainly did some splainin. Christie could have let the situation play out in the media and moved on to the next issue turning the debate back to the Governor. Instead, today he engaged and attacked, ensuring the story will continue:
"I'm not going to stand around and be a political punching bag of caddies for candidates who don't have a record to sell, a story to tell, and actually attack the candidates who do have something to sell," said Christie.
It gets so much better below the fold, so you will want to join me there.
I'm not sure how, in all the reviews we did as huntsu in the past three years, we missed this.
John Ashcroft was the United States Attorney General in 2003 when the decision not to prosecute Chris Christie's brother Todd Christie for insider trading was made, though everyone else in the scandal was prosecuted.
Chris Christie gave John Ashcroft a $50 million no-bid contract.
David Kelley was the United States Attorney who was investigating the insider trading in 2003 when the decision not to prosecute Chris Christie's brother Todd Christie for insider trading was made, though everyone else in the scandal was prosecuted.
Chris Christie gave David Kelley a $20 million no-bid contract.
Todd Christie donated more than $400,000 to the state and federal Republican parties just before and after Chris Christie was appointed to the position that allowed him to hand out huge multi-million dollar contracts.
Todd Christie made his fortune selling his company to Goldman Sachs where he has admitted to making 1,600 illegal trades.
State Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D)-says that __________________ should return $23,800 in campaign contributions from a law firm that received a lucrative federal monitor contract while _____________ was the state's U.S. Attorney.
___________ entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the university in 2006 after it admitted to committing Medicare fraud. He named Herbert Stern, a former federal judge and prosecutor, to the $500-per-hour post as monitor. His law firm, Stern and Killcullen, received a reported $8 million in legal fees from the contract.
Citing reports filed with the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission, Weinberg says that Stern and his partners, former Morris County Freeholder John Inglesino and Kevin Killcullen, and their wives each gave the maximum contribution of $3,400 to the _____________ campaign. Inglesino also gave $3,400 from his old campaign account.
As I'm sure you could guess, the __________ is for Chris Christie. If those contributions weren't enough, just wait because there's more:
Through public financing, Christie received an additional $47,600 in matching funds through the seven contributions.
Senator Weinberg provided a blast from US Attorney Christie's past:
In a Bergen Record story on February 2, 2002 when he was U.S. Attorney, Mr. Christie said, "There's no question the system in New Jersey is broken and is not operating in the best interests of the people in the state. The people who have a responsibility to do so should put a stop to it." The paper went on to say that "Christie said laws banning 'pay to play' are needed because the practice falls into a 'murky' area where prosecutors are powerless without evidence of an explicit promise of a contract in exchange for a contribution, or vice versa.'"
"I couldn't agree more", said Weinberg. "I believe Mr. Christie should heed this advice and take these campaign contributions out of that "murky area".
In this particular case, Mr. Christie arranged for a medical supply company accused of fraud to hire his former boss to monitor its activities for a payment between $28 million and $52 million. There was no competitive bidding. If Mr. Christie runs for elected office in the future, Mr. Ashcroft could be an important supporter and fund-raiser. This isn't the only time Mr. Christie's appointment of a monitor has raised questions.
Maybe they can start a group of supporters, "Monitors for Christie."I guess we'll see whether candidate for Governor Christie holds himself to the same standard he talked about in his prior career.
Appearing on Fox 5 NY in studio, Republican candidate for Governor said he doesn't want the help of his former boss:
"I wouldn't be comfortable with Alberto Gonzales coming and campaigning for me," said Christie. "I had some serious disagreements with the attorney general about the way things were run when he was attorney general and so I would not ask and wouldn't want him to come and campaign for me because we just had some serious philosophical disagreements with each other."
I wonder what exactly Christie disagreed with? Was it the politicizing of the justice department? Or perhaps the torture? And where were these concerns when these practices Christie disagreed with were going on? Conveniently, Christie also took a pass on answering whether he wants the help of Fmr President Bush or John Ashcroft, a non-answer that got the attention of at least one State Senator:
"He should answer the question," said Vitale, the Chairman of the Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee.
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.
This is really kind of pathetic, but John Ashcroft's defense of the $52 million, no-bid contract he received from former employee Chris Christie is, well, that he's been criticized before and can take it.
"As you may or may not recall there were many people who attacked me in the way that I chose to defend America from terrorists. Those assaults did not shake my commitment to protecting American lives through terrorism attacks," he said. "Similarly, a monitor should be immune to pressure and should not allow attacks from whatever sources that contaminate the cause of justice. I will not allow external pressures to compromise my responsibilities as a monitor."
Well, yeah. But people criticized you for how you chose to defend America from terrorists because you also chose to shred the Constitution and spy on American citizens without warrants in clear violation of the law.
Which, of course, is what qualifies you to monitor a lawbreaking company as it works to comply with the law.
After all, it takes a criminal to catch a criminal.
"I really don't believe that Mr. Christie is a law violator. His record as a prosecutor is an outstanding record," Ashcroft said. ...
"He's made a major reputation attacking public corruption, and for this committee to attack him is inappropriate," said Ashcroft. "Here's Mr. Christie's record in the newspaper. 140 convictions. No wonder New Jersey's politicians are nervous."
I have two words for you, Mr. Ashcroft: Eliot Spitzer.
Following on the post below from Juan Hussein Melli where the Justice Department issued new rules for Deferred Prosecution Agreements in order to give the Republican House members the ability to pretend everything's OK now, here's a call for Blue Jersey's people to post some questions they want to see asked of John Ashcroft when he testifies in front of Congress today.
Here are some questions (in no particular order) we'd like to see asked, and we encourage you to post more in the comments:
Have you or your law firm ever performed the duties of a federal monitor under a deferred prosecution agreement prior to being selected by the US Attorney for NJ for the Zimmer agreement?
Did you approach Mr. Christie or did he approach you regarding the role of monitor for the Zimmer agreement?
Do you or your lawfirm have experience with the medical device industry?
Was there any negotiation of the terms or price between your law firm and Zimmer, or was the deal determined before you or your lawfirm got involved.
What role have you personally taken in the monitoring of Zimmer?
Has Chris Christie at any time discussed his possible political future with you?
How did Chris Christie become familiar with your law firms work in this area that would have led him to choose you as monitor?
Did you suggest to Chris Christie the other former US attorneys who became monitors in this case?
When you and President Bush decided to nominate Chris Christie as US attorney were you aware and/or did you discuss his prominence as a political fundraiser?
Was it standard practice during your tenure for US Attorneys to become involved in state politics such as criticizing sitting Governors and legislators for not approving judges that the US attorney favored?
US Attorney Chris Christie has repeatedly refused to answer questions from this committee and congressmen in his state by citing a DOJ policy that doesn't allow him to answer, despite the fact he has talked to numerous reporters about this issue ?are you aware of such a policy and does it specifically state that US Attorneys can talk to the media while ignoring questions from members of congress?
Quite often on blogs we take information and opinion from a number of other sources, turn it over and put our own stamp on it. It's a way to make connections the traditional media doesn't, and to ask questions that have been avoided.
On the other hand, sometimes the traditional media says something so perfectly there's really no point in adding and comment. Today the NY Times has such a piece on its editorial page. Enjoy:
A Little Help From His Friends
Congress is looking into the decision by the United States attorney for New Jersey, Christopher Christie, to hand former Attorney General John Ashcroft a hugely lucrative job monitoring a wayward company.
The issue, however, is larger than any one appointment. Congress should conduct a broader inquiry into prosecutors' selection of richly rewarded monitors and require that appointments are made based on merit.
United States attorneys are supposed to be nonpartisan and beyond favoritism. But we have already seen how federal prosecutors appointed by the Bush administration used their offices to help Republicans win elections. Congress needs to ensure that they are not using their positions to throw patronage to friends and political allies.
The Ashcroft appointment came in a "deferred prosecution agreement," a fast-growing arrangement ripe for abuse. Rather than file criminal charges against corporations, federal prosecutors - looking to dispose of cases efficiently and to avoid damaging companies needlessly - increasingly are striking deals. These agreements are done without court supervision and sometimes in secret.
In this particular case, Mr. Christie arranged for a medical supply company accused of fraud to hire his former boss to monitor its activities for a payment between $28 million and $52 million. There was no competitive bidding. If Mr. Christie runs for elected office in the future, Mr. Ashcroft could be an important supporter and fund-raiser. This isn?t the only time Mr. Christie's appointment of a monitor has raised questions.
When he struck a deal in a 2005 case involving Bristol-Myers Squibb, the company was required to make a donation to Seton Hall University's law school, Mr. Christie's alma mater. In another case, Mr. Christie reached across the country to bestow a high-paid monitoring deal on Debra Wong Yang, a former federal prosecutor from Los Angeles who had close ties to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Mr. Ashcroft has reportedly agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee about the monitoring appointment. The committee should insist on hearing from both him and Mr. Christie, and it should inquire into other lucrative appointments made to former Justice Department insiders.
Congress also needs to reform the system. Representative Frank Pallone Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, has introduced a bill that would require that federal judges or magistrates choose monitors for deferred prosecution agreements from a pool of qualified firms. It would also require that monitors be paid according to a predetermined fee schedule set by the court.
United States attorneys have traditionally played an important role in rooting out patronage and corruption. Congress has to ensure that the prosecutors charged with stamping out these practices do not engage in them.
Former Attorney General John Ashcroft will appear at a federal hearing looking into no-bid contracts he and others received to monitor out-of-court corporate settlements, including a New Jersey deal in which Ashcroft stood to make millions of dollars. [...]
The House hearing was prompted, in part, by complaints from two New Jersey congressmen, Reps. Frank Pallone and Bill Pascrell, after Christopher Christie, the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, awarded a contract said to be worth $27 million or more to Ashcroft to monitor a medical device maker that had entered a deferred prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors.
Let's do a little thought experiment. Let's say Chris Christie suspects that an elected official may have done something wrong, but isn't really sure.
So Christie sends some FBI guys down to interview the elected official. No subpoena, no legal force, just to request a conversation about the issue.
Now let's say that elected official says, "No. I'm not going to talk to you about this issue, and you'll just have to trust me to have integrity or not."
Would Chris Christie trust the elected official and take him at his word? Would he just let the issue drop? Assume that there must not have been a crime since the elected official shut down the interview?
Or would Chris Christie assume that the elected official was hiding something and start to put the full force of the law at his disposal to find out what happened?
Representative Frank Pallone said that the hearing in which U.S. Attorney Chris Christie and former Attorney General John Ashcroft were to testify in was postponed because the two would not agree to attend.
The House Judiciary has the legal responsibility to oversee and review the Justice department, including the activities of US Attorney offices.
The House Judiciary has questions regarding Chris Christie's actions as a US Attorney.
Chris Christie refuses to answer those questions.
Take it any way you want, but we know how Chris Christie would take it.
[Update: For what it's worth, it's not quite as clear cut as Christie and Ashcroft refusing to testify. They hae both offered traditional Bush-style non-refusal refusals to Congressional oversight.
Christie, who once was Ashcroft's subordinate, has said the Justice Department would determine who would testify. ...
Ashcroft spokesman Mark Corallo said Wednesday, "Mr. Ashcroft has expressed his willingness to testify." He declined say when or under what circumstances.
Not exactly a yes, not exactly a no ... but pretty close to the latter.]
Fred Snowflack has been a major Chris Christie booster for quite a while now. Hell, a lot of people are.
But not everyone is the editor of a major New Jersey Newspaper.
And not everyone has the ability to spin, spin, spin to help a US Attorney obscure the true issues.
Take this take from Snowflack on Chris Christie being called to DC to testify to Congress on his use of deferred prosecution agreements to give friends and colleagues big contracts:
It should be an interesting scene in Washington next week if U.S. Attorney Chris Christie testifies before a Congressional committee about his retaining of former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to monitor a settlement agreement with makers of hip and knee replacements.
The real issue is not so much the hiring of Ashcroft, but what his firm could make: anywhere from $27 million to $52 million over 18 months.
Ashcroft, of course, is Christie's former boss.
Wait, the issue is "not so much the hiring of Ashcroft," even though Ashcroft is Christie's former boss, a friend of Christie's and a potential future donor to his political campaigns. Using your office to force lawbreaking companies to give your friends contracts is not so much the issue.
The issue is not the forcing of the contract onto a company you have over the barrel, it's how much you make them pay?
No, Fred. The price of the corruption is not the issue. It's the corruption that's the problem.
I'm reminded of an old story, this time told by Groucho Marx.
Groucho (to pretty lady at dinner): Would you sleep with me for $52 million?
Pretty lady (laughing): Of course!
Groucho (leering wildly): How about for $10?
Pretty lady: Mr. Marx, what do you take me for?
Groucho: We've already established what you are. Now we're just haggling over price.
Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), who will chair the Feb. 26 hearing, said she and other Judiciary Committee members want to discuss Ashcroft's hiring, role and compensation at Zimmer Holdings, an Indiana-based manufacturer that accepted a monitor to settle a fraud investigation with Christie's office.
The contract calls for Ashcroft's Washington-based consulting firm to collect between $27 million and $52 million over 18 months.
"We're interested in knowing about the process by which he was selected to be the monitor and what exactly he's doing to earn the fee," Sanchez said in an interview.
He didn't want to talk last Friday, but when discussing the Coniglio indictment last week Christie said...
"If my bosses at the Department of Justice call and ask me to come and testify, I will follow their direction," Christie said then. "Every Justice Department -- not just this administration, but ones before -- feel, and I think rightfully so, that any response to Congress should be a coordinated response and have a department position."
And this is what Christie's bosses had to say on the matter...
Justice Department spokesman Paul Bresson said the department will send a witness to the hearing but declined to say who it would be or what they would discuss. He said there were no rules prohibiting U.S. attorneys from testifying before Congress.
It seems Christie is willing to talk and there is nothing prohibiting it except for the go ahead from his higher ups it seems. So will Chris Christie testify?
Senator Joe Coniglio has apparently been under investigation by US Attorney Chris Christie for many months.
Yesterday, Christie got some unwanted attention both from the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal who wrote about his own, ummmm, challenges with ethics. And today, the New York Times editorial board again drew attention to Christie's curiously-timed investigation of Menendez (how'd that work out?) and the no-bid contracts he's awarded to his friends.
So it's probably just another coincidence that Coniglio's indictment was announced in the midst of all this negative press. Move along. Nothing to see here.
The New York Times says it's time to get serious about expanding the investigation into the White House's politicization of the Justice Department. (emphasis added)
Alberto Gonzales may be out, but the country is still waiting for a full accounting of how he and his White House patrons cynically politicized the Justice Department. Congress is rightly asking questions about the actions of yet another United States attorney: New Jersey's Christopher J. Christie. The House also needs to stop procrastinating and vote to hold witnesses in contempt for refusing to testify in the wider scandal.
Federal prosecutors must be scrupulously nonpartisan. Mr. Christie, a Republican activist who got his job despite a lack of trial and criminal-law experience, has gone up to the line of acceptable behavior - and possibly crossed it.
He began an investigation of Senator Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, late in a hard-fought election campaign. The charges now appear baseless, but at the time the news provided a big boost to Mr. Menendez's Republican opponent. Mr. Christie went against a long Justice Department presumption against opening investigations or bringing indictments right before an election, to avoid affecting the outcome.
There are also questions about Mr. Christie's decision to award, without competitive bidding, a lucrative contract to monitor a company accused of consumer fraud. The winner? Former Attorney General John Ashcroft, an influential Republican who was once Mr. Christie's boss. Senate and House leaders have asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate.
Today's quote of the day comes to you courtesy of your ethically-blinded federal attorney, Chris Christie, commenting on Congress reviewing his appointment of federal monitors:
"I know the way our process worked internally there was no coercion," Christie said in an interview yesterday. "But I also understand in the aftermath there was the perception of coercion, and you have to deal with that perception."
Yes, the problem is "the perception". The problem isn't that a federal attorney, having a company bent over backwards, has forced the acceptance of his hand-picked monitor - who happens to be his former boss - for a fee that is so large that it actually changed the company's profitability. The problem is that someone "perceived" coercion.
Like Tony Soprano saying that he didn't force someone to do something, he just put a loaded gun to their head and asked really nicely.
Like almost everything Christie says, you have to wonder how hard he was laughing at the dupe that believed him.
Few have been as critical of Chris Christie as we have, but you have to give credit where credit is due. In today's Star Ledger we learn that Christie is changing his monitor appointment policy.
Christie, who has appointed monitors in three prominent fraud investigations in the past five years, said he will change how his office chooses monitors. In future cases, Christie said, he will give target companies a list of three candidates -- and their fees -- and let them select their own monitor.
This is a good start, but is closing the barn door after the horses have already left. Christie still has to answer questions about the Ashcroft appointment, and these changes still don't make the process transparent.
There should be a public list of monitors that are used by the US Attorney, and to get on the list the firms should have to go through a bid process. Firms on the list must make any political contributions or connections known publicly. When monitors are appointed, the public should be notified and all billing should be reviewable under public record acts.
These monitors are representing the American people overseeing the actions of admitted criminals. The monitors are our agents, and we should be allowed to know what our agents are doing and what conflicts they have.
