On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:41:45 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2014 19:22:10 -0800 (PST), "Daring Dufas: Hypocrite

TeaBillie on welfare" wrote:







The New York Times reports that David Wildstein, the Port Authority official who oversaw punitive lane closings at the George Washington Bridge, had evidence that Chris Christie knew about it. The Times quickly changed its wording to reflect that fact that Wildstein merely says "evidence exists" that Christie knew.



The "News" was a mess over the weekend.



First was the report, by Wildstein's lawyer, that Christie knew about

the traffic problem while it existed. Followed in the same newscast by

a statement from Christie's office that he always said he knew about

then. Of course knowing there's a traffic jam doesn't prove anything,

no more than that one listens to the news on the radio.



Later some news show, radio or tv, came up with a clip where Christie

says he didn't know anything until it was all over, a clip shown several

itmes on TV.



Finally, on Saturday, NBC News said that the new report was that

Christie knew quote "all about" the traffic situation, when as I think

you say, and as every other report said, Wildstein's lawyer never used

the word "all".



So NBC's got some 'splainin to do.



I agree. The media as usual has this all fouled up. What you have
is Wildstein's lawyer writing a letter to the Port Authority asking
them to reconsider paying Wildstein's legal bills. In that letter,
he asserts that there is evidence that Christie knew about the
bridge lanes closing at the time it was happening. That's it.

From that, I saw headlines like "Ex Aide says Christie knew about
politically motivated bridge lane closings as it was happening"
That was from a major news organization. It's pretty crappy reporting
because it leaves the casual reader with the impression that the
allegation is that Christie knew they were politically motivated.
No one has made that claim.

Then you had leading NJ Democrats using the word "documents" to
refer to the evidence. Wildstein's lawyer never used that word.
The "evidence" could be anything. It could be anything from
Wildstein saying that person XYZ told him the governor knew, to
a tape recording of the governor made by Wildstein. If it's some
person, it could very well turn out that person's account won't back
up what Wildstein claims.

Until we know more, it doesn't mean much. But it sure has a lot
more media interest than any of the revelations about IRSgate,
Benghazi, etc.

Also, an even more remarkable example of the incompetent media and
their agenda is the fact that in the same letter Wildstein alleges
that Port Authority Commissioners have been linked to land deals
involving the PA. You would think they would be all over that, as
it's a whole new area of possible corruption. But not a peep.