Samson and De-Liar, Chris Christie Must Be Sweating Bullets



So we are now up to three major scandales in the Chris Christie saga of defeat.

The reporting here on Bridgegate, SandyGate here and the most recent jump into the muck - Pulaski Skyway-Port AuthorityGate is worth a catch up on, but it was summarized well by New Jersey expert and Up on MSNBC host, Steve Kornacki.

It looks like it is David Samson's turn to start talking. He is definitely back in the nooz, and knee deep in subpoenas and the lofty calibre o' attorneys New Jersey and New York usually reserve for advisor capacity on Law and Order.

Have a gander. The discussion also includes some time with New York Times reporter and Christie expert Kate Zernike and Georgetown Law Prof. Paul Butler.

Grin wide with us, you know you want to.

Poster art courtesy our friend Mel Neuhaus, @acehanna54

Poster art courtesy our friend Mel Neuhaus, @acehanna54  Click to enlarge.


Kornacki was on The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell to discuss, as well as to deliver a mighty fine summary on Thursday night. The weekend gave him extra time to get facts.


When there are District Attorney's on hand brandishing the Martin Act that Eliot Spitzer famously used to hammer Wall Street, Trenton must be getting a very nervous gastric-bypassed stomach.

Shouldn't one listen to the kind of heavy-hitter advisers an organization as 1%er wealthy and obscenely powerful as the Port Authority hires to advise against fraud?


And such a shame, the timing … The Big Boy Christie had a 'successful' trip to New Hamshire on his "What?!? MOI???!?" Tour.  [Knew those Live Free or Die phuquers next door were up to something, we can feel their Idjit Antics here in Vermont.]

No listening for The Christie.  He simply bulldozes on, while a massive brick wall is being built under and around him - hope he has his Humpty Dumpty uniform at the cleaners.


Phone logs are now revealing Christie aide calls to the Port Authority with frequency and timing that bodes well for a Securities Fraud indictment.

This is when new-agey prayer comes in handy. Let's get Humpty Dumpty down off that wall of hubris, Trenton is about to Fall. And let there not be a 'buffer zone'.


  • You even ban in a highly professional and elegant fashion, Laffy. Allow me to shake you a Thankee Martooni, our BorderOrder gets one on special occasions … From Millan.Net

  • You rule, lwdgfrx. Huge thanks to you and Laffy for being the Greek chorus of reason. Is Silly Season underway or what?! It may be a fast-paced blogging world, but you all have a core principle here that stands alone and ought to be fought for - and it was. (Proud to be on the team.) Professional Carnies should never be underestimated. 😉

  • Glad the Writing Police dropped by. You must be a Pulitzer Prize winner to feel so qualified to pass on such insightful criticism. '

    Please feel free to leave your comments elsewhere. You apparently failed to read our Guidelines, which are written beautifully.

    You've been banned. Bye now!

  • Hi, Erica, well, thanks for clearing that up because there's a lot of tricky code involved with keeping a website with constantly changing content running on the many types of computers there are around the world so I take any reports of 'not working' seriously.

    If we're going to talk about writing, saying 'I can't watch the videos' is not the clearest sentence I've ever read. Good writing should aim to be clear, said Strunck and White.

    Do you write?

    If so, is what you write online somewhere so that we can judge the quality of your journalism?

    What websites do you visit where there are no videos or graphics?

    The only one I can think of offhand is Project Gutenberg - all text all the time.

    In any case, we have been online for many years now and I cannot remember a single other instance of someone complaining about the quality of our writing since, in addition to the text, we link to other sites and embed videos, sometimes self-produced (you should watch one of our 'Blunts' sometime).

    Do you prefer indirect quotes to videos where we can hear and see what someone has actually said?

    Do you prefer descriptions of what a place looks like to an actual picture of, say, a child starving in the Sahel actually looks like? In that case, I personally prefer pictures to descriptions and I still read voluminously.

    The publishers of Life magazine felt as I do when they started their magazine in 1936 and sent Margaret Bourke-White west to photograph the building of the Fort Peck Dam? Do you really think a description would have had the impact her pictures did? The National Geographic Society realized the power of pictures even earlier.

    Do you criticize apples for not being oranges? Vice versa?

    As I wrote earlier, we are not trying to be anything other than exactly what we are and our many site visitors through the years like us exactly the way we are so, sorry, we won't be changing The Political Carnival because you're not happy with it. If your computer will not show videos, may I suggest you take it to the nearest repair shop or get a new one? You're missing a lot. I'm serious about wanting to see your writing so that I can see what real journalism is like and to know which sites you visit which are all text.

  • Thanks for the terrific clarification, db. Pleased to meet you.

  • Are you perhaps related to, or a devotee of, Sarah Palin?

    The reading allergy was a tip-off, then the troubling need for the same explanation, thrice. Pardon the French, below, but the staleness alone is rapidly nearing tedious. Apologies if I've underestimated.

    [And, for the record, I wasn't considered sophomoric even while a Sophomore. But am rather proud to be thought a fine deliverer of the occasionally illuminating rant. ]

  • db

    I'm a first time reader at this site, Erica. Being someone who is paying attention to the Chris Christie corruption saga, I knew from the first sentence what was going on. The job of bloggers isn't to reiterate, every time, what they're putting forward as interesting to them. The readers probably wouldn't even be here if they weren't already interested in the topic. How did you find this site?

  • Erica Friedman

    That's not how writing works. As it happens, my computer is currently broken, but the point of writing an article is to that readers can understand the who, what, when, and what it means. That's fairly basic stuff. No good writer asks readers to go elsewhere first. Good writing fills in the facts for us.

    But good for you that you feel superior to me now. I hope it made your day.

  • Erica Friedman

    Hi Sherry - There's this basic idea of writing an article so that people can understand what you're taking about right from the beginning that is completely missing here. No reader should have to do research elsewhere to understand what you're passing off as commentary.

  • Erica Friedman

    Sorry, to imply there was a malfunction on your site's side. My computer is currently unable to play video. Which meant that the meat of the article, such as it it, is unavailable to me. So what I can read is nothing more than sophomoric ranting on other people's commentary...another not particularly good bit of "writing" on the Internet, masquerading as insight.

  • Hi, Erica - I'm the webmaster for The Political Carnival so I thought I would ask what you mean when you say you 'can't watch the videos'. Do you mean technically or that you just don't want to?

    As far as including videos in a blog post, ummm... this is 2014. We get our news and express our opinions on the Internet using images, audio clips, video clips, and graphics.

    When I want to read just text (though most books and magazines also have illustrations and/or photos), I read a book or The New Yorker, so I don't quite understand your criticism if the video clips are actually working.

    As a side note, they're working fine for me and no one else has complained that they are not (which our site visitors do immediately if we've gotten the code wrong).

    We make no claim to be anything other than we are (as Laffy and Sher have explained).

    We're not attempting to be The New York Times, Der Spiegel, or Paris Match. We hyperlink and embed because that's how the Internet works and you and we are on the Internet. Reading something else is only a typed URL and an 'enter' key away.

  • Dear Erica:

    Thank you for your kind critique.

    Sadly, you missed that all important last W, the WHY. And it's really the most important of the traditional J-school w's. The 'why' to how articles are written and appreciated at this site are right under your nose, just investigate a tad further.

    Here is the side-bar Political Carnival definition of where you are reading today, I've copied and pasted it here for your convenience. It succinctly explains why we write and video blog like we Do.

    The Political Carnival is a fast paced Progressive political site that combines humor with dead serious, dementia with politics (synonymous?), and sprinkles in idiosyncratic posts with breaking news.

    You aren't actually at the New York Times Erica, but you can easily get there by the link in snarky paragraph four.

    The who, what and where are readily available in the post, and if you followed the links in snarky paragraph two, you will find that they are internal links to the hard work of someone here at TPC.

    Thanks for the knee-jerk, er, thoughtful review however. By the by,

    I was instructed in the w's of journalism [and snark] by faculty from Princeton, Harvard, Wesleyan, the Sorbonne, Georgetown and one great summer, by Ralph Nader if you need progressive cred … but Do Proceed.

  • Basic reader fail, Erica. If videos are posted, they're for watching. They help explain and report, and they put the story into context. So you've commented without being fully informed. Pot. Kettle. Fail.

    Next: "We" write articles here at TPC the way we want to, not the way readers want us to. That's what writers of commentary do. Feel free to go elsewhere or simply skip articles that don't suit you. So-- and I know this is stating the obvious-- being a liberal opinion site, of course we write when, where, what we want to, regardless of what it means to others.

    As for posting what people want to read: We do just fine thank you. Our readership has been strong and steady for years, and we rate quite highly among political blogs, always have. Radio hosts use our posts regularly as a basis for their segments, and my Twitter following of well over 30,000 is based on my tweets of TPC content. So your concern about our readership is unfounded. Thanks for caring.

    "...what does it mean to people who are not you?" People who are not you find your comments amusing.

  • Erica Friedman

    Basic journalism fail. I can't watch the videos, so this "article" is just snark on other people's hard work.

    Who did what, where, when and what does it mean to people who are not you? That's how we write articles other people want to read.