Stick a fork in him, the same as Scott Walker, under that weird sealed indictment in that weird Wisconsin indictment/investigation system.

It's already down to Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul in 2016. Mayyyyybe Rick Santorum, at least to the Final Two.

Christie needs to be prosecuted for murder, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

He's the love child of Rudy Guiliani and Rob Ford. He loves being in charge and the center of attention so much that he just doesn't know when to quit. And he's so amazingly petty.

I disagree Paul.

If he had only given a brief press conference, democrats would be lambasting him for trying to hide something. It was a lose-lose situation and he made the best of it by putting himself out there in front of the firing squad.

Yes, he is ultimately responsible for his staff's actions, and that should be taken into account and can be used against him in any presidential run. However, it most certainly doesn't destroy his career. Hillary Clinton is ultimately responsible for her staff's actions too. Is her career also over because of things her "staff" did overseas that she had no knowledge of?

Yes, there should be a reasonable investigation. Christie says he didn't know about it. I'll take him at his word unless evidence to the contrary is produced... exactly the same as I would treat Clinton or any other politician from any party.

Christie already had no presidential hopes. He worked closely with Obama and praised him during the Sandy aftermath.

The modern GOP can not stand such a mark on his record. No way he survived the primaries.

I like the way that these politicians can torture common people in order to obtain political revenge against others in their own ruling class. It's very "Roman Empire". </snark>

Glad to see the reich-wing is still all-in for the idea that Christie/Romney are unacceptably liberal.

http://www.redstate.com/2014/01/08/the-p…

Oh, wait, I'm not glad about that at all.

Also of note is that Wildstein who tried to get out of being questioned today by having the subpoena quashed lost that battle, so now he's just pleading the fifth over and over.
This things go right to Christie. No doubt. The only question is whether his aides will fall on their swords and do the jail time to protect him or roll over and point their fingers at the boss.

Who wants to bet the same Fox News morons who STILL can't let Benghazi go because Obama "should have been aware of the situation" will sympathetically echo Christie's excuse that he had "65,000 people working for him" and couldn't possibly know what they were up to?

Also @1 - This is what would happen if you stuck a fork in him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rskgdocju…

Does anyone truly believe he would have gotten anywhere near the Presidential nomination? I don't believe it for a minute, but it will be hilarious to see him try.

@ 4, in what way are the two comparable? Was Clinton's top aide present at Benghazi?

Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta

at 12- I think this is what happens when you stick a fork in Christie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT3_bMTIW…

@12, 16 I tried but failed to find video of a Wight from Myth II exploding itself.

My friends in New Jersey are already blaming him for traffic jams, mainly as a joke, and I'm hoping this continues so his constituents don't forget. What kind of idiot deliberately pisses of NJ drivers?

@14,

They are comparable because they (Christie & Clinton) are both the people at the top.

@19 - "Thanks, Christie!" may become the new "Thanks, Obama!"

20, that's like comparing paraffin wax to a steak because they both are edible. You're going to have to work harder than that if you want to properly defend Christie.

Take politicians at their word? OMG, that is so hilarious. Yes, terrorists hate us for our freedoms, don't they?

@ 20, is that all there is? That's no comparison at all. Not unless the people involved in both issues had similar positions under those "people at the top."

That's why I asked you if Clinton's top aide was present at Benghazi. You didn't answer, which of course means "no, but I won't say so as it tends to compromise my point."

Yesterday, I asked Paul (before he updated his post, when it sounded as if he didn't think it was going to be a big deal) if he believed the inevitable "rogue staffer" explanation, which is essentially what we got today from Christie. Now I'm going to ask you the same question. Do you find it at all plausible that Christie's top aide would do something like this, completely hidden from Christie? Just as a favor to the boss? Yes? No? Maybe?

Even if Christie did have someone that close to him go rogue, it's still casts a very bad light on him. What kind of leader can't control his top aides? They're not political appointees after all, but people who he trusts to help get his job done.

@23,
Yes.

@22,23,24...

Go ahead and keep saying it's not ok when republicans do it but it's ok when democrats do it. That's what republicans do in the reverse, after all, so it's not without precedent.

Just don't expect anyone to think you're anything but a typically partisan, echo-chamber resident.

My opinion is, Clinton is not guilty of what her underlings do, but as the head honcho, she still needs to accept that the buck stops with her and she's going to feel the heat whether she deserves it or not. I feel EXACTLY the same towards Christie. Both should have a reasonable, non-obnoxious investigation, and let the evidence of said investigations be the final verdict.

Put more simply, I try not to let my emotions pre-judge these people.

@ 26, don't keep saying two different things are the same thing. It's not different because Clinton's a Dem; it's different because the decisions at Benghazi were taken at a level removed from her direct oversight, by people who were career State Department, not appointees, and had no direct line to Clinton. They were operating under a degree of autonomy and remove which Christie's top aide was not.

There is only direct responsibility at Clinton's level if Clinton or her personal deputies made certain calls that affected the outcome. There would only be comparison with Christie if the decision to close roads was being taken by career NJ DOT people - the ones actually "on the ground," so to speak. In that case, I would say he's off the hook. But unlike Benghazi, this came out of his office. We have the hard evidence already.

If you really can't see the difference, I can't help you any further than that.

Keep in mind that this isn't a matter of criminal justice, but whether this kills his chances at the presidency. It's all well and good for there to be investigations because if a crime was committed or negligence occurred, those responsible should pay. But presidential politics takes place in the court of public opinion, and that's the whole point of the scandal.

(Edit @ 27 - "it's different because the decisions at Benghazi were taken at a level removed from her direct oversight, by people who were career State Department, not appointees or Clinton's personal staff, and had no direct line to Clinton."

The difference - the one that matters - is that Secretary Clinton and President Obama both accepted responsibility for the errors at Benghazi while, in stark contrast, Governor Christie denied responsibility for the bridge closure.

That's the real and important difference.

@29 Matt from Denver: You and Urqutha seem to be discussing this with it as a given that somebody did something wrong at Benghazi. Can you tell me what it is that her underlings are accused of doing in Benghazi? Or, rather, what they did? I never have figured it out.

@ 32, in the context of Urgutha's comparison that the person at the top is responsible for the actions of all those under him or her, I assumed he meant the criticisms of how well the consulate in Benghazi was secured. The actual meat of what the critics say is that the Obama administration, specifically the State Department, misconstrued a terrorist attack as a demonstration that got out of hand and are covering up the truth - even though Obama and other administration spokespersons did call it terrorism, starting with his address the day following the attack.

The two things aren't comparable on that count either, because to date nothing has been unearthed as damning of Clinton as the email from Christie's top aide. Bringing up Benghazi is really a non sequitur, at least until something comes up showing that Obama, Clinton, or any other administration or White House officials deliberately misconstrued the attacks.

@33 So, the wrong doing of the administration, if true,

1) administration did not sufficiently secure the consulate, and/or

2) the administration at some time called the attacks something arising locally when in fact it was a "terrorist" attack.

Impeachment soon?