The United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, Paul Fishman, has opened a federal investigation into the scandal over the bridge closures ordered by the Christie Administration in Fort Lee. The inquiry is focused on whether any federal statutes are “implicated.” I’m wondering, what crimes or civil wrongs were committed in the course of Bridge-gate. Does anyone with knowledge of federal criminal law have a sense of what possible charges and civil suits might ensue?
Without expertise in federal criminal law, I’ve only been able to generate one theory, i.e. conspiracy to deprive people of constitutional rights “under color of law.”. The penumbral constitutional interest in travelling freely from state to state (“the right to travel”) was interfered with by actors proceeding “under color of law.” This theory would be relevant for both criminal and civil purposes.
Does the criminal prosecution of underlings like Kelly and Wildstein portend anything of actual significance, either legal or political?
But I-95 is an interstate receiving massive federal funds. There are all sorts of statutes governing recipients of federal funding. One may apply. I’m sure that a private citizen would face liability, possibly federal liability, for deliberately wreaking havoc on an interstate.
…it would make sense to include a right to travel unhindered, to move across state lines without question unless prohibited by specific legal judgement and due process. However, I am not aware of a constitutional right to travel. I know it’s not in the text, but maybe the “penumbras”?
Originally expected to be the meat of the 14th Amendment, it was largely eviscerated by the Supreme Court in the 1870s. It does, however, include the right of citizens to travel freely in the United States. That right already existed in the original Privileges or Immunities clause in Article IV. CJ Taney alluded to the right to travel between states in Dred Scott, suggesting that the slaveowner could not forfeit his “property” for exercising this right.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized a right to travel. For more information, one should read the Stevens opinion in Saenz v. Roe. That fairly recent 1999 case confirmed that there are three fundamental aspects of the right to travel freely between the states:
1.The right to enter one state and leave another;
2.The right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger;
3.For those who want to become permanent state residents, the right to be treated equally to citizens born in the state.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saenz_v._Roe
was the rare Privileges/Immunities case after 1880 or so.
“Bridge” should be the new scandal appendage.
Anyone catch Doc Maddow tonight? Pretty interesting theory about how it is not retaliation against the Fort Lee mayor but against the head of the state senate who also represents Fort Lee. Apparently one of the first things Christie did when first elected was not re-appoint a judge to the state supreme court. This is unprecedented in NJ history and so angered the senate democrats that they refused to appoint any of Christie’s nominees to the position.
A new SC judge is appointed for 7 years and then reaffirmed for life. So the democrats also refused to reappoint those sitting judges as their 7 year terms expired. The third time this happened, it was a republican judge whose husband was part of the administration. Christie removed her from the bench claiming he was sparing her from the onslaught of “those animals,” the democrats. This was on the afternoon of August 12. On the morning of August 13, Fort Lee was ordered to get a “traffic study.”
The “study” actually went into effect during the week of 9/11. The state senator -forgot her name-who represents Fort Lee said that it was also the first week of school. The Port Authority also shares jurisdiction with NYC Port Authority. The bridge is protected by Dept of Homeland Security, especially during 9/11 memorial week, and I’m sure there is federal money involved in the infrastructure.
This is getting interesting.
Between terrorism stuff and it being part of an interstate.
There is no NYC Port Authority. There’s one interstate agency, the Port Authority of NY and NJ. The two governors each get to appoint some of its commissioners.
though same diff
đŸ™‚
Bullygate.
Sums it all up and rolls trippingly off the tongue.
I like the sound of Bridgeghazi, but I don’t support anything that would give credence to the idea that there’s a legitimate Benghazi scandal instead of rank GOP hypocrisy.
…in this post over at DKos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/09/1268445/-It-s-always-about-Chris-Christie
At the very least, it’s official misconduct – they used a public asset, the bridge, for political retaliation. I loved Maddow’s theory tonight, mentioned by MikeW above – if you didn’t catch her show, it should be available on msnbc.com in a couple of hours.
I caught the beginning of Lawrence O’Donnell tonight as well – he highlighted a glaring inconsistency in Christie’s presser today. During the prepared remarks, Christie said that he had a meeting with all the senior staff four weeks ago and he gave them one hour to come forward to Kevin O’Dowd or Charlie McKenna with anything they knew about the bridge closure. But during the questioning, he changed his story, saying he told them they had to tell him, O’Dowd or McKenna immediately. As a prosecutor, he would have picked up on a story change like that in any witness he had on the stand, it’s a clear sign that he’s lying through his teeth.
but I know if you start to force people to talk going after whatever laws were likely broken, there’s a high likelihood they’ll perjure themselves or attempt to obstruct justice along the way.
Like the aides he’s just fired.
Then flip ’em and go after Christie.
…talking about RICO:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/12/1268987/-Mr-Christie-meet-Mr-RICO
The post highlighted some theoretically applicable RICO provisions, none of which made any sense to me. Unrelated, but I was also not impressed by how nasty the poster and his allies were to anyone who dared challenge their RICO theory in the comments.