The investigation was led by Paul Fishman, US Attorney for northern NJ, who was appointed by President Obama.

like Bergen County prosecutor

That Christie (as well as trumpf) are autocratic managers meaning they know about everything, they give the order on everything and no-one makes a move without them, yet wth Bridgette there was no tangible evidence such as an email, text, recording to tis the b$@#!$d to the crime..he let others go to prison for his transgression.

As for trumpf and Russian gate..and his effort to distance himself from the crime ....it was the trumpf campaign ...dude you are the trumpf campaign..trumpf was in on the fix whatever the fix was, and he probably gave the order and it's probably on text, email or recorded. The difference between Christie and trumpf ... Christie would have erased the tape..wouldn't have been so sloppy...

It was all circumstantial and intuitive considering his exhibited 'nature' - but sometimes members of "the team" do things to seek approval and respect they crave, not on the orders of the head coach.

There remains a 'reasonable doubt.'

Got a promotion to work in DC. I know someone got away with withholding evidence.

Others fall on their sword, or they start paying out money and the charges quietly vanish.

time I watch Rachel Maddow. She was all over Bridgegate non-shop for months on end. Same thing with Russia-Trump. A depressing thought every time I have it.

or that this was even discovered.

skated nevertheless. Ergo, a depressing thought.

himself.

He left no personal trail.

No written orders to staff or anyone else

No spoken instructions or statements of appreciation

His people made verbal reports or comments but he did answer in words-maybe just smiled or looked happy.

He let them take all the risks and actions. They knew he would like them to take revenge but they never got spoken or written instructions to take action. They knew he was pleased by their actions but he never put it in words-either spoken or written.

Slippery and slithery. He let them take the risks and then cut them loose.

There was never anything specifically coming from Christie where he said "fuck up traffic on the bridge". Is it likely he did order it? Sure. But you can't even come close to the burden of proof.

The news reports I read indicated Christie was involved, but it looks like there wasn't any evidence supporting indictment. If there had been he almost certainly would have been indicted -- silly to think he was somehow protected because he was governor. Lots of politicians have been indicted and sent to prison for their crimes.

EVER show up to jail? They were slated to begin sentences in September and there never was a word about it.

What is the deal here? anyone know?

I guess we will see if someone dotus appoints gets their case to review. I have no idea if that is even possible, or what would happen if that came to pass.

always reminds people when questions like this come up:

there are things in this world that you "know" and things you can "prove", the two don't always intersect.

Why no plea deals for testimony? You can't tell me that not one out of the four people sentenced was ever offered a deal. And suppose there was sworn testimony. Wouldn't that be enough to convict, or does there need to be hard evidence?

evidence nor can I evaluate the credibility of "testimony of underlings" I can't really make a judgment.

i'd like to see this investigated a little further. (hold some hearings like nUnes does)

Something left for the jury after the prosecutor presents the case.
Not for the prosecutor to decide.

Prosecutors have an ethical standard which they must follow. They only charge people they believe they can prove did the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. "Leaving it to the jury (or judge) to decide" would be an ethics violation.

Standard 3-4.3 Minimum Requirements for Filing and Maintaining Criminal Charges

(a) A prosecutor should seek or file criminal charges only if the prosecutor reasonably believes that the charges are supported by probable cause, that admissible evidence will be sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the decision to charge is in the interests of justice.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/standards/ProsecutionFunctionFourthEdition.html

prosecutor and an experienced politician. He knows how to buffer himself with underlings to reduce legal exposure and to create plausible deniability.

"not enough evidence". I have two words.
Don Siegleman.

At which time he will crawl out from under his rock like many other loathsome GOP creatures.

Christie for one would be adept and knowledgable regarding the art of plausible deniability, as it relates to prior knowledge of crimes committed, even as they occur.

He has scary close ties with the mob and he holds grudges for eternity. Anyone who values life would be ending it with testimony that could put him behind bars.