Chris Christie won the Governor election with less than 50% of the vote. That means more than half of the voters wanted someone other than him to govern.
He has consistently abused his power. He pulled rank as a US Attorney to get out of a ticket when he went the wrong way down a one way street, and also pulled rank when he got a speeding ticket in an unregistered car to avoid being towed. He failed to disclose his close financial relationship with top assistant Michele Brown, a conflict of interest. He gave huge no bid contracts to his boss (John Ashcroft) and the man who didn't prosecute his brother for securities fraud, while 19 others were prosecuted. He governs with a personal vendetta to the detriment of New Jerseyans.
Those are just off the top of my head. And they aren't "partisan policy disagreements". They are basic character traits of a man with a short temper who is set in his ways, come hell or high water. We already had a nightmare of a similar "leader" that just left the White House. And Christie is a disciple of that regime.
And this current situation with the $400 million in education funding that NJ students now lose out on after he took over the application process - accusations and documented support from Bret Schundler that Christie again is playing fast and loose with the facts all while lashing out at anyone who dares to point out the truth.
Understanding that many in the corporate media are overwhelmed and overworked, it would be nice to see some more reporting on this very disturbing pattern of reckless behavior and how these ethical issues on Christie's part are a danger to the state and its future. Christie has shown that he does not negotiate in good faith - if he even negotiates at all. He is not one to be trusted, and his word has been proven over and over to conflict with his actions and reality.
James E. Harris, President of the New Jersey Conference of the NAACP, today filed a formal ethics complaint with the Joint Legislative Committee on Ethical Standards, asking for a formal investigation of whether Senators Raymond Lesniak and Christopher Bateman have violated the Legislative Code of Ethics in simultaneously representing over 40 municipalities on affordable housing, planning, and zoning issues and pushing legislation that would substantially change those municipalities' affordable housing obligations.
NJ NAACP Housing Committee Chairman Mike McNeil said: "Sens. Lesniak and Bateman have violated the public trust in intermeshing their private legal work and their service to the public as legislators. We are today asking the Joint Legislative Committee on Ethical Standards to determine the extent of the violation of public trust and to require Sens. Lesniak and Bateman to recuse themselves from further debate on the bill."
I really can't say whether or not Lesniak or Bateman have crossed the line here, but I will say that the outdated conceit that being a state legislator is only part-time work is what leads directly to conflicts of interest and even outright corruption, whether it is holding multiple elected positions or doing business with the town through a law firm. We'd be a lot better off making the members of the Assembly and Senate full time, even if it ends some romantic notions.
We found out earlier this week that Michele Brown wanted Chris Christie to be given the credit for the political busts that resulted from molding Solomon Dwek from "money launderer and Ponzi schemer" to briber-of-Democratic officials. And with the clamoring to take credit comes the responsibility of answering the tough questions that creep up when you are dealing with one real shady criminal like Dwek is.
A Star-Ledger examination of court documents shows that before Dwek became an informer for the FBI, he was running a wild Ponzi operation in which one investment was being used to pay off the debt mounting from the last one and on into the millions in the same kind of geometry that eventually exposed financier Bernard Madoff.
---snip---
Dwek admitted that he schemed with mortgage broker Joseph Kohen, 39, of Deal, to defraud PNC Bank of more than $50 million and launder $22.8 million of the proceeds through other banks.
So far, there are 120 lawsuits with respect to his crimes, and that number may very well grow over time as more comes out.
Back in July, when the story first broke, it was reported that Dwek was not originally involved in anything other than money laundering and bank fraud - certainly nothing to do with any politicians:
The case began with bank fraud charges against a member of an insular Syrian Jewish enclave centered in a seaside town. But when that man became a federal informant and posed as a crooked real estate developer offering cash bribes to obtain government approvals, it mushroomed into a political scandal that could rival any of the most explosive and sleazy episodes in New Jersey's recent past.
For someone who prided himself and made his name on cleaning up crime and busting people who defraud others, there is a very serious question regarding Chris Christie and how Solomon Dwek was treated. Here is someone who (1) as far as we know had NO prior dealings with political officials before he was busted for very serious financial crimes, (2) has a financial connection to Christie through a donation to Bush in 2000, (3) was busted around the same time that he spoke to Rove about his future in politics, and around the same time as the lists were being created to see which US Attorneys were to be fired and (4) suddenly, Dwek went from a money launderer and Ponzi schemer to someone being used as an informant to bust Democratic officials.
Now, if any Democratic official was dumb enough to take a bribe and got busted, that is his/her own fault. But there is a very important question that needs to be answered - and that is why Christie went easy on someone who defrauded so many individuals and institutions for tens of millions of dollars and turned him into a "cooperating witness" for what appears to be largely unrelated political bribery.
The first and most obvious question is why someone who committed bank fraud to the tune of $50 million would become a central player in political bribery scandals - especially in areas where he wasn't involved before. And why did "tough on crime" Christie offer Dwek the opportunity to commit so much crime for so long? Crime is crime whether you're doing it to get rich, or you're doing it to keep yourself out of jail for the rest of your life. Why was Dwek allowed to do so much damage to - mainly Democratic - politicians (who should all be punished if guilty). Dwek's game was bank fraud, hardly the type to wade into political bribery without considerable coaxing, and training. One of the lawyers for one politician (Louis Manzo) said this:
"How does Mr. Dwek get the starring role in this government production?" Lynch asked, following the brief appearance before U.S. District Judge Jose L. Linares in Newark. "We know he's been charged with stealing $50 million. So how does he get placed in Hudson County, where he has no ties? It's an interesting question."
Which leads to another nearly overlooked and more disturbing item - but you'll only know if you click through...
If there is one thing that is frustrating about articles that "seem" to help push a narrative about "Wrong Way Christie", it that they miss the most important point. An OpEd by James Ahern today comes close to hitting the mark as it talks about irresponsibility and endangering others (especially his 4 children who were in the car when he was speeding) - and while he talks about it being a reflection on something we can all relate to in terms of everyday tasks and obeying the law, there is an even bigger point about Christie's driving record.
And it has nothing to do with his speeding or his numerous actions, or even his going the wrong way down a one way street and arguing that "the motorcyclist hit him" and lying about whether there was a lawsuit - which in and of itself is an enormous lack of any sense of responsibility.
It is the abuse of his office - his position as US Attorney that he used in both known incidents - in order to curry favor for himself. The other day, I wrote about how Christie has one set of rules for himself and another for everyone else. And while this is a perfect example of what I was talking about in that diary, the even bigger issue is whether New Jerseyans want to have a sleazy lawyer who can't take responsibility for his actions and uses his position to abuse power for personal gain as their Governor.
"The officer has a lot of discretion at that point," Cosgrove said. "He could've issued a summons in that case, but he did not."
Asked whether Christie's job title factored into the officer's decision, Cosgove said, "I don't think I want to make that kind of deduction, but I think the facts speak for themselves."
And in the 2005 speeding/unregistered/uninsured vehicle "sedan" with 4 children and 3 adults in it (certainly safe), Christie either said he was a US Attorney or the tow truck driver "happened to know who he was" (sure) and even if so, the tow truck driver was amazingly able to get the police to allow Christie's car to not get towed.
Use of Title. With rare exceptions, employees engage in outside activities in their private rather than official capacities. Therefore, when engaging in outside activities in their private capacity, employees may not indicate or represent in any way that they are acting on behalf of the Department, or that they are acting in their official capacity.
Once again, Christie shows that he is nothing more than using his power to get more power and take advantage for his own personal benefit.
Chris Christie is complaining about someone else politicizing the US Attorney's office? But wait - it gets better. Christie's concern is about criticism of acting US Attorney Ralph Marra and the investigation that his own bosses and the Justice Department are looking into with respect to Marra's own comments. This is an internal ethics inquiry that Corzine had absolutely nothing to do with, and in fact, the only real criticism that Corzine or his campaign have said about the US Attorney office were with respect to the FOIA request that was being blown off.
And, rightfully so - given that the US Attorney (Marra) is under investigation for politicizing his own office, while recently-"retired" Michele Brown, an admitted close personal friend who is literally indebted to Christie one of the ones responsible for (not) complying with the FOIA request.
But let's get back to the politicization of the US Attorney office, shall we?
Christie admitted to having spoken to Karl Rove on numerous occasions about running for Governor while still a US Attorney (the Star Ledger even said that there is no legitimate reason for a US Attorney/Justice Department member to talk to a highly political figure in the administration. Besides this being a likely Hatch Act violation, Karl Rove was knee deep (and lied about it) in the political firings of US Attorneys. Christie was rated as "loyal" by the Bush administration in 2005, and saved his own job by getting off the list of US Attorneys to be fired with (1) suspiciously timed subpoenas of Senator Menendez right before the 2006 election (and right before getting off the list), and (2) a suspiciously timed cooperation by Solomon Dwek - someone who went from money laundering to political bribery right around the same mid to late 2006 timeframe.
The nondisclosure of the loan from Christie to Brown also leads to questions over whether he was tipped off by Brown to the timing of the arrests stemming from the Dwek cooperation - or what other ties he has to the US Attorney's office. It was very recently that he also talked about how he "had attorneys" that he would bring with him to Trenton if he won - another questionable tie and association between a supposed non-political branch of Government and a political campaign.
But as we all know, what Christie says as far as what others should do and the "Christie rules" that only apply to him and his "friends" are worlds apart.
As I reported previously, Chris Daggett served as Chairman of the DEP "Permit Efficiency Review Task Force". He was appointed to that position by DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson http://www.nj.gov/dep/permittf...
That DEP Task Force had ethical problems from the outset. Several of its members represented clients that had ongoing regulatory issues or projects seeking approvals before the DEP, including Daggett himself.
This, at best, created the appearance of a conflict of interest, or actual conflicts. State ethics laws prohibit creation of even an appearance of impropriety, as well as an actual conflict of interest.
To remedy these problems, DEP Commisisoner Jackson was asked to make the Task Force deliberations tranparent and to restrict conflicts of interest - oth she adn Daggett failed to do so:
NEW JERSEY TO CONSULT INDUSTRY ON ECO-REWRITES IN SECRET - "Efficiency" Task Force Members Not Barred from Self-Dealing with DEP
Trenton - An industry-dominated task force to recommend an overhaul of state anti-pollution permits and policies will work in secret, according to an e-mail from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Lisa Jackson to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Commissioner Jackson also rebuffed PEER recommendations that materials submitted to the task force are made a public record and that task force members be barred from lobbying DEP for their clients.
On March 25, 2008, New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe wrote Jackson asking that task force sessions be open to the public, materials submitted to the task force be made publicly available and that task force members "be precluded from having any contracts, pending regulatory approvals, or financial relationships with the Department" during the 120-day life of the task force.
In a return e-mail on the evening of April 2, 2008, Commissioner Jackson denied all of PEER's requests:
Public input "can only occur once the Task Force has completed its analysis and compiled the group's thoughts and recommendations. At that time, I will determine how to most effectively seek and obtain input from the public"; and
"I do not consider it necessary or reasonable to restrict members of the Task Force or their respective employers from having other business before the Department."
See this link for full documentation of these claims, including internal DEP documents, Jackson emails etc:
http://www.peer.org/news/news_...
BTW, a very reliable source has told me that Chris Daggett owned contamainted property and has huge economic stakes in DEP "brownfields", permitting, and toxic site cleanup issues he presided over and made recommendations on as Task Force Chair. I was also told, but have not confirmed, that Daggettt owned the parcel of contaminated Jersey City land that was involved in the Assemblyman Harvey bribery criminal indictment.
Walk into the Camden County Democratic headquarters in Cherry Hill, and you will almost certainly meet nice, motivated, bright liberals like yourself who merely want to win races for Democrats. No shadowy Sopranos-esque organization here. This diary addresses the question of whether the Camden County Democratic Committee and overall organization need reforming and new leadership. My criteria for reform is as follows. Regardless of political party or ideology, any organization that exchanges favoritism in exchange for financial gain is indeed ethically compromised. Further, any politician who votes on bills directly related to his or her employer must not be able to do so, and any political broker who is not held accountable to the general public, particularly voters, should not have unchecked power. You can see where I'm going with this.
From the Hill.com, we learn that the Independent Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) wants another look at a trips taken by Congressman Payne and others:
The ethics committee, however, confirmed Monday that the five cases stemmed from two trips five Congressional Black Caucus members took to the Caribbean in November 2007 and 2008 that may have violated House travel rules barring corporate sponsorship. The members who attended those trips are Democratic Reps. Carolyn Kilpatrick (Mich.), Donald Payne (N.J.), Bennie Thompson (Miss.) and Charles Rangel (N.Y.) and Del. Donna Christensen of the Virgin Islands.
The panel has since launched a formal investigation into the trip.
"While the Committee was previously investigating the Carib News trip, the OCE did refer five related matters to the Committee," Blake Chisam, staff director for the ethics committee, said in a statement. "The Committee's statement forming an investigative subcommittee in the Carib News matter makes reference to the five Members that were the subject of the OCE referrals."
The Hill reported that the OCE interviewed several CBC staffers about the trip. The OCE apparently found enough evidence to forward the matter to the full ethics committee for further review.
Here's a copy of the press statement they issued on the matter. They formed an investigative subcommittee for a further look at the officially-connected travel in 2007 and 2008 that was sponsored, funded or organized by Carib News or Carib News Foundation:
The subcommittee will have jurisdiction to conduct a full and complete inquiry into allegations that have arisen regarding the sponsorship of the travel in 2007 and 2008. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the subcommittee is to report its findings , conclusions and recommendations to the full committee.
We'll have to see if anything further comes of this when those finds, recommendations and conclusions are reached.
And now he is taking the endorsement of a crooked politician? Don't believe me?
As New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons, according to previously undisclosed government records.
The documents, obtained by Politico under New York's Freedom of Information Law, show that the mayoral costs had nothing to do with the functions of the little-known city offices that defrayed his tabs, including agencies responsible for regulating loft apartments, aiding the disabled and providing lawyers for indigent defendants.
Giuliani took public money, tax dollars, intended to help the disabled and the poor and used it to cheat on his wife. That's supposed to be the kind of politician Christie hates so much it makes his head spin. That's supposed to be the guy Christie puts in jail.
With Christie palling around with people who are so eager to use public funds for their own private escapades, tell me again why he wouldn't approve of this behavior when it is for his own benefit?
It makes you wonder - someone who talks about how much of a stellar reputation he is running on is the same someone that can't get a sentence out without getting defensive, going on the attack, not addressing the issue at hand, and brushing aside any rational or sensible question as to his behavior.
If it is the US Attorney scandal and "the list" with his suspiciously timed subpoenas, the way he got his US Attorney job after hundreds of thousands of dollars donated, his corrupt pay-to-play actions on no bid monitoring deals, the favors for friends who turned around and donated to his campaign, his disappearing values. or even his campaign promises that would leave the state's budget with a $7.4 billion deficit - the man either won't or can't keep his story straight.
Didn't we just vote this type of regime out of office for a reason?
If Chris Christie is so proud of his record as a "no-nonsense" crimebuster, why did he choose to let 7 (more than anyone else) corporate criminals off the hook in exchange for steering millions to his friends, former bosses and former colleagues who happen to be linked to the non-prosecution of his brother?
A prior libel suit settled with an admission of guilt.
Being told that he wasn't getting the USA job but then magically getting it after hundreds of thousands in fundraising and donations by him and his brother.
Shady circumstances surrounding the non-indictment of his brother for securities fraud.
Tens of millions in no bid monitoring contracts to the man who didn't prosecute his brother as well as to his former boss.
Being on the list of USA's to be fired then somehow not being on the list after a very interestingly timed "investigation" into Senator Menendez right before the 2006 election that was over before it even started.
Double speak, stonewalling, ignoring court orders and contradictions over the widespread use of warrantless monitoring of cellphones by his office.
With all of these skeletons in Chris Christie's closet, maybe he should open up a Halloween shop.....
When he was running for Bergen County Democratic Chairman after Joseph Ferriero resigned, Michael Kasparian pledged a series of reforms which would "first and foremost include the implementation of an ethics training program for all candidates who desire the support of our party. This commitment will be similar to the state mandated program that all commissioners and authority members, myself included, must complete annually."
Now Kasparian has changed his mind. He's still offering the ethics training, which includes a written test, but he's making it optional. There will be no penalty for party leaders who decline to complete the training, take the test, or fail the test.
The lawyer for the BCDO says they can't compel County Committee members to take ethics training. But they really can: Kasparian can agree to deny the organization line to any candidate who does not pass the ethics training.
It's not like they've had any problems in Bergen that oh I don't know, brought the chair to power that they would want to guard against future abuses. I've heard the saying if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, did it make a sound. Along those same lines, if someone takes the ethics test and fails it, but no one is told, did it really happen?
I think all public officials should have to go through ethics training. A bright line needs to be drawn through much of the grey area in this state. In addition, this would ensure that if they do break the law like many that have come before them, they can't say if only they would have known.
As Chris Christie digs a deeper hole explains himself over the warrantless monitoring that his office did, he has (as with no-bid contracts and so many other "explanations" for prior actions) given few answers while raising a number of potentially serious questions about the warrantless monitoring and the actions of his office.
For starters, Christie said the following (emphasis mine):
Christie said his office did "everything within the law" and got court permission to track "fugitives or violent felons" -- two groups of people who he said were primary targets. Very few terrorism-related subjects were tracked in that way, he said.
The documents released by the ACLU say the U.S. Attorney's office in New Jersey identified 79 such cases on or after Sept. 12, 2001 -- 66 of which resulted in a criminal prosecution.
---snip---
Christie said the technology was used to track terrorism suspects, as well as those suspected of other crimes.
So....initially, it was used to track terrorism suspects "and others", but suddenly, it was rarely used to track terrorism suspects.
Question 1: Why the contradiction over what this was primarily used for? Was it used to track terrorism suspects, as originally trumpeted, or was it used for "very few terrorism related suspects", as per Christie's backpeddling a few days later?
Question 2: If this was really used to track "fugitives and violent felons", as indicated in the first apparent clarification, why (as noted in the Daily Record) didn't Christie's office bother to obtain a warrant - since it would seem to be easy to clear the hurdle if Christie knew they were fugitives or violent felons?
Question 3: If this resulted in close to 100 prosecutions, how many prosecutions resulted in convictions?
Question 4: How many of the fugitives were caught as a result of this warrantless monitoring?
Question 5: If they weren't all caught, what does that say about Christie's ability or the warrantless monitoring program in general, when cell phone GPS tracking can locate such fugitive or violent felon to within a few feet?
Question 6: Of those caught or convicted, how many fugitives were caught or "violent felons/terrorism suspects" were convicted based on evidence obtained by warrantless monitoring?
Question 7:With the ever shifting description of the targets of warrantless monitoring, Christie not only needs to come clean as to who was targeted but to identify those who were captured, convicted or jailed from this warrantless monitoring.
**********************************************
This is about character and a lack of trustworthiness. Christie is running specifically on his record as US Attorney, and has done absolutely nothing to convince NJ voters that he has any real concrete plan to help the economy (unlike Corzine, who was ahead of the curve with his own stimulus plan for the State last year). With each passing week, we find out more cracks in his ethical armor - whether it be (1) his settlement for libel and admission of defaming a political opponent's character or (2) the no-bid contracts or (3) the questionable circumstances surrounding his non-investigation of Menendez before the 2006 Senatorial Race, (4) leading to getting off of the list of US Attorneys to be fired to (5) whether the hundreds of thousands of donations to the republican party helped his brother escape prosecution for securities fraud when Christie was US Attorney.
And now, with the warrantless monitoring, Christie's explanations and lashing out not only don't add up, they create more questions about his motives and agenda.
Not too long ago, I wrote a diary that looked at the multi million dollar federal monitoring contract that then-US Attorney Chris Christie gave to former US Attorney David Kelley a couple of years after Kelley left the US Attorney's office. In that diary, I looked at the questionable circumstances around this contract and the timing, especially since Kelley indicted 15 colleagues of Chris Christie's brother on securities fraud, while not indicting his brother even though the SEC found him to have made 1,600 illegal trades, earning millions of dollars while bilking taxpayers of millions.
While this story is getting some press in New Jersey and is (finally) leading to questions regarding the appropriateness of the contract Christie gave to Kelley, there is another angle to this story that needs to be explored as well. And that is the question as to why Christie's brother was not indicted, while employees who made far fewer illegal trades and earned far less money (and were much lower on the "food chain") were indicted.
We know a few things about how the Bush administration ran - think "pay to play" with Jack Abramoff, US Attorneys being hired, retained (as Christie was) or fired because of their choice to investigate Democrats - even when there was no "there" there. And with Chris Christie, there is a very interesting paper trail as it relates to decisions made about his career and hundreds of thousands of dollars being raised for Bush and the NJ republican party:
The year, 2000: Joe Kyrillos is a State Senator, Chris Christie is raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for George Bush for President and serving as the corporate counsel for the campaign. Christie makes it known he wants to be a US Attorney after helping the Republican nominee.
Bush wins the White House (OK, sort of, but go with me) and it is released that Chris Christie "won't receive any consideration for a top federal appointment."
The year, 2001: Joe Kyrillos becomes the New Jersey state GOP chair, and suddenly Christie money starts flowing into the state party's coffers. Christie and his wife put up $20,000 though they had never given anywhere near that amount before. Christie's brother and his wife each gave $37,000 for a close family contribution of $94,000 in the first couple months after Kyrillos took office.
And by the time the summer is over Christie learns that he will be nominated to the post of US Attorney for NJ.
The year, 2002: Chris Christie is sworn in to office in January. Two months later his brother -- remember the brother? -- donates $225,000 to the federal party. Add in a few more $25,000 checks and a few for $5 and $10K and the total amount donated by the Christie family around the time of the job search and swearing in passes a half million dollars.
To summarize. No job for Chris, family friend gets powerful position, Chris's family gives friend six figure donations, Chris gets job, Chris's family quadruples the donation.
According to the SEC, Todd Christie committed more that 1,600 improper trades between January 1999 and March 2003, generating "riskless profits" of more than $1.59 million for Spear Leeds (his own company) and costing investors $1.4 million. Fifteen of the 20 specialists facing civil charges were also charged with allegedly ripping off investors to the tune of $19,000,000.00, in the biggest crackdown on illegal trading in the Big Board's History.
As it related to Todd Christie, 3 people above him and the 11 below him were all indicted. What is amazing to note is that one of the indictments was for someone who profited to the tune of $14,000.00 while Todd Christie, who profited to the tune of $1,590,000.00 was never indicted. In fact, perhaps the most amazing thing of all was that Todd Christie was #4 on the list of the top 15 and yet he was the only one of the top 15 not to be indicted.
Looking at the case of Don Siegelman and Paul Minor for example - two Democrats who were convicted under very shady charges by the Bush Justice Department, it is clear that it didn't take much to make political opponents' lives absolutely miserable.
And in the case of Todd Christie - a man who donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the NJ and national republican parties - "coincidentally" around the time that his brother was told he would not be named US Attorney but then somehow his brother was named US Attorney, it smells even worse. We have the following:
Chris Christie told he would not be named US Attorney, despite lobbying hard for the position;
Todd and Chris Christie raise and donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to the national and NJ republican parties;
Chris Christie named US Attorney;
Todd and Chris Christie donate hundreds of thousands more to republican party;
Todd Christie found by SEC to have made 1,600 illegal trades, ripping off taxpayers by close to $1.5 million, while earning a similar amount;
Todd Christie is not indicted while pretty much everyone else around him that was involved (even remotely) was indicted;
Chris Christie ends up on the list of US Attorneys to be fired;
Chris Christie issues bogus subpoenas as part of an "investigation" into Senator Menendez a couple of months before the 2006 Senate race;
Chris Christie finds himself off of the list of US Attorneys to be fired shortly after the 2006 Senate race.
Chris Christie's explanation for the above is that the SEC found no criminal actions by his brother. However, (1) this is the same SEC that ignored a roadmap into the Bernie Madoff ripoff and (2) the SEC found 1,600 illegal trades made by his brother. So it is clear that his explanation of the above is no better than the highly questionable sequence of events above.
Christie needs to come clean on this - even more so if all he has is his self-proclaimed reputation as "fighting the bad guys". He needs to credibly explain why he and his brother aren't the same "bad guys" he is so proud of convicting.
While much of the focus on these cracks in Christie's "ethical armor" has been on political contributions that smell an awful lot like pay-to-play, very little has been paid to a multi million dollar contract that Christie awarded to David Kelley - who just so happened to indict 14 colleagues/employees of Christie's brother on criminal securities fraud charges while letting his brother avoid any punishment.
Todd Christie committed more that 1,600 improper trades between January 1999 and March 2003, generating "riskless profits" of more than $1.59 million for Spear Leeds (his own company) and costing investors $1.4 million. Fifteen of the 20 specialists facing civil charges were also charged with allegedly ripping off investors to the tune of $19,000,000.00, in the biggest crackdown on illegal trading in the Big Board's History.
As it related to Todd Christie, 3 people above him and the 11 below him were all indicted. What is amazing to note is that one of the indictments was for someone who profited to the tune of $14,000.00 while Todd Christie, who profited to the tune of $1,590,000.00 was never indicted
With Christie on the defensive, the Asbury Park Press isn't really buying his so-called "explanation" over his deferred prosecution agreements:
Republican gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie's defense this week of his handing out a multimillion-dollar, no-bid contract to a former federal prosecutor who let Christie's brother off on stock fraud charges was unconvincing. He needs to do better.
If Christie wants to keep the issue from haunting him throughout the campaign, he must provide a full explanation of the selection process. As former Republican state Sen. Dick LaRossa said, the citizens "need full and open disclosure as to the process and criteria used by Mr. Christie to select Mr. Kelley, if only to put our minds at ease."
Put our minds at ease?..make sure there is no legal or ethical violations?..And, here's another thought: find out why Christie's brother was never indicted in the first place.
Kelley investigated a stock fraud case involving Todd Christie and 19 other traders. Fifteen traders were indicted; Todd Christie's case was handled civilly and later settled with no fine and no admission of wrongdoing.
That is fishy in and of itself - especially when Christie?s brother was the highest ranking Executive NOT to be indicted, but there were 11 lower level people who made less money off of fewer improper trades who were indicted. However, the case ultimately fell apart due to prosecutorial "missteps" and nobody ended up getting convicted.
But here's the kicker--
Despite screwing up the case against his brother's colleagues and not indicting his brother, Christie felt that David Kelley, the US Attorney in charge of the case, was the most qualified law enforcement official in the entire country to give a multi-million federal monitoring contract to. No bidding process involved - this is at the choice of the US Attorney and the Justice Department.
To summarize:
Christie's brother is found to have made close to 1,600 "improer trades" as a top executive on Wall Street;
14 other colleagues, including 3 above and 11 below him are indicted, while Christie's brother settles a civil suit and admits to nothing (even though the SEC knew he made close to 1,600 "improper" trades;
The US Attorney who didn't indict Christie?s brother ended up not convicting anyone in this case because of errors on his office's part;
Two years later, Chris Christie gives this now former US Attorney and colleague a multi million dollar contract, saying that he was the most qualified law enforcement official in the entire country for this job.
This is something that Christie will simply not be able to run away from, ignore or BS his way through. This speaks right to the heart of everything that is wrong with NJ politics. It would make Christie no different from the very people that he indicted and convicted.
In fact, this is precisely the situation that Chris Christie would pride himself on investigating when he was US Attorney. If it was a Democrat and not himself, of course.
The ethical problems and conflicts of interest just keep rolling in and coming back to haunt Chris Christie. The so-called squeaky clean crime fighter is looking more and more like the same corrupt Republican whose motives and hidden agenda are more for protecting himself, his friends and his family than it is for the people he was supposed to be fighting for as US Attorney and who he is supposed to fight for if he is Governor.
While it is noble of him to issue guidelines for ethics reform, it would be nicer if he were to live up to ethical standards that would make Christie-the-US Attorney salivate in terms of investigating and prosecuting.
He now has to answer two sets of questions regarding questionable (at best) practices he engaged in while US Attorney that certainly would make anyone truly interested in justice and "the rule of law" question his priorities and loyalties. First, Congressmen Pallone and Pascrell introduced a bill that would regulate the use of deferred prosecutions - a practice that not only delays justice from being served in the first place, but one that Christie used in highly questionable circumstances as well as actions that have the appearance of a quid pro quo involving millions of dollars and his own brother getting away with serious crimes in a stock fraud case.
Consider the following series of events:
Christie's brother was a top executive at Spear, Leeds & Kellogg ("SLK"), and was accused of making improper stock trades between 1999 and 2003;
In September 2007 (while Christie was still US Attorney), he gave a millions+ dollar monitoring contract to David Kelly, who was the US Attorney that investigated the stock fraud case against SLK and Christie's brother.
In 2008, Christie's brother settled with the SEC and wasn't charged with any crimes.
And what was Chris Christie's response to this major red flag?
Christie said yesterday that he had never had a conversation with Kelly about his brother's SEC problems. He said he gave Kelly the monitoring contract because "he was a great prosecutor who ran one of the biggest offices in the country and I needed a tough guy."
Yeah, sure. I'm sure "Christie the US Attorney" would have let that explanation go without any investigation.
It's time that "no-bid Christie" cleans up his act and answers questions as to whether he would have investigated and prosecuted someone who had the above facts and actions. My guess is that if he says he wouldn't, then he is a liar as well as someone with hidden motives.
Before leaving office as U.S. Attorney last year, Christopher Christie hired Samuel Stern, the son of former U.S. District Court Judge Herbert Stern, to work as a federal prosecutor. Samuel Stern started work last month in the Appeals Division of the U.S. Attorney's office in Newark.
Hand out contract, check. Hand out job, check. Take money in return for your campaign, check. The US Attorney's office had no comment, but confirmed the hiring. This is what the American Spectator had to say before this latest news of family ties was added:
But there's no law that says you can't take a STATE contribution from someone you gave a FEDERAL no bid contract to. And that's exactly what Chris Christie, the GOP favorite to get the nod to take on Jon Corzine in the Fall has done. As U.S. Attorney, Christie gave the firm of Stern and Kilcullen a 7 million dollar no-bid contract. Now that Christie's running for Governor, the partners and their wives contributed $23,800 to Christie's campaign. Since New Jersey has 2-1 matching funds, it's more like they gave him over $70,000.
While this is not illegal, it sure looks terrible, especially when you consider that Christie has based his entire campaign on ethics and cleaning up New Jersey.
Move along, nothing to see here. Aside from the actual issue of the job and contributions, that line does point to the glaring hypocrisy of the issue when you compare it to the rhetoric of his campaign language. I would love to see the Republican reaction to a story like this if it was a Democrat and these details came out. It must just be ok if you are a Republican.
The December 21, 2008 Star-Ledger quoted Governor Corzine vowing that his two concerns for his re-election bid will be finances and ethics. People in New Jersey who follow politics know why he said that. He is concerned about the public perception on finances because his toll hike plan was a bust. He is concerned about the public perception of ethics because former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie has put away 130 corrupt New Jersey politicians while his Attorney General has been wasting taxpayer money litigating to keep the public from reading his e-mails.
On behalf of the crime victims and their advocates, he has much to learn - about squandering government money and ethics.
