>As Nixon and others have learned, it's not the deed that'll get you, it's the cover-up. It'll be interesting to see what the evidence is.
>

I have a problem with someone (Wildstein) speaking through a lawyer (weeks afterwards, after taking the fifth) with the declaration, "I have evidence"
If he had it, spit it out. (And maybe he does)

It's almost like Dawn Zimmer stating she kept a diary/journal of notes, when she had previously stated (under oath) that she never kept any type of journal/diary. Maybe this recent journal is authentic, but it means that previous testimony from her is worthless. Either way, her credibility is very much in question. (And recent reports by the AP about $$$ disbursements have partly knocked back her claims on money)

Zimmer claims, "no one would believe me". Cowardice. If she represents a group of individual citizens, she's supposed to represent and fight for them....not back off for fear that no one would believe her (until such time when it suits her more politically. Would YOU (the royal you) want your political leader to refrain from fighting for you unless that leader could benefit politically????

I don't know if Wildstein and Zimmer are telling the truth. (And I certainly don't see Christie through rose-colored glasses). I think all three are questionable.

I'm not defending Christie. But unless some actual evidence is presented, this discussion is becoming increasingly marginalized.

Christie claims he didn't know about the lane closures until they were opened (either he's lying or clueless on what goes on in his state). Wildstein says (through his mouthpiece) he has evidence that Christie knew....yet he hasn't presented it, and he won't say if Christie simply knew of the closures "in real time", or if Christie actually knew that the lane closures were done as payback. And then yesterday, Christie's office released a statement that Christie had no knowledge of the lane closures BEFORE they happened (emphasis mine).

Christie is likely done either way.