Christie: "Does this show he’s fit for the Oval Office?" No, we don't think so.....

...................................................................................................................................................................
Christie's Bridgegate defense is hardly presidential: Editorial
By Star-Ledger Editorial Board, March 30, 2014

Gov. Chris Christie stood in front of news reporters for the first time in nearly three months Friday, and told them a story that was flatly unbelievable.

It wasn’t even his own story. It was pieced together for him by a team of lawyers, who did exactly what they were hired to do: present an entirely one-sided view of events, for the purpose of protecting their client. And it was paid for by us, the taxpayers of New Jersey — at a cost of 1 million bucks.

So forget the reasons Christie ostensibly summoned the media that day. It was obvious that Port Authority Chairman David Samson had to go, and that the agency is in need of reform.

What this was really about is the governor’s credibility. Christie is hoping this internal investigation, the results of which were released Thursday, will rebuild his reputation — that everyone will forget the details of Bridgegate, and trust him on this.

But there are so many holes in his story, it’s hard to know where to begin.

Why not start with the governor’s core argument: Not only has Christie denied any involvement in the decision to close the access lanes to the George Washington Bridge in September, he initially said he had no idea these entry lanes even existed — at all! — until the accusations surfaced.

Except now we hear that David Wildstein, who engineered the havoc in Fort Lee, says he told the governor about the lane closures on Sept. 11, while they were still underway.

Christie hasn’t denied that. All he’ll say is that he doesn’t remember.

Granted, we don’t know how much the governor was told by Wildstein, who closed the lanes as part of a sham "traffic study." But given all the hubbub in the weeks and months that followed, Christie’s claim that he knew nothing simply isn't credible.

Then there’s that phantom traffic study — a cover-up hatched by a political operative, not a traffic expert. It was hidden from Patrick Foye, the executive director of the Port Authority, as well as Fort Lee officials, local police and emergency responders. The Port Authority has yet to produce a paper trail to prove it ever existed.

Yet what did Christie repeat once again Friday? "It appears that there was a traffic study."

His blindness on this is willful. The fact that Christie has embraced this cover-up shows he was never interested in getting to the truth.

So does his treatment of Bridget Anne Kelly, Wildstein’s co-conspirator. In the sexist report by Christie’s lawyers, for which they did not interview Kelly, she is smeared as a jilted woman in the grips of some form of hysteria, who took her emotions out on Fort Lee commuters.

But maybe we’d know more about the actual motive behind the lane closures, instead of her rumored love life, if Christie had actually sat his former aide down and asked what happened before he fired her.

He’s said he didn’t do so because he didn’t want to interfere with any future investigation. Yet now his lawyers release a parallel report before the feds move, after sending intimidating letters to witnesses?

Give us a break. Christie’s questioning of Kelly didn’t have to be private. He could have invited third-party observers. No, the real reason he didn’t ask her is because he didn’t want to know.

So even if you give Christie every possible benefit of the doubt, and are gullible enough to believe his lawyers’ every word, this 360-page report makes him out to be clueless.

This is the crux of his defense. He wants us to trust him with the presidency — but ask yourself: Does this show he’s fit for the Oval Office?
...................................................................................................................................................................