How did Chris Christie get off the firing list?

Way back in early March, Paul Krugman noted an important angle to the prosecutor purge scandal: if the fired U.S. Attorneys were ousted for failing to “play ball” with the White House’s political agenda, some of the U.S. Attorneys who weren’t fired kept their jobs because they did “play ball.”

In particular, Krugman highlighted New Jersey.

For those of us living in the Garden State, the growing scandal over the firing of federal prosecutors immediately brought to mind the subpoenas that Chris Christie, the former Bush “Pioneer” who is now the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, issued two months before the 2006 election — and the way news of the subpoenas was quickly leaked to local news media.

The subpoenas were issued in connection with allegations of corruption on the part of Senator Bob Menendez, a Democrat who seemed to be facing a close race at the time. Those allegations appeared, on their face, to be convoluted and unconvincing, and Mr. Menendez claimed that both the investigation and the leaks were politically motivated.

Mr. Christie’s actions might have been all aboveboard. But given what we’ve learned about the pressure placed on federal prosecutors to pursue dubious investigations of Democrats, Mr. Menendez’s claims of persecution now seem quite plausible.

Actually, it gets worse.

To be sure, this looked bad in March. The New Jersey GOP wanted to paint Menendez as corrupt. The local U.S. Attorney — a major Bush donor — launched an investigation based on flimsy accusations, shortly before the election. The campaign ended, Menendez won, and, wouldn’t you know it, all of a sudden the investigation effectively ended.

But this is even more interesting when one considers the fact that Christie was on a list of U.S. Attorneys to be fired — but managed to keep his job.

The WaPo reported today that Christie’s name appeared on a firing list compiled by Kyle Sampson in January 2006. His name was removed during the first week in November.

Blue Jersey summarized it this way:

In January 2006, Chris Christie was on a list of US Attorneys who were being looked at for replacement.

In September 2006, in the midst of a hard-fought US Senate campaign being dominated by accusations of corruption, Chris Christie authorizes a last minute subpoena that plays into Tom Kean Jr.’s political attacks against Bob Menendez.

In November 2006, after the election is over, Chris Christie is taken off the list and allowed to keep his job.

This looked suspicious before we knew that Christie was on the proverbial chopping block, but this makes the story even more interesting.

So, how did Christie get off the list?

This is a trick question, right?

Or is it one of those rhetorical questions?

Because I know you’re not stupid.

  • how did Christie get off the list?

    “To be clear, it was for reasons related to policy, priorities and management — what have been referred to broadly as “performance-related” reasons — that seven U.S. attorneys were asked to resign last December.”

    – Alberto “Lying sack of crap” Gonezales

    See? Christie “performed”, so he wasn’t fired. The service he performed… no one can remember, and it’s a national security issue we can’t talk about.

  • This is a trick question, right?

    Well, it’s one of those questions that’s supposed to strongly hint at the answer.

    I can’t prove Christie kept his job by pursuing a baseless case against a Democratic incumbent immediately before an election, mysteriously saving his own job, but I the circumstantial evidence is pretty strong, isn’t it?

    (That’s a rhetorical question, too.)

  • The Menendez accusations fooled the left blogosphere ( me included) at the time of the elections. Many on our side predicted he wouldn’t win because he was corrupt.

  • This story stinks more strongly with every piece of crap it uncovers. That stench goes straight to the top of the food chain. This is so Nixon-esque; they believed they couldn’t win without cheating, and they have seriously lost their way. When will this gutless congress say enough is enough?

  • “How did Christie get off the list?” is an interesting question.

    “When the fuck did Bush start auctioning off US Attorney positions to his campaign fundraisers (like ambassadorships)?” is, I think, *another* interesting question.

    Is *that* standard practice?

    Anyone want to spend a couple hours with the FEC reports and the US Attorney list? (I can’t right now… *and*, I’m lazy.)

  • Dale, #4;

    Not just you and (distant) blogosphere, either…

    I have a “lefty” friend in New Jersey, who’d also bought into the accusations. Took her and her husband a lot of heart-searching to go ahead, hold their noses, and vote for Menendez anyway instead of staying home. Their reason was “however corrupt he is, he’ll add to the Democrats’ chances at majority, and that’s paramount”. But they never doubted that Menendez *was*, indeed, corrupt. As she said: “almost everyone in NJ politics is corrupt to some extent, so it’s not surprising he is too”

  • This so-called scandal is an overblown personnel matter.

    And Nixon’s Watergate scandal was a third-rate burglary.

  • Pretty Obvious isn’t it? Now he’s on another list…the list of the politically bought and sold.

  • Wow, another amazing episode in the Bush/Gonzales crime wave.

    Menendez should sue Christie for defamation of character.

    What has Menendez done to follow up on this?

  • Comments are closed.