SCOTUS tosses "Bridgegate" convictions
-
A unanimous judgment:
The Supreme Court on Thursday threw out the convictions of two key players in the so-called Bridgegate case that rocked the administration of former New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie.
In a unanimous opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, the high court threw out the convictions of former Christie aide Bridget Anne Kelly and Bill Baroni, the deputy executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which controls the George Washington bridge.
A federal court jury had in 2016 returned guilty verdicts against the pair, concluding they shut down two of three bridge lanes coming out of Fort Lee, New Jersey, to punish its mayor for refusing to endorse Christie's re-election.
The Supreme Court’s decision Thursday, however, did not come as a surprise. When the case was argued earlier this year, it was clear that many justices thought the prosecutors went too far, since the two officials charged did not benefit financially from closing the bridge lanes.
The case stemmed from the Bridgegate scandal that created monumental traffic jams in 2013 on the George Washington Bridge and tarnished Christie's image.
"The question presented is whether the defendants committed property fraud. The evidence the jury heard no doubt shows wrongdoing—deception, corruption, abuse of power," the justices wrote in their opinion. "But the federal fraud statutes at issue do not criminalize all such conduct. Under settled precedent, the officials could violate those laws only if an object of their dishonesty was to obtain the Port Authority’s money or property. The Government contends it was ... We disagree."
-
Boils down to “wrongdoings” such as “deception, corruption, abuse of power” are not considered “fraud” when doing so do not involve someone getting money or property.
Wonder what other criminal statues might be used to prosecute such “wrongdoings”.
-
Bridgegate and Flynn on the same day. So much for the sanctimony. Sunlight the best disinfectant and all that.
@Loki said in SCOTUS tosses "Bridgegate" convictions:
Bridgegate and Flynn on the same day. So much for the sanctimony. Sunlight the best disinfectant and all that.
Was bridgegate wrong? Probably from what I've read.
But the question is, was it illegal?
Remember, just because something's wrong ethically, doesn't make it illegal.
-
@Loki said in SCOTUS tosses "Bridgegate" convictions:
Bridgegate and Flynn on the same day. So much for the sanctimony. Sunlight the best disinfectant and all that.
Was bridgegate wrong? Probably from what I've read.
But the question is, was it illegal?
Remember, just because something's wrong ethically, doesn't make it illegal.
@George-K said in SCOTUS tosses "Bridgegate" convictions:
@Loki said in SCOTUS tosses "Bridgegate" convictions:
Bridgegate and Flynn on the same day. So much for the sanctimony. Sunlight the best disinfectant and all that.
Was bridgegate wrong? Probably from what I've read.
But the question is, was it illegal?
Remember, just because something's wrong ethically, doesn't make it illegal.
Remember it was allegedly Christie behind it. How far we’ve come from that sanctimony.
-
It is a real shame that the law is so specific that it be monetary gains.
At the very least we can take solace in the fact that at least Kelly was crushed financially. Not sure about the resources of the other two but insofar as they have any they’ll lose them in civil actions, I would expect.
So some sort of justice will be done.
-
It is a real shame that the law is so specific that it be monetary gains.
At the very least we can take solace in the fact that at least Kelly was crushed financially. Not sure about the resources of the other two but insofar as they have any they’ll lose them in civil actions, I would expect.
So some sort of justice will be done.
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS tosses "Bridgegate" convictions:
It is a real shame that the law is so specific that it be monetary gains.
At the very least we can take solace in the fact that at least Kelly was crushed financially. Not sure about the resources of the other two but insofar as they have any they’ll lose them in civil actions, I would expect.
So some sort of justice will be done.
Trust me when I say I am all for rewriting the law. Somehow I doubt it will ever pass and you likely won’t like who is against it,
