Moment of truth . . . maybe . . . in the Christie scandals

In case you thought the Chris Christie multi-pronged scandals had gone away, interest is going to be revived today.    Nothing has gone away;  it's just the progressive, behind-the-scenes investigative work going on.   Both the joint legislative special committee and the federal prosecutor's inquiries have been quietly proceeding without any recent headlines.

But today, Kevin O'Dowd, Christie's chief of staff then and now, will testify under oath for the legislative committee.   Unlike the federal prosecutor's investigation, these hearings will not be secret.

O'Dowd said,  in unsworn interviews with lawyers hired by the Christie administeration to investigate the bridge closing, that he knew nothing of the planning for it and only learned four months later that his assistant Bridget Kelly had set it in motion.   We'll see if he maintains this position under oath and cross-examination.

Another staff member in the same office has already testified that Bridget Kelly was always insecure about what she was doing and was not the type to take things into her own hands without direction from someone else.

It's strains credulity to think that Chris Christie -- known as a micro-manager and tight-ship kind of guy -- would have key people who operated with such power and authority without his knowledge.    The most plausible explanation is that they had an understanding that kept Christie and his chief of staff from "knowing," but the staff knew exactly what he wanted to accomplish.

It's must be the old political tactic of:  "do what you have to do to accomplish this, but don't let me know what you're doing."   It's the way politicians can deny involvement.  It is most likely what happened with Gov. Nathan Deal and the ethics panel in Georgia.

Any other explanation carries too much cognitive dissonance;  it's simply not believable, knowing what we know about Christie's style and his degree of control over events.

Stay tuned.

Ralph