U.S. Report Faults Christie, as Prosecutor, on Hotel Stays

[estesbob]

In other news the Republican dog catcher of bug splat Missouri and has been accused of accepting free donuts from the local bakery. The Obama Justice Department is promised to leave no stone unturned in investigating the scandal.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

I agree. Who reviewed and failed to deny the higher than standard rate? What was the rate for people in his position?

From the above-cited article:

“The inspector general at the U.S. Justice Department issued a report Monday criticizing Christie as “the U.S. attorney who most often exceeded the government (travel-expense) rate without adequate justification” and for offering “insufficient, inaccurate or no justification” for most of the excessive costs in 2007 and 2008.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

Why did you doubt it was Christie? I didn’t doubt it or believe it. Your first article didn’t say.

Maybe not. Christie refuses to comment. ** Hard to believe the AGs office doesn’t keep some kind of record. I doubt the information depends on Christie’s statement about it or non-statement.**

Government rate? Don’t know all their rules, old buddy, so if there are or are not allowances for such things, I wouldn’t know. But again, there will surely be reliable information on this fairly soon. Long time ago, I traveled for a bank quite a bit. They had rules for this sort of thing that were more advisory than they were mandatory. Sure, if you went over, you had to explain it. Sometimes it drew a raised eyebrow, but mostly it didn’t, because generally applicable guidelines have a way of failing to address specific realities as experienced, and often do. Hard for me to believe this isn’t all documented. I’m sure we’ll all know sooner or later. But it does make a nifty partisan anti-Republican headline, doesn’t it? Not very significant no matter what, but it does give a chance for somebody to jab at a possible presidential contender early in the game. Too many potential contenders though. Too much ground to cover at this stage. It must be tedious work.

"Inspectors singled out a stay at the Four Seasons in Washington that cost more than double the approved rate of $233 per night, and took issue with Christie’s decision to pay $236 round trip for a car service in Boston instead of taking a taxi for four miles. " ** Sounds excessive. Of course, sometimes prosecutors are in very scary cases. They get death threats all the time. Some of the threats are bogus, but some aren’t, and the security precautions can sometimes result in high expenditures. But who knows? Patience. **

nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/11/gov_christie_cited_as_us_attor.html

 

[SamH]

From the above-cited article:

“The inspector general at the U.S. Justice Department issued a report Monday criticizing Christie as “the U.S. attorney who most often exceeded the government (travel-expense) rate without adequate justification” and for offering “insufficient, inaccurate or no justification” for most of the excessive costs in 2007 and 2008.”

That doesn’t answer the question. I can turn in anything on my travel expenses, it doesn’t mean it will be paid.

 

[Ridgerunner]

That doesn’t answer the question. I can turn in anything on my travel expenses, it doesn’t mean it will be paid.

Back when I was in banking and doing a lot of travel, if I ONLY ran over the general guidelines by $2100 in a year, if I ever did run over that little, people would have probably wondered whether I was doing my job. Always got them paid in full, too. Overruns in business travel are just a fact of life, particularly if you’re going into some place with which you aren’t already familiar. But fortunately, I didn’t get death threats every other day the way Christie probably did, so I felt comfortable getting into a taxi instead of renting or hiring a vehicle. Sometimes, though, I didn’t, depending on what things looked like when I landed.

We just plain don’t know all the facts here, and, if there is anything to any of this, we’ll just have to wait for some unbiased source to say so.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

We just plain don’t know all the facts here, and, if there is anything to any of this, we’ll just have to wait for some unbiased source to say so.

I consider the Inspector General of the Justice Department to be an unbiased source, particularly since this audit did not focus on Christie alone.

 

[SamH]

While the total cost of what was charged over the federal government’s allowed maximum appears to equate only a couple thousand dollars,

How’s that dog catcher in Dog Splat making out?

 

[SamH]

As we found out with Nixon, its not the act but the coverup.

I’m waiting for Christie to come clean.

$246 for a cab ride?

What coverup?

 

[estesbob]

What coverup?

The donut shop owner claimed she was giving the dogcatcher glazed donuts, he says they were covered with powdered sugar. Sounds like a coverup to me! The fact that this Republican dogcatcher is trying to cover-up the fact that his dounuts were indeed glazed is an indictment of the whole Republican Party and indications that all Republicans should be removed from office until this miscarriage of justice is rectified.

 

[bbarrick8383]

The donut shop owner claimed she was giving the dogcatcher glazed donuts, he says they were covered with powdered sugar. Sounds like a coverup to me! The fact that this Republican dogcatcher is trying to cover-up the fact that his dounuts were indeed glazed is an indictment of the whole Republican Party and indications that all Republicans should be removed from office until this miscarriage of justice is rectified.

Almost perfect, you left out racism.

 

[estesbob]

Almost perfect, you left out racism.

Actually that goes without saying. He is Republican and he didn’t get rainbow colored sprinkles on his donuts-case closed.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I consider the Inspector General of the Justice Department to be an unbiased source, particularly since this audit did not focus on Christie alone.

But you didn’t post the Inspector General’s findings, just somebody’s snippet and interpretation. What do you lawyers call that? Hearsay on hearsay, I think it is. Is that correct?

I’m sure we’ll be able to see the actual report someday, along with commentary by Christie if it deserves commentary.

Sorry to be so nonplussed about all this, but I also remember from my banking days how examiners would nitpick all kinds of insignificant things so they would have something to fill up their reports with. I don’t recall if they ever wrote up any of my incidents of going over on expenses or imperfect documentation. Almost certainly they did. Stuff like that, I would promise to be more diligent and the whole thing would go out like a light. I do remember their filling up a full page of critique on our using calculators that only carried decimals out ten digits instead of the fourteen they thought they ought to be. But they had to justify their salaries, so I didn’t take it personally. It was amusing to observe how much money those guys wasted chasing down stupid stuff.

Don’t know how it is in the government lawyer world, but to me, stuff like this Christie “revelation” is small-time stuff that happens a thousand times a day in one context or another. It only matters, I guess, if you’re a politician who has ideological enemies who want to bring you down over trifles.

 

[bbarrick8383]

The day democrats start caring about 2,000 dollars of tax payer money is the day I’ll vote democrat on the national ticket…if their pro life.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Actually that goes without saying. He is Republican and he didn’t get rainbow colored sprinkles on his donuts-case closed.

Heh, I guess your right. Nice touch of homophobia there as well.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I can’t stay in Disney for less than $300 a night. Obama is, right now, running up a $200 MILLION per day tab that we pay and you whine about $475 a night?

Midterms upset you much?

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

But you didn’t post the Inspector General’s findings, just somebody’s snippet and interpretation. What do you lawyers call that? Hearsay on hearsay, I think it is. Is that correct?

No.

Also, if you examine the linked articles, they do reference the Inspector General’s findings.

 

[SamH]

I consider the Inspector General of the Justice Department to be an unbiased source, particularly since this audit did not focus on Christie alone.

You mean the Inspector General that answers to Eric Holder? What exactly did this report have to say about the Justice Department’s plan to spend $400 million for one trial in New York?

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

You mean the Inspector General that answers to Eric Holder? What exactly did this report have to say about the Justice Department’s plan to spend $400 million for one trial in New York?

As far as I know, the report was on excessive expense spending by US attorneys.

Perhaps trial expenses would be the subject of a different report – and a different thread.

 

[estesbob]

The only dog in Bugsdlat Missouri was run over by a car (it had a n Obama bumper sticker) eliminatimg the need for a dog catcher The justice dept has dropped their ivestigation of the great donut csaper and are moving on to investiihgate whether there is anything in the country that is NOT Bush,s fault

 

[Ridgerunner]

No.

Also, if you examine the linked articles, they do reference the Inspector General’s findings.

Oh, so they reference the IG’s opinion? I could probably go into the text of an Obama speech and make a case with a snippet or two that Obama is a right wing extremist. That doesn’t prove a thing except that the secondary or tertiary source has a point of view.

Hmmmmm. Thought hearsay on hearsay was when one testimony source is quoting another who is quoting yet another. You quoted an article that took a piece from another source and interpreted it. But you’re the forum lawyer I guess.