It is more accurate to say that Manahan is criticizing Christie, and his Administration, for their selectivity -- read: letting political ambition be the decisive factor -- in deciding what and whom to investigate, threaten and prosecute...as well as what and whom to ignore. Implicit in this proposition is the point that the conclusion -- that someone is dirty and must go -- is reached first (due to political considerations) and the investigation is then pursued to find facts to support the established, accepted position while facts negating the position are ignored, distorted, concealed or destroyed.
In short, a plain English way of putting this is as follows: In Christie's New Jersey (and, to be fair, in many other places as well), politics can determine whether a private -- and often, entirely innocent -- citizen faces fearsome power of the state and is threatened with reputational and financial ruin and, often, the loss of liberty.
This modus operandi becomes more apparent when considering how New Jersey is handling its own state fiscal crisis, as opposed to other states across the country.
The ongoing developments and emerging patterns suggest that Christie's claims to credentials of being a "reformer" and "fiscal conservative" are dubious indeed, and growing shakier by the day.
Eric Dixon is a New York lawyer, strategic analyst and crisis management/political consultant. Mr. Dixon has advised over two dozen candidates, politcal committees and party organizations over the last 20 years, including advising two presidential campaigns on ballot access and election law issues. Mr. Dixon is available for further comment or consultation at 917-696-2442 and by e-mail at edixon@NYBusinessCounsel.com.