The internal report exonerating Chris Christie in the George Washington Bridge scandal was big enough news that the cable networks went live to the presser during or after President Obama talking about his meeting with Pope Francis.
It was the first major development on the Bridgegate front in quite some time. And there is an understandable tendency among journalistic types to dismiss the probe because it was commissioned by Christie's office.
Indeed, the investigators didn't have access to key witnesses, and the Democratic National Committee wasted no time in labeling the effort an “expensive sham.”
But let's assume, for just a second, that the report was largely on target. It was headed by Randy Mastro, a former New York City deputy mayor, who knows that he will look like a dishonest hack if the federal and state investigations find that Christie was in fact involved in the lane closures.
But if Mastro's central finding holds up—that Christie didn't know of the bridge fiasco and wasn't involved in any coverup—how does that change the national media clamor over the New Jersey governor?