A Little More Mayo with that Culpa, Please

by InfotainMe

I'm not foolish enough to believe anyone in the other-leading-brand reads or thinks about my dronings, but this was pretty much what I thought would be the minimal face-saving gesture in the piece I wrote yesterday - Russo out as VP, Finance chair, and someone had to fall on their sword for lying. And if Beth did the latter, that is a confession to conspiracy that would end life as they know it for the entire majority in an instant.

America has a standard for true contrition for public figures. It's schmaltzy but satisfying to the public - or has a chance to be. It's called an interview. Preferably with someone who isn't in the tank for you, which leaves 411 out.

Would he consent to speak with MSV? Doubt it. Softballing Patch or developer-owned Hoboken Reporter are more the speed they'll want. Expect a sit-down with Clare, Mike & the Mrs in near-matching sweaters. Mike will talk about how this all happened before, marriage, before fatherhood made him see everything in a new light. He will hope you forget that the fabrications of the last week all came after those 2 seminal, as it were, events.

It comes down to the questions. Here are a few. That won't be asked.

Elaborate on the story you were telling about Hector Claveria. What apartment did you get him? How did he disappoint you? If someone actually did pressure an HHA commissioner to campaign - do you believe that should be grounds for removal from HHA?

Russo may deem the whole episode part of the fabric of lies that made up the entire tape. But a statement can be sought from Claveria for context.

So you are now saying the promised majority, your role in selecting it and so on - that is a complete and utter lie? Did you have any input in any way into Beth Mason's at-large ticket, any conversations of any kind - or were you just, whole cloth, lying?

Why did you find it necessary to tell such a lie? Have you before or since told such whoppers in the course of what you have designated as "a fund-raising meeting"?

If the answer is no, the question is, why did you do it this time? What was it about this meeting that drove you into 60 minutes of deceit?

Do you stand by your statement that this was only a "fund-raising meeting"? Not before the public had viewed the tape but after - you suggested that this was standard fare. An hour of stream-of-consciousness lying, offering a rigged "veto-proof" council, a meeting between a developer and a would-be mayor - these are standard fare? Again - this is not something you said 2 years ago but 2 days ago. Are you still lying?

On the tape you came down hard on P2P laws. Was that another context-driven lie in the course of what you wish us to believe was an hour of nothing but context-driven lies? What are you true feelings on P2P? Do you envision any gestures toward citizen groups to assure them you are not the avowed enemy you presented yourself as?

When you said that there was no discussion of a bribe with Dwek - not 2 years ago, but last week - that was a lie, wasn't it? You seem prepared to apologize for your actions 2 years ago and write them off as the actions of a "young man" - as though, frankly, they happened much more than 2 years ago. Don't you think you owe an apology for your actions since the book has come out? You have referred to commentary that rightly cites you for accepting a bribe on tape as "hate". But it's a fact isn't it? Haven't you further polarized this community by denigrating honest fairly-reached opinion as "hate"? That is, don't you owe an apology not only for what you did on tape with Dwek, but what you did right up until the last moment when there was no way to continue your current tactics without dragging the rest of the council majority down with you?

Don't you also owe the authors of Jersey Sting an apology? You have caste them as liars to save yourself. They have a book to sell. Doesn't the book in fact treat you much less severely than it could have, given your on-tape claim to have conspired with Mason to rig the council on behalf of developers who were willing to pay for your and her illegal services? Do you intend to formally apologize to the authors whom you have sought to undermine in the very week their book came out?

If the tape had not come out, isn't it fair to assume that the humility and degree of contrition you showed would never have been seen? What else would have made you come clean with the public? When, if ever, did you intend to address your true actions which were cited in a book but as yet unavailable to the public on tape?

Why should we believe you now, when clearly your actions last night were not proactive based on your conscience but reactive based on political calculus now that the public knows the true story you have covered up for 2 years?

You say we should judge you by your actions. Here are your most recent ones. You lied about what was on the tapes. You said it was nothing special even after we had seen them. You insulted the public as "hateful". You insulted the authors. You apologized only for being brash. Again, why should we believe you now? You're not brash anymore?