Troubled water over bridge gridlock
The traffic jam at the foot of the world's busiest bridge that was apparently engineered by allies of New Jersey's governor as political payback could lead to criminal charges such as conspiracy or official misconduct, legal experts say.
Prosecutors and both houses of the state legislature are investigating the scandal, which is threatening Chris Christie's status as a rising star in the Republican Party and possible presidential candidate in 2016.
It broke wide open last week with the release of emails and text messages suggesting that a top Christie aide ordered lane closings on the George Washington Bridge in mid-September to punish the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, who did not endorse Mr Christie for re-election. The bridge connects Fort Lee in New Jersey to New York City.
Fort Lee officials and others complained that the four days of gridlock at the bridge delayed emergency vehicles, school buses and countless commuters and put lives in danger.
Legal experts said those involved in the lane closings could also be charged with perjury or obstruction if they lied to or misled investigators or produced documents after the fact that were designed to thwart an investigation.
"To me, the most plausible course for a federal criminal investigation would be to see if there's any cover-up," said Rutgers University law professor Stuart Green, adding that under the law, the conduct being covered up does not have to be criminal in itself.
While the furore could haunt Mr Christie's expected run for president in 2016, there has been no evidence he had a role in the closings. But those who were involved could face conspiracy charges, according to Fordham University law professor Jim Cohen.
"The easiest criminal issue is conspiracy and this was clearly a conspiracy among several people to accomplish an illegal purpose - the shutdown of the roadways not in accordance with whatever rules govern shutting down the roadways," he said. "And conspiracy is often breathtakingly easy to prove."
New Jersey's law on official misconduct could also be invoked, though Prof Green said he could not remember it being applied in a case like this. The statute bans public servants from benefiting - or from depriving another of a benefit - through the "unauthorised exercise" of their official duties.
That statute could be applied to the bridge scandal, Prof Green said, except that the law is usually employed in cases where there was some kind of tangible benefit, such as money.
New Jersey officials claimed in recent months that the lane closings were part of a traffic study and last week studies of the gridlock, complete with pictures, graphs and calculations of wait times and lost toll revenue, were made public by those investigating the scandal.
But an obstruction charge could be brought if it turns out the studies were ordered up in an elaborate attempt to conceal an act of political retribution.
Among the documents in the case is an August email from Bridget Kelly, Mr Christie's deputy chief of staff, to David Wildstein, a Christie ally at the Port Authority of New York and Jersey, which operates the bridge.
Ms Kelly wrote: "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee."
"Got it," Mr Wildstein replied.
As the scandal unfolded, Mr Wildstein resigned last month, as did former port authority deputy executive director Bill Baroni, a Christie appointee. Mr Christie fired Ms Kelly last week.
US Attorney Paul Fishman declined to comment on his office's review of the case.
Civil action is already under way. At least two lawsuits have been filed, one in state court by several livery car companies and three individuals, the other in federal court by several New Jersey residents.
Both accuse New Jersey officials of illegal activity in creating the traffic jams and seek unspecified damages.