fbpx

Christie defends Oxley nomination

State Street Wire, the pay sister site of Politickernj, is reporting that Governor Chris Christie said that the controversy State Senator Ray Lesniak is making over former Monmouth County Sheriff Joe Oxley’s nomination as a Superior Court Judge is “just another excuse” by Lesniak and the Democrats not to give Christie’s judicial nominations confirmation hearings.

Lesniak wants the FBI’s files from their investigation into Solomon Dwek’s allegations that Oxley, while sheriff, tipped off the real estate swindler to foreclosures in Monmouth County prior to the information becoming public.  Oxley has refused to authorize the release of the files and the Justice Department has declined Lesniak’s appeal that the public interest outweighs Oxley’s privacy.

Christie said that his successor as US Attorney, Paul Fishman, found “no factual basis” in Dwek’s claims.

Christie said he knows first-hand how the data provided by cooperating witnesses can be.

“Sometimes it can be reliable, sometimes it can be fiction,” he said.  “I think it’s unfair to put that kind of fiction on the public stream.”

Christie said that the judiciary committee should do its job and hold a confirmation hearing for Oxley.

Oxley has referred requests for comment to the governor’s office.

As a practicing attorney, Oxley could have legitimate reasons, including attorney-client privilege, for refusing to authorize the release of his recorded conversations.

More from my site

Posted: October 23rd, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Chris Christie, Joe Oxley, Monmouth County Court, NJ Courts, NJ Democrats, NJ Judiciary, NJ State Legislature | Tags: , , | 2 Comments »

2 Comments on “Christie defends Oxley nomination”

  1. Pilgrim said at 1:52 am on October 24th, 2012:

    Its a record that the public is entitled to review. So much for fair and balanced: Christie has already decided that it is fiction — let the public decide whether-or-not it is fiction. By-the-way, what are Oxley’s professional, not political, qualifications for this patronage appointment?

  2. Pilgrim, I agree! said at 12:01 pm on October 24th, 2012:

    Again, let the transparency begin and let the public decide