Oh, this might get interesting. (h/t Main Justice)
A subpoena has been issued for Gov.-elect Chris Christie to appear next month at the federal trial of North Bergen Internet radio host and blogger Hal Turner.
Michael Orozco, Turner’s lawyer, said in an affadavit supporting the subpoena, that Christie, as the U.S. Attorney, knew that Turner was working with the FBI, Christie gave legal advice to the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force regarding Turner, and issued a “Blanket Letter of Declination,” refusing to prosecute Turner.
For his part, Christie says he has yet to receive the subpoena, but that he might not be able to testify because it would expose internal deliberations.
Christie said it would be hard to testify because of the internal deliberations and other legal issues that go into the decision-making process.
“It’s very difficult for a U.S. Attorney to testify,” he said. “We’ll see what happens during the road.”
So does the fact that Christie is talking about “internal deliberations” support Turner’s contention that Christie declined to prosecute him, even while several other prosecutors were pursuing such a prosecution?