Just a week into the "Bridgegate" trial, Democrats in the New Jersey Assembly have begun investigating the process to impeach Republican Gov. Chris Christie.
In opening arguments last week, prosecuting attorneys said testimony will show that Christie had knowledge of the closings of traffic lanes to the George Washington Bridge in Fort Lee -- punishment for the Democratic mayor of that town for refusing to endorse the governor's re-election bid in 2013. Prosecutors said the trial will reveal two former officials of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, David Wildstein and William Baroni Jr., had a conversation with Christie on Sept. 13, 2013 about the closings. Later that year Christie denied any knowledge of the closings.
The trial is expected to last about five weeks.
Could Christie be impeached if he knew about the bridge closings? The state constitution says "the Governor and all other State officers, while in office and for two years thereafter, shall be liable to impeachment for misdemeanor committed during their respective continuance in office."
The decision to initiate the process would be up to Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto, a Democrat. If articles of impeachment were approved by the Assembly Judiciary Committee, a majority vote of 80 Assembly members would be needed to impeach, setting up a trial in the state Senate, which would need a two-thirds majority to convict.
While some Democrats say evidence of prior knowledge would be enough to impeach for obstruction of justice, some political observers say the Democratic-controlled Legislature would just as soon avoid that possibility, since removing Christie would elevate Lt. Gov Kim Guadagno with just months remaining in the governor's term.
A spokesman for Christie called the talk of impeachment ridiculous.
What do you think? Should Christie be impeached if testimony shows he was aware of the lane closings? Have a say in our informal poll, and feel free to elaborate in the comments section.