Saddened. Humiliated. Heartbroken. These descriptions would not usually describe an overwhelmingly re-elected governor, potential presidential nominee and immensely popular politician. Yet, on the morning of Jan. 9, 2014, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie felt these emotions.

During a near two-hour long press conference, Christie answered questions and made statements regarding what has come to be known as “Bridgegate.”

In mid-September, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey unexpectedly closed two access lanes on the New Jersey side of the George Washington Bridge, the nation’s busiest bridge. A massive, week-long traffic jam followed, clogging the streets of nearby Fort Lee, N.J.

Last week, emails were exposed linking Christie’s Deputy Chief of Staff Bridget Anne Kelly and Port Authority officials to the ordeal. Allegedly, the closure was intended as an act of political revenge against Democratic Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, who did not endorse Governor Christie for re-election. 

The story has since spread nationwide, sparking many questions from all directions. How much did the governor know? How could something like this happen under his watch? How could he possibly have not been involved? Isn’t this proof that Christie is a bully who seeks destructive revenge against his opponents? If he didn’t know, doesn’t this signal incompetent leadership?

Because of Christie’s prominence, it is reasonable for such an episode to become a national headline. Elected officials should be held accountable and investigated for any potential criminal activity, but such inquiries and investigations should not be formed on the grounds of irrational assumption and opportunistic partisanship.

As a seemingly moderate politician in today’s polarized political culture, Christie has attracted adversaries who are ready to attack at the earliest possible chance. The television media has certainly had a field day with the story.

In regard to media coverage of Bridgegate, some have claimed it to be disproportionate, compared to scandals under Obama’s term in office, including Operation Fast and Furious, Benghazi, AP wiretapping and IRS targeting scandals. Objectively speaking, statistics prove the aforementioned notion correct. According to Scott Whitlock of the Media Research Center, the three networks devoted 17 times more coverage to Governor Christie’s Bridgegate scandal in 24 hours than they did to President Obama’s IRS controversy over the past six months.

To be fair, controversies such as the IRS targeting scandal eventually matured and revealed President Obama to be truthful in his denial of involvement. This is exactly why Christie critics should remember the importance of patience. Because events were allowed to properly transpire, President Obama was able to shed the controversy of such episodes and move past them. Governor Christie deserves the same treatment.

For those who previously defended President Obama when Operation Fast and Furious, Benghazi, AP wiretapping and IRS targeting scandals were first reported but now criticize Governor Christie, it is terribly hypocritical to make assumptions at this stage in the investigation.

Using a double standard in regard to scandal and controversy is imprudent judgement and irresponsible behavior.

Regardless of one’s political disposition, whether left, right or moderate, it is always a danger to draw conclusions from only the early, often misconstrued, facts.

Rather, it is important to step back and consider what has transpired: Emails were exposed, the Port Authority officials involved resigned and Kelly was fired by the governor, himself. Furthermore, Christie called a press conference during which he spent almost two hours answering questions and speaking candidly to the public about the sadness and embarrassment with which the episode has left him. The governor did not deny the severity of the matter, nor did he defend his former aide’s actions. He vowed to comply with investigations and to continue to do his best as governor of his state.

What more do critics want? Christie has directly addressed the issue, fired the staffer involved and vowed to comply with further investigation. Above all else, if Christie has, in fact, lied, the person most affected would be himself.

As former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said on Sunday’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos, “He says he didn’t know. I think it’s pretty darn credible. He wouldn’t make this blanket denial unless it’s not true.”

Moreover, Giuliani made clear that “If, for some reason, it’s not true, the man has put his political career completely at risk. If it turns out there is some evidence that he knew about it, he’s taken the complete risk that his political career is over. I don’t think he’d do that if there’s any suggestion he knew about this.”

Governor Christie is a masterful politician, as well as a former U.S. attorney. He is more aware than anyone of the repercussions lying has on a political career. He has to understand that if any knowledge of the scandal exists, it will surface and become known. Therefore, downright lying to the public about information that will surface would be completely inconsistent with Christie’s blunt manner and political adeptness.

Instead of speculating on the governor’s sincerity or impulsively demanding answers on the spot, the public must take a rational and patient approach that allows for the facts to rise up and the falsities to fade away.

If Governor Christie did know about the motive behind the lane closings, then the public has every right to criticize and condemn him for an untruthful response to an already awful situation. If nothing comes of the investigation, however, it is the responsibility of the media and the public at large to move past the episode and focus on the issues facing the governor, rather than the reckless actions of a former staff member.

Governor Christie deserves a chance, and in order to provide a respectful approach to politics and journalism, it is the nation’s duty to give him one. 

Write Matt at [email protected].