The president spent much of his rally poking fun at O'Rourke, claiming he had only drawn a few hundred supporters to Trump's tens of thousands.

President Donald Trump and erstwhile Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke held competing rallies in El Paso, with a potential government shutdown and the unfinished border wall looming in the background. Trump spent much of his rally poking fun at O'Rourke, erroneously claiming he had only drawn a few hundred supporters to Trump's tens of thousands. Yet, as his numbers were proven false -- again -- and his border wall plan was once again rejected, O'Rourke seemed to be more presidential. What do you think?

PERSPECTIVES

Throughout the rally, Trump referenced O'Rourke's counter-rally. Per NPR: 

Trump seemed especially attuned to and plenty sensitive about the split-screen image of the rally O'Rourke, El Paso's former congressman, was holding outside in the heavily Democratic city. Exaggerating, as he's prone to do, about his crowd size, Trump claimed that O'Rourke had only drawn 200 or 300 to his protest while they had 35,000 people trying to get into his.

"That may be the end of his presidential bid," Trump said, mocking O'Rourke as "a young man who's got very little going for himself except a great first name."

However, Trump's claims were quickly proven incorrect. 

El Paso police estimate a crowd of 10,000 to 15,000 for the anti-Trump, anti-wall, pro-O'Rourke march and rally tonight.

-- Jennifer Epstein (@jeneps) February 12, 2019

Trump's entire camp, including his son, poked fun at O'Rourke throughout the night. 

Beto trying to counter-program @realdonaldtrump in his hometown and only drawing a few hundred people to Trump's 35,000 is a really bad look.

Partial pic of the Trump overflow crowd below! #AnyQuestions pic.twitter.com/PKxkbcFNFO

-- Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) February 12, 2019

Many pundits said comparing Trump's swipes at O'Rourke with the El Paso native's focus on the good of the nation put the former Congressman in a much more positive light. Per Vanity Fair: 

O'Rourke, meanwhile, came off sounding downright presidential. "With the eyes of the country upon us, all of us together are going to make our stand, here in one of the safest cities in the United States of America," O'Rourke told a roaring crowd. "Safe not because of walls, but in spite of walls. Secure because we treat one another with dignity and respect." After months of aimless ennui following his narrow loss to Ted Cruz in the midterms, the rally appeared to energize O'Rourke. "Yeah, I'm back in the mix," he told Politico before going onstage. "All of us right now have a responsibility to do all that we can, and this is me doing my best."

The Tylt is focused on debates and conversations around news, current events and pop culture. We provide our community with the opportunity to share their opinions and vote on topics that matter most to them. We actively engage the community and present meaningful data on the debates and conversations as they progress. The Tylt is a place where your opinion counts, literally. The Tylt is an Advance Local Media, LLC property. Join us on Twitter @TheTylt, on Instagram @TheTylt or on Facebook, we'd love to hear what you have to say.

In the party writ large, Booker's progressive bona fides wouldn't be in question.

Shocking exactly no one, earlier this week Cory Booker announced his intention to run for president in 2020. The fact that Booker would run was never in doubt. What is in doubt is where he fits in this current crop of Democratic candidates.

In response to the electoral house cleaning of this past November, the myriad declared candidates for the democratic nomination have a noted progressive bent. There are position papers on medicare for all and green new deals being posted on candidate's websites with a furious regularity.

Bucking the party's usual affinity for centrists, this year's gaggle of hopefuls are now being vetted on whether they are progressive enough. We have Donald Trump and his rank incompetence to thank for that. According to the latest spate of polling, the American people hate racist border walls, tax cuts for rich folks and having their health care taken away from them. That would seem to be a plus for the eventual democratic candidate.

In the party writ large, Booker's progressive bona fides wouldn't be in question. He's long advocated for climate action and programs like baby bonds, but in the current environment his relationships with Wall Street and the pharmaceutical industry will be an issue.

Booker will, however, have to answer for his past, and present, cozy relationship with Wall Street. He's raised more campaign money from the financial sector than anyone but Mitch McConnell. In a campaign where a majority of candidates look set to eschew corporate dollars in favor of smaller donations, that's a bad look.

Also at issue is his defense of the pharmaceutical industry and their stranglehold on the U.S. prescription drug market. He did them a big favor a while back by voting against a bill that would allow the import of cheaper prescription drugs from our neighbors. He offered some platitudes about drug safety and such but nobody with an ounce of sense thinks that's why he defected from the party on the bill.

Booker is from New Jersey. The pharmaceutical industry is a major source of campaign money in New Jersey. Booker needs to come up with a better excuse or better yet, stop doing pharma's dirty work for them.

Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.

Since most autobiographies are vanity projects by their very nature, you'd think Christie would come off looking better in a book he wrote.

Our beloved former governor is back. Sure, it's not like he ever left, but still...HE"S BACK!

Chris Christie has hit the airwaves to promote the book deal he's been dying to cash in on for so long. The former governor has crafted an exciting tell all about his fleeting time as an insider in the Trump administration. A quick scan of the cover will show you that New Jersey gets fourth billing behind Trump, Jared and Steve Bannon. That seems pretty on brand.

Chris Christie doesn't write very much about his time as governor of New Jersey because he wasn't much of a governor. His book is much like his terms as the state's chief executive, full of petty grudges, national political aspirations and little time for his home state.

It's filled with anecdotes about how he was bested by the dim son of a real estate magnate/felon, how Steve Bannon was mean to him and, of course, that time he bravely confronted a heckler on the boardwalk while flanked by a full state police security detail. 

Most autobiographies are vanity projects by their very nature. You'd think Christie would come off looking better in a book he wrote, but I guess you have to work with the material you're given.

I can't imagine the market for this book. Who is reading this besides hardcore political junkies and Tom Moran? Maybe it's one of those deals where a prominent politician puts out a book and a PAC buys a few thousand copies to hand out at conferences. Either way, congrats to the governor on getting paid.

 Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.

Get the latest updates right in your inbox. Subscribe to NJ.com's newsletters.

I was appalled, and so were many of my Democratic colleagues.

Walk down Memory Lane with me, back to 1997, when New Jersey's Administrative Office of the Courts promised to do something Chief Justice Stuart Rabner did this month.

I was a second-term assemblywoman ready to head out to a community meeting in Kearny when I got a call from my aide saying I'd have to drive because his license was suspended. I picked him up and as we headed along Route 7, he said that when he'd gone to renew his license, the DMV (now the MVC) told him his license had been suspended because of three outstanding parking tickets from 1989.

At first, I thought that was funny, so I mentioned it during my talk. Afterward, three people told me they'd recently been suspended, too, for old parking tickets. That seemed more than a coincidence.

Next day at work I asked around. Seems everybody knew somebody with the same problem. All cases were recent and in no instance did anyone have a decade-old receipt, cashed check or other proof of payment.

Later that week, I talked to my Trenton colleagues and learned they'd almost all received similar constituent complaints.

In some cases, drivers had never even been in towns where parking tickets were received. In other cases, it wasn't their license number or vehicle.

Obviously, something bad was going on.

After a little digging, I learned several large municipalities had engaged the same consulting firm to help them find new ways of raising money. The consultant recommended they check old files for unprocessed parking tickets. And they found plenty. Boxes. Cartons.

Jersey City, Newark, Hackensack, Camden and Atlantic City officials thought they'd found gold mines.

They immediately notified DMV to suspend licenses of all identified motorists, going back 20 years. DMV officials were thrilled, too.

Suspended drivers were required to pay not only original fines, but also additional charges for non-payment along with interest, and then another $50 to have their licenses restored. DMV said close to one million people were affected.

I was appalled, and so were many of my Democratic colleagues. I quickly introduced legislation requiring all municipalities to process parking tickets within three years or lose the opportunity to do so. The bill also required DMV to send certified letters to motorists prior to suspension.

Reluctantly, DMV officials backed the overall concept but balked at the cost of certified mail so there was only weak support from them. When news of the new bill went out, my office was swamped with letters and calls from outraged motorists, and I was invited all over the state to give talks and interviews about the bill.

But it went nowhere.

As a relatively inexperienced legislator when Democrats were in the minority in Trenton, I couldn't generate enough interest from legislative leadership. Most Republicans were from suburban or rural areas and hadn't been affected by the suspension blitz.

There'd been a lot of interest in the media, however, and the Administrative Office of the Courts in Trenton took notice. That office, under the direction of the chief justice, manages all courts in the state.

After some negotiations, they agreed to wipe out all parking tickets older than three years. They could do that with a single click on their computer -- but only if I would withdraw the bill and leave the matter to them.

I did. And they did. But it seems that over the next 22 years, unprocessed tickets and other small issues began piling up again. A week ago, Justice Rabner ordered all old minor offenses wiped off the books. You may never know you were in that pile, but be grateful anyway.

A former assemblywoman from Jersey City, Joan Quigley is the president and CEO of North Hudson Community Action Corp.

Submit guest columns at letters to the editor at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

How did Alvarez get a $140,000 job if no one hired him? For weeks, Murphy's senior people have all denied it. Can't the governor get an answer?

Brendan Gill wants to be clear about one thing: It wasn't him.

He is not the guy who was behind the decision to hire Al Alvarez to a senior job in the Murphy administration after Katie Brennan accused Alvarez of sexually assaulting her. The rumors, he says, are dead wrong.

"I had no communication with anyone to encourage the hiring of Alvarez," said Gill, who was Murphy's campaign manager, and serves as a freeholder in Essex County. "I was not involved in the transition or hiring practices of the administration."

So, the mystery lives. It is amazing to me that no one in the Murphy administration has stepped up and admitted to this mistake. And it's even more amazing that the governor allows the question to drag on, week after week.

"This is so silly," says Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Bergen, the co-chair of the committee. "All the governor has to do is tell us."

Maybe he doesn't know. But if that's the case, why hasn't he called all his people into a big conference room and pounded his fist on the table, demanding to know?

Instead, we heard a parade of Murphy's senior people swear oaths before the Legislative committee investigating this case, and claim that it wasn't them, leaving legislators exasperated.

In Trenton, on the sidelines of the committee hearing, Gill is the chief suspect. But when I ask those spreading the rumor to show me Gill's fingerprints, they come up empty.

So, on Monday, I called Gill and asked. He wasn't pleased. He thought I should have some hard evidence before even asking the question. I explained that I spend half my life chasing rumors, and that half of them turn out to be true. It's what we journalists do, or at least part of it.

I was surprised that Gill was so sweeping in his denial. He says he wasn't involved in hiring generally, which might make him the first campaign manager in history to win an election and claim none of the patronage spoils.

Maybe that made him nervous, because he added on one small caveat: He said that if someone had called and asked him about Alvarez, he might have said that Alvarez performed well during the campaign, when he worked to fortify support among Latino voters.

"I don't remember anyone doing that specifically," Gill said. "Someone may have called me. I don't want to say 'no' for sure. I don't remember."

Another slap in the face for Katie Brennan |Moran

I asked Weinberg, who has heard the rumors, too, if the committee intended to call Gill to testify. "Not at the moment," she said.

Hmmm.

In the meantime, Alvarez has now been cleared of criminal wrongdoing by two county prosecutors, in Hudson and Middlesex. Maybe that will encourage whoever did hire him to come out of hiding, someday.

More: Tom Moran columns 

Tom Moran may be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or call (973) 836-4909. Follow him on Twitter @tomamoran. Find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.

After years of delay, a bill to force disclosure of secret donations to dark money funds is on a fast track for approval.

A rare political moment has arrived, as the Legislature moves to demand that secret donors who bankroll elections in New Jersey step forward from the shadows and identify themselves. A strong bill to require full disclosure recently won unanimous approval from a Senate committee, and Gov. Phil Murphy says he fully supports it.

The finish line is in sight. The question now is whether the Assembly will get on board, and at this stage, Speaker Craig Coughlin, D-Middlesex, is the last big player to join the fight. The companion bill in the Assembly, which has languished for two years, hasn't moved an inch yet.

The bill does nothing to limit giant donations from monied special interest groups, like public worker unions and real estate developers. The courts have blocked those efforts on free speech grounds, most infamously with the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in the Citizens United case.

But there is no legal barrier to forcing disclosure. The only barrier is political. Donors who want to preserve their outsized influence have conspired with venal politicians in both parties to block reform.

Leaving this dark money option in place renders other election laws meaningless. It allows special interest group to sidestep limits on donations. It allows lawyers and engineers who have contracts with state and local governments to evade pay-to-play restrictions. And it keeps the rest of us in dark, unable to see who is pulling the strings in the back rooms where deals are struck.

Murphy has been a big phony on this, posing as a reformer while taking full advantage of the secrecy. His senior advisors started a dark money fund soon after he was elected, and Murphy himself solicited money for it and appeared in TV ads the group produced. The group, led by Brendan Gill, promised to reveal its donors at the end of 2018, and then broke that promise. Murphy says he wants them to release the names, but it's a kabuki dance. He has kept all the advisors who run the fund close.

Senate President Steve Sweeney, D-Gloucester, is equally tainted. He received a secret donation of $55,000 from PSEG a few months after he pushed through a shameless bill to grant PSEG up to $300 million a year in subsidies for its nuclear plant. It was discovered only became PSEG sent the check to the wrong fund, one that requires disclosure. Consider that the Sweeney Surcharge on your electric bill.

Both men are atoning for these sins by supporting the bill. Here's hoping that Coughlin joins them soon.

More: Tom Moran columns 

Tom Moran may be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or call (973) 836-4909. Follow him on Twitter @tomamoran. Find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.

Prosecutors in Middlesex failed to interview key witnesses, and asked Brennan only one question: How much did she drink on the night in question?

I was one of the naive fools who felt relieved when Attorney General Gurbir Grewal moved the rape case against Al Alvarez to Middlesex County for a second look in October, after Hudson County decided against pressing charges.

A fresh look made great sense, given revelations that the Hudson County Prosecutor, Esther Suarez, had profound conflicts of interest in the case. She had known Alvarez since 2003. And during the investigation, she was on the short list to be Gov. Phil Murphy's next attorney general, while Alvarez was a senior advisor to the governor's campaign.

But I was dead wrong to feel relieved. Because Middlesex prosecutors did not conduct a fresh investigation into Katie Brennan's charge of rape after all. They didn't start from scratch. They relied heavily on the investigative work done in Hudson instead.

What sense does that make? If the conflicts in Hudson raised doubts about the integrity of the investigation, why would Middlesex rely on their work? How could that possibly reassure Brennan, or the public, that she was getting a fair shake?

Investigators in Middlesex did not bother to talk to Brennan's husband, who she called immediately after Alvarez left her apartment. They did not talk to her close friend, who rushed over to hold her hand while her husband flew back from a business trip abroad. How could they assess Brennan's credibility without taking those basic steps?

And while they did invite Brennan in to tell her story, they asked only one question, according to her lawyer, Alan Zegas, who was present.

"They asked her how much she had been drinking," he said. "And they took few, if any, notes."

I don't know what happened that night, and the truth is no one but Alvarez and Brennan know for sure. He says it was consensual, she says it wasn't, and there is apparently no forensic evidence to break that tie.

And so far, no one has presented evidence showing that Suarez meddled in the investigation. Grewal exonerated her, and the chief assistant supervising rape cases, John Mulkeen, says he made the decision against filing charges on his own.

But neither Mulkeen nor Grewal would comment when asked if Suarez knew about the investigation. That's curious. Grewal's exoneration letter skips around that question, and Mulkeen refused to discuss it, even though he freely discussed the points that reflected well on his boss.

Suarez says she knew nothing of the investigation, but many people find that hard to believe, including members of the Legislature's investigative committee. They have asked for e-mails from three specific dates in April and May of 2017, just as the investigation began. Suarez has refused to hand them over. Several sources said those e-mails discussed evidence in the case and were sent to Suarez. A subpoena is likely, so we'll probably find out more.

In the meantime, Suarez seems to be preparing an ignorance defense: "My role is not to read documents and files all day long," she said when asked about the e-mails by Craig McCarthy of NJ Advance Media. "I have to trust that other people are doing what they need to do."

Think about Brennan, having to wonder whether Suarez knew, whether Hudson's investigation was tainted, and why Middlesex wouldn't talk to her husband and best friend to help assess her credibility. Imagine what it felt like to her when she read a press release from Middlesex saying they found "no credible evidence" of rape.

This is exactly why ethics laws talk about avoiding the "appearance" of a conflict. The appearance itself raises doubts that no victim should have to endure.

If Grewal's purpose was to remove suspicions, then he should have insisted that Middlesex conduct a fresh investigation of its own, from the top. He left that up to Middlesex prosecutors, and he won't explain why. Middlesex won't discuss the case either.

Grewal is a star in the Murphy administration, for good reason. But he's blowing this assignment. The Legislature needs to ask him if he knew about the e-mails that were reportedly sent to Suarez, and if so, why he exonerated her.

While they're at it, they could ask him why Middlesex ignored the protocols on rape investigations he issued just a few months ago. "It is vital that prosecutors explain to victims - in a respectful and compassionate way - that sometimes criminal charges are simply not viable, and that a prosecutor can decline to charge a sexual assault case for a variety of reasons unrelated to the victim's credibility," the directive says.

Middlesex sent an e-mail to Brennan's attorney, and issued a press release saying they found no credible evidence of rape, a message that suggests they believe Brennan was lying, even without doing the legwork needed to assess her credibility. Respectful and compassionate? Not so much.

Facing scandal and fiscal crisis, Murphy's challenges deepen | Moran

I can't second guess the final decision of prosecutors in Hudson or in Middlesex. Rape charges are notoriously difficult to prove, and discussing the evidence in public would be monstrously unfair to Alvarez, who deserves the presumption of innocence.

But we can conclude this: New Jersey's criminal justice system mistreated Brennan from start to finish, just as Murphy's senior aides mistreated her. That's bound to discourage women who are raped from coming forward. And that's a tragedy.

More: Tom Moran columns 

Tom Moran may be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or call (973) 836-4909. Follow him on Twitter @tomamoran. Find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.

Maybe the president do his stump speech in Moscow.

I bet the president really misses Paul Ryan.

It might be the first time anyone has longed for the presence of former House Speaker Ryan. We're in the early goings of the Democrats reign over the House of Representatives and already the president is experiencing the side effects of accountability.

In return for his alt-right performative government shutdown, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has told President Trump to stay home next Tuesday instead of delivering the State of the Union.

Citing the absurdity of holding a government-funded stump speech while 800,000 federal employees are either sitting at home wondering how to pay their mortgage, Nancy Pelosi decided the House chamber would be better left vacant than turned into a Trump rally. 

You get the idea that aides had to explain what a co-equal branch of government is when they told the president he couldn't give his speech.

He apparently threatened to show up anyway and I don't know, give the speech in the hallway? Mick Mulvaney doesn't have the keys to the House Chamber so his options were limited.

Just yesterday Trump conceded the point to Speaker Pelosi and agreed -- as if he had a choice -- to postpone the State of the Union until the government reopens, whenever the hell that is. 

After two years of doing and saying whatever he wanted while Ryan and the House Republicans abdicated their oversight duties, this is at least a small taste of accountability for the president. 

Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.

At press conference, the governor takes a few cheap shots at the Star-Ledger. Here's our answer.

Gov. Phil Murphy was asked Tuesday about our editorial calling for him to lift the gag order that is preventing some staffers and volunteers from discussing the treatment of women.

"I did not read it," he said. Ouch.

"I'm told it was riddled with a lot of inaccuracies." Cheap shot. Prove it. You can't.

But here's the meat: "There's an agenda there," the governor said. "I'm not sure what it is."

On that, I can help. Our "agenda" is to report on the treatment of women in Murphy world. No mystery there.

In fact, if the governor would take about three minutes to read the editorial, he would find that several leading women legislators agreed that he should lift the gag order. 

"I would like to hear a rational reason as to why not, and I haven't heard that," says Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Bergen, the co-chair of the joint committee investigating the mistreatment of Katie Brennan, who testified that another campaign worker raped her.

"That's how we get to the truth," says Assemblywoman Nancy Munoz, R-Union.

"If there's something that's obviously really wrong and someone speaks out, no matter what environment they're in, they should be allowed to," says Assemblywoman Eliana Pintor Marin, D-Essex, Weinberg's co-chair. 

Do all these women have hidden agendas, too?

Here's the backdrop in a nutshell: Murphy insisted that some of the people who worked on his campaign and transition sign non-disclosure agreements about what they saw and heard behind the scenes.

We asked him to release those people, especially the women, after hearing Brennan testify that she told senior players on Murphy's team that she was raped by Al Alvarez during the campaign. Murphy's team went on to hire Alvarez for a plum job in the administration, and later gave him a fat raise, even as they promised Brennan they would get rid of him. They didn't do that until Brennan went to the Wall Street Journal and outed them all.

You can read more about that, and the complaints of two other women, in the editorial here.

But for now, the important thing is that Murphy won't lift the gag order. Instead, he's lashing out at us. Which raises the obvious question: What is he hiding?

More: Tom Moran columns 

Tom Moran may be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or call (973) 836-4909. Follow him on Twitter @tomamoran. Find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.

The investigative committee suspects she's lying when she says she knew nothing about the Katie Brennan rape case. It wants key emails. She is refusing.

What is Hudson County Prosecutor Esther Suarez hiding? Why is she fighting the Legislature's request for documents related to the explosive rape allegations from Katie Brennan -- documents that could shed light on Suarez's own truthfulness in the case?

Welcome to the next phase of the Brennan rape scandal. Until now, the focus has been on the Murphy administration's frat-boy behavior -- the failure to take Brennan's rape charge seriously, the decision to hire the man she accused, Al Alvarez, and to give him a fat raise, despite promising Brennan that they'd get rid of him.

But the role of Suarez is coming next. She claims that she knew nothing about the case while her team worked on it for eight months in 2017, a claim that is now under scrutiny by the legislative committee.

It's important because if Suarez was involved, it would amount to a gargantuan conflict of interest that would throw the legitimacy of the rape investigation into doubt.

Suarez has acknowledged that she knew Alvarez personally. And she was on Phil Murphy's short list to be named the next attorney general during this same period, several sources say, presenting an even sharper conflict. Prosecuting one of Murphy's senior campaign aides during the campaign is not the sort of thing that ingratiates a job applicant.

So far, there is no evidence that Suarez meddled in the case. The head of the unit that handles rape cases, John Mulkeen, said on Saturday that he made the decision not file criminal charges against Alvarez, and that neither Suarez nor Murphy's team played any role.

"I did not speak to her (Suarez) about the decision," Mulkeen said. "All the conspiracy theories that say the governor's office interfered are nonsense. That's a complete work of fiction."

Brennan's lawyer in the criminal case, Alan Zegas, doesn't buy it for a minute: "The decision not to prosecute was political," he said. "Katie Brennan told a completely believable story. She had a right to have a grand jury make a determination and was denied that opportunity."

Suppose, for a moment, that Suarez didn't interfere, but that she knew her crew was investigating the case.

Even that would be ample grounds to shift the case to another county. Brennan should not have to trust Mulkeen's word, or worry that Suarez might have overruled him if his decision went the other way. Moving the case would remove any doubt, which is why ethics rules typically bar even the "appearance" of a conflict.

The committee is clearly suspicious of Suarez. It made two requests for documents, both of them rejected by Suarez. The first came in December and was a broad demand. The second was more narrow, asking for emails from four specific dates in April and May of 2017, soon after Brennan made her complaint.

How did the committee know those four dates? It seems clear its investigators are working with a whistleblower who had knowledge of the inner workings of Suarez's office.

Suarez herself seemed to confirm that in her rejection of the committee's request, which came from her counsel, Ralph Lamparello. In it, Lamparello notes that the committee's request noted that it had "received information that Prosecutor Suarez had received e-mail communications regarding Ms. Brennan's allegations."

I asked Mulkeen if Suarez was included on the investigative emails, which would indicate she is lying when she denies knowledge of the investigation. He wouldn't confirm or deny it. So, why is he giving her only a half-exoneration?

My guess is that the committee will escalate this fight over documents by issuing a subpoena, which members will discuss, according to Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Bergen, the co-chair. Watch for Suarez to be swearing her oath sometime soon.

I keep thinking about the human wreckage behind this case. Alavarez lost his job, and will forever be shamed, over a charge that we can't be sure is true, a charge that was never heard in a court of law.

And Brennan is living a familiar nightmare. She did everything a rape victim is supposed to do, went straight to police, submitted to intrusive rape kit investigation, called her husband and best friend right away. She worked quietly behind the scenes to get justice from Murphy's team, and was ignored. She went public, she testified with grand dignity under oath -- and now sleazy men are making sleazy calls to people like me, trying to discredit her in all the familiar ways.

Facing scandal and fiscal crisis, Murphy's challenges deepen | Moran

Suarez wouldn't talk to me. She could remove a great deal of suspicion by releasing the emails the committee is seeking, even if most of the content is redacted. She could clear this up in a flash. Why wouldn't she do that if she's telling the truth?

Attorney General Gurbir Grewal investigated Hudson County's handling of the case and gave Suarez a full-throated exoneration. My guess, though, is that he's regretting the last line in his exoneration letter, when he told the committee to drop its investigation of Suarez before it even got started. That was overreach with a political bent, and it annoyed legislators who are only doing their job of oversight.

As for Murphy, he's caught in a bind that's strangely similar to Suarez's. Murphy claims that he didn't know about Brennan's allegation until the Wall Street Journal called either, even though his senior staff knew, just as hers did. And Murphy, today, is still enforcing a gag order that blocks women who worked on his campaign from testifying about any sexual harassment they may have faced.

Here's a free tip for both of them: If you want people to believe you, stop hiding relevant information. It makes you look guilty -- even if you're not.

More: Tom Moran columns 

Tom Moran may be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.">This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or call (973) 836-4909. Follow him on Twitter @tomamoran. Find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.