John Cook, a writer for Gawker.comexposed what could have been a bombshell earlier in the week in a lengthy article that talked about a sex tape that featured Chris Christie engaging in a “gang-bang” with a few other men.
The author spoke about his friend named Bill who came to him with a shocking discovery, that he had found Christie’s film online and he needed Cook’s help in order to verify it, so Cook kindly obliged. After all, it was the sex tape of a sitting governor.
He said that his friend had brought to his office his laptop that had Christie’s face plastered all over it along side the face of the actor in the video. He described the images and how convincing they were, saying “There were close-ups, too: The two mens’ ears side-by-side, and zoomed-in photos of what appeared to be moles on the cheeks of both men. The upshot: The man in the pornographic film looked a lot like Christie. The ears, the chins, the eyes, the hair. A lot.”
He said the man in the film was much thinner than the New Jersey governor is now but his friend had thought about that and included photos of the younger Christie. Upon further inspection the two men agreed that the physiques of the two men (the one in the film and the younger Christie) bore an uncanny resemblance, enough of a resemblance to continue investigating.
Bill described to Cook a mob initiation ritual where they would basically force a man to partake in a gang-bang and film it. They called it a “team-building” exercise but the reality is that it could be later used for blackmail should the person ever step out of line. It was when he was researching this initiation that Bill found the video of Christie.
Cook said that his friend then showed him short clips of the video, showing him only snippets and frames to support his theory that it was in fact the governor of New Jersey in the video. His theory was that Christie had mob ties and that the video was shot when he younger and more actively involved then it was leaked. Bill thought that all the dots were there but that nobody was connecting them, so he started trying to.
Cook then explained that people like Bill come around often, they get something in their heads and no mater what happens they stick with it. There’s no evidence they’ll listen to unless it confirms their belief. “It was obviously a mob initiation. The mob runs the porn business. Think about it,” Bill said to him.
Apparently Bill have been pushing the story to the New York Times and Mother Jones for over a year prior but the same questions remained, like what would Christie be doing in such a video with the ambitions he had back then.
The video turned out to be a 78 minute porn flick that was called “Sloppy Seconds Volume V,” and a journalist from Mother Jones had tracked it down. The actor that looks like Christie as actually Tom Byron, who’s one of the most credited actors in the porn industry. Apparently the film was shot in Los Angeles in 2000.
Cook was able to have this confirmed by the producer of the movie himself. He sent an email request to Mike Hott who replied:
You have my permission to respond to him. I would appreciate if you would respond to him from your email address. Please inform this person from Gawker that NO it is NOT Chris Christie.
Granted, he actor in the film does look dead like Christie however the odds on him actually doing such a movie with his political aspirations are slim to none. As Mike South put it, the film would have had to have been shot in the early 80′s for that to have actually been Christie since that’s the last time he was actually thin, and he noted everything about the film that would let people know the time frames are way off:
OK here’s my thoughts:
I would put this video as shot in the mid to late 1990s on VHS
Here’s my reasoning: The girl is shaved. Thats a real rarity in the ’80s but more telling is the guys are close trimmed—that was a mid-to-late Nineties thing.
The girl’s panties go straight across her waist. The ’80s style was to wear them in the more of a v shape higher on the waist. The straight across thing was ’90s.
The style is for sure ’90s amateur, shot on an inexpensive consumer-grade VHS camera.
H/T: Mr. Conservative