The lead in to the article is to rehash how Christie made a loan to an assistant which he failed to disclose. That is old news. The point of the article is that the assistant "may have" helped Christie with the timing of arrests from an investigation led by Christie (emphasis mine):
The short story is that there is no story, just speculation about possibilities and presumptions. But the Times uses it as an excuse to rehash a multitude of allegations against Christie, and to get the headline it wanted: "Christie May Have Gotten Improper Aid."
But interviews with federal law enforcement officials suggest that Ms. Brown used her position in two significant and possibly improper ways to try to aid Mr. Christie in his run for governor....
In mid-June, when F.B.I. agents and prosecutors gathered to set a date for the arrests of more than 40 targets of a corruption and money-laundering probe, Ms. Brown alone argued for the arrests to be made before July 1. She later told colleagues that she wanted to ensure that the arrests occurred before Mr. Christie’s permanent successor took office, according to three federal law enforcement officials briefed on the conversation, presumably so that Mr. Christie would be given credit for the roundup.
The possibility that Ms. Brown may have helped Mr. Christie’s campaign from inside the United States attorney’s office casts a new light on their relationship and on the prosecutor’s office.
How about this for a headline: "NY Times May Have Lost What Little Credibility It Has Left."
I'm Seething Over The NY Times Calling Me Seething
NY Times New Business Strategy: DEATH
Nude Swiss Hikers Rescue NY Times
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook