Donald Trump will be in town this week hosting a fund-raiser to retire Chris Christie's campaign debt.

It'll cost you $200 to get in. For $1,000, you get to shake the hand of the governor and the guy who consigned him to defeat in the Republican presidential primary.

For Trump it promises to be just another day on the campaign trail. But for Christie it will be yet another day when the specter of Bridgegate will be hanging over his head as he mans the rope line.

On Friday, the judge in the pending trial of the two defendants in the case ordered a delay until at least Tuesday of the release of the names of unindicted co-conspirators in the 2013 plot to close the access lanes to the George Washington Bridge.

My sources tell me the Gov's name is not on that list. But then last week we learned of a second list, this one of others who "may have had knowledge of the conspiracy ... but did not join."

Christie's name is virtually certain to be on that list. That's because the government's star witness, Bridgegate mastermind David Wildstein, has already charged that Christie knew about the lane closures as the plot was unfolding in September of 2013.

If that list comes out and he's on it, then Christie will once again catch hell in the headlines - perhaps unfairly. The category "may have had knowledge" is a broad category indeed. Lawyers I've spoken to say they wonder why U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman's office would even compile such a list.

But they did, and it first came to light in March, when a lawyer representing a number of news outlets including this one filed a request for the list of co-conspirators.

That led Michael Critchley, the defense attorney for former Christie aide Bridget Kelly, to file a request for the names on the second list on the grounds that the information "is crucial to Ms. Kelly's ability to prepare for and defend herself at trial."

Last week, Judge Susan Wigenton released that list to the defense. It's under seal for now, so we don't know exactly who's on it.

What we do know is that things are looking up for Critchley and Michael Baldassare, the defense attorney for former Port Authority official Bill Baroni.

By the time the trial begins, the defense will likely have a long list of public and elected officials who had some role in the scandal but weren't indicted. The obvious question at that point will be why these two were singled out for prosecution under federal law.

They shouldn't have been, according to Harvey Silverglate. Silverglate is a Boston lawyer who is the author of "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent." The book is based on the premise that if you construe federal law broadly enough, then the average American can't make it from dawn to dusk without committing a few felonies.

Silverglate says the Bridgegate prosecution is a classic example of federal prosecutors turning a political tussle into a federal case.

"This whole imbroglio is really the quintessential political fight," Silverglate told me. "I think it's a very good example of the tendency of the Department of Justice to redefine, recreate, stretch, and contort federal statutes to kind of meet the occasion of the day."

In this case, one of the charges is based on a federal statute criminalizing the theft of public property for private use. The property in this case was the bridge itself. To say Kelly and Baroni stole the bridge is a stretch if there ever was one, he said.

"Federal criminal law is not a fitting subject for creativity," said Silverglate. "Citizens as well as government officials are entitled to notice if they're doing something that violates federal law."

Whether a jury will see things that way remains to be seen. But there's a sort of poetic justice in the governor getting embroiled in a case of prosecutorial overreach, said Silverglate.

Attorney Alan Zegas, left, with his client, David Wildstein at a state Assembly committee hearing during which he took the 5th: We've yet to hear his story of how Bridgegate unfolded - but it can't be good for Christie.

"When Christie was U.S. Attorney, he was as creative as the best of them - or the worst of them," he said. "I'm tempted to say, 'Live by the sword, die by the sword.'"

That sword certainly cut down the governor's political ambitions.

Christie was the consensus front-runner in the race for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination until his minions decided it might be fun to get revenge on the mayor of Fort Lee for failing to endorse him in that gubernatorial race.

Now he's being dragged back into Bridgegate right when he's assuming the role as transition chief for the Trump campaign. Despite Christie's declaration last week that the scandal is "old news," there will be plenty of new news in the eventual revelations of just how big a role he played in it.

But at least there will be plenty to talk about at that fundraiser.

PLUS: The big problem for Christie as this unfolds is the question of just what he knew and when he knew it. He has insisted that he first learned of the bridge closuers from the newspapers, but as noted above Wildstein has said the governor knew about the lane closures while they were still going on.

But there's another guy who also says Christie knew in advance about this fake "traffic study."

And that's Chris Christie himself.

As noted in the "Suppose Samson squeals" column linked above and here, Christie said at his first press conference on Bridgegate that he had directed then-Port Authority Chairman to look at the issue of "dedicated lanes" for Fort Lee locals.

Below is the full passage (italics mine). Note that Christie has never explained just when and what he told Samson to "look at this." Christie's quotes:

"I didn't even know Fort Lee had three dedicated lanes until all this stuff happened, and I think we should review that entire policy. Because I don't know why Fort Lee needs three dedicated lanes to tell you the truth and I never knew it until this whole happening came about.

"My urging to the Port Authority would be to review that whole policy. I sat in that traffic, before I was governor, at the George Washington Bridge. And the fact that one town has three lanes dedicated to it? That kind of gets me sauced.

"But I do believe, and I told Chairman Samson this, that we should look at this. One lane maybe. Three lanes? I don't quite get it. I read something in one of the stories that this was host community relations. I mean what's gonna happen if they get a little bit upset? Are they gonna move the bridge?"

ALSO:

NOTE TO COMMENTERS: Every time I post a conservative criticism of Chris Christie, I receive comments from some wannabe-conservative readers who assume that a criticism of Christie from the right is somehow left-wing in nature.

I have every leading conservative in the state on speed dial. I don't know a single one who is supporting Christie in this controversy, and for an obvious reason: He spent his re-election campaign courting Democrats in the cities to bolster his national image rather than helping his fellow Republicans in swing districts in the suburbs. As a result, his 22-point landslide translated into zero gains in the Legislature.

Google is your friend. Use it before making uninformed coments.