military personnel and compensation subcommittee as an intern. while, as luck would have it for me i left and went back to the army intarmy into the house armd services committee staff within months had a real opening for a real job, and because i had been an intern and because he knew me and liked me and i was young and trainable they offered this job to me. ..

had been 17 years at that point. i got out and i went into the private sector. i actually had three jobs in the private sector. started out with united technologies corporation, did a couple years there. i went on to business executives for national security which is a nonprofit organization. and then i went to saic wishes science applications international. at a variety of jobs there, in the as being the president of the technical and engineering sector. so i was actually running a segment of our business and saic. saic does it solutions and technology services and solutions for the government. mostly the military. so you see the thread thread tht always links my career together has always been military issues. it's our national the fans. i have always been a civilian, never served in uniform, always been a civilian in support of

defense, but i served as well is the way i look at it, including my time industry because we can't get our work done in government without our industry partners. so i look back on my career, very, very blessed to have done all the things, met the people and learned all that i've learned. very blessed to be doing what i'm doing now. but along the way i have developed -- by the way i like late-night comedians. watch letterman. i usually ddr because i can't stay up that late but i eventually catch up. of course, i like the top 10. letterman top 10. i have to have a top 10 list. i have my top 10 lessons that i've learned in my life and i've learned some of these the hard way and some of them the not so hard way, but they certainly pretty well both as an individual contributor, leader. they have served me well as a mother, and members of my family. i want to offer these to you because there might be some nuggets in there that would be helpful to you in your lives and

in your career. so the first lesson i learned is, i call it be prepared to zigzag in your life. if you haven't already been thrown a curveball or two in your life, i'm pretty sure you will be. i've been thrown actually many curve balls. i've been thrown curveballs professionally as well as personally. you have to be prepared to give it. you have to be prepared to zigzag. whatever your original ideas of what you want to do or the track you think you ought to take, it may not work out that way. so be prepared to seize whatever that new opportunity is, and if one door closes, keep in mind another door will open. and ultimately what you will make, make out of it. i've changed jobs. i've been government come out of government to saic, i was there 11 years. i think i have seven different jobs at saic. somewhere very welcomed.

others i just got caught up in downsizing, shifts. some i like. some were rather distressing to me at the time they happened. but the point is he prepared to zigzag. it's not necessary the way you think it's going to be but that doesn't mean that it can't be great. my second lesson is, seek a mentor. seek the mentor and do this no matter where you are in your career. and then when you get to the point in your career where each of had enough experience, be a mentor to somebody else. the mentorship has been huge for me. huge. you need to help one another throughout the process as well. i have never been a formal mentorship process. people say my company or my government organization doesn't have a mentorship program, or i applied for and i didn't get in it so i'm shut out. no, you're not. album i did an informal arrangements. i would really recommend anybody

who's been there, done it, has knowledge that you don't yet have, contacts and can open doors for you, seek a person appear to be surprised how willing most people are just sit down and have coffee and tea some advice. that's really what mentorship is all about. number three is built and valueo a network both inside your current organization and outside your current organization. and for heavens sakes as you build and value this network, value means keeping touch with them right away. in other words, don't just call him up every 10 years when you're about to need a job or some kind of favor something like that. you've got to build and valley and keep in touch over time. my network is really i consider all of my network my friends. i really do. all the friends i have, most of the friends i have met in different jobs. my very first boss when i was an intern on the house armed

services committee staff was a great mentor to me. i'm giving you one example. and i kept in touch with them even as we went our separate ways, and we always had lunch come hell or high water every year. so we kept in touch. and would you believe, 20 years later after i was an intern and he had long since gone, he is the one who during an annual lunch introduced me to the company of saic, and introduced me to an opportunity at saic. that's the power of keep in touch with people. not only will you learn from them not to introduce you to people can introduce you to opportunities. so seek a mentor and then build and value those mentors into your greater network, and keep in touch with people as you go forward. my fourth lesson learned is the importance of competence, build confidence and what have you been. that might mean getting an extra degree in your field of study.

it may mean just as you pivot and zigzag in your career is on the job training. it's doing what your doing, volunteering maybe for extra activities it again. it can be education, training or on the job training but make sure that you are competent in what you're doing. terribly, terribly important because that network can help you open doors, might even help you get the job but if you don't perform on the job you will not last very long. number five is the importance of communication. communicate, communicate, communicate. i know you've heard this before i'm going to tell you that in my opinion at least half if not more than half of communication is listening. be an active and good listener. you will learn a lot. you better be able to put yourself in other people's shoes, meaning that lies with their position what they're going through as well as learn from them. so communicate. that's written, verbal, and it's

very important to be an active listener as you go through your career. number six is the, be a role model for the way you want others to behave. and that means on the job. and by the way, it means off duty as well, as far as i'm concerned. this is particularly important the higher up you go because the higher up you go people will recognize you in your profession. they will be watching you. they will be watching your movements and how you talk to people and how you conduct yourself in your private life. to always keep that in mind. in the air force we have what we call our core values. integrity, service and excellence. i think is a pretty good core values no matter what you organization is. integrity and service and excellence. so be that role model always. which is very closely related to lesson learned number seven, ethics. the importance of ethics. and by the way, one of the things that has kept me very busy in the last three months

was a major failure of integrity, our core service, our core value number one. it occurred in a missile community. the icbm community to take a minute now to talk about this. it gets down to ethics. this was a chief situation that occurred. and by the way, it grew out of a drug investigation, and cell phones were confiscated as part of this drug investigation. and in the forensic analysis of the cell phones it was discovered that those who are in a missile commute to and are of our icbm nuclear weapons had cheated on a proficiency test. which i think i was two or three weeks on the job when this came to the light, came to our attention at the senior levels. and the first thing i asked was, holy cow, does this mean that the people who are in charge of our nuclear weapons are not proficient, that they had to

cheat on a test to get by? so first of all let me answer that question. and reassure all of you, the answer is yes. the answer is the nuclear mission is safe and secure, and it's covered. there were many reasons why this happened to the number one reason why this cheating happened was a failure of integrity. by the way some of them actually cheated but then there was this other group who knew about it and didn't do anything and sort of said it's not my business. i do want to be a snitch. i do want to tell. i'm just going to let it go by. so there are two categories of people, and they both failed in integrity as far as i'm concerned. so this is the importance of ethics, the importance of living those ethics as well as if you see something in your environment, personal integrity requires you to do something about it. and this is where there was failure on the part of the missile community. so we are still working through that, but the nuclear mission is

safe and secure. i do want to assure you of that. but as part of this we're doubling down in the air force on the matter of ethics, core values. because whether it comes to people misbehaving with government funds or whether it comes down to sexual assaults, many other ways where people fail in their integrity. some people do. the vast majority of people don't but some people do. so we are doubling down to make sure that we remind everybody at all times how important ethics is. number eight is the upbeat. by mother used to say nobody likes a debbie downer to pick it up a notch. be upbeat and all you. this is important if you're an individual contributor, you know, no bosses going to like to hear about nonstop problems unless you also can offer some solutions. they are you've got something if you can do that. if you're the boss you've got to help your people work through problems and see that silver money. you just can't be all gloom and doom.

if you can't see your way clear to better times, your people certainly won't see their way clear it. so be upbeat as a leader as well as an individual contributor. number nine, persistence pays off. it really does. it's paid off for me. it tells you i had seven jobs that saic. some of them were not so welcome. i thought kennerly do this again? do you know what? i was persistent. i hung in there and the next job was really the best job of all. and that's really been the story of my life. so persistence really does pay off. i'm certain it's going to pay off for our air force. we have tough budget times ahead yet again we have some issues, personnel issues i've already mentioned some of them. but we're going to be persistent and there will be persistent leadership and focus and that's going to pay off as well. and the number 10 lesson learned is along the way make sure that you have fun in your life, make sure that you love your family, that you love your friends, that you have some hobbies outside of

the workplace, or that you enjoy your church or that you get involved with your neighborhood. whatever it may be, make sure that you do that for yourself as well. along the way of my 3 38 year career, i forgot to tell you, i did raise two children. at times i was a single pair. i would also do so it's not an easy deal, but i raised two children were now 29 and 28, which is pretty in kabul since i'm only 39 myself. [laughter] but anyway they grew up on you awful fast, awful fans. so enjoy them while their young. enjoy them throughout the entire period. i also have a wonderful husband who was not my first husband, but he's a wonderful husband and we are still newlyweds actually. we have been married just about a year now. now that decades ago action at a couple of hobbies i'm working on. i'm not saying i'm great at the but in working at them and i'm enjoying them.

so it is important to have a balanced life. you will be happier for it. and if anybody has read the book, lean mean, which i've read, it's a good book but it's an interesting book. of course, you look at these things and you think did i do that when osha identifies what? but it took some good pointers from. there's also been an article of late which is called lean back which takes the opposite view, buthat we're so busy all the tie multitasking and trying to be super women and everything all at once, it's absolutely exhausting. so there are times why don't we just a little bit more lean back here so we have lean in and we are going back. and i'm going to give you a third. i'm into the rock 'n roll. i think we've got to do, i think you've got to do a little bit of all thaall of that and you've ge able to squeak -- tweak it up or down to be on where you are in your life, what's happening with the family and all of the other

factors that comes into play. that's pretty much as a look back, i didn't call it rock 'n roll but that's pretty much the way that i did it. and all the while that my children were young i will also tell you that i had very definite priorities. and my priorities were the kids and my husband and my job. my priorities were not cooking and cleaning, and those sorts of things. there's times you just don't sweat the small stuff, or the smaller stuff. so if you're dust bunnies around my house, who cared? so what if we didn't have gourmet cooking? because i was at that could. i was a simple click. things like that. i just didn't care. i wanted to do my job that i would come on, focus on the kids, and that was sort of the way i balanced it but i will tell you, my kids are grown now. i'm not sure i could be secretary of the air force and do the job of it if i had young

children at this stage. so there you go with your, there are times to lean in come time to lean back and away i would put it, it's a little bit of rock 'n roll. as i mentioned in the beginning for me it's always about people. whatever sector you work in, if you take care of the people that you lead, if you give them information, if you listen to them, you will be amazed at what you can accomplish together. i know that i have been throughout my tenure, throughout all my different jobs. and i'm certainly amazed now by our air men that i am so privileged to serve alongside. so i want to stop at this point and thank you very much again for the invitation, and thank you all for what you are doing in your own organizations to try to present a much more inclusive national security realm for women and men. so thank you. [applause]

>> all right. [inaudible conversations] >> well, thank you very much for the personal at the end. i think in particular the notion of zigzagging and rock 'n roll is a notion that is well taken. i'd like to open it up. we have about 10, 15 minutes for questions. please identify yourself. make your questions brief and we'll take two or three at the

same time. yes, please. >> thank you very much for speaking to us today, secretary james. i really appreciate. i'm sure all of the people here can say thank you very much for your insight, your top 10. as a rock 'n roll fan, lovely. my name is doctor laura and i have a few questions. my first question is about education and integration. are you aware that the air war college last two women on faculty? i was one if for any initiatives to address the issue. and my second question is, i am one of six published academics -- rehabilitation. and that was curious if you saw the military looking at these programs or maybe researching these programs more as of the countries have adopted these as part of their national security strategy? thank you so much. >> hi. thank you.

on camera, i'm action and air force of them but i have a flexible to work long days and ever the weekend of ever the weekend to fight off the this happens to be my friday off. thought that it was an excellent opportunity to be here, and i always appreciate wiis progress. i was excited about when he talked about the intermission program. i am about your age but i was older in life and i have a 13 year old and i was wondering is there going to be opened up to air force civilians? [inaudible] >> that's absolutely right. >> at the moment it is not open -- [inaudible] that's an idea. so thank you for that. as far as the air war college, no, i didn't know that they're e only two women on faculty so that's another one you just give me an idea here. i don't have an immediate answer to that, but that doesn't seem like a very good representation.

and i will own -- also said on the phone with the research you talk about on -- deradicalization. yes. i'm also not fully with the. is that going on at the air war college at all? >> no. [inaudible] >> would use in a paper on that? do you have like a published paper? i would be interested in reading it so i become familiar with it. >> there we go. is that better? >> hello. am i hot? [laughter] >> a little levity.

my name is karen and you had mentioned one of the three main reasons for air force women departing the serve is that midcareer level. which is the driver of not having come not senior leaders if you'll at the senior level. so given that imbalance between females and males, how do you handle conflict and conflict management at that level with your male peers while still maintaining those critical coalitions and relationships? >> i'm here with wiis senior fellow with a combat integration initiative and on foot with the air force plan to open remaining almost 5000 positions to women. i'm a little concerned about the fact that you are taking all three years to potentially open those which and you won't act to see women in those elite positions for another three

years because the pipeline is a long. so we won't see women getting those elite positions until about 2018. i don't know why or don't understand why the air force is taking the full three years since you only have a few positions remaining. you are losing women today who are interested in those positions. some have joined wiis and aired from one just last week that said i'm fed up with waiting for these positions to open. she wants to be a forward air controller but she can't. and it just seems like why are we waiting so long to open those positions? >> i'm just curious if you could speed it up or put pressure on the service to make changes sooner, after? >> i think we should see it would be to do. that, of course, is the deadline. you're right, why not? let me take that back and see if we can speed it up.

the gender-neutral standards, again i know from my time on -- this is proving to be a difficult thing, particularly for the marine corps, i think more particularly for the army. maybe less so for the air force pixel a try to take that back and see if there is a way to speed it up. as far as the question on how do we do this conflict resolution, you're talking broadly, or were you just talk about military to military? [inaudible] >> where we have fewer women at the senior levels. i think, my opinion i think women are actually very good at conflict resolution. i think it goes through that listing skills that maybe women tend to have somewhat better. i think it also goes to those entity skills that i talked about. it goes to the importance of new confidence. if you're going to get that level you better be confident, you better know your stuff. plug-in i think the challenge is

how do we get more women graduated into these senior career areas. that's one of the things i'm trying to work on in my realm of the air force. >> hi, mary cars, and i'm in the air force at the pentagon. i recently graduated from the school of advanced air and space studies. and while there i did my research on the diversity related topic that included case study on the women in combat. and one of the things i've done in my research there and as i'm continuing now in my dissertation is that not everyone sees the value in focusing on diversity. and what would you say is the way that you're able to convince people, i heard you speak about diversity, diversity thought in broad terms. how are you able to convince other senior leaders around you

when you're mostly looking at males to believe in it the same way you do? >> so, i think many people will buy into the diversity of thought, peace. it's when you get into the diversity gender, ethnicity, the people the what are you doing? tried to put quotas there and so forth. but to me it's all diversity of thought. we all come from different backgrounds. and so i think times are changing in this regard. i think most senior people nowadays do you believe in diversity, and those are trying to get there from here. it's particularly difficult i think in the world of uniformed military just because there are these gates that must be filled. i mentioned some of them. command, it it's professional military education at certain levels. it is a providing of different things that you just simply can't grow a colonel in five years. you've got to have 20 some years

to grow up well. it's that kind of thing. in the civilian world i think there is more opportunity to skip if you will, in other words, to leapfrog depending on what's done and your background and whether people are more willing to take a chance on you. military has been much more structured, by to see a sea change i it people always believing in the concept of diversity, particularly diversity of thought which i think includes gender, ethnicity and other forms of verse of the. >> i'm on the joint staff. last year i was at the kennedy school at cisco and i had a research project in which i looked at leadership role in mental health, for the service. the statistics have remained pretty much the same despite our 900 activities that we have offered to service members and their families but and i was curious as to what initiatives that the air force to implement over the next few years to

really energize leadership to take ownership and responsibly for the people at the lowest levels all the way through? >> on mental health? >> yes, ma'am. >> one more. >> i really enjoyed secretary james a lightning talk. and i'm just trying to share some insight from you, that coming from a polished and background -- pashtun, having -- computer science skills with extensive teaching at university levels and having his teacher like a single parent, i am left on my own now since all of them have grown up and married, and wondered how can they be in the

right place where i can apply my skills, experiences as a woman touched. [inaudible] having gone through all the zigzag and inequality and unknown? >> right, right, okay. >> one more question. the last one. >> i'm and innovation strategist at booz allen. we have talked about a lot of the really wicked problems of gender equality. national security in a time of decreasing budgets but if there's ever a time for innovation, this is it. what is the strategy of the air force to get the best ideas from the middle and from the bottom and service those up to the top? >> okay. among my many non-talent is remembering things. so you will help every member. the first woman to have to do

with mental health to let me go back to that one. so if there is one area of mental health that i'm most interested in, i'm most concerned about, sort of across the board is the area of ptsd to the extent that leads over to the worst of all which is suicide. so we've been tracking suicide rates pretty heavily in the air force, and i'm quite certain that's the case for the army and the marines and the navy and so forth. and there is good encouraging news but is not so encouraging news. so, for example, the encouraging part of it is if you look at statistics come any suicide is terrible and even one is too many, but if you look at statistics and to compare discipline world and so forth, we've been running fairly consistently i want to say between two and 4% of the suicide rate. again, too high but when you compare to some of the other, when you compare the other

services, you know, it's not too bad. it's been kind of consistent. i think we have quite a good program. i've reviewed it. it sounds pretty good to me, and commanders talk about these matters regularly. they have era men and women days that talk about taking care of one another and worrisome signs for air force people to be on the look out for. but it's not good enough. the not so good part of the story is we have seen a bit of an uptick in the first part of this year. what's going on? i'm not sure. is it a seasonal? isn't this or that? not exactly sure, but it's worrisome and we have to keep our eye on it. the number one reason by the way it turns out because i've asked this question, it's not so much ptsd related. it's more relationship issues. so it's break up of a marriage or difficulties with children, or something of this nature.

it tends to be relationship-based. the other thing i will say is de- stigmatizing generally mental health issues is something we all have to work on. i think we're making progress. more to go but i think we have made progress where people are probably more comfortable today, still accountable enough but more comfortable coming forward and asking for help. and again i totally believe the commanders out there in the field, they want to help people. they don't want bad things to happen, for mental health issues to spin out of control. but it is de-stigmatizing that and getting people comfortable coming forward. now, you were saying, have you been out of the workforce for a wild what you say you raised your children and now you're looking for a way to rock 'n roll again, bring in a little bit. [inaudible] >> right. [inaudible] >> yes. it's like starting from scratch.

right. so one way, i didn't talk about this at all, but one way, particularly if you do different changes, if you taking years off and so forth, one way is to find an organization where you might one day like to work and volunteer there, just to get your foot in the door. that's one way. [inaudible] >> yep. right. >> persistence -- >> your network, right. all the things and sometimes it takes time. [inaudible] >> i think maybe the last question is a big question. it's about how do you stimulate creativity for you yourself have said you need to be creative in

this challenging environment and world, so how do you do that in an institution like the air force? >> one we can do it, and i was giving examples of things we've tried and applied to try it and other areas, is to ask the airmen directly for some ideas. we've had a campaign going on for sometime now. our vice chief of staff lead. it's called every dollar counts. to who we are in a world of very tight budgets. we are worried we can't make ends meet, and yet idiotically you hear about terrible waste and stupid things that just waste money left and right. so the senior people, a lot of the stuff doesn't even come to your attention and tilt it blows up and then it hits the newspapers. so how do we get people at the front line to identify smarter ways of doing things and propose those of the likes we have a chance of implementing them? that was sort of the spirit of every dollar counts. and i'll tell you, people have responded, have come in with all kinds of ideas. doesn't mean you can implement

them all. sometimes they don't understand the same framework. sometimes the ideas are not workable but we've come up with several and its a way of starting. i want to start another campaign. i call it stopped doing stuff last night. >> that's a catchy title. >> we will look for another title but i can't stop doing stuff. we are getting smaller as an air force and yet we don't ever seem to stop doing anything. i'm not talking about the five core missions. that's the crux of what we do but there's all kinds of ancillary things that we do. inspections and training of the sort and the. and some of it is crucial but i'm convinced it's not all crucial. sometimes when you say why are we doing that? we've been doing that since year 1975. out why? people can even sometimes remember why we started doing some of the things we do. i'd like to start a campaign and am working on this, stop doing stuff. if anybody has a better title by the way, i'm open. i'm open.

so yeah, that would be -- you asked the airmen directly, you look to the other services. what are they doing? what good ideas can we pick up? i told you about the career admission program. we got that idea basically from the navy so let's not have pride of authorship these days. >> please join me in thanking secretary james. [applause] >> thank you. >> for being so open and frank, sharing some of their personal stories, and we will launch a contest on the twitter feed to get you a better title. >> thank you. thanks so much. [inaudible conversations]

>> and a news conference with governor chris christie has just begun. we are trying to bring that to you live here in the meantime, yesterday an internal review team hired by the christie administration to investigate the matter regarding the george washington bridge closure on diversity released the report findings to the public. lead a turning randy masters of the review shows that governor chris christie had no knowledge beforehand and played no role in the limitation of the lane closure decision. we will show you some of yesterday's briefing now here on c-span2.

>> good morning ladies and gentlemen. my name is randy mastro of gibson, dunn and crutcher. i'm here today with my colleagues, five former federal prosecutors, a team we put together to conduct this investigation on half of the governors office of new jersey. and we are here today to brief you on our report and our findings after that 10 week investigation. this is a team of professionals, former federal prosecutors that have 50 years of government experience, and many, many internal investigations. as part of our backgrounds. 10 weeks ago we set about to do this investigation at which is

conducted over 70 interviews. we reviewed more than 250,000 documents, and at the same time we have facilitated cooperation with other ongoing investigations. and i'm here today to tell you our bottom line findings, and then to answer your questions. we probably won't be able to get to everything today. you will probably have many more questions as you read our 345 page report, which we consider to have been based on a thorough and exhaustive review. i'll be happy to take questions as you go through that report later and to get you the information that you request. but for today's purposes let me come to the bottom line findings. first, in connection with allegations related to the george washington bridge realignment, we found that governor christie had no

knowledge beforehand of this george washington bridge realignment idea, and that he played no role whatsoever in that decision or the implementation of it. we further found no evidence that anyone in the governors office, besides bridget kelly, new of this idea in advance or played any role in the decision or the apple mentation of it. what we did find was that -- implementation. after the decision to implement the lane realignment while it was going on and in its aftermath, the members of the governors office, some of them became aware of the lane realignment, inquired of port authority representatives, and

were told this was a legitimate traffic study, and there was an operational issue for the port authority to deal with. we further found that as the controversy grew by only december, that there were rumors about potential of others involvement, appropriate steps were taken to try to determine if anyone else in the governors office, anyone in the governors office was involved in the lane realignment decision. and that windows appropriate inquiries were made, bridget kelly lied to our colleagues and even reached out to a subordinate and as to them to destroy a potentially incriminating document. and we further found that it was not until january the eighth,

2014 when documents that had been subpoenaed were first revealed, that they showed that david wildstein and bridget kelly had participated in this act. this decision and the limitation of it to realign this george washington bridge lanes at fort lee your and we further found based on our investigation that david wildstein is the person who originally did this idea and orchestrate it. that david wildstein went to bridget kelly for approval in the governors office, and that they had an alter your motive for implement in that decision. to in some way target mayor sokolich in fort lee. we are not able to answer every

question today. we are not able to answer what that ulterior motive was, but we can say that the evidence does not establish that that ulterior motive was to target mayor sokolich because he did not endorse or governor christie for reelection. in fact, there substantial contrary evidence. in fact, the evidence shows that both the governor's office and the christie campaign knew as early as march 2013 that mayor sokolich would not be endorsing the governor for reelection. yet by his own account he continuecontinue to have good rs with the christie administration, and, indeed, was on a list of mayors being considered for honorary appointments by the governor as recently as may.

2013. we further find that when the governor became aware that bridget kelly and his office had been involved in the decision to close these lanes, he took appropriate action. he fired bridget kelly, and then he commissioned this investigation and made a public commitment early on before our investigation has progressed beyond its initial stages that he was going to release our findings to the public. before he could have known what they would be and what our recommendations would be. and he directed us on the day we were retained, which was the first time i ever met governor christie, to find out what the facts are, whatever they may be, to report them back to the

governors office, and to make recommendations as we saw fit to address the problems so that something like this never happens again. and that is what we have done in our 345 page report. now as to the second issue that we were asked to investigate involving hoboken's san diego. we find that mayor zimmer's allegations, that members of the christie administration delivered a message from the governor to her threatening hoboken's sandy aid unless she supported a private development project. are not only unsubstantiated. they are demonstrably false in material respects. mayor zimmer's subjective perceptions do not match the

objective reality reflected in the hard evidence that we uncovered during our investigation. in fact, they are contradicted by contemporaneous documents, witness accounts, and her own prior statements. so no remedial actions are required in regard to those allegations. finally, i want to briefly summarize some of the recommendations that we have made to the governor. because while the actions of the few, there was a violation, a breach of the public trust that we take very seriously, and we take our mandate very strangely to make recommendations to the governor that something in his office, that something like this never happen again. so among the recommendations that we have made to the

governors office are that iga, that's the intergovernmental affairs office that was run by bridget kelly in 2013, that that office be disbanded and that the governors office be reorganized and its functions be combined with those of the governors office of constituent relations into an office of legislative and constituent services. to get back to the original mission of that office, which was to provide constituent services, to provide services to local elected officials in a nonpartisan way, open to all. the way that office function during the first three plus years of governor christie's administration, and tell the

operational behavior -- until the operational behavior in 2030 the mission of that office should be made crystal clear. to be a service function for all in a nonpartisan manner. second, we have recommended to the governor's office that the governor a point an ombudsman and a chief ethics officer for the governors office. the ombudsman would be a senior statesman of unquestioned integrity and independence to report directly to the governor, and to issue periodic reports to the public as both a resource, a sounding board, and the place to go for complaints within the governors office. and we have recommended separately the appointment of a chief ethics officer for the

office of the governor to be responsible for ethics enforcement, conflicts issue resolution, and training. and that that person should have a direct reporting relationship both with the chief counsel for the governor, the ombudsman, and an ability to report to the governor as well. finally, in regard to the port authority, which is where this lane realignment was effectuated, we recommend the appointment of a bistate commission to examine ways in which to fundamentally restructure and reform the port authority to ensure its independence and professionalism. this incident exemplifies that there are times within the port

authority where the rivalries between new york and new jersey have led to communication failures and other problematic issues. a bistate commission appointed by both governors can look at ways to help improve the operations of the port authority, to make a truly independent and professional, to serve the needs of both states. in the first instance, a commission will hopefully look at these types of issues. first, whether it's appropriate to restructure so that you are new jersey and new york divisions, functions, projects principally in one state or the other that will be run by each of those states so that those states will be truly accountable for the projects applicable to

each state. second, to look at ways to restructure the appointments process at the port authority to encourage independence and professionalism. terms of years, staggered terms that will exceed the lengths of terms of governors and joint appointments i both governors to increase independence and responsibility within the port authority. that is a brief summary, ladies and gentlemen, of our findings and recommendations. and now i would be pleased to take questions. yes. [inaudible] >> someone would say, well, governor christie's lawyers, the found -- the fact he found that the longer, that's which are supposed to do, work for him. that would be the findings. >> sure. the premise of the question is wrong, david, because the premise of the question is that our law firm works for an individual. our law firm was retained by the

office of the governor. we were retained by public office and we have an obligation to the public office. and whatever the facts were that we found, our obligation -- and he was publicly stated -- was to report those findings back to that office. and that office announced publicly long before we had reached any point of rendering findings or knowing what our findings would be, that those findings would be put out to the public. and, david, had we found evidence to the contrary of what we found, we would've been reporting that. and, of course, in facilitating our cooperation with investigations, we would have been providing that evidence to investigators. what we found, david, what we found was that governor christie have no involvement in the decision to close these lanes and no prior knowledge of it. not a shred of evidence of it.

and we are obligated to report that back. that is our public responsibility. both as lawyers and to the public office. yes, andrea. >> did you interview witnesses under oath? and was chairman -- [inaudible] >> our interviews were not under oath, just as initial interviews that other investigations are doing are typically not under oath. chairman samson had denied any prior knowledge of the lane closure incidents in prior statements he admitted. so we have the benefit of that but we did not have the opportunity to interview him. yes. >> most residents of new jersey are probably today realizing that this costs of a million dollars, gagging on the breakfast. what did they million dollars by them? >> well, first of all, i have no

idea what the cost of this is been but i will say that they do an investigation like this and to have to facilitate cooperation with other investigations that have issued sweeping, overbroad subpoenas is a costly proposition. is a costly proposition for the governors office, with the legislative committees, for those individuals who are involved. but let me also say this. is the search for the truth and we believe we have gotten to the truth, or we would not be reporting it. it serves no one's interest, no one's interest, certainly not my or my law firms interest, certainly not the governors offices interest or the constituency it serves, the people of new jersey, for us to do anything other than to try to get to the truth here and to address it. because, ladies and gentlemen, there are other investigations that will make findings after we are done. we will be judged at the end of the day by whether we got this

right. we intended to get it right. we believe we have gotten it right. we've admitted where we don't have answers yet, and other investigations will continue to work with to see that they get those answers. but has to the most important questions, we believe we got it right. we will ultimately be judged by that, and we had to work even harder to get it right now so that the people of new jersey could be insured as a matter of public trust whether the officials in their governors office have conducted themselves appropriate or not. so yes, our findings today are a vindication of governor christie and what he said all along, that he had no knowledge of this lane realignment beforehand and no involvement in that decision. but it's a sad day, too. it is a sad day for all of us can know that there were people in public office, in the governors office and at the port

authority, who breached the public trust in this way. and that's why we have made the recommendations to governor christie that we have. yes, brian spent a couple things on samson. why didn't you involve them? he was quoted in an e-mail saying that he had made a big mistake. we know that wildstein had talked about having retaliation. the questions are, how does a governor prevent himself, the governor, from appointing basically people who turned out to be political hacks, who turn to the port authority into the crazy idea of lincoln, into the piggy bank? other than reforming terms on the commission, i don't see and hear you getting to the point of how did he put these people in that position that they were essentially either morally corrupt or otherwise? >> there is many parts to your question. let me start with, and i think i

answered andrew's question before. we didn't have the opportunity to question david samson. >> why not? >> double samson firm declined to have parties there interviewed. [inaudible] >> let, please let me answer his question first. were not going to interrupt each other. brian, answer your other question, we think that the reforms we're talking about here including some would like a chief ethics officer would be involved in screening, and ethics issues relating to appointments and conduct, we think that that in part addresses what you're saying. i want to be crystal clear though. i want to be crystal clear. we found that this was the actions of the few. this is not reflective of the whole. and the many honorable people who serve in the governors

office, many of them former federal prosecutors themselves, a very distinguished and long careers in public service. so it is sad that bridget kelly did what she did. it is sad that david wildstein did what he did. and our report reflects our findings in regard to those individuals. but it is not reflective of the actions of the whole at either the governors office or the port authority. yes, yes. [inaudible] >> brian, we have so may people here. do one quick one, please. [inaudible] >> the governor asked for his resignation? >> again, what our report reflects, it was not about david samson or his conduct. he denied having any prior knowledge in connection with the lane closures. so that was not -- and he was not involved in the hoboken issue at all. the allegation made by mayor

zimmer that the funding of a rockefeller group study on the port authority, a study of hoboken's north end, that the port authority paid for, that found the rockefeller group's project should be designated for development, it turns out that it was mayor zimmer who asked the port authority to fund the study. and the port authority decided to fund that study before david samson ever became a sticking share of the port authority. so from our perspective the issues you are raising were not the issues of our investigation. yes, please. [inaudible] >> yes, i know, steve. >> since the lane closures have come to light, it's been reported and well documented that david wildstein had other things in the past. that would be seen as being vindictive. his leadership style has been

characterized, let's say, as being very brazen. it was well known to many people -- [inaudible] with that in mind, i'm wondering then, how did it come to this point where the governor or his administration felt comfortable putting him in such a position of authority that gave them the opportunity pretty much to do whatever he wanted to at the port authority? >> sure. that's a good question. our report reflects that we found david wildstein's deployment came about because bill baroni had been appointed to be the deputy executive director of the port authority. that's a representative up in the new jersey side and that bill baroni recommended that david wildstein be his number two at the port authority. it was not in a condition made in the first instance by the governors office. now, the fact that it happened and this person was in deposition and we pay the fines

we have, which is that this was a david wildstein driven idea, this was a david wildstein orchestrated lane closure, that he himself had a history for some reason of caring about this, these dedicated fort lee lanes as some kind of fever treatment of fort lee. ..

join him by approving this. >> we have to let other people have their chance please. >> had he introduced them to the highest level of the agency and he told people at the top of the agency he had a top-level position on the executive board. did you find otherwise? >> we did not find that and if he was making that representation to try to enhance his own stature within him a very contentious authority between new jersey and new york it wasn't true and we didn't find any evidence to support such things. we found contrary evidence.

the >> [inaudible] >> okay i'm going to take each of these in turn. this is a vindication of governor christie in that we found what he had been saying all along was true and noble whatsoever in the decision by the implementation but it is a sad day because we did find that someone in the governor's office intand someone at the port authority were involved in an abuse and the publiabusing the d that's something we all take very seriously.

i am also a proud democrat. i'm also someone who is fiercely independent as you know from the many times you covered the fact that i brought one case after another against the republican bloomberg administration and bill thompson who was almost at the mayor and now in the litigation with nyu. the point is this, we are lawyers and professionals during the independent investigation. it serves no one's interest, not ours, not the governors and not to the constituency the governor's office serves. the people of new jersey for us trying to do anything other than uncover the truth and report the truth. because we are going to be

judged on whether we got it right and other investigations are still ongoing. and we believe we got it right. we said what we thought we could say as a matter of fact, it was true and what we felt was inconclusive or we could not determine, we said that in our report, too and that we would continue to cooperate with investigations. now the third part of the investigation i didn't get to interview wildenstein or kelly because they've taken the fifth amendment and pointed out by many of you in the press they didn't get to interview while the steam or bridget kelly and that is true and neither is the legislative committee going to interview david wildenstein because they've taken the fifth amendment against answering questions into the litigation that's going on right now is not about whether they can be forced to answer questions. it's about whether documents will have to be produced.

in the david actually produced his documents including his personal documents in the legislature and they have been put out publicly. and bridget kelly and david wildenstein to our knowledge are talking to the u.s. attorney's s office because they are the focus of that investigation. and in our experience in the former federal prosecutors it's unusual for people who are the focus of an investigation to be going in and telling their story. they are often taking the fifth amendment which they are in the circumstance. but even if eventually they do come forward, you have to evaluate the credibility of what they say under the circumstances at the time of when they say it and the jeopardy they face and based on the hard evidence that exists out there because we have an old maxim in investigations.

witnesses lie, documents don't hear it and we have the hard evidence. we have seen and have unfettered access to files. not only governors files from the governor's office, but the personal e-mails and text messages of the governor, lieutenant governor and a senior staff in the governor's office, former senior staff in the governor's office. so we know what communications they have had, if any, with david wildenstein and bridget kelly. and we have, thanks to the legislature we have david wildenstein's personal e-mails and texts. he was given a subpoena to produce everything he had on the george washington bridge. he produced documents. i take it that he produced everything that he had in response to that subpoena and went back and read active

information. and build it and take the fifth amendment. he produced his documents for the legislature and we have seen what his personal e-mails and texts. so what do we have now? we have wild steam to baroni and others. official and personal we saw. we have baroni to wildenstein to step in. official and personal, we saw it. the only thing that we haven't seen, and we have seen it a lot more than anybody else in this room, because we have seen the personal texts and e-mails of those in the governor's office and the senior levels and even some former members.

guess what, what we found was that whatever personal relationship step in day had ended by the first week of august, 2013. and they largely stopped speaking. so, i don't expect we know from the witness interviews and it was confirmed by multiple interviews. let me just finish. let me just finish. we shouldn't be yelling out let me finish. we don't expect necessarily to see anything more comes from matt. but we have seen so much about the hard evidence. and after all this time, one would expect with all of that hard evidence and private communications that we have access to and we have seen some of which end you have seen more of which we have got to see now because the governor's office decided that we should publish this report. we believe based on that hard

evidence that we can make the findings we have and there isn't a shred of hard evidence that the governor did anything other than what he has publicly said that he had no knowledge of the closures before hand and he had no role in the decision to implement it or the implementation of it. >> will there be a waiver of the privileges [inaudible] that they would be disclosed in the underlining report? >> you are getting the reports today hundreds of exhibits. the internal documents that have never been revealed before. they've all been posted online for you to review your cells

create a virtually every proposition in the document is footnoted and cited and the question that you ask, of course the governor's office is aware that there may be implications for privilege from disclosing this report and the documents that have been disclosed. and i think that says something about the governor's office that it has decided to release the report weeks ago knowing that there might be indications for privilege. with me finish. one second. i know everyone has a lot of questions. and again i'm going to be happy to take questions individually later as we've had a chance to review the entire report. but we are cooperating i'm not going to comment on what those discussions in detail other than to say that we have briefed that office and kept them apprised of

what we have been finding, reporting to them in some cases they may not have been aware of, and we are going to continue that process. and we are going to, you know, continue to work with that office to provide full cooperation. so today we are not releasing the direct accounts of our interviews. we are going to continue to work with the u.s. attorney's office to their investigation. they have a different process. i'm not going to comment on that process other than to say that we respect it and we are going to continue to cooperate with their process. >> [inaudible] >> well, i wouldn't put it that way. but the fact of the matter is when you conceive of something like this and you decide to hide it from your colleagues and you decide to use personal e-mail

and text and when the colleagues like your immediate boss comes to you on the direction from the governor to question you in particular and you why and then you go back and check your files and check one of your colleagues and tell her i'm getting grilled about this and you try to take her temperature to see whether she remembers what happened that week and then she remembers getting a personal e-mail from you that might be incriminating later. how is the governor, how is the senior staff supposed to have uncovered that? i suggest the hindsight is almost 20/20 and there's a lot of people who know reflect back

and wish she hadn't been given the benefit of the doubt, but she consciously tried to cover her actions. by showing consciousness of guilt, and it shows something else. she was covering up for a reason. she was covering up from her colleagues at the chief of staff and the governor who didn't know what she did. that's what it tells you. >> [inaudible] when did the public know more about the circumstances of the behavior in the interview and that delegated into this ordinance that made themselves -- >> i'm glad you asked that question because the premise is

wrong. there was no exit interview with bridget kelly. the decision was made when these revelations that came as a shock about the role that she should be fired and the decision was made to fire her then and there and then when one looks back in hindsight on that we can understand exactly why that decision was made so that no one could suggest there was any attempt in interviewing bridget kelly to do anything to reflect what would be the future investigation of her. >> [inaudible] >> i appreciate the question. we have to do what other people have a question. let me finish with a follow-up. what i have liked to confront bridget kelly are what a lot of

people in the governor's office liked to confront her at that moment? i think the answer is obvious. the answer is yes. but the decision to fire speaks of somebody who made a decision because she had to be fired because she had lied to him and we respect that decision. >> [inaudible] were there any crimes committed? >> i'm not going to comment on the latter category. that will be up to the other investigators to determine. that was not a part of our mandate. and these are breaches of public trust that is a separate question of whether what else

they might constitute. as to the first part of your question, it could go to something that has been raised by others. members of the legislative committee doing this investigation who have seen the evidence as of today we have substantially completed any production of documents to that committee personally into its subpoena. a vacancy the evidence that we can see or the lack of so they started to change the nature of the debate to be about whether a culture was created in the governor's office of the partisan retaliation. and i just have to say this. we found that to be unsubstantiated. and in fact, we found substantial evidence to the contrary. and that is in our report on

pages 135 to 137. but let me also say this personal or political motives of david as one of your colleagues in the press noted earlier seemed marriott he seemed to have all sorts of personal and political animus towards a variety of people. it had nothing to do with anyone thinking they were serving the governor. i can say it was clear to us that he was seeking to target he was the driving force behind it and we found a small group of people including bridget kelly

were friends so when he went to the governor's office he went to his friend. but we don't know why he targeted but we can tell from the communication that there was some off your ear right up behind what they did and they can look at the evidence and say it's not established that was because the mayor didn't endorse the governor and in fact he wasn't intending to endorse yet he continued by his own account to have a good relationship with the governor's office he found

after the closures that it could be true and it was a form political retaliation and we saw a hardcopy evidence during the several months afterwards he continued to have a good relationship and was on a list of the mayors considered for honorary appointments among after he already let the campaign and the governor's office now he wasn't in a position to be endorsed. >> [inaudible] we know that david alleged that he spoke to the governor at a public event about the traffic

issue during the closures. we surmised from their since the only public event at which david attended at the same time as the governor was the memorial by many people and we know that the governor was in attendance with his wife, port authority officials not just why augustine but on a regular basis over the period dozens of spectators and families came up to the governor for handshakes. the governor recall seeing him at that service always in a public setting he recalls having

brief interactions with others including by a stea why or the mention of any traffic issue in fort lee but the governor point out the mentioning of the traffic issue wouldn't have been memorable or meaningful to the governor if it is a common occurrence to have traffic issues and problems and the bridges and titles so it wouldn't have registered with the governor with the governor recalls as the first time it registered with them this issue of the alignment was around the

time of an article appearing in "the wall street journal" did an internal e-mail from the port authority this is in the timeframe or around october 1 and having seen someone in the port authority the executive director questioning the legitimacy of the traffic study the governor says registering at that point he has a recollection of that and asked the staff for feedback. this was a legitimate traffic study for the port authority to handle and more once again a reflection between new york and new jersey and that was accepted and made sense to people in the

governor's office at that time and as i explained by early december as the controversy grew more appropriate steps were taken to make inquiries and then the governor's office was misled by bridget kelly. this gentleman here. >> [inaudible] >> i'm going to get back to you on the specifics. if you leave your name and number i will get back to you. it's actually not that i will get back to you. >> please go ahead.

excuse me, please. we will call on you. i want to get to as many people as i can and i told you i would take westerns afterwards. i want to answer all of your questions, just you have to let people have their chance. >> [inaudible] >> well you will be able to spend more time with the report after this and that isn't what the report said. of the report said the evidence was inconclusive as to whether he knew of him alter your motive. he's acknowledged. he knew in advance about this. he testified that he knew about this days in advance of the alignment being implemented.

we did not see conclusive evidence like the kind of conclusive evidence we saw about why augustine and kelly that they knew that baroni knew of any all tea terry or motive andt would be the issue. keep in mind doing a traffic study that went awry when of us would be here. this was about whether there was an old fury or motive and it built a case. we didn't find any compass of evidence. we found evidence that the said was concerning and warranted further investigation, but we didn't see any conclusive evidence that he knew of any all terry or motive or was in any different position than other people having an misled. that is the same conclusion that we have reached their. awareness of an idea but not the knowledge of them all terry or motive. we found no evidence

establishing that. yes? >> as it is mentioned in the report [inaudible] was there any imagination [inaudible] >> okay. to expedite this, yes they were friends and they had dinner in some detail here and also what was discussed within the governor's office. so please read the report. yes. >> [inaudible] >> we didn't speak to any

witness who recalled anything other than they were in the same place and we have photographs that show a group of people together but we also have the governor's first-hand account. >> telling him about the traffic study how did you know that [inaudible] >> i'm glad you asked the question. i'm going to repeat myself hopefully it is crystal clear. whether or not david wildstein mentioned that there was a traffic issue or traffic study or traffic problem, that is not a memorable event to a governor as to whether the port authority is involved in some traffic issue in fort lee at a bridge or tunnel. it's simply not an issue that would register with the

governors as a significant. however, if that had been a circumstance where there's a discussion about your ear motives, that is something that definitely would have registered with the governor. but how could that have been surrounded by people, many people from the port authority, his spouse had dozens of people coming up to him during the conflict. aconflict. that didn't happen and no one suggested it did. all he had suggested in the letter to the port authority in the context of wildstein have not only seeking unity from the prosecution, but also indemnification from the port authority is that, quote, evidence exists that the governor heard something about this during the week of the implementation. the fact of the matter is the

mentioning of the traffic problem wouldn't have registered and memorable meaningful either our traffic problems and issues all the time in the bridges and toddlers, so that wouldn't be a significant event, a memorable event and it's also telling that in making that representation is an admission david has no evidence because he has produced none and his lawyer didn't represent such that the governor knew anything about this realignment before it was implemented because he didn't. yes ma'am. >> you're suggesting that the governor's office responsible for overseeing this -- is that what you're saying? >> the governor, the head of the

governor's office, so the governor is being requested. his office is being requested, but he runs that office to the point of the unbuttonin i'm ombn report periodically to the public on any issues that arise in the governor's offic office e direct reporting relationship to the governor and separately from that committee appointe appointf the chief officer, someone who would be refundable for trying to make sure through the ethics enforcement conflict issue resolution and the training like this never happened again both in terms of who gets appointed and how they serve. a gentle man in the back. >> are they capable of hiring someone that could be an

ombudsman [inaudible] >> thank you for the question. the answer to the question is of course because the actions of bridget kelly, while they reflect adversely on the governor's office are the actions of an individual. the office as a whole, there are many distinguished public servants. there are people whose reputations have been this marched because of what bridget kelly did end of this marched unfairly. to lift the cloud to restore the public trust, to make sure there are no misconceptions or appearance issues whatsoever, we've recommended to the governor that while the actions or the view, to restore public trust in the whole and the many honest dedicated public servants in the governor's office and the many honest dedicated public servants at the por port authory

we have made the recommendations we have two restore public trust and now it is up to the governor to decide what to implement. >> okay we are going to take two more. >> andrea -- andrea -- >> [inaudible] spec i will answer your question as soon as we are done. >> [inaudible] >> i've already answered two of your questions. yes we asked for an interview in the firm on behalf of the people there and asserted [inaudible] >> excuse me, andrea. i've answered your question. go ahead please. sir yes. >> [inaudible] >> they asserted they didn't feel they could respond to questions. they had a attorney-client and other obligations and declined to be interviewed. i'm just telling you what we were told. please go ahead. >> can you explain more about the significance of the relationship?

using two implying that the reaction they have some influence on her lying to the governor but are you also implying that this may be one of the reasons behind the all terry or motive? >> i am not implying anything more speculating anything on the series. i am stating what we thought we established as a fact that for a brief. of time in the summer of 2013 there was a personal relationship to the individuals that had cooled by the first week of august and that they largely stopped speaking at that point. it just stated the facts. >> i'm going to answer the question but the relevance would be that might explain

particularly not speaking a lack of communication between the two of them during a critical period where the realignment decision was made. we are going to do two more. who has had a chance to ask the poor? all right. i'm going to let you next and then we will do you last. >> a follow-up on my colleagues question first to the decline on the interview but my question is he was not aware between the lane closures that there was other than his statements to you is there other evidence that shows that he was not aware or was it a lack of other evidence

or whether simply no texts? >> let me start with your question. our finding is based on the facts on the entire factual record and the inferences to be drawn from that entire record and we found not href of documentary evidence. personal texts, e-mails and government files anywhere, from any one that suggested the governor knew anything about this before hand. anything. second, we look at the totality of the evidence and we see that at critical junctures how the governor and his staff reacted to certain events and how they recount certain not just the

governor but everyone on his staff. we have seen their personal texts and e-mails and we know that there is not a suggestion anywhere by anyone that the governor knew anything about this before hand about this decision to close these before hand. and we see a governor reacting in the 13th of december having further inquiry made it to try to drill down on whether there was any involvement by anyone in his office -- please let me finish. let me finish. >> [inaudible] >> december 12 and 13th. the 13th he may be newer to the party area to the 13th was the day that the governor held a press conference. and we know that what he did at this time was he insisted on shore on the inquiry being made. he directed his chief of staff to make further with bridget kelly about whether she knew anything about this in advance. he convened a senior staff

meeting the early morning of december 13 and he confronted that entire staff and said he wanted to get to the bottom of this now and that a better tell him now whether or not they knew anything about this. and that the confessionals are open and that he expected them to come forward now. that is not the action of someone sitting there with people who knew about the closure before hand, demanding that they tell him. it's the action of someone trying to find out if his staff knew and he detailed kevin tequesta and bridget kelly, and this further cooperate to the governor's story because he sends his account come he sends his chief of staff, the former prosecutor, to find out from bridget kelly whether she knew anything about this in advance, this decision to close the lane

and whether she has any documents that reflect the knowledge of the realignment. and what happens in that sequence? what happens in that sequence is that he confronts kelly, questions for, she denies, she calls a subordinate to go over what happened the week of the realignment, and they have a kind of unusual conversation, the kind of conversation with someone that knows they've done something wrong and they are trying to cover it up as with someone who knows some information that the person trying to cover it up folks will never be revealed and she has her go through what happened that week of the realignment and what she remembers happening because bridget kelly knows there's documents out there that reflect. they have called it during the closure week and had complained bitterly about the lane closures

and that information was relayed back to bridget kelly on her personal e-mail and she responded hours later good and she calls that night, but as an exchange, she calls that night on the 12 and she has been recount what we did it go happened during that week and she does recall that. she recalls the complaints to the iga and reporting it back to kelly and she recalls kelly writing back later that night good that they potentially incriminating e-mail and what does bridget kelly do knowing that kevin o'dowd, the chief off staff has been detailed by the governor to find out the facts about bridget kelly, what does she say? she says could you delete that e-mail i sent you that said

good? that somebody trying to cover up their misconduct, coverage from the chief of staff and the governor and then what happens the next day? the next day kevin o dowd is in her office because he was dealing with her by phone on the 12th. he is in her office demanding that she go through her e-mails and see what she can find and guess what she does to cover it up? from the chief of staff and the governor what does she do? she prints out just the e-mails that reflect the complaints and cuts off the trail. she only gives them the e-mails that say he complained that week which of course by her account yet he complained that week but it wasn't that significant at the time i didn't recall it so here it is, having cut off and asked her colleague to not keep the e-mail where she said good that he was complaining.

now you ask me as a logical person i'm just a lawyer, i am just an investigator. but you ask me, you ask me what i take from that i take somebody that did wrong trying to cover it up from the chief of staff and the governor. last question. >> [inaudible] >> sends the information we received is that he had died any prior knowledge and there was no evidence in the port authority documents that we were able to see from having prior knowledge there was no inference to be drawn about the prior knowledge question. i understand the questions you all are asking and inserting contacts they relate to issues that are not related to the scope of the investigation but i would be happy to answer them more later. >> [inaudible]

>> have you established the governor did not have a conversation [inaudible] did you have a personal interview with the governor [inaudible] >> the governor does not recall having any conversation with bridget kelly on the subject. he doesn't be vp had a conversation with bridget kelly on the subject before hand or otherwise. >> [inaudible] >> because she's taken the fifth amendment from which the inference can be drawn to my friend. taking the fifth amendment what can draw the inference from that -- let me respond to the other question.

>> [inaudible] is a personal e-mail and text of the governor and others senior staffers. i thought you had a second part to the question. >> the governor doesn't recall any conversations with bridget kelly before ordering the alignment. kevin o'dowd spoke to her directly in december and she was in the room when he deregulated demanded to know. the interview of the governor had as much access and as long a

time as we ever wanted to interview the governor and he made himself fully available and we interviewed him on multiple occasions. i'm not going to say how often and just multiple times. let me just please -. what is in the text or e-mail that is irrelevant to the investigation. whatever types of e-mails that exist and responsive to the subpoena -.

if the governor and senior staff believe me this is not a comfortable thing to ask people to turn over their personal cell phones and e-mail accounts but we had to review thousands of them from the governor and his senior staff including former senior staff. let me please conclude and i know there will be many more questions, and i would be happy to take them. >> i would think the invitation and i'm sure that andrea will take me up on it. i just want to say in closing we spent the past ten weeks trying to get to the truth and i'm reminded of some wise words from winston churchill who said the truth is incontrovertible.

panic may present, ignorance may deride it, malice may distort, but there is based on our investigation we belief we have got into the truth. governor christine and nothing about the decision to realign these before hand. the allegations of a conspiracy among the highest administration officials to try to the mayor unless she supported the private development contract that are not true into those are the findings. that's the truth. there it is. they doubt any 345 page report.

i would be happy to take your individual questions later in the day. news coming out about the george washington bridge closer controversy. at a conference this afternoon governor christie announced chairman of the port authority of new york and new jersey has resigned and the continuing questions about the closures near the george washington bridge and whether he had used the position to boost the law firm. the writing that he appointed to head the board of the agency that runs several area transportation facilities including airports, bridges and tunnels. people close to christie engineered four days of gridlock

that was intended for reasons that were unclear as retaliation against the mayor. that again from the ap. in other news, supreme court justices are weighing out whether the corporations have religious right. that exempt them

when you look at the threats we face when you look at things like improvised nuclear vices, we know that no one jurisdiction will not have the capability responded and bring resources from across the nation. so in looking at the various threats, some of which are natural hazards we started adding up the numbers, casualties, fatalities and injuries, search and rescue, immediate recovery needs. and in looking at that we began identifying the critical capabilities and gas. driving some of the bigger risks and threats as an overall national debate for natural response and how do you build the capability and funding producers would remain by the 9/11 statute granted funding based upon the division between the states. but it has to be competitive so we can see in some areas of the country where they be the

sponsorship in the east jurisdiction to build the capability. the concerns of the biggest addition of the funds there's concerns about the jurisdiction getting what we need and i hear this a lot. it also concerns me because in the large-scale events if we can't agree upon the responsibilities working together as a team come how is that going to work on a real disaster that exceeds the jurisdiction capability and requires all of the capabilities, not just the jurisdiction impact and field resources but multiple states and jurisdictions responding to these types of event.

>> congress we attend an art school in phoenix arizona. throughout the years we have encountered a handful of mental illnesses and throughout those years we have seen how the lack of support for treatment can result in devastating event as well as emotional distress for those individuals and families. >> when i look back on the incident that took place in the tragedy and the 17 other people in six people died the young men

who did the screenings have been displaying symptoms of brownsville illness for two years before the time. watch the top 21 winning videos starting tuesday and every weekday throughout the month. 6:50 a.m. on c-span and see all of the documentaries online at studentcam.org. inve commissioner this week said it would take years for his agency to comply with the first .-full-stop with document of dos from congress relating to the targeting scandal. he testified before the house oversight committee whose chairman threatened to hold ade witness in contempt of congress accusing him of trying to come a quote, manage political fallout. much of the hearing focused on the request for the e-mails of

the former tax-exempt organizations director who has refused to testify twice before the committee pleading the fifth instead. republicans said at the hearing that they have met the legal requirements necessary to charge with contempt. this is three and a half hours. >> the committee will come to order. please close the doors. the oversight committee exists to secure two fundamentalversig printable.co

toest americans have the right to note the money washington takes from them is well spentm s and secorves an efficient government that works for them. our duty on the reform committer is to protect these rights. our solemn response ability is to be accountable to the taxpayers cost taxpayers have the right to know what they get from their government. it's our job to work tirelessly in partnership with citizens watchdogs to deliver the fact ite american people bring c to thee reform to the federal bureaucracy. it's my privilege to welcome the ranking member for the opening y statement. >> thank you mr. chairman.ch, commissioner i want to thank you for being here this morning and thwant to thank you mr. chairman for calling this hearing. i think it's important that weit look at both the chair

recommended and take a look back at the research that he did. one year ago the inspector general or the tax administration russell george issued a report concluding that the employees used, and i quote inappropriate criteria to identify the tax-exempt applications for the review. i want to revisit the findings of the report. they found that there was an effective management at the irs. the first line of the results section of the report said that this began with employees in the determination's unit of the irs office in cincinnati. i didn't say that. the ig said that. they also went on to say, and i quote, develop and use inappropriate criteria to identify applications from organizations with the words t. party in their name. the ig also said these employees

developed and implemented inappropriate criteria in part due to the insufficient oversight provided by the management. above reports that the former irs officials lois lerner does not disclose the use of the appropriate criteria until 2011 the year after it began. they issued the practice stop and stated that employees began using different inappropriate criteria," without management, knowledge. in contrast to the instructor general never found any evidence to support the central republican accusations in this investigation. this was directed on behalf of the white house. before the committee received a single document or interviewed

one witness onto national television and said, and i quote, this was the targeting of the president's political enemies can effectively it lies about it during the election. similarly to the representative rogers, the chairman of the committee on the appropriations stated on the national television and i quote the lists out of the white house the irs was engaged in shutting down or trying to shut down the political viewpoint across the country as enemies list some time ago. the representative of the ways and means committee says, and i quote, this appears to be just the latest example of the culture of coverups and political intimidation in this administration. the inspector general identified no evidence to support these political accusations the report according to the interviews they

conducted the inappropriate criteria, and i quote one of going about the individual organizations outside of the irs they testified before the committee that the investigative review with more than 5,500 e-mails and found no evidence of any political motivation in the irs employees. rather than continuing this towards the nonexistent connections to the white house, the committee should focus squarely on the regulations made by the inspector general. the ig made nine recommendations in this report last may. as of february of this year the irs now reports that it has completed all minute. they recommended that the irs changes the screening and approval process but with tax-exempt applications and the irs expanded the so-called be on

the lookout list and developed new guidance. the ig also commended the irs they are approved expeditiously and in response of the irs made significant progress on the backlog over the past year closing 80% of the cases. before i close i want to thank the commissioner for their extraordinary operation with congress. i completely disagree with the chairman yesterday complaining about the agencies, the so-called failure to produce documents is not a compliance with committee request. nothing could be further from the truth. more than 250 irs employees have spent nearly 100,000 hours responding to congressional requests and more than 422,000 pages of documents to the committee and they've spent at least $14 million in doing so.

the chairman simply disregards these facts and are also at odds with the chairman of the ways and means committee who issued a press release just this month praising the irs for its cooperation with document requests and i quote, as a significant step forward. ..commissioner, i wanted to tha you for your efforts during things investigation and for your exceptional cooperation and i want to thank all of those irs employees who are working so hard and tirelessly to do their jobs and with that, mr. chairman, i thank you and i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. i am pleased to welcome our witness, mr. -- commissioner john koskinen. he was appointed by the president to report and restore trust and accountability to the irs. commissioner, you have a