lot of soul-searching. i'm sick over this. have worked for the last 12 years in public life developing a reputation for honesty and directness and blunt talk. one that i think is well deserved. but when something like this happens, it's appropriate for you to question yourself. and certainly i am. and i am soul-searching on this. but what i also want the people of new jersey to know is that this is the exception not the rule. and they have seen that over the last four years with the way i have worked and what i have done. i don't want to fall into the trap of saying, well, this one incident happened, therefore the one incident defines the whole. it does not. just like one employee who's lied doesn't determine the character of all the other employees around you. so i don't want to overreact to that in that way either, john. if you're asking me over the last 48 hours or last 36 hours i

have done some soul-searching, you bet i have. ryan. >> the mayor is quoted as saying the day he declined to endorse you, as many as 10 appointments between state officials and city officials were canceled. how do you explain that in context of what you now know about some of your staff? >> all i know is i don't know ryan, is the first answer. what i'll also say is, the mayor has disagreements with lots of people, me, senate president, and others. there's going to be back and forth. there's going to be meetings canceled. there's going to be public disagreements. but the fact of the matter is we have continued to work with jersey city over the course of time since he's been mayor. in the last year i think we have approved about $190 million in e.p.a. financing for projects in

jersey city. the d.e.p. deputy commissioner was just meeting yesterday with mayor philip and his staff on issues to try to buy properties affected by sandy. we continue to work with him. i don't know about specific meetings or what's going on, but certainly i will look into all of those things. but the fact is that what mayor hilip knows is what we agree with him from a policy perspective, we'll work with him. when we disagree we'll express those. sometimes that will mean friction. he's suing the port authority at the moment. there's lots of back and forth and to and fro that happens. i look into all this stuff. in the end, have i at times been angry at the mayor for you bet i have? i also spoke at his swearing-in at his invitation. political relationships in this state go up and down as you know, brian. sometimes strange

bedfellows. sometimes expected ones. and they move. i'm sure there's been movement in those relationships over time. not anything that i could explain as to the specific uestion. >> i heard that you actually learned something new. the universal apology in the state of new jersey include the press corps? >> sure. most of you, i hope, are citizens of new jersey. so you -- >> there are exceptions. >> i know. we don't need to point it out. of course it does because the fact is i came out here and said something that was untrue. unwittingly, but i said something was untrue. i think what you-all have seen about me over the last four years in my dealings with you is i deal with you directly. and i say exactly what i think. and i think over time i have developed a reputation for telling you all the truth, as i see it. there could be disagreements.

but the truth as i see it. so, yes, would i include the press corps? of course i would, because most if not -- many if not most of you are residents of the state and you rely upon this state government to be honest and trustworthy as well. and in this instance my government fell short and i take responsibility for that and that's why i'm apologizing. >> i was wondering what your staff said to you about why they lied to you. why would they do that? what was their explanation? >> i have not had any conversation with bridget since the email came out. she was not given the opportunity to explain to me why she lied because it was so obvious she had. i'm quite frankly not interested in the explanation at the moment. i'm not done yet. second part of the question. i think general sampson put out a statement yesterday that had he no knowledge of this. i interviewed him yesterday, he was one of my interviews.

i'm convinced he has absolutely no knowledge of this. this was executed at the operational level and never brought to the attention of the board of commissioners until chairman foy -- executive director foy wrote his teams. we sat and met for two hours ith general sampson. again i'm confident that he had no knowledge of this based upon our conversations. and his review of his information. i think as he said yesterday he's angered by this and upset about it, and i know that he's going to lead -- cooperate with the o.i.g. investigation that's ongoing and lead a discussion at the port authority about what could be done in the future to stop such conduct. >> you mentioned earlier that the question you were asking a reflection what did i do wrong?

are you also asking the question, what did i say or how did i conduct myself in a way that would let these folks think it was ok to carry out such a cheme like this? >> charlie, i haven't because i know who i am. i'm not that person. it's easy for people to be characterized in public life based upon their personality. and i have a very direct, blunt personality. i understand why some people would characterize that, especially people who don't like you, as bullying, but it's not that. i know that about myself and no, i haven't asked that question. i'm more focused on why the truth wasn't told to me. melissa. >> are you going to also apologize --

>> i just did. i just did. i said i'm sorry for that and i would have never made that joke if i knew the facts that have ome forward to me today. i thought it was absurd and thought we had nothing to do with it. that's why. obviously, the email evidence is callous indifference to that end i intend to apologize for that. i certainly intend to apologize to the mayor today. i'm going to try to get a meeting with him this afternoon. inaudible]

>> i read that. i didn't read that that way. at all. and that was a reference to a traffic study that, candidly, i knew nothing about. i recognize that the email said something about the gov supported it or endorsed it. i don't know anything about it i have to believe that was like the governor's office generically, that reference. as i stand here today i don't know anything about a traffic tudy in springfield. >> [inaudible] >> absolutely not. no. no. no, that's not the way it operates. we build relationships over four years with folks trying to be helpful to every town we could be helpful with appropriately. no, nothing like that was one. >> i'm wondering if your soul- searching about the kind of

people who run the campaign or the kind of people you want to run the republican party who are willing to engage in political retribution and also call the mayor a rationally insensitive man. >> it was a mistake. soul-searching is complete on that part of it. it was a mistake. >> to hire him? > obviously. the fact is that mistakes were made and i'm responsible for those mistakes. and i obviously tried every chance i can to hire the very best people. i think the history of this administration shows that we have hired outstanding people with great ethical standards who have done their jobs extraordinarily well. in a government of 65,000 people there will be times when mistakes are made. mistakes were made and i have remediated those mistakes by the

actions i have taken. i am in a constant state of trying to figure out who are the best people for individual jobs. who will make me proud to put them there. that's always been going on. that's nothing new. there are times when people you put those decisions make mistakes, they disappoint you, you lose your confidence in them or they lie to you. when you find that out, the test of leadership is what do you do? i found this out at 8:50 yesterday morning. by 9:00, this morning bridget kelly was fired. by 7:00 yesterday evening bill was asked to leave my organization. that's pretty swift action for a day's work. that's exactly the way i'll continue to conduct myself. if there's any other information surrounding this that comes up or anything different that comes up over the course of the next

our years. >> [inaudible] >> i can differentiate, phil, between people who have served me well and they haven't. of course there's always going to be some -- after something like this where you have been lied to, there's going to be some crisis in confidence. there always will be. anybody who tells you differently is not telling you the truth. they say to you this happened to you and you're not going to second-guess yourself at all, then you're just stupid. of course i second-guessed myself and gone through my head on some of this stuff. and in the future i'll try to be even more careful. but here's what i know about human beings, phil. i have hired a lot of them in my time.

as u.s. attorney, as governor, and as a hiring attorney in private practice law firm. sometimes, despite the best background checks, despite the best interviews, despite your best instincts, sometimes people are higher. sometimes they start office as a good hire and because of circumstance that is happen in their life they change. you can't prevent everything. but the test of leadership is when you find it out, what do you do? and i'm saddened to have to do this. it's difficult personally to do. but it's my job and i have taken an oath and i'm going to execute my job. osh. >> [inaudible] >> i'm sorry.

>> in terms of -- getting an angle, what happened? was there then a restitution? was her some sort of vendetta exercised in -- at the port uthority --? >> a few things. first off to my knowledge, and i think the mayor said this last night, i have no knowledge of him being asked for an endorsement. he may have been, but he certainly was never asked by me. but he, i think, said last night on television he doesn't recall being asked for an endorsement. that's why this made no sense to me, josh, because why would you execute a vendetta against somebody who you didn't even give a chance to say no to? put aside the fact you shouldn't do that at all. then if you never asked for an endorsement, why are you mad he didn't give one?

none made any sense to me. that's the first point. >> you still don't know what prompted -- >> i don't. again, i don't know whether this was a traffic study that then morphed into a political vendetta or a political vendetta that morphed into a traffic study. i have seen statistics and other things about the traffic study. i know there's information there. i don't know what it is. we'll find out over time, maybe. but that's really in the minds of the people who are doing it. and that's what i based my decisions on at the time was the estimony that people gave. lastly, listen, i don't know exactly what you're referencing, but i think you're talking about the foy memo that was leaked? >> it seems that in emails the raffic issue arose, complaints

were made, a story appeared in one of the newspapers, complaints were then lodged internally. some people were taking inappropriate action toward the new york side -- >> yeah. i asked general sampson about this. something to that effect. i don't remember who it was. i asked general sampson about that yesterday. he said he has absolutely no idea what they are referring to. the only communication that he had at that time was his concern that he expressed to fellow commissioners about internal port authority documents being leaked. and that's just not appropriate for folks to be leaking internal documents. but he has no recollection from what he told me yesterday of any conversation like that with wild's team or baroni at all that references the gist of what

you said in the email. >> no internal pay bach -- payback operation going on -- >> certainly not that i'm aware of or not out of the normal. let's remember something, too. this is a bistate agency with significant tension. all the time. now, there's no tension between governor cuomo and i. we get along quite well. when issues rise to our level we have always been able to resolve them. but there is tension. always has been between new york and new jersey on the allocation of resources at the port authority. so let me be clear, there's some battles over there that go on that have happened in every administration over the course of my memory, but you can't connect that -- that's kind of the ongoing nature of the tension of that agency. and i think of most bistate agencies, though i think the port authority of new york and new jersey because the resources are greater and demands are greater, it's even more.

nothing that i know of that's specific. i don't want to make clear to people that this is -- there is tension that goes on between the employees of these agencies. not every one of those issues of tensions, thank goodness, are raised to my level and governor cuomo's level. the good news for people of new york and new jersey is that when those issues have been raised in the last three years, to my level, governor cuomo's level, we have always, between the two of us, amicably resolved it and moved on. sometimes that's the roles governors have to play in that agency. >> question your own judgment about whether or not you could -- are you concerned putting out a series of cones to change a couple lanes of traffic? >> let me answer that then i'll let you follow up.

i don't know what makes a legitimate traffic study. not my area of expertise. so i wouldn't have a nose for that. just wouldn't. i don't know what makes a legitimate traffic study. i have been told that sometimes they are done live. sometimes they are done by computer model. i have heard that in the professionals who testify for the port authority. you'd have to go to them to ask them what a legitimate traffic study is. i probably wouldn't know a traffic study if i tripped over it. >> you said that sometimes raises to the level of governors. the port now is that you call governor to complain that the representatives -- was asking too many questions -- >> not true. i have denied that story before. that's an old story. and governor cuomo has denied it as well. >> -- did he lie under oath

-- >> not true. i have no idea, but clearly there's a difference of opinion between senator baroni and pat foy about the existence of a traffic study. and there seems to me to be evidence that senator baroni showed of statistics and maps and other things about traffic studies. this could go back to the nuance of what constitutes a traffic study or not. they may be arguing about some specifics and nuance that i'm not familiar with. but i certainly would not accuse pat foy of perjuring himself. i'm telling you what i was told and what we saw before the legislature. i certainly wouldn't accuse pat foy of perjuring himself. >> you think he's genuine and not -- >> guess what? after reading everything yesterday, i don't know. but what i'm telling you is that that's what i have been told.

he seemed to display evidence for that at the time. that's now, because of the tone and tenor of these emails and text messages, that's now all this stuff is something that i'm not going to warranty because i don't know given some of this back and forth. senator baroni is a very respected guy. he served in this building for a long time. i have known him for a long time. when he made his testimony, i would have no reason to believe that he wasn't telling the truth. but obviously from reading these emails yesterday there was other stuff going on that i hadn't been informed about. >> you never called him -- >> i never called him personally, no. but baroni's position continues to be there was a traffic study. and he has a disagreement with pat foy about that. they had a disagreement, that was clear. pat foy had already expressed those concerns in earlier written documents that he --

someone had put out to the press. att? >> [inaudible] >> i had no conversation with ill. >> [inaudible] listen, i had earlier >>conversations with bill where, as i expressed to you at the time, that bill told me he knew absolutely nothing about this. so -- and certainly the emails yesterday, emails are well after the fact, so -- but that's not the basis upon which i made my decision on bill. my decision on bill was made based on the fact of the tone, tenor, and conduct evidenced in those emails. i lost confidence in his judgment. that's why i made the decision i made as to bill. brian?

>> it's no secret that many republicans -- do you see what has happened here fighting the decision-making process of the next -- >> i have no idea what it would look like at this point. as i have said many times before. i know that everybody in the political media and in the political chattering class wants to start the 2016 race. and universities can't help themselves but do polls that are meaningless three years away from an election. you guys can't help but put them on the air and talk about them. my job is to be governor of new jersey. i'll say what i have said before. i am enormously flattered that folks would talk about me in my party as someone who they think could be a candidate for president. but i am absolutely nowhere near beginning that consideration process.

i haven't even been sworn in for my second term yet. i've got work to do here. that's my focus. my focus is on the people of new jersey and the job they gave me. all those considerations are the kind of hysteria that goes around this because everybody's in that world gets preoccupied with that job. i am not preoccupied with that job. i'm preoccupied with this one. as you can tell, i got plenty to do. it's not like i got some spare time to spend. because you rolled your eyes and looking very disgruntled i hadn't called on you. i have known brian longer than you. >> can you elaborate on your feelings for his role in hit -- in it -- [inaudible] >> i am sad. i am sad. that is the predominant emotion

i feel right now, sadness. sadness that i was betrayed by a member of my staff. sadness that i had people but i entrusted with important jobs who acted completely inappropriately. sad that that has led to the people of new jersey to have less confidence in the people that i have selected. the emotion i've been displaying a private is sad. as i said earlier, i don't know what the stages of grief are, the exact order. i know anger gets there at some point. i'm sure i will have that. right now i am sad. let me just clear something up about my childhood friend, david. it is true that i met david in 1977 in high school. he is a year older than me. david and i were not friends in high school. we were not even acquaintances in high school.

i had a high school in livingston, a three-year high school that had 1800 students. it was the late 70s, early 1980's. i met david on the tom kane for governor campaign in 1977. use was a youth volunteer and so was i. after that time i lost touch with him. we did not travel in the same circles in high school. i was a class president and athlete. i don't know what he was doing during that. of time. -- during that period of time. we reacquainted years later in 2000 when he was helping bob franks with his senate campaign. we went 23 years without seeing each other. in the years we did see each other we passed in the hallways. i want to clear that up. it doesn't make a difference except that i think some of the stories that have been written

in cute some sort of a in -- and emotional relationship -- emotional closeness between us that does not exist. i know david and then i knew that no baroni wanted to hire him to come to the port authority. i gave it -- i gave my permission. that was ill's higher. -- bill's hire. how i feel about david now? what i read yesterday made me angry. that is the one bit of anger i felt. that language and callous indifference from david yesterday are just over the top and outrageous. they should never, ever, been written or uttered by someone with a position of responsibility like that. it is the way i feel about it and that is the opportunity. -- opportunity to espouse on our relationship.

>> you said you haven't spoken ith either bridget kelly [inaudible] >> john, i said i have not spoken to him since i discovered the e-mails. i spoke to them beforehand and bridget clearly did not tell me the truth. bill -- what he told me at the time is not contradicted by the e-mails. but the e-mails and the coloring characteristics of the e-mails have led me to conclude that i do not have confidence in his judgment anymore and that is why i asked him to move on. he has. at this point, there are legislative hearings coming and all the rest and i do not want to get myself in the middle of hat. the chairman intends to ask bridget kelly to testify in my

gut sense is that it would not be appropriate for me to get in the middle of that. there would be all kind of other allegations about those conversations. at the the smarter things -- i think the smart thing for me to do is to move on from there and talk to other folks still in my mploy. >> are there other things by your inner circle that was in those e-mails? >> i believe that i have spoken to everyone who is mentioned in the e-mails except for charlie mckenna who was away at a family funeral. i'm confident that they had no prior knowledge or involvement n the situation. >> [inaudible] . >> that's your characterization, not mine. but there is nobody on my staff who had any knowledge of this

issue until after the issue was already done. >> [inaudible] >> awful. now i've also seen conflicting reports about what the cause of death was but it doesn't matter. it's awful to hear. >> [inaudible] >> again, listen, all i can do is apologize for the conduct of people who worked for me. i can't do anything else. i can't reverse time. if i could, believe me i would. but i'm going to apologize. i think that's all you can do and there is nothing else you can do. >> along the lines of doing the job as governor you are focused on regaining the trust of the people of new jersey. a lot of people are upset about this and shocked. the first couple of years you

were governor you went to town hall meetings and spoke to people. any thought of trying to do something like that again? >> i think we suspended town halls during the campaign because of our concern that of theay raise the issue campaign blurring the line between what would be town hall events and campaign events. during the campaign we made the determination we weren't going to do town hall meetings. i certainly had no plans to do it during the transition. we intend to do town hall meetings in the second term and try to do as many as we did in the first term. i enjoyed a town hall setting and process. i don't believe i have lost the trust of the people of new jersey.

think they look to see when mistakes are made, how their leader will react. i believe that when they see me take the action i am taking today they will say, mistakes were made, the governor had nothing to do with that but he is taking responsibility for it and he has made the decisions that need to be made. >> governor, two questions. [inaudible] >> that is between david and his attorney. he is represented by counsel now. i would love to hear the whole story for my own purposes. i can't advise them what to do. someone represented by counsel is going to make his own judgment. i don't want to be in the instructing someone to do something because they are represented by counsel. certainly hearing the story would be.

-- would be good for everyone. listen, up to this point in time , the e-mails were released yesterday. the testimony that mr. wildstein initiated at his approval. i don't know. given some of the e-mails i saw yesterday. played ar. wildstein major role in it. i guess time will tell but ofarly, there was knowledge this action prior to the beginning of it and that was something that i said indirect answer was not the case. that is what we were told after

repeated questioning. i was lied to. for that, she has been terminated. how did you fail to get the truth from your own staff? >> first off, i would love for you to believe that i interviewed hundreds of people. i did not. it was the very rare occasion when the u.s. attorney himself or herself goes into a room and interviews a witness. it probably happens a dozen times in seven years but it is a very rare occurrence. try to understand this. worked with someone for five years and they have been a member of your political and and governmental team you look at them and say to them, what do you know about this?

did you have any involvement? did you have any knowledge of it? and they look at you and say no, and you have never had any reason before to believe that they were anything but a truth teller, why wouldn't you believe them? i work on the basis of trusting people. i assume over a period of time that most people are trustworthy unless proven otherwise. questions andose got those answers, there was no reason at the time we asked the questions for us to believe that they weren't true. at some of thek stories today written about bridget kelly i don't think you heard anybody in those stories talk about her in any way but very positive ways. that no reason to believe she was telling anything other than the truth. that is why i was heartbroken. i trusted that i was being

trolled -- told the truth. did i miss it? we missed it. that is why we are here. what do you do when you find out you missed it? a little before 9:00 yesterday morning. by 9:00 this morning, her position was terminated. swift, that is appropriate action that people would expect from the chief executive of the state. [inaudible] >> i understand what you're saying. i can't read anything else into it. i know you are inferring certain

things from the e-mail. i don't know. we don't know the answer. we didn't even know about the existence of the e-mails. i found out for the first time at 8:50 yesterday morning. as i wasnly imagine standing there in my bedroom how my ipad looking at that incredibly sad and betrayed i felt. i don't know what to say beyond that. [inaudible] governor who has a u.s. attorney investigating people connected to your office. what instruction are you getting to your staff? [inaudible]

>> i have absolutely nothing to hide. i have not given any instruction to anyone yet. my instruction to everybody would be to cooperate and answer questions. i have nothing to hide. enforcement, anything they want to ask, they can ask. we have nothing to hide and this administration has nothing to hide. we are still finding out what is going on. [inaudible] >> absolutely not. kevin's confirmation hearing will go forward on tuesday. i expect he will be vigorously questioned like any candidate for attorney general should be and i expect he will get swift

and certain confirmation. discussion was taking place on private e-mail accounts. [inaudible] >> i have not. there has been a lot of things i was thinking about. that was not one of them. >> have you send any other e- mails -- [inaudible] >> we have been given no documents. i don't know. none were offered to us. the first time we saw any documents was yesterday morning. charlie. haveidget kelly, did she the authorization to carry out

significant policy decisions such as authorization for a traffic study without getting prior approval from you or a senior staffer? was she free to make those decisions? bridget hadelieve policy authority on any issue. rigid's job was to interact -- bridget's job was to interact with the other agencies and have interaction with members of the legislature. that was her job. of herrstanding authority was that she had no authority on policy. policy issues had to be run through chief of staff's office.

again, i know there is a certain supposition in that question. my understanding of bridget's authority was not that it extended to policy. melissa. [inaudible] they find it hard to believe that bridget could make these kind of calls as reflected in the e-mail we saw yesterday without prior approval of the senior staff. >> she had no prior approval. she had no prior approval from the chief of staff. she had no prior approval from the governor. she did not seek it. we were not informed about it. -- acted in a manner with which exceeded her authority. this andknowledge of

neither did the chief of staff. >> [inaudible] >> i spoke to mike last night. david at that time was considering whether or not to resign. determination to resign. from mybelieve conversation with mike last night that that was the main topic of the dinner that night. the dinner was a social dinner, not a professional dinner. [inaudible] know at thisi

point, mr. perrone and mr. wildstein's position is that the lanes were closed for a traffic stop. i heard nothing from them that changes their position. i now see e-mails which indicate that there is a political .vertone to what went on i don't know what the situation is. i think i answered this before. i don't know whether this was some type of rogue political operation that morphed into a traffic study or traffic study that morphed into -- i don't know. mr. wildstein is scheduled to testify at the legislature. it is not like he is available for interview. to asaid in response question over here, i am not going to give you the middle of the legislative process with people that are witnesses. i think that would be inappropriate.

toould be accused of trying play around with testimony which i am not going to get involved in. [inaudible] do you still think that that traffic study should be done? >> you better be kidding me. [laughter] i think i am out of the traffic study business for certain. definitely don't want to be in it. as ais what we should do policy going forward. that should be left to the professional staff at the port authority. let the professional engineers elect whether those things should be done or not done. in sayingy confident that is the current position of this administration. do you believe [inaudible]

>> i think they have every right to do what they are doing. i am certainly not going to question that in terms of their right to conduct an investigation. i was shocked by it. i assume they were too. i have a good relationship with the incoming speaker and i will work with them in any way i possibly can to make sure we put this matter to rest. certainly am not going to question their right or ability to do that. >> [inaudible]

>> his name was never mentioned to me. his position was never mentioned to me. when i say he was not on my radar screen, that means he was not on my radar screen. i never had bill stepien or anybody else connected with the campaign even mentioned to me. even an update. i get those kind of updates. i never heard the portly mayor's name among mark sokolich, his name until this happened. he was not on my radar screen at all. a number of them wound up endorsing us. , he was never mentioned to me. that is why -- you go back to the question over here about making a joke about this.

that is part of the reason i feel comfortable doing it. they -- this can't have anything to do with politics. i don't even know this guy. how could it be that someone would be doing something like that iainst a mayor never had any conversations with nor any sense that we were seeking his endorsement. that is part of the reason this is such a mystery to me. >> [inaudible] >> i would have said, who is he? who is he and what did he do? i don't know this guy. i may have met him in a greeting line or in a county event or town hall meeting. , yesterday when i saw his picture on tv -- if he walked in the room i wouldn't have been able to take it out.

that is not to diminish him in any way. this is not a guy who was on my radar screen in any way nor was his name ever brought up to me by bill stepien until after the story started to appear about the fort lee traffic problem. that is the first time i heard about mayor sokolich. you know what, he wasn't one of them. admit -- that is what you do in a political campaign, try to get as many supporters, endorsers that turn into voters. that is part of your job. >> [inaudible] >> of course, but i had to go get it. invariably, i had to make a phone call or do something to

bring the person over the finish line. it was the rare occurrence that i never met a person or spoke to -- i-- my point to you is am trying to get you context for why i didn't think this was an issue. i know the campaign that we ran. i know who i was pursuing as endorsers. i know who was close that we didn't get. i know who was never close. i know the people we got. this guy never was on my radar screen. i think he confirmed that last night by saying he doesn't have any recollection of being asked for the endorsement. that is why i don't get this. it is what it is. i am responsible for it. regardless of all that, i am responsible for it. it happened on my watch. didn't't just say, i

know about it so it is not my problem. desk.ck stops at my i have to act. i have acted as quickly as i could responsibly. i found out about this at 10 minutes to 9:00. by 9:00, bridget kelly was terminated. stepienlast night, bill was told to leave the organization. i think that is pretty swift action given that i was blindsided by this. i am not happy or proud i was blindsided. as i said when i came up here, i feel humiliated by this. i am a person who cares deeply about doing my job well. i work extraordinarily hard at it. i have taken an oath to that effect. i am humiliated by the fact that i did not know this and i was deceived. that is an awful way to feel. >> [inaudible]

this evades a serious question. [inaudible] >> it wasn't good. i think that is why i am here apologizing. callous,ful, indifferent. if it was part of a traffic study, that is one thing. once it has political overtones, that is an entirely different matter. that is why i am upset about this. apologized to the

people of new jersey today and why i apologized specifically to the people of fort lee who were inconvenienced over those four days. it is not right. i will respond to those questions. as a former u.s. attorney, when i was u.s. attorney i hated when politicians stood behind podiums and told the department of justice what to do. i am not going to do that after complaining to my colleagues about it for seven years. now that i am one of those, i am not going to do that. you repeated, i have nothing to hide. [inaudible] >> no. >> [inaudible] >> yes.

that was a searing bit of commentary, wasn't it? >> you said that you had very little sleep if any last night. did you have ever need -- have any idea [inaudible] >> no. listen, i know you are asking. that is a crazy question. i had nothing to do with this. so, no. i never gave any thought to doing that at all nor would i. what was i thinking about last night when i couldn't go to sleep? how did this happen? that is what i was thinking about. responsibleou are and i spent a lot of time keeping mary pat up last night

talking me through it. that is when it is great to have a really supportive spouse. she is willing to do four hours too. what i was thinking. how did it happen and why do people do this? i just don't get it. and ithard at this job is incredibly disappointing to have people let you down this way. i am incredibly loyal to my people. i expect in return their honesty and candor and loyalty. and i didn't get it. thing after you work as hard as i do. here is the thing, this is my job and there are going to be mistakes and disappointments. i don't think there is a perfect

government anywhere in the country and i certainly never claimed to have one. i claim to have the best government i can possibly make. sometimes there are going to be mistakes. when there are, i have to own up to them and act. that is what i have done today and my promise to the people is that if there is any other evidence that comes forward that requires action to be taken, i will take it. no matter how much it hurts me personally or his maze -- dismays me. [inaudible] were you moving to replace him?

>> neither. i had made the determination during the fall campaign that i wanted to make a change at the port authority. bill was one of the longest- serving deputy executive directors in recent history. i felt like it was time for a change. part of that is evidenced by my response to the other question about internal workings. there is a lot of hand-to-hand combat at the port authority between new york and new jersey. i thought that for years was enough. approached my policy chief during the campaign and said, i am thinking about making a change at the port authority. would you be willing to take the job if i asked you? she said, yes. it was some time before election day.

i had made that decision in my own mind. ,ery soon after the election that was communicated to bill. what we were doing is trying to figure out the timing of all that. i wanted to get it done during the transition. i wanted her to finish some policy work. wanted bill to have an appropriate period of time to get himself ready to move on to his next opportunities. that is the way the process worked. it was neither bill jumping ship nor us pushing for this reason. it was a saying, hey, it is time to go. i would like to put someone else there. all of that was very amicable. it was something that he understood to be such. a couple hours after the story broke yesterday,

[inaudible] he was asked if that could possibly include you. he said he has the authority to heue a subpoena to anybody needs to get information from. if you were to get a subpoena, what would you do? >> i am not going to speculate on that. >> [inaudible] [inaudible] did you know about that? is there a transparency issue in general?

>> i don't know about what you are talking about. it is the first i have heard of it. we take these requests very seriously. we have a person dedicated in the council office to review these matters. no, i don't think there is that. respond to these requests appropriately under the law. that is my understanding from both my first chief counsel and my second chief counsel. i have no reason to believe otherwise. i don't know the incident you are talking about but if there aren't mistakes made or oversight, i am sure that can happen. there is no pattern to that. it is the law. we have to comply with it and we comply with the law as written. when you were first called for comment on the story -- [inaudible]

i first called for comment? i have no idea. i don't know. it won't affect my ability to work at all. [inaudible] are you the victim here? fired she have been because you ordered a messed up traffic study? i don't know that she ordered a traffic study. i know what uri might infer from that. we have to find out. that is not what you asked. ask telling you that when i for an answer from a member of my staff, regardless of what they lied about, they are gone.

i never had to get to the conduct. if you lie when i ask you a question, you are fired. that is it. if i had gotten to the underlying conduct, there was plenty conduct their to fire her too. question one was, do you know anything about this? did you have any involvement in it? the answer was no. the e-mail said the answer should have been yes. i need to go no further than that in terms of making a determination about her future employment. standpoint,mpliance is there a person who has the most information about why she did this? is that a management mistake? >> are you suggesting i should have kept her? listen, if i did that then you would have the legislature complaining about talking to

someone who the chairman had said yesterday publicly he intends to call as a witness. i think a higher priority is for me not to interfere with what the legislature is doing. i am not going to do that. the political nature of this would lead to charges of interference. i am not going to do that. there --nts to testify was to testify there, if after that time we have other questions than we can make the decision at that time whether to pursue that information. it is my judgment -- you can disagree with it, but it is my judgment that for me to get involved with someone who the chairman is going to call as a witness between the time i discovered this and the time that she may testify would be not the right thing to do. i certainly wouldn't tamper with the witness but i could be

accused of tampering with the witness. point does political misconduct crossed into criminality? >> i don't know. is, the of the matter best way for me to not involve myself in that is to not involve myself in that. i am just trying to be a safe and careful steward of the public trust. what i love to have more information yesterday? you bet. i also have to understand the position i hold. it is a position of extraordinary trust. i have to execute that position with the acknowledgment of that trust. that is why i am not doing it. >> [inaudible]

>> i didn't quite understand your question. i had trouble hearing it too. surprise. i didn't get the last part. we didn't have the documents. >> [inaudible] asked bridget kelly. she told us she didn't have any. we asked her if she was involved. she said she was not. we asked if she had any knowledge of it. she said she didn't. that is why i was surprised. i was surprised because i was told there was nothing there and then there was. in that sense, it is not a mystery. if you answer something and someone -- ask for something and someone deceives you, what is the follow up? are you sure? yes. have you searched your e-mails? yes. you don't have anything? no. were you involved in any way? no. any knowledge? no.

after that, what do you do? i don't know. i don't think so. >> were you mad -- [inaudible] >> listen, i know you guys would love that if i actually did. i am not to that stage yet. i am sure i might get to the stage where i am angry. i don't break things. this -- io understand to donding here resolved my job and do what i am supposed to do but i am a very sad person today. that is the emotion i feel. a person close to me to trade me. -- betrayed me. a person i counted on the trade

me -- betrayed. i probably will get angry at some point. i am sad. i am a sad guy standing here today. that is the overriding emotion. that because of my bluntness and my directness that people think, he must get behind that door and be a lunatic when he is mad about something. if you ask the staff, it is the this office when i raise my voice. i reserve it for a very special times and i will tell you the last time i did. when i had them all in that office and i said, if any of you have any information about this that i

don't know, you need to tell me, kevin or charlie now. was the last time i raised my voice in the office. so no, i didn't break anything. i didn't curse anybody out. it is a sad day for me. i am doing what i am obligated to do under this job because it is the right thing to do. it doesn't make me angry at the moment. it just makes me sad. >> [inaudible] >> nokia -- no. i have had no contact with david wildstein in a long time. well before the election. i could probably count on one hand the number of conversations

i have had with david since he worked at the port authority. i did not interact with david. we would say him, hello. we would chat. we didn't have that kind of relationship. i understand the way it has been characterized in the press. he had an important job but he was not in directing with the governor on a regular basis. there were channels to go through. if something had to be brought to my attention, i don't even run her in the last four years having a meeting in my office with david wildstein. called and told me anything. , i got yesterday morning done with my workout at 845 -- 8:45. my trainer left. at 8:50, maria called me and told me about the breaking story and that was the first i knew of

any of the e-mails or information that was contained in that story. >> [inaudible] >> that is why i apologized. i don't think it is my credibility. didn't stand up and take responsibility and apologize directly to the people of new jersey as i have done today, i think that would be a risk. i am not the kind of person. i understand the responsibility of this job. i have had it for four years now. i think i said this at a press conference in december. there is plenty of times i get credit for things i have little to do with as governor. sometimes i get blamed for things that i have little to do with. it doesn't matter. i am the governor.

the things that happen on my watch are my responsibility, both good and bad. what they did hurt the people of new jersey and hurt the people of fort lee and the prison who needs to apologize for that is made. and i have -- is me, and i have. i am sorry to all the people of this state that they have to be occupied with this matter. it is embarrassing. the whole matter is humiliating to me. all you can do as a person when you know this is stand up and be genuine and sincerely apologize and hope that people accept your apology. i think i have built up enough goodwill over the time -- over time with the people of new jersey that i think they will accept my apology. >> [inaudible]

>> first of all, the answer as of right now is, i don't know. it is certainly something that i have talked to steph about looking at. , we found out about this 24 hours ago. things will take some time. i have spoken to people in the interviews i conducted yesterday. i asked them to check their e- mails and let me know if there is anything that touches upon this. i will interview also folks who have worked for bridget to see if there is anything they know and can shed light on. we are in the process of doing that but that is going to be time-consuming. we want to do it carefully. i just began that process yesterday. i will work with my new chief counsel to get that stuff done.

wherever the information comes from, we will take it into account. if action is required, i will take action. [inaudible] is there any level of retribution that would be -- >> political retribution? no. political fighting, sure. people go back and forth all the time. you have seen that in this building no matter what administration was here. the way we are different is, we can fight but then we get into a room and more times than not, we are able to reach common ground with the other side.

the dream act signing a few weeks ago is a perfect example of that. there was a lot of fighting about that and a lot of hysteria and the media about who is saying what about whom and what is all this anger and back and forth between me and the senate president and others who were supporters? part of that is what you should be doing to engage in political debate and persuade folks to your particular point of view. ultimately what makes this different is that this is an administration that has never shut down government over a budget dispute. this is an administration that has reached a bipartisan consensus on issues that have been problems for new jersey for decades that no one else has been able to reach bipartisan or partisan. this is an administration that has gotten big things done.

will we fight sometimes? will things get sharp elbowed? you bet. it goes both ways. retribution, no. are there other allegations of improper political behavior -- particularly about the gandy sheriff -- county sheriff [inaudible] are you going to go back and look at other situations? >> no. that was a situation which was handled by the attorney general at the time and now, the judge. her and herdence in ability to make this decision. involved in law

enforcement issues. there is no reason for me to go back and look at that. >> is this issue going to affect that at all and if so, will there be overtones or will you approach it in any kind of different way? >> no. is one issue we have to deal with. it is an important issue. it cannot be the only issue. we have things to do in this state, important things. i am going to keep working. ,t was very important today within 24 hours of these revelations, for me to take action and apologize to the people of the state and the people of fort lee and that is exactly what i am doing. >> did he know you were planning on coming today?

>> i was going to call him after this. if you won't see me, i will go see other people. i amh he would see me but certainly not going to barge into his office. i wish the mayor would reconsider because i come up to general may apologize to him -- genuinely apologize to him. if he doesn't want a meeting, i don't know what he means -- what were the words? premature and disruptive, i don't know how a meeting between two elected officials can be premature and disruptive. that is his choice. i will meet with other people in fort lee. there was significant overtime involved for first responders including police.

i don't know why it would be the campaign fund. i have no knowledge of that. we would consider that in the normal course of business. certainly not something that i am prepared to talk about now. [inaudible] i think there was an earlier story. i don't remember exactly. something about the traffic. >> why didn't you respond then? >> we did. we were told it was a traffic study. saying -- mayor is >> we were told they did a traffic study where they did not want the normal flow of traffic. that is what we were told. we did respond. that is how we responded.

again, i am not somebody who is going to be getting into the details of a traffic study. i can tell you that at that first moment, that is when i became aware there was some issue. it was not something that i was personally delving into. mayor sokolich saying he appreciate your comments very much. he thinks they might be premature. [inaudible] >> listen, my intention was when i got out of here, to call the mayor. i will call the mayor and we will see. in any event, i'm going to go to fort lee today because i think

it is important for me to do that. if the mayor doesn't want me to meet with them, that is his choice. listen, i don't know him. i can't be offended and i am not offended. if he wants to meet with me today, i am happy to meet with them. if he doesn't want me to meet with him, i am still going to fort lee today. i think it is important for me to be on the ground there today and to apologize to folks. i am going to do that. if he wants to be part of that, he is more than welcome to the. if he doesn't, that is his choice too. he has independent will. that is his call. i want to thank you all for coming today. and for your questions. i will see all of you if not before, on tuesday for the state of state address. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> on the next "washington journal a we focus on new jersey governor -- chris christie apostolate you. -- chris christie's apology. we will talk to legislators about the incident that virtually halted traffic on one of the busiest bridges between new york and new jersey. we will also be going -- joined .y a university professor washington journal is live on c- span everyday at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> less than a week to go before the government spending bill expires on january 15. tamar hallerman is a reporter .ith cq she has been covering this story. dirty things stand with

negotiations -- where do things stand with negotiations between the senate and house? >> talks are still ongoing. chairmanpropriations told me that negotiations have been resolved on six of the 12 annual spending bills and to others appear to be progressing pretty well. right now, what they are going through, four of the domestic spending bills that oversee the department of labor, the department of health and human services, there is also the financial services bill. there seems to be a lot of things holding up negotiations. >> you tweeted about it the other day, your tweet said that policy writers are still an issue in the omnibus negotiations. what are some of these policy that negotiators are seeing?

>> a lot of these are perennial policy writers. we see them every year. , lot has to do with abortion the implementation of the 2010 also hiccups related to early heil -- childhood education. all perennial issues that still don't seem to be resolved quite yet. >> we are hearing a lot of on the current continuing resolution. negotiators may need a couple more days to get it done. does that mean there is real consideration of another short- term spending bill? >> it is looking more and more like it as time regresses. we are not seeing resolution on these last few spending bills. today, we heard health appropriations committee hal rogers admit that a short-term cr is going to be needed to add

a little bit more time for consideration in the house and especially in the senate where there are going to be procedural votes. >> no cameras are following the negotiations between appropriators. speaking of hal rogers, you mentioned in your article that they are trading paper on the various proposals. where in the capital are they eting? >> they met on tuesday and hal rogers' office. they also met with the ranking members of the house and senate appropriations committee. on tuesday. they did not meet all four of them yesterday or today. there are still meetings between top appropriators and staff. senator tom harkin who chairs the subcommittee says he has been meeting with his counterparts and with his staff

to resolve last-minute issues. there still are meetings going on. that is where the real action is right now. >> tamar hallerman is appropriations reporter for cq rollcall. thanks for the update. >> thank you. >> several live events tomorrow morning. on our companion network c- span2, a forum on the political outlook. that is at 8:30 eastern. at 9:30 a.m., a committee discusses the summer employment numbers. at 11:00 eastern, senate majority leader tom daschle is at the washington center to talk about bipartisanship. >> if i were to identify the singular most important challenge to overcome, it would be that, the notion that diversity is just as available to muslims.

the reason why we are here today is because of this inclination. i read somewhere that it is anti-historical because it denies centuries of islamic theology and tradition. diversity. years of the idea that you have to just follow these edicts from the seventh century in a very limited short period of time. i think our journey as american muslims has to be about refusing being told by clerics who speak for us that islam in its -- and its ideals is a seventh century reality. we are americans. >> being muslim in america, sunday night at nine on -- at 9:00 on "after words."

we will be discussing "the liberty amendment," on book tv. >> now, a florham -- forum on the iran program. david ignatius just returned from the middle east. >> we are very pleased to have two people who have written books about iran. there is going to be covers of two books that are represented by authors write here. they have also just returned from iran. what we thought would be very useful and interesting for you and for us is to get a picture of what is going on inside.

for reasons that we all know, this is a time to try to understand what is going on. maybe there are changes there. that is what i hope we will get from this discussion. -- make aoing to say couple of observations about her trip. david is going to make some observations about his trip. we will have a conversation. i look forward to your questions. this will be an interactive, easy discussion. >> thanks, bill, very much. , four things that i think are particularly interesting. one is the fact that david and i were allowed to go at all. i went to see a grand ayatollah, one of only 12 in the world and i said, what has changed? he said, the fact that you are here. this is the first interview he had been allowed to give in years and he is a grand ayatollah. that was quite striking.

when i went to see a former deputy speaker of parliament whose brother was president of iran, i said to him, what is new? he said, i am less afraid than i was before the elections. this is a man who was very much a part of the system. we all know about the bad old days of the president thought it was very interesting hearing it from the inside. think what is really interesting politically about what is happening today is that there is a new category on the political spectrum. we have gone through the era of the hardliners with resident, nina jean -- >> what we're seeing is a new category of what i call the. -- the realists. they are not out to transform iran to challenge the powers of the supreme leader. to work withing

the system but they want to open up political space. a lot of it in a lot of different ways. president rouhani last night met , filmn array of artists directors, actresses, actors and so forth. he said that art without freedom was meaningless. the tenor has changed. we are looking at people who are realistic in terms of what the various goals are. terms of our interest, what is really important to understand is that iran is going through what i call a strategic recalculation or recalibration. this does not mean some kind of overhaul but it does mean that they are responding in real time to what is going on in the region. a decade ago when the u.s. intervened in iraq and got rid -- kingm hussein

abdullah jordan started worrying .bout the shiite crescent the rise of the shiites. pretty as theng kind of strategic winner. what is interesting today is what's interesting today is that with the rise of the al qaeda franchises, with the u.s. having withdrawn from iraq, having about to withdraw from afghanistan that iran suddenly finds itself encircled by salafis, by al qaeda militants, encircled by the sunnis and this has led to an awareness of well, you know, the u.s. might not be such an adversary after all and that when we look at why iran is

at the negotiating table we often tend to focus on the pressure on economic sanctions when there are much bigger issues that we ignore and that's one of them, this strategic recalculation. another reason is the psychology of war. the grisliest modern middle east conflicts played out in iran with iraq and one of the most striking things to me was going to a couple of hospitals in tehran and seeing victims dying of chemical weapons. 30 years after they came under attack. iran now estimates it has close to 70,000 people who are still survivors of chemical weapons and need chronic medical help and will eventually die. the numbers could end up

rivaling the death toll in world war i from mustard gas and when i talk to people about the nuclear deal or president rouhani, what the model in tehran was, the first thing so many people told me was we know we can wake up tomorrow morning and not worry about a bomb falling on tehran, that there really is this deep fear of what a military action might entail, how long it might go on, what it might cost again. those are my initial thoughts. i will conclude with one final thing. i think president rouhani is popular today than the day he was when he was elected. he's taken many smart moves, whether it was diplomacy with the outside world but he also appointed technocrats trying to bail them out of the huge mess

created by president ahmadinejad. they're all people who are very smart. the budget that was introduced deals with the huge problems of inflation, the fact that one in four of the young are unemployed. it's trying to make some hard choices that is will need to be taken if iran is going to control over what has been a plummeting economy. >> robin, thank you. so strategic recalculation or recalibration -- shiite crescent, now sunni encirclement. we want to come back to these. but a pretty upbeat, pretty positive description, i would say. hang on. we'll come back to this david, your view? you were there approximately the same time and i'd love to hear your story.

>> first, thanks to bill and robin and jim marshall and jane harmon. it's really nice to be asked about a subject that really matters. a lot of times in washington we speak about things that sort of matter. these negotiations and their consequences for our country are really important and i think sessions like this where we try to think through what robin and i have just seen and share it with you and get your feedback are important. i should just note that as a panelist it's a great pleasure for me to see my mom and dad in the audience. [applause] >> all right. >> i have to be especially careful not to give the bland journalistic -- because i'm going to hear about it later and let me start just with a caveat. i wish i knew more about iran. i was there on this trip for four days.

everybody needs to understand that i am giving you casual impressions from a very quick trip. we need to know so much more about this country. you do feel the product of 34 years of being cut off and the lack of deep expertise so i hope i'll go back. i hope robin will go back often. here, just a couple of brief starting points in terms of my own sense of the country and the people when i was there. first, there is the appearance of a real debate -- i want to say division -- among sister members of the leadership. at least as seen in my interviews. i interviewed at length and in real detail, published a full transcript of the minister who is the leading western looking face of the regime and he went pretty systematically through

the negotiating issues and sometimes i wasn't sure just where the space to make a deal was but zarif kept asserting that a deal can be made and we'll take care of this and don't worry. so he was obviously believing as he spoke to me that he spoke for president rouhani and beyond him for the supreme leader. i also saw, as robin did, probably the most visible hardliner against the regime, who is supported by the supreme leader of the very conservative newspaper. his name is hussein modarif. i met him on a previous visit to iran. he's very articulate, very outspoken and when asked do you think compromise with the west

on these nuclear issues has advocated aggressively by zarif and left visibly by rouhani, do you think that's possible? he said flatly no, i don't. i don't believe in compromise. i don't believe the islamic republic should compromise its identity. beyond that, he said he thought that the foreign minister had essentially misrepresented the deal struck in geneva, the interim deal to strike iran's capability. he describes calling rouhani calling him in the middle of the life and rouhani writing a letter and saying this man zarif did not tell the truth about what's in that detail. that's a little chilling.

zarif was very open with me about the extent to which he feels under pressure from the revolutionary guard. he said a public fight -- and these are unusual things in a country like iran. second basic point is about sanctions. we often hear and indeed use the phrase "crippling sanctions" to describe the sanctions that have been applied to iran and they're pretty intense as economic sanctions go. robin was smiling when i used the phrase "crippling sanctions" and i think i know why. which is that when you go to tehran this doesn't look like a country just hobbling on his knees about to fall over dead, the way you sometimes get the sense reading our accounts of how we've just driven them to negotiations, you know, practically broken their arms.

no, i mean, they are a very resourceful people. they're good at suffering, living with suffering and they've found ways to work around these sanctions. you go to north tehran and talk to a business person and he'll tell you will exactly, down to the number of percentage points and the additional interest rate premium necessary to get financing for illegal banned, supposedly impossible deals. nothing is impossible so people should bear that in mind. what the sanctions have done is cripple iran's much future. it's the opportunity costs, the country that iran might be that every iranian i talked to feels, senses this iranian moment is coming where our brain power, our scientists, our business people are ready to dominate the region. they feel it on their fingertips, but that they won't grasp as long as the sanctions

stay in place and i think people know it and i think it's really our biggest leverage. a related point -- i kept hearing, even in this brief period, intense criticism of president who just left office, his links with the revolutionary guard and the corrupt way in people's minds of the deals he had made and the way in which iran's oil income, in particular was wasted. three or fewer people talked about the $700 billion that iran earned in oil sales during ahmadinejad's eight years. where had it gone? people asking almost as if it was a criminal diet. these people close to the revolutionary guard have been involved in stealing money that

belongs to you. a final point i'd make is really about process. i think my strongest takeaway, as i left tehran was just how hard it's going to be to get this deal that i think is very much in iran's interests. i would close this part of the discussion by saying that if there's some way for the united states and its allies to give the iranian people a taste of what it would be like to cross the threshold into this future where they join the rest of the world, have open contacts, have modern music, performances, i'd like to see what we did in the early detente years where you have rock music or ballets

and let the ayatollahs tell people they can't go listen to the music. i don't think they will and i think things like that could make a difference. so i'll stop there. >> david, excellent. robin, thank you both very much so you were both there. what i'd like to at least start off with is a sense of what's going on there. you've both given us that part. what surprised you the most. robin, you already addressed this. one of the surprises you heard from them was that you were even there. as you look at the society, you look at the economy, as david described, what surprised you? you've been there for many years on and off. >> 40 years. >> many years. so you've seen it either not change over a long time but you've been back knew and have seen it for nearly two weeks. what's your sense? >> like david, one of the things

that really strikes you is how the economy seems to be when you're on the streets, thriving. the grand bazaar is popping, the aisles are packed. there's a technology mall in tehran just for computers and there are so many apple stories that have the apple brand on it. one of the pictures you saw i took -- you can get an ipad, iphone, ipod. latest variety in any color that porsches sell out before -- almost ordered in advance. that this is not crippled in the sense and we need to be careful about how much we assume sanctions will do anymore. yes, it is complicated business and in the case of the chemical weapons victims, the -- they couldn't get access to a lot of the medicines, not because of

sanctions, because the u.s. allows all humanitarian clothing, education materials to be exempt from sanctions but because banks were not willing to be engaged in transactions even if it was for medicine. so i went to a hospice care facility where one guy is literally dying, may have died since i came back and they were showing me the inhalers that he needed, american made and that he couldn't get access to because no pharmacy could get anybody to finance the ability to buy these things. in terms of surprises, i've been trying for 34 years to get into the american embassy in tehran. i covered the hostage crisis and the revolution and stood at the steps of the plane in al- jazeeras when the 5 americans disembarked and this time i got in and i had a revolutionary guard take me around the

building. it was really -- it was actually, to be honest with you, a little anti-climatic at this point but it was fascinating. the gold shag carpeting is all matted and filthy and it's kind of crude. it says on the door papers forgery room and in the old room where they had diplomatic discussions. the iranians have a big sign, they call it the glassy room and they have these three man who have cheap suits and dish disheveled wiggs and they obviously don't completely bend because they're sitting straight back and my guard said to me -- and what -- that one is supposed to be ambassador sullivan. he was your last ambassador. he died last month. they actually keep up with this stuff. i think what surprised me was

how -- i also went to see the man who masterminded the takeover of the american embassy. one of three master minds and i found him fascinating. here he is today, you know, white haired, slightly paunchy but clean-shaven in contrast to so many in iran, advocating not only the resumption of relations between the united states and tehran but also the reopening of the embassy. you got a sense of -- that we really are as two countries for the first time in 34 years and we marked the 35th anniversary on february 1. we are on the same page. whether we can turn that page is still the big question. but this nuclear deal is important, not just because we all want to prevent a country from getting the world's

deadliest weapon. it's also important because every war i went people told me the parliamentary election next year will be decided in terms of who's allowed to run, what the public mood is, how the big guns see the mood on the street, if there's a nuclear deal. if there's a nuclear deal, there will be more of the realists or even some more reformers allowed to run. i went to see a leading women's rights activists and said if there is a nuclear deal, the president will be all the more empowered to do things on other issues, including rights for women. so they have a sense in iran that they really want this deal and that is, i think, to the advantage of the nuclear team. for all the obstacles they face from the hardliners who still control the judiciary and the legislature, there is a real

public mood in favor of a deal. and, i think, to answer bill's question, the amount of it surprised me. >> same page? >> well, a couple of surprises or just things that i was able to see that might interest you. i got to know a first-rate, from what i could tell, really world- class scientist, molecular biologist. somebody who is doing work dealing with neurodegenerative diseases like what my daughter's young doctor was working on in the labs. here's a person who has very commercial ideas that could be the basis of a biotech company, who's nervous about starting that company in a country that isn't part of the w.t.o. because you can't protect intellectual property. he doesn't want to leave iran. he doesn't know what to do.

he's caught. and that's an example of the -- you know, this society waiting to jump into the future and the people who have -- want to play on the world stage that the united states needs to be speaking to. i think the other thing i would just note -- it touches on the comment robin cited, the famous comment of kissinger's, is iran a nation or a cause. and that's a sort of code for asking has iran turned the corner from its revolution? the iranian revolution in 1979 was the great by stabilizing event in that region whose tremors still affect iran and other countries.

it's like the french revolution in europe, i always think. think how long it took europe to absorb all of that destabilizing energy. and i kept looking for signs that the revolution is over and finding signs that, at least among people at the commanding heights, people with guns, it isn't. i'm sorry to say that but i think iran's destabilizing role in the region, it's willingness to encourage turmoil in syria, lebanon, bahrain, down the list. i didn't quote this in anything, but zarif basically said that saudi arabia couldn't last and the saudis will come down as our part of the world changes, meaning the saudi world family. there's that basic revolutionary

idea. destabilizing idea is still there. i don't know hugh to deal with that. i'd love to have discussion when we get to q&a about that. how should we think about that issue and that side of iran? how much should we allow to -- them to continue with these activities and we should we say no, that's not acceptable. >> let me ask one follow question that follows on what both of you said, particularly your last comments and then we'll open it up so be preparing your questions. robin, you talked about strategic recalibration. david, you said you're worried that the revolution continues. real debate in there. is there a recalculation? what are the implications far nuclear deal, for syria, for iraq, as you wrote this morning, and then, i agree with you. there are some very smart people in this room who will have views

on this as well but if you can each talk about the implications whether or not there's this recalibration and if so what the implications are. >> i think david made a tremendously important point about the revolution and it's clear that since 1979, the big debate in iran, whoever was president, but it played out at every election was is the islamic republic of iran first and foremost islamic or is it first and foremost a republic? and under the reformers, they tried to push it toward the direction of a republic and under the hardliners to keep it ideological purity and this is a debate that's far from over. the realists are trying to bridge the two but they're not going to answer this existential question in terms of the strategic recalculation. again, i think david is right, that the -- iran is one of the

most nationalist countries in the world. i often tell people that if they want to understand persian nationalism to think of the most chauvinistic texan and then add 5,000 years and then you begin to understand just how deep those passions go and that they will continue to do anything they -- it takes to protect or promote their national interests. but i also think that the realists have been willing to consider some important steps and on syria, and i talked to -- on the record and off the record to the foreign minister, the chairman of the foreign relations committee in parliament. several m.p.'s, both reformers and hardliners and there is a sense, a recognition that syria

may not hold together as long as assad is in power and that, as a result, what's the best alternative? and they have indicated in some -- again, some on the record, some off the record, that they're prepared to lop off the head -- in other words, president assad, to keep the body, to keep the ba'ath party as a part of whatever the next political system is. i think they're very worried in iraq about al qaeda or isis reemerging and i think this -- that in a way they much were such a -- anarchy, they understand that getting the sunnis on their side is actually in iran's interests to stabilize that country.

and they think of it not just in terms of stability but this is a big economic outlet, border country and -- so, look, they're never going to walk away from hezbollah. hamas -- i think -- i thought one of the most interesting things is how their reverting to the language on the israeli conflict that the president used in the late 1990's, that if there is a deal between the palestinians and israelis, they're not going to be the ones to say no to it, to try to sabotage ill. i think there are so many other big problems that the arab- israeli conflict doesn't have the profile or the priority that it once did. >> david? >> just a couple of thoughts about these big strategic issues that i think are at the center of what u.s. officials need to

be thinking about and if they can discussing with the iranians. what is in our interests and i think we need to show is in their interests is a process in which iran turns towds leading regional player in some kind of new st security in the region and the essence of that deal is that iran understands their limits on its ability to move toward having nuclear weapons. highly destabilizing. in the end dangerous nor them as well as for the region, and also has to semilimits on its covert action in neighboring countries like the ones that i mentioned and what it gets out of that is acceptance that it is going to play this mainly role. it's a little bit like -- major role. it's a little bit like, if you imagine it, returning to the

sort of status that iran dreamed of under the shah. so i think laying out that idea for iranians and helping their elite think about it, get a feel for it, is crucial. i talked at length with zarif about this and he talked about some of his own writings that are in a similar direction. interestingly, i wrote a kind of quasi scholarly article years ago in 2006 looking at some of henry kissinger's writings about how europe was stabilized after the french revolution. iranians gobbled them up and when ahmadinejad came to washington, of all people, two years ago, he wanted to talk about, so the idea intrigues them. second strategic point. one theme of the article i wrote this morning is that iran is incredibly adept at riding several horses at once.

negotiating with the united states in the west about a nuclear deal as it continues to run hezbollah, as it backs assad in a bloody civil war. meanwhile it's got multiple iraqi militias, some competing with each other. all of which is covertly ascending into syria. they're masters at this and it's very skillful policy, i have to say. the united states needs to do, in its way, a little bit of the same. we need to ride multiple horses at once. we're trying to do something important with the iranians in the shiah world. it scares our sunni friends but we aught to be sort of redoubling our engagement with our sunni friends at the same time. it may appear to be contradictory. so what? often good policy has elements of critics. so riding several -- continue

decisions -- contradictions. riding several horses at once is what we ought to do and get better at it. >> david, thank you. this is very, very good advice. let me invite you in the audience to ask questions of these two about any of the things that you've heard so far. if you will raise your hand, and there are mikes on either side and the first question is right up in the balcony here and it might be hard to get the mike to that -- loudly, can you do that? >> i'm from the muslim public affairs counsel and my question is directed towards david. he made a statement something to the effect that the iranis felt saudi arabia will not last. the thing is that -- you thought iran played a destabilizing role in the region, which it does.

my question is twofold. one, do you think that the statement meant that iran will play a role in bringing saudi arabia down or was it simply a statement of fact considering that there are many destructive forces within saudi arabia itself? and two, don't you feel that your statement reflects a bias in terms of -- talking about destabilization in the region. a lot of people feel that you're talking about iran being destabilizing but look at what saudi arabia is doing and it's interesting that you made a comparison between those two and don't you think that reflects a bias that many people feel the u.s. government has? >> it's a good question. well-phrased. i don't mean to be saying that i think the status quo and the status quo powers, as opposed to revolutionary iran in all cases deserve u.s. support.

i think -- i hope saudi arabia will address its deep internal problems. i hope saudi arabia will modernize, adapt, become a more open country, become a prosperous country as it does so so, yes, you're right. saudi arabia has an iran problem. iran does meddle, especially in the eastern province, but saudi arabia's biggest problems are internal and they have to do with issues the saudis have to solve. so i accept the caveat. the sunni world is convinced that iran has its hands at their throats. i mean, if you travel -- i spent a week in abu dhabi and dubai