do we have a witness? let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews up in new york. let me start with this. as we go to press this week and a potential blockbuster in the chris christie bridge scandal. the attorney for david wildstein, christie's appointment to the bridge authority, has released a letter saying that his client, david wildstein says evidence exists linking christie, the governor, to knowledge of the lane closings on the bridge during the time of the deliberate traffic holdup. here is the key part of that letter. "it has also come to light that a person within the christie

administration communicated the christie administration's order that certain lanes on the george washington bridge were to be closed, and evidence exists as well tying mr. christie to having knowledge of the lane closures during the period when the lanes were closed, contrary to what the governor stated publicly in a two-hour press conference he gave immediately before mr. wildstein was scheduled to appear before the transportation committee. mr. wildstein contests the accuracy of various statements that the governor made about him, and he can prove the inaccuracy of some." it's clear that the attorney for this key witness, wildstein, wants to win immunity for his client as a price for delivering this evidence. the question is does this evidence contradict statements made by governor christie. michael isikoff is national investigative correspondent for nbc news, and john wisniewski is co-chair of the super committee that is leading the state's investigation into the bridge scandal. michael isikoff, when you look at the statement made by christie made in the press conference, he said he didn't know about the bridge closure

until afterwards. here you have a statement by the lawyer for wildstein saying he knew about it during it. your thoughts. >> he said he knew about them while they took place. and we just got the statement from the governor's office in which they're making the point that the governor said he read about the lane closures. there was certainly press about them that week. so we don't know exactly what david wildstein is saying here, what he is saying the governor knew and exactly when he knew it. that is key to evaluating this. but taking a step back, it is a pretty breathtaking development to have somebody as close to governor christie basically pointing the finger at him, and, you know, what evidence he's got, what he has to say exactly is going to be key to evaluating where this goes from here. >> okay. i want to talk about right now

with mr. wisniewski, what the governor has said. and you know what i know he said. in his january 9th press conference, governor christie was asked point-blank by a reporter about why people would have a hard time believing he didn't know about this thing. here was christie's response. now catch the word at the end. "i didn't know about this bridge closures until afterwards." let's watch. >> what i can tell you is if people find that hard to believe, i don't know what else to say except to tell them that i had no knowledge of this of the planning, the execution, or anything about it. and that i first found out about it after it was over. >> after it was over. that is a clear statement of the timeline, assemblyman. after it was over is the first i knew about anything about this. in the letter, from the lawyer for wildstein who could be the key witness in this case, it says the governor knew about it during the event, and he had evidence to that effect. so my question is, is this a significant contradiction? i think it is. the guy had two hours to explain what he knew about this thing.

he tells the american people in his press conference i didn't know about it until after it happened. we now have a key witness, his lawyer saying we have evidence he knew about it during it happening. >> well, the implication of the lawyer's letter is the lawyer is saying that the governor was not being truthful in his statement. >> right. >> what we don't know, what i haven't seen is i don't know what these documents are that mr. wildstein or his attorney says he has that contradict the governor. you know, chris, my frustration is that the committee subpoenaed documents from mr. wildstein, and he supposedly gave us everything responsive. now somehow these documents surface. i don't know what they are. i don't know if they're different documents that weren't responsive to the subpoena. these are serious allegations, and it certainly adds to the skepticism that many people have had about the governor's statement. but i do think we need to look at what he is talking about, see the actual documents to see whether or not they really say what he says they say. >> well, late today the christie administration released the following statement. now i don't think this contradicts or in any way denies what we're talking about. >> right. >> here are the words.

mr. wildstein's lawyer confirms what the governor had said all along. he had absolutely no prior knowledge of the lane closures before they happened. and whatever mr. wildstein's motivations were for closing them to begin with, as the governor said in a december 13 press conference, he only first learned the lanes were closed when it was reported by the press. and as he said in the january 9th press conference, had no indication that this was anything other than a traffic study until he read otherwise the morning of january 8th. the governor denies mr. wildstein's lawyer's other assertions. my question back to you, michael, nobody said he knew about it beforehand. this use of the word prior is totally extraneous. he is not denying he knew about it during the actual events, and that's what the lawyer for mr. wildstein is saying his client is going to testify. >> right. >> so why is he putting out a statement that doesn't deny the bombshell that wildstein just dropped? >> well, the key word there is "it." what is it?

is it the lane closures? >> but he said i don't know anything about it. >> right. >> anything about it until afterwards. >> right. that's -- that's -- that's true. he did say that, and he may have some political trouble explaining that. >> i think he'll have trouble in the witness chair with that one. what about sitting in the witness chair saying i knew about it afterwards. now it comes out i didn't know about it beforehand. this thing went on for five days. by the way, you and i wondered, i know you did because i did, how can the governor mistake fighting for re-election, looking to run up the score, never knew or talked about it with anybody at the water cooler, never talked about these these bridge problems while they were happening. >> right. >> what a denial. and now he says i didn't deny that i just denied i didn't know before the five days. well, that's a totally different denial. >> right. but i think that the assemblyman makes a very important point here, which is that wildstein was subpoenaed for all his documents. now he turned over these very

damning e-mails that basically caused this whole thing to explode, with lots of redactions. he made those redactions. so he basically was redacting material he was asserting was not responsive to the subpoena. so if it's the redacted e-mails and texts, wildstein may have some culpability here on his own. not just for ordering the lane closures in the first place, but for covering up and obstructing the assemblyman's investigation by concealing the content of those e-mails and texts. >> mr. wisniewski, what do you make of that? you said a moment ago he may not have been forthcoming in the evidence he had. he may know. i'm not defending mr. wildstein or his attorney's behavior here. >> right. >> but he may say i know somebody who has e-mails to those effect. i don't have them in my possession. i do know about somebody else. how broad a subpoena did you

issue to wildstein to collect everything like this that he now says he's got? >> chris, the thing everybody has to understand, when we were asking for the documents we had no idea this was going to lead into the governor's office. so we were looking very narrowly at the port authority. in retrospect, there is a lot of other areas we need to look at to make sure we have all the fax. so it is entirely possible that this is not something that we asked for. these could be somebody else's documents that he is now come into possession. my point is these are very serious allegations. they add to the skepticism that everybody has had. but what we need to see is exactly what he is talking about. he needs to make those available to the committee so that we can analyze them and really figure out what mr. wildstein is alleging here and whether or not it goes to the credibility of the governor's statement. >> mr. wisniewski, the question comes down to what would be the smart move on the part of the defense lawyer here, rather the witness' lawyer here. would bit to show your best cards first or show some cards now?

say you got something bigger later. >> i think it's between two things. clearly, the attorney has an obligation to be truthful and provide the information the committee asks for. but we don't know all of the information he has. we may not be asking the right questions. so clearly, if he is negotiating for immunity from some agency, he's not going to tip his hand automatically and let us know all of the things he has. we don't know a lot about these allegations that were made in this letter today, and we need to see more details about it to really judge it, you know, for its full value. but no matter what, what the sentiment, what the point that mr. wildstein is making is that don't believe the governor. and we need to see the facts behind that so that we can understand whether that is something we need to pursue. >> michael, it seems like there was a buildup for week news. mr. wildstein said a while back he was the looking for immunity. this morning in "the wall street journal" there is talk he is headed towards offering up something. and now he has done it.

he has given us something about contradictions in time. >> right. i think i said on your show about three weeks ago that wildstein's lawyer might be suggesting he might be the john dean of this affair. and this would seem to -- seem to prove that's the case. but look, let's be clear. for him to get immunity from the u.s. attorney in newark, paul fishman, he is going to have to make a proffer. he is going to have to show the evidence he's got. he is going to have to give his -- his lawyer is going to have to give a statement about what david wildstein has to say. and then the federal prosecutors are going to evaluate whether or not they think that's a credible account or not. i think we're a long ways away from getting immunity. but for him to get it, he is going to have to show a lot more than he is asserting in this letter. >> mr. wisniewski, here is the key question from tonight going into the weekend.

why did the governor's people put out a statement tonight denying that he didn't know about the bridge closures before they occurred, but did not deny knowing about them during the closures, during that four or five-day period? it seems to me they do not want to admit openly that they knew about those closures while they were going on, because that opens perhaps a can of worms. if they knew about them, what was the governor asking about? who was he talking to about them? go ahead. your thoughts. why was he still not really denying the charge made by wildstein's lawyer tonight which is that he knew about it during, during the closures? >> this really goes to the remarkable lack of curiosity the governor had. i think it was in december he made a statement saying that he had known about the lane closures because he had heard about it in press accounts or newspaper stories. and so the question that automatic of us have is don't you ask questions when you see that there is this traffic jam coming out of the george washington bridge, affecting ft. lee?

where was the curiosity about why this was happening. >> what do you mean? what is your implication? he didn't have curiosity or he knew damn well what was going on and didn't want to be caught talking about it? >> at a minimum, a curious lack of curiosity. i mean, it gets worse from there. we just don't have all the answers to that, question. >> same question to you, michael. last question for you. why would he say tonight i didn't know about it prior to the events, but he wasn't accused of that in the latest story. why the distinction there? why does he avoid denying the charge itself? >> well, it could be that the charge is a little bit vague, as i think we've been making that point. we don't know exactly. >> the lane closures during the period when the lanes were closed. that's pretty clear. >> right, right. it's clear that knowledge of the lane closures, but the issue here is were those lane closures ordered for political reasons, were they done as part of some political vendetta. and that's -- that's the key question here. thanks for joining us. we're going to stay on this.

this story is big going into the weekend. one angle, rudy giuliani now said he did not say or mean to say he thought it was 50-50 that christie talked to his deputy chief about tying up that traffic in the first place. but check this quote. we did. it seems as if that's not exactly what he said. plus, that right-wing freak-out over president obama's promise to bypass congress that refuses to work with him. lawless, a tyrant, like a king. well, let's be clear. these right wingers want one thing, to delegitimize the obama presidency and basically erase him from the history books. also, the late night comedians are also having their say about the state of the union. speaker john boehner, well, he takes it here from leno and letterman. let me finish with where the facts in the christie investigation may be leading us. this is "hardball," the place for politics.

it might seem like today's big accusations from david wildstein's attorney came from out of the blue. but the you were following these things closely, there were clear signs something big was building from wildstein's attorney.

alan zegas told new jersey lawmakers at hearing the scandal that his client, david wildstein had one heck of a story to tell, but there was a price for that story, his immunity from russian. here is mr. zegas. >> those documents only tell part of the story. >> if the attorneys general for new jersey, new york, and the united states were all to agree to cloak mr. wildstein with immunity, i think you would find yourselves in a far different position with respect to information he could provide. >> that's your job. we just want answers to our questions. >> understood. i'm suggesting a way you can get there. >> that's pretty clear there. and today "the wall street journal" this morning teased that wildstein's attorney might be making moves. quote, statements from wildstein's attorney alan zegas made mr. wildstein something of a wild card in the unfolding allegations.

mr. zegas has said mr. wildstein has a story to tell. prosecutors don't grant immunity lightly, and the lawyer's request for immunity suggests he believes mr. wildstein has information that could be valuable enough to prosecutors as they determine if any laws have been broken here. john heilemann, msnbc political analyst and the co-author of "doubledown down" and jonathan capehart is a contributor for "the washington post" and an msnbc analyst. he didn't know about this whole bridge problem until afterwards, after it happened. then we get a claim from his lawyer for wildstein that he knew about it during it and has evidence to prove that the governor knew about it during the events themselves. and then we got a rather obscure, rather oddly written

nondenial denial by the governor late this evening saying i didn't know about it prior to the events. well, no one said he knew prior. they said he knew during. my question, does this site up to a problem to a governor who still hasn't gotten his story straight, meaning he has already been caught in a situation where he has been contradicted. instead of admitting it, he has moved back to a nondenial denial saying i didn't know about it prior. well, every print reporter and tv person watching this can see through that screen. he is not answering the question. your thoughts. >> well, chris, i think there is a big problem here, which is with the vagueness of the letter from wildstein's lawyer, right? there is two claims he is making, one which is written in a passive voice, where he says evidence suggests. he doesn't claim he has that evidence, but it exists. >> evidence exists. >> there are some things i can prove that christie has said about me that are false.

not necessarily about the bridge and the bridge closings, but things that christie has said. so it's a little hard at this point. what we know is wildstein is apparently trying to cut a deal, and he is trod turn on christie. >> yes. >> and i think he is willing to give up whatever he has to get himself in a better place in terms of strike an immunity deal that is bad news for christie per se. this is the first rat so, to speak, who is fleeing the punitively sinking ship. so that's bad news in itself. but the question of how bad the news is totally depends on what this evidence actually is. and we don't know that until right now. but christie cannot be feeling comfortable right now with this turn of events. >> well, some rats talk the truth. john dean, whatever you think of his loyalty to nixon, told the truth. >> yes. >> here is that key part of the letter that said that wildstein's lawyer released tonight. and it's also come to light that a person within the christie administration communicated the christie administration's order that certain lanes on the george washington bridge were to be closed, and evidence exists as well tying mr. christie to having knowledge of the lane closures during the period when the lanes were closed, contrary to what the governor stated publicly in that two-hour press

conference immediately before mr. wildstein was to appear before the committee. mr. wildstein contests the accuracy of various statements the governor made about him, and he can prove the inaccuracy of some. jonathan capehart? >> wow. that right there, as john said, the governor cannot be comfortable with this. and his statement doesn't tamp down anything. if anything, i think the governor's statement is a bit of playing for time here. i'll be very curious to see what comes of -- what happens on monday. the one thing we haven't talked about in all of this is the environment in which this wildstein letter drops. on monday, february 3rd is when those subpoenas from the legislative investigative body, that's when those subpoenas come due. and that's when we're going to find out a whole lot of other things, documents, e-mails, text messages, that the committee will have, will suddenly be public. and then i think once we all get

a chance to comb through at least some of those, that maybe a fuller picture will come 20 life. and maybe what mr. wildstein has, maybe it's in earlier batches of e-mails, or maybe, maybe he'll drop something again on monday. >> well, again, in his january 9th press conference, which we all watched here, christie was asked by a reporter about why people would have a hard time believing he didn't know about this whole thing. here is christie's rather complete response. >> what i can tell you is if people find that hard to believe, i don't know what else to say except to tell them i had no knowledge of this, of the planning, the execution or anything about it. and that i first found out about it after it was over. >> first found out about it when it was over. now, that question, john heilemann, i first found out about it when it was over. does that mean he didn't know about the bridge closures no now he is saying in the letter tonight, i didn't know about the bridge closures prior to them happening. he is moving them even further

back. not only -- so the accusation from wildstein's lawyers that wildstein will tell he has evidence to prove he knew about it during it. now the governor instead of denying that has moved back saying i didn't know about it prior. why this skipping away from the denial by the governor's people? refusing to deny the charge that was made here, that he knew about it doctoring it happening. if he didn't know about anything, why didn't he just say that? >> i think that's a very good question. if you were just reading this from a distance, on the basis of no reporting whatsoever, what it sounds like, the way you would hear what they're saying now they're trying to get themselves in a position where they can say that governor christie did not order the lanes closed, right. that's one question people have. did governor christie order this. that would be the worst crime or sin, if not illegal crime, the worst political sin he could have committed blue. there is a whole bunch of other questions.

and as you know, in december he went much further. >> two things possible here. totally possible. one thing he did find out it was going on and did nothing to stop it. said good idea, boys, or said damn it you guys are crazy, but i can't say anything now. it's too late. thank you, john heilemann, thank you, jonathan capehart. have a nice weekend. we'll be right back after this. i can adjust it if i need to...if my back's a little more sore. and by the time i get up in the morning, i feel great! if you toss and turn at night, have back pain ... ... or wake up tired with no energy, the sleep number bed could be your solution. the secret to the sleep number bed is the air chambers and its exclusive dual air technology. the only bed that puts you in control of firmness and lets you adjust to your ideal comfort and support: your sleep number setting. and this bed is perfect for couples because each side adjusts independently to each person's unique sleep number setting. here's what clinical research has found. 93% of participants experienced back pain relief. 90% reported reduced aches and pains. 87% fell asleep faster and enjoyed more deep sleep.

for study summaries, call this number now. we'll include a free catalog about the sleep number bed, including a product guide and prices-plus a free $50 savings card. on an ordinary mattress, steel springs can cause uncomfortable pressure points. but the sleep number bed contours to your body. imagine how good you'll feel when your muscles relax and you fall into a deep sleep. i'm not just a back surgeon, i'm also a back patient. i sleep on the sleep number bed myself and i highly recommend it for all of my patients. need another reason to call? the sleep number bed costs about the same as an innerspring, yet lasts twice as long. so if you want to sleep sounder and deeper, find relief from back pain ... call now. call the number on you screen for your free information kit with catalog and price list. call now and you'll receive a free $50 savings card just for inquiring about the sleep number bed. ask about our risk-free 100-night in-home trial.

call this number now for your free information kit and a free $50 savings card. call now.

that's "hardball for now." thanks for being with us. coming up next, "your business" with jj ramberg. ary brand. use less, with bounty select-a-size. feels like listerine®? [ male announcer ] ever wonder why no other mouthwash because no other mouthwash works like listerine®. in your mouth, bacteria forms in layers. listerine® penetrates these layers deeper than other mouthwashes, killing bacteria all the way down to the bottom layer. so for a cleaner, healthier mouth, go with #1 dentist recommended listerine®. power to your mouth™. also try listerine® pocketpaks to kill bad breath germs on-the-go.

the making of a bombshell starring new bombshell volume with the bombshell boost system. extreme volume meets intensifying topcoat and tada. 10 times more noticeable lashes. new bombshell from easy, breezy, beautiful covergirl.

high flying entrepreneurs take drone technology and adapt it for civilian uses. the small businesses that are making them, and the small businesses they're serving. coming up next on "your business." small businesses are revitalizing the economy and american express open is here to help.