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 weekend, 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, is attempting 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 a democratic assembly man from new jersey, co-chair of the super committee that's leading the state's investigation into the bridge scandal. michael isikoff, when you look at the statement made by christie 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. it's not a denial. 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 has e-mails to those effect. i don't have them in my possession. you can't get them from me in discovery. 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 facts. 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. wildstein's attorney said he knew about it during the event. 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. they've been brought tonight by wildstein's attorney. >> right, right. >> we're going to stay on this story and all its implications at the moment. rudy giuliani says he did not say or mean to say he thought it was 50/50 that christie talked to his deputy chief of staff

about tying that traffic up in the first place. check this quote. it seems as if that's done exactly what he said. plus, that right wing freakout over president obama's promise to bypass the 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 late night comedians are still having their say about the state of the union. speaker john boehner, well he takes it here from leno and letterman. and let me finish tonight with where those facts in the christie investigation may be leading us. this is "hardball." aflac! got 'em. ♪ yeah, he's clean, boss. now listen to me, duck. i have an associate that met with, uh, an unfortunate accident. while he's been incapacitated, somebody's been paying him cash. now, is this your doing? aflac? now, if i met with some such accident, would aflac pay me? ♪ nice. this is your stop. [ male announcer ] find out what aflac can do

for you and your family... aflac? [ male announcer ] ...at aflac.com. yeah... try new alka seltzer fruit chews. they work fast on heartburn and taste awesome. these are good. told ya! i'm feeling better already. [ male announcer ] new alka seltzer fruits chews. enjoy the relief! we are the thinkers. the job jugglers. the up all-nighters. and the ones who turn ideas into action. we've made our passions our life's work. we strive for the moments where we can say, "i did it!" ♪ we are entrepreneurs who started it all... with a signature. legalzoom has helped start over 1 million businesses, turning dreamers into business owners. and we're here to help start yours. this is the creamy chicken corn chowder. i mean, look at it. so indulgent. did i tell you i am on the... [ both ] chicken pot pie diet! me too!

[ male announcer ] so indulgent, you'll never believe they're light. 100-calorie progresso light soups. adding thousands of products online every day. from hard hats and goggles. to tools and cleaning products... to state of the art computers, to coffee to keep you fueled. from the sign over the door to the boxes to get it out the door. yes, staples has everything you need to launch your big idea. except your big idea. so when you get an idea, we're ready with everything else. staples. make more happen.

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 team.

back on january 9th, 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 prosecution. 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 clothe 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 about possible immunity for his client had made mr. wildstein something of a wild card in the unfolding investigations into why bridge toll lanes were

diverted for that week in september. and who was behind it. mr. zegas has said mr. wildstein has a story to tell. if his testimony isn't used against him. in other words he gets immunity. 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. new york magazine's john heilemann, msnbc political analyst and the co-author of "double down" and jonathan capehart is a contributor for "the washington post" and an msnbc contributor. john there is something here in terms of a clear contradiction. we can go back as we've done in the earlier segment and show the governor saying 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 denial -- 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. >> and then the second claim is, 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 ready to 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 striking an immunity deal. that is bad news for chris christie per se. this is the first rat, so to speak, who is fleeing the puttively 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. i remember john dean, whatever you think of his loyalty to nixon, which wasn't there obviously, 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 transportation 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 to light. 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? because now he's 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 and said i didn't know about it prior. why this skipping away from the denial by the governor's people? why are they -- why are they refusing to deny the charge that was made here that he knew about it during 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, not actually a legal crime, the worst political sin he could have committed. 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 is he did find out what 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. e challenge. they're the days to take care of business. when possibilities become reality. with centurylink as your trusted partner, our visionary cloud infrastructure and global broadband network free you to focus on what matters. with custom communications solutions and responsive, dedicated support, we constantly evolve to meet your needs. every day of the week. centurylink® your link to what's next. i took medicine but i still have symptoms. [ sneeze ] [ male announcer ] truth is not all flu products treat all your symptoms. what? [ male announcer ] alka-seltzer plus severe cold and flu speeds relief to these eight symptoms. [ breath of relief ] thanks. [ male announcer ] you're welcome. ready? go. everything life throws my way. except for frown lines. those i'm throwing back. [ female announcer ] olay total effects.

nourishing vitamins, and 7 beautiful benefits in one. for younger-looking skin. olay. your best beautiful. afghanistan, in 2009. orbiting the moon in 1971. [ male announcer ] once it's earned, usaa auto insurance is often handed down from generation to generation. because it offers a superior level of protection. and because usaa's commitment to serve current and former military members and their families is without equal. begin your legacy. get an auto insurance quote. usaa. we know what it means to serve. ♪ ♪ ♪

♪

that's "hardball for now." thanks for being with us. coming up next, "your business" with jj ramberg. >> [ woman ] i'd be a writer. [ man ] i'd be a baker. [ woman ] i wanna be a pie maker. [ man ] i wanna be a pilot. [ woman ] i'd be an architect. what if i told you someone could pay you and what if that person were you? ♪ when you think about it, isn't that what retirement should be, paying ourselves to do what we love? ♪ paying ourselves to do what we love? side by side, so you get the same coverage, often for less. [ rattling ] that's one smart board. what else does it do -- reverse gravity? [ chuckles ] split atoms? [ whoooosh! ] hey, how is that atom-splitting thing going?

[ rattling ] [ electronic whistling ] oh! [ zap! ] a smarter way to shop around. now, that's progressive. call or click today. i have a big meeting when we land, but i am so stuffed up, i can't rest. [ male announcer ] nyquil cold and flu liquid gels don't unstuff your nose. they don't? alka seltzer plus night fights your worst cold symptoms, plus has a decongestant. [ inhales deeply ] oh. what a relief it is. i think we both are clean freaks. i used to scrub the floor on my knees. [ daughter ] i've mastered the art of foot cleaning. oh, boy. oh, boy. oh, boy. [ carmel ] that drives me nuts. it gives me anxiety just thinking about how crazy they get. [ doorbell rings ]

[ daughter ] oh, wow. [ carmel ] swiffer wetjet. you guys should try this. it's so easy. oh, my. [ gasps ] i just washed this floor. if i didn't see it i wouldn't believe it. [ carmel ] it did my heart good to see you cleaning. [ regina ] yeah, your generation has all the good stuff. [ daughter ] oh, yeah.

a bridal search engine with an internship program that's propelling its growth. and we sit down with jack dorsey, founder of twitter and square as he visits small businesses in harlem. that and more coming up next on "your business." small businesses are revitalizing the economy, and american express open is here to help. that's why we are proud to present "your business" on msnbc.