here's what christie told nbc news last night. >> i had no knowledge of it before it happened, nor did it authorize it or have anything to do with it. that's the truth. sometimes people do inexplicably stupid things. >> in the interview, christie also brushed aside the word bully. saying he doesn't believe anything about the climate he created in the governor's office would push anybody that works for him to push such a destructive plan. >> i spent the last 11 weeks thinking about what did i do if anything to contribute to this. and i don't believe that i did. but i'm certainly disappointed in myself that i wasn't able to pick up these traits in these people. >> and yet, the report goes out of its way to attack two former christie aides, bridget kelly and david winestein.

at some point after stephen's departure to run the campaign, kelly and stephen became professionally involved. the legal team didn't interview any of those people nor did they speak with several other key players in the bridge gate scandal and no one was interviewed under oath. and yet the report concludes, based on our thorough review, we have a clear understanding of what happened here, even if the participants' precise motive remained to be determined. even if the precise motives remain to be determined. how can there be a clear understanding of what happened without knowing why it happened? the report also fails to answer several key questions including. why would a personal relationship between kellie and stephen lead to the lane

closures? and why would bridget kelly go along? who would have benefitted from closing the bridge access lanes? why should we take christie's word for it when he says he doesn't recall that david winestein told him about the lae lane closures. without showing any evidence that the government is telling the truth. nbc's ron allen joins me now from trenton, so, ron, i want to start by asking you what impact you're hearing this report will actually have on the state lawmakers investigation? >> reporter: well, those are good questions, joy and maybe we'll be able to put them to the governor. as for the state legislators who are looking into this, remember, they're democrats for the most part, at least the majority of them are, and so this is obviously a very political situation. one of the co-chairs of the committee says he doesn't see this report as being thorough of objective.

he questions the fact that a number of key individuals were not questioned like bridget ann kelly or david winestein. they're already saying and being pretty dismissive of this report and that's the obstacle that the governor faces. this report and nothing else has ever found any smoking gun evidence that the governor did in fact authorize this or know about this. there's that moment where winestein had this conversation with christie that he doesn't remember, which of course sounds convenient when a politician says i don't remember something. but again, this investigation, other things have never spoken to or never gotten to the three or so individuals who are the keys to this. wildstein, kelly, until we know

their roles why this happened, this is going to remain something of a mystery and governor christie is going to continue to try to bat these things down and continue doing what he's been doing. and essentially to try and run out the clock. but there are these other investigations going on. there was a federal investigation, there was a state investigation, and with subpoenas, one of these matters is in court because of the subpoenas being challenged. the u.s. attorney is perhaps the most serious investigation because this could end up with some criminal charges. there was some investigation that what was done to investigate the flow of traffic at the bridge was a criminal matter. so again, this is going to play out for some time, but, again, nothing yet, that's a smoking gun that points to chris christie at this point. so we'll see how this press conference goes, he's very good at this. so we'll see what goes on as he tries to battle these charges away.

new jersey assembly woman marlene caritti, she sits on the joint legislature tiff committee investigating the lane closures. i want to start by asking you what impact you think this report is going to have on your investigation? >> it's a self serving report, i would not have expected anything less of it. the committee will continue to investigate, will continue to go through the documents and wherever it takes us it takes us. there are people directly in the governor's office that these documents from pointing to. >> one of the things that makes this report stand out is that they weren't able to talk to the key players, david wildstein, bridget ann kelly, have those key players in this investigation, have they talked to your committee? >> no. well, bill baroni came to our

committee when -- when it was called a traffic study that no one has ever seen the reports. mr. wildstein came before the committee as well. but as everyone is aware, he pled the fifth. ms. kelly has anyone spoken to directly? no, but we have been able to obtain subpoena documents. >> what about the governor, it doesn't quote him at all, including in the footnotes. has the governor talked to your committee? >> no, the governor has not come before our committee and we have not requested his presence before our committee. because we're doing our investigation as thorough as possible. and to do that, you need to get the documents first. review the documents and then question him on it. this particular report, quite honestly, everyone knew what was going to come out of it. what's appalling to me is that

we have to foot this bill. that's appalling that the taxpayers of new jersey have to pay a million dollars for a report that says the governor did nothing. i'm not saying he did nothing, but were we expecting any other kind of an outcome? >> this report says it relied on 250,000 documents, your committee is trying to get its hand on documentation, does your committee as representatives of the constituents of new jersey, do you know get access to those same documents? are those not work product that belongs to the tax payer of new jersey? >> this particular attorney gives us 344 pages of a wonderful report for the governor, but does not attach a transcript, any e-mails, nothing to justify his conclusion. and we as attorneys know that you have to back up your conclusions, and there is nothing there.

so we are going to continue our investigation, we're going to continue to ask for those documents that we have not been privy too. and he met, this particular attorney has made reference to it. he has -- i would think that he has to give it to the committee at this point. >> i think because this is actually taxpayer money, now the governor has made much of saying this was not his personal attorney, this was someone hired by the governor's office, but it was paid for by taxpayer money. is there going to be an investigation based on that? >> obviously our chair people will determine that. you have heard people with regards to this particular report, it's self-serving and those documents that have not been delivered, since he's making reference to it, let's see what you have. >> i feel like i have to ask you as a female lawmaker. the tone of this report is very personal, sort of a portrayal of

them and their states of mind. what did you make of that? >> to be honest with you, when i read this, i was appalled. i was appalled that the taxpayers would have to pay for it. and as a woman, i was appalled that they would say that brilgt ann kelly did this all on her own because she was scorned. we're not back in the stone ages, they're trying to put out that tony th that the tony of the -- bridget ann kelley would not have had those responsibilities in his office if she could noll be reliable. >> and she was hired by governor chris christie. to if she was that unreliable and not stable, i don't know what that says about him. governor chris christie will come to the mike to answer questions about the controversial bridge gate report. we'll take the news conference live so stick afternoon. and steve carnanke is next to

hash it all out. r price tool! you tell them how much you want to pay, and they help you find a policy that fits your budget. i told you to wear something comfortable! this is a polyester blend! whoa! uh...little help? i got you! unh! it's so beautiful! man: should we call security? no, this is just getting good. the name your price tool, still only from progressive. it's hard to describe, because you have a numbness, but yet you have the pain like thousands of needles sticking in your foot. it was progressively getting worse, and at that point i knew i had to do something. once i started taking the lyrica the pain started subsiding. [ male announcer ] it's known that diabetes damages nerves. lyrica is fda approved to treat diabetic nerve pain. lyrica is not for everyone. it may cause serious allergic reactions or suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these,

new or worsening depression, or unusual changes in mood or behavior. or swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, changes in eyesight including blurry vision, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling, or skin sores from diabetes. common side effects are dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain and swelling of hands, legs and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who have had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. ask your doctor about lyrica today. it's specific treatment for diabetic nerve pain. salegets up to 795 highwayeal's the passamiles per tank.sel salesperson #2: actually, we're throwing in a $1,000 fuel reward card. we've never done that. that's why there's never been a better time to buy a passat tdi clean diesel. husband: so it's like two deals in one? avo: during the salesperson #2: first ever exactly. volkswagen tdi clean diesel event, get a great deal on a passat tdi, that gets up to 795 highway miles per tank. and get a $1000 dollar fuel reward card. it's like two deals in one. hurry in and get a $1,000 fuel reward card and 0.9% apr for 60 months on tdi models.

back now. we're awaiting a live news conference in trenton, new jersey. where just moments from now governor chris christie is getting ready to speak. this is the first time he'll be taking questions from reporters in more than two months. the catalyst for today's public update is of course the release of a report commissioned by his administration, exonerating the governor from any involvement in the bridge gate scandal. the report pins the plot on former christie age on bridget ann kelly and david wildstein. somehow tying their relationship

to the lane closure, although the report doesn't explain how. christie critics are not buying it. friends of ms. kelly are calling the report sexist, saying it doubles down on a strategy of portraying ms. kelly as due police to us and ze pending on men for approval and stability. if you believe an emotional and stupid jilted woman caused bridgegate, i've got a bridge to sell you. steve carnanke has been extensively covering the bridgegate scandal. co-author of chris -- joan, i will go to you first, because you wrote what was in my brain and i love it when somebody who is an excellent writer can sort

of encapsule lakap sul lacap sl. the crihristie attorney or the w firm hired by the governor's office is not just to blame his former allies but to shame them. >> it's a very weird strategy, we have seen it all along, she couldn't leave david wildstein alone. with this, this is like they took every sexist misogynistic cliche in the world and spewed it in this report. first of all, we have to know about her relationship, but we also have to know that she was the one allegedly scorned, really? we needed that? and what does it have to do with the lane closures. but the reliance on this

narrative of this out of control, weepy, unqualified, emotional woman disaster, isles really offensive, good luck getting that women's vote if you do run in 2016, governor christie. >> and more than that, bob, is saying that somehow that relationship played into the bridges scandal, we don't know how, but we need to let you know they had this relationship, but it was wildstein that actually did it. so what are they saying? she was in such a state of duress over the relationship that when this idea of the quote unquote traffic study, that she went along with it because she was weak? i don't understand the narrative. >> you know how it is with these emotional women, you just can't trust them, actually mr. wildstein was drawn right into the it. even bill barone who has been a

friend of chris christie for a long time. it could not have been done unless christie had signed off on it. it is the most ridiculous million dollar report that i think i have ever read in my career, and when i got to the part where they were trying to blame kelly and the reason they gave for it, i thought, this is like a saturday night lives skit, it's not real. >> because you know all these players so well, the stephian part of it is also unreal. he may have had these conversations that upset the governor. but stephian's response to it is not good. he says the report's conclusion of -- which began after he left the governor's office ended before the lane closure debacle gang and took place at a time when both he and ms. kelly were

single. but obviously bill stephian is upset got this too, they have now made a third person really angry. >> i think the report characterized stephien's -- they couldn't find any evidence that he was directly involved or anything. i suspect one of the things that might be at work here, is that we know through his lawyer explicitly. we strongly sup that brilgt kelly is tries to cut some kind of deal as well. this report, one way you can read the insinuations about bridget kelly. they're trying to impeach these -- >> before hand. >> these potential witnesses for the prosecution. they're basically sending a message out here, that, hey, if you're going to rely on -- potentially rely on bridget kelly or david wildstein,

there's something to go back on. >> that is why, i think, joan, this does read as the opening argument for the defense, that you do have, as steve just pointed out, a kind of preimpeachment, a prebrutal of anything kelly might say. it does read like anyone who could potentially give evidence that perhaps chris christie perhaps knew anything, et cetera is being taken down. but the women are the ones being accused of having some sort of emotional problem. >> and people now try to blame this report on randy mastro and crihristies lawyers have done ts thing. but i can't believe this went out without christie's knowledge. these attacks on two people, but particularly bridget ann kelly, if she wants to start raising

money to mount a defense, i'm sure she could get a lot of support from feminist lists right now, because it's an incredible example of a very loyal person who have all accounts was not only loyal, but very good at her job being hung out to dry and have the bus backed up over her. and it's really the thing that people are talking about. this report has really, i think backfired at this point. >> that's what i was going to ask you about, it does seem to have backfired, as a strategy, paid for by the taxpayers of new jersey, order bid the governor's office. but it does seem to have the opposite affect. >> a great many females are going to resent that the -- i think it's backfired and that's what i was hearing. i slogged through all 300-odd pages last night and i'm sure steve did as well. i got to the end of it and said, well, what have i learned?

i pick up that piece about stephien and kelly. the rest of the stuff is just recycled, what christie has been telling us all long. it's not a report as much as a defense of what he's already said. >> i did ask the assembly woman about the work product. because this was paid for by the taxpayers of new jersey, this is their money. is it possible that the 250,0-o documents that could become the property of the people of new jersey, that it can be used at least by the state assembly in their investigation. >> but i mean, it all points to the two hats that randy and his firm are aware of in all of this. it is in the report as well. we have known this for two months shlts they were obtained

not just to conduct an internal investigation, they were also hired to defend the governor's office. they were obtained to basically represent the governor's office potentially in dealing with the state legislature in it's investigating committee. so you have a law firm that is simultaneously conducting an internal investigation and representing the governor's office and the people in the governor's office, as the feds look into possible misconduct here. so the question has always been there from the very beginning, no one demanded this report. no public entity demanded this report. if you're going to go out there, if you're going to go investigate it and you're also representing these people. so if you find out that somebody in the governor's office may have been up to something, what do you do? you're also representing them. >> what would they have done if they had found something. i do want to ask you what your expectations for this christie

news conference. >> i expect it's going to be another long pity party, about how wronged he feels about this and how let down he's been and how he's losing sleep, like he was telling diane sawyer, i expect him to do exactly what he did last time. i don't know if it will go on for two hours, i don't know if he has that stamina, but i expect it to be self serving and he won't give an inch. >> be sure to check out joan's article on the christie scandal at salon.com. we're also linked to the report. steve and bob are going to stick with us as we continue our coverage here on msnbc. we're just minutes away from governor chris christie's news conference, we'll bring to it you live as well as your reactions to the latest twist in this story next. ♪

♪ ♪ [ female announcer ] with five perfectly sweetened whole grains... you can't help but see the good.

whole grains... my dad has aor afib.brillation, he has the most common kind... ...it's not caused by a heart valve problem. dad, it says your afib puts you at 5 times greater risk of a stroke. that's why i take my warfarin every day. but it looks like maybe we should ask your doctor about pradaxa. in a clinical trial, pradaxa® (dabigatran etexilate mesylate)... ...was proven superior to warfarin at reducing the risk of stroke. and unlike warfarin, with no regular blood tests or dietary restrictions.

hey thanks for calling my doctor. sure. pradaxa is not for people with artificial heart valves. don't stop taking pradaxa without talking to your doctor. stopping increases your risk of stroke. ask your doctor if you need to stop pradaxa before surgery or a medical or dental procedure. pradaxa can cause serious, sometimes fatal, bleeding. don't take pradaxa if you have abnormal bleeding or have had a heart valve replaced. seek immediate medical care for unexpected signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. pradaxa may increase your bleeding risk if you're 75 or older, have a bleeding condition or stomach ulcer, take aspirin, nsaids, or blood thinners... ...or if you have kidney problems, especially if you take certain medicines. tell your doctors about all medicines you take. pradaxa side effects include indigestion, stomach pain, upset, or burning. if you or someone you love has afib not caused by a heart valve problem... ...ask your doctor about reducing the risk of stroke with pradaxa.

a live look at trenton, new jersey where governor chris christie will take questions on the new bridge gate report. today the bridge gate report has taken over your twitter and facebook feeds and apparently you're not at all shocked that governor christie was cleared of all wrong doing by the lawyers hired by his administration. one reader wrote on our facebook page, his lawyers conducting an investigation into his innocence is akin to a criminal defense being on trial and also silting on their other than jury. it's ridiculous to expect a conviction. and one added, the people of new jersey deserve better than a taxpayer paid million dollar op-ed paid for by a christie loyalist. many of you see any connection between the investigators and

his office as too close for comfort. i wonder if nixon had launched an internal probe. you're also talking about accusations of sexism in the report which lays much of the report on former staffer bridget kelly. one of you tweeted, outrageous reports on bridget kelly, cannot believe my taxes paid for this crap. is anyone really shocked that christie blames his scandal on an emotional woman? pathetic. now we're trying to find people on facebook who were not outraged by a highly invalid investigation. eric holder -- benghazi, the irs, nsa spying and more are classics. that's too many conspiracies for this one sitting. the report doesn't answer a separate question, bridge gate

report, very important questions that could be answered in the two pending investigations by external authorities. christie's news conference is coming up. back with me right now, co-author of chris christie, the inside story of his rise to power. we were talking, guys, about questions about what happens in this investigation -- which you were pointing out actually has extensive ties beyond the governor himself. >> christie gave the interview last night and i'm assuming he will repeat it today during his press conference. people are saying this is a whitewash, you hired your own lawyer, paid for by taxpayers exonerated you, then he says no, he's not my lawyer.

he says after all my years as an attorney, there isn't -- he could have picked any law firm, no, this is not christie's personal lawyer, that's absolutely correct. but it's in the report, it's in the public record, it was reported back in january this law firm was obtained not just to conduct an internal investigation, but also to defend against claims against the governor's office. this law firm was hired to represent the governor's office in any investigation. that's a huge distinction. >> this would be the firm again that would theoretically represent the governor's office and find anything on a federal level? >> randy mastro was a part of a rudy giuliani administration. rudy giuliani has the same political counselor as does christy. and it was rudy giuliani who was the first one to come out to

defend christy when all this broke. so it's not, as steve says, just another law firm. there are connections here. >> and one thing, i see a master now gives several, i think he mentioned this at the press conference as well. where they asked him about his objectivity. he says hey, look, i'm a registered democrat. i say, hey, if i'm a lawyer, and you're paying me $650 an hour, my political leaning is not going to matter that much. he says i'm a registered democrat so i couldn't possibly have been swayed. >> the whole point was that there were these christie democrats and they were trying to make sure that everyone was on board. >> right, and he also, i think offered up as a defense, said the lawyers have integrity. how could you question? >> i received the report from the review team at gibbs and dunn and on thursday, wednesday and thursday, i reviewed the

reports on both it's findings and its recommendations. it follows the mandate that i set out when he commissioned the review. i told him to find the truth no matter where it led and to turning over every rock that they were able to get to in order to get to the bottom of what happened and to let me know what the truth was. they conducted over 70 interviews, reviewed over 250,000 documents and had access to both the personal and business devices, e-mails and texts of my current and former senior staffers of the lieutenant governor and of me. and consistent with the law that i made in january, we made the report public as soon as we recieved it. i want to thank randy mastr o and others at gibbs & dunn for the extraordinary amount of work they did in a relatively short period of time. as for the recommendations, i'm fully embracing the reforms as

it pertainis to my office. i resolve to do whatever we can to be better. to be a better governor, to be a better staff, and to be a better administration. we owe that to the people of new jersey and that's what i will attempt to deliver. there will be further announcements in the coming weeks as we work to implement these recommendations and their structure and to find the best possible people to fill these roles. as to the port authority, i agree with the main thrust of the report, and the need for fundamental structural change at the port authority. i'm particularly intrigued by the idea of dismantling the port authority operations. i think the report is replete with examples of the new york-new jersey rivalries that have allowed this place not to work as one, but to ineffectively work as two. i intend to work with governor

cuomo to further explore these recommendations and other ideas to bring a new day to the port authority. lastly, i received a call from david sampson, who told me he completely supports the recommendations laid out for the port authority and he believes the best way to start a new year at the port authority is with new leadership. in line with that belief, david tendered his resignation to me this afternoon effective immediately. i want to thank him for his service and his friendship. i look forward to discussing with governor cuomo, usheringly a new era at the port authority, in light of the recent events, past history and the recommendations laid out in the mastro report. questions?

>> you talked about how this will not impact -- we have seen how this affects the voters, even republican voters, how is it possible this this controversy will not impact your run for president? >> well, those are two different questions, right? >> impact running as a choice, i'm just telling you that it won't. and the fact of the matter is, that i had nothing to do with this and as i said from the beginning in this report, has supported exactly what i said. and in the long sweep of things, any voters, if they consider this issue at all, in considering my candidacy if there ever is one, i got to feel it will be a very small element if any element at all. but in terms of my decision making, it's simply not the way i would make a decision. the way i will make a decision about whether to seek any future

office would be do i think it's what's best for me and my family and secondly, do i have something unique and particular to offer that -- if the answer to those two questions is yes, then i'll seek that office, and if the answer to either of those questions is no, i won't. and there won't be anything else that will enter into it. because anybody who tries to game out the politics of this kind of stuff years in advance, it's a fool'ser ranked. -- errand. there's nothing that's permanent about that, the same way there's nothing permanent about my standing being extraordinarily high. there's nothing permanent about this stuff and anybody who thinks that -- i said that all along when my polls were good and you weren't here. but i said that all along to folks when my polls were really high. i said get ready, they'll come

down. you make decisions, you do things, events occur, they impacts you. so it's of no moment to me, kelly, in the end. you know, if i were running for re-election tomorrow, maybe it would be of moment to me. i already ran for re-election and got 61% of the vote. if i was running for something else sometime in the future, the only poll i'll care about are the ones a few days before the election. the polls don't mean anything now. i'm the governor of new jersey and i have a job to do and i'm going to do my job the best way i can. and as i have said dozens of time, if i do my job the best way i can, the future will take care of lists. brian? >> you just pointed out the executive directors, the laws of the state and local were broken.

and you were made aware of this in early october. you admitted to that. your staff, some of your staff was also made aware of that, most of whom are former federal prosecutors working for you. how is it that this went on for roughly eight weeks or so where all of these former federal prosecutors were accepting really what was the word of a couple of snake oil salesmen selling a traffic study. >> that's colorful, brian. why don't you cut the commentary back a little. >> the voters do not understand that your top person -- >> not my top person. can you get to it already? i'll answer. the first time this came into my consciousness was "the wall

street journal" story of october 1 or 2, somewhere in that neighborhood, where executive director floyd leaked this memo to the press weeks earlier. i said to two former federal prosecutors, my chief of staff and my chief counsel, find owl for me what's going on here. the way you do that is in a normal circumstance where you look like you're dealing with an operational issue with the port authority is to go to our people at the port authority and ask them what's going on. they came back and said this is a legitimate traffic study, we blew the notifications to the executive director, he's just upset because he didn't know about it. contextually that made tension to me because you could see a history of conflict between these people at the port authority. i heard about conflict between chris ward, the former kpekt ty

director and our folks, it's why i believe, as i said off the top that the best way perhaps to deal with this, at least something to consider is taking the hatfields and the mccoys and moving them to separate homes because they haven't been able to get along with each other, despite my best efforts, the best efforts of governor cuomo and many of our predecessors, so nobody dropped the ball here, brian. you're looking at this both through your editorializing in the question a and everything else from the perspective of what you know today. well, if i knew then what i knew today, i would have done a lot of things differently. but we didn't. we went and we asked the questions, we got what we believed to be satisfactory answers back from the folks that we put ought the port authority and we believed it was an operational issue with the port authority that they needed to do with. and we told them to deal with it. and that's where it endied.

part of the problem is that all of us, you, me, everybody is now looking through the retrospe retrospectoscope. i think it's an unfair characterization to say that our folks didn't do anything for eight weeks. in fact the report lay outs that they went and pursued a number of avenues from that date all the way through to my december 15th press conference to challenge people and question people about what went on here and what each individual's role was. it wasn't effective, because people didn't tell them the truth. but it's not fair for me to say that people didn't to do their jobs in trying to get answers. >> governor, some of your staff felt this kind of behave year was appropriate. what have you changed about how you govern now? >> first of all, i would say

that one of my closest aides participated in this. and for that, she was fired. and that's the first thing i did. to set a different tone here, was that people need to understand that if you participate in this kind of conduct, you will not be permitted to hold the public trust and the authority that goes along with senior position in this government. secondly, as i have said before, i have done a lot of soul searching on this for the last ten or 11 weeks, and, you know, for me, it's going to be about making even clearer to people what is acceptable conduct and what isn't. but i will say, also, as i said yesterday, i think that anybody who works for me who believed that something like this was going to be something that was going to be pleasing or acceptable to me, didn't know me in the first place. and from that perspective, i'm not only disappointed in them, but it's obvious to me that i have to make even clearer as we

move forward in the future, and i have already, about what's acceptable conduct and what is not. that's a constant challenge when you're running a large organization, and it's one that i did not do as well as i needed to do, obviously, with this happening, and one that i can intend to focus on even more as we move forward. >> governor--declined to participate in the internal investigation by your outside counsel. and so this is a two-part question. one, did that concern you? and two, did attorney general sampson, i know you guys are close, did he ever talk to you throughout this process, during the investigation, that this was an agency that he led? >> as i said in the statement, it's effect tiff immediately, he called me this afternoon. on the first part of your question, i spoke to general sampson on january 8.

and asked him what he knew about this, if he had any involvement in it, if he authorized it or had any idea of the planning of it or the rest. he said absolutely not. and that rang true to me at the time, not only because of david's reputation for honesty over the course of his entire career, but also because the role of the chairman of the port authority is not an operational role. his role is the port authority. in terms of his and his firm's lack of participation in interviews that are conducteded by the mastro group, he explained to me, that there were issues of attorney-client privilege that he feared would be compromised if he participated in an interview. i didn't push it any further, because it wasn't my role to

push it any further. but that was the explanation he gave me at the time, and i have no reason not to believe that. so, again, i think that his role was not central in any of these things, nor has it ever really been alleged that his role was central in any of these things. but those positions that he had to make, based upon his ethical obligations to his clients and that's the decision he made, whether i agree with it or not is a different matter, but in the end, he has as everyone has their own individual obligations to their clients and what they think they can and cannot say to the public o'as a result of that. >> i have shared with the governor my desire to -- in krv conversations saying he wanted to complete the service, did you ask him to stay on? >> yes.

>> and what did he say, i'll leave until this is over? >> he said i'll stay on as long as i think i'm able. it's preceded, by the way, his discussion about leaving the port authority goes back a year. >> did he cite any reasons why he -- >> he was 74 years old and he was tired, that's what he told me. i said i'm in a re-election campaign and i'm going to be going through a transition, why don't we deal with that at that time, citizen ode 6 -- but david's been talking to me for the better part of a year about wanting to move on just because he's tired, he's served for a long time, he's 74 years old and he said, chris, i would like to spend some more time doing other things. and i asked him as governor to please stay and give me the time

in what i hoped was going to be a transition to a second term to be able to make those decisions during that period of time and in deference to our friendship and our long time relationship, he was willing to stay on. [ inaudible ] you're role in that rollout a little different than was portrayed. do you know what the response was and also explaining again what your role if any was? >> not really. my view is that those are the type of operational things that the port authority works in all the time. governor cuomo and i came to an agreement on what we thought an appropriate toll hike would be and it's been implemented. [ inaudible ]

>> sure. a few things. one, when an administration needs to respond appropriately and at my direction swiftly to inquiries from both the legislative committee and from a prosecuting office, you need to bring a law firm in to do that. we don't have the capacity in-house to be able to do that, nor do we think it would be appropriate for us to do that. so there was never any question in my mind that we were going to have to bring in a law firm from outside to be able to shepherd all the -- we wanted to do that as quickly as cooperatively as we could so question wanted to have a sfanignificant law firm h resources available to them to mr. able to do this job as quickly as possible. it also made perfect sense to me and as best practices in the department of justice, that when

you have a problem like this, you conduct an internal review to find out what happened and to make recommendations to try to prevent p this kind of conduct in the future. having the same group do all that made absolute sense to me from both an efficiency perspective and an effectiveness perspective. no matter who i chose to do this, questions would be raised by some quarters as to those people's objectivity. my answer to that is, look at the report. we gave them unfettered, complete access to everyone in this government. and allowed them to interview people multiple times if they so desired on multiple occasions in order to try to get to the bottom of things, gave them complete access, not only to people's professional e-mails, but to their personal e-mails and their personal devices to be able to review text messages as well. the objectivity in this report is based on two things.

one the breadth of it and the access they had, without restriction to any information they wanted, and secondly the reputation of the six people who are running this thing. these are six former federal prosecutors who i can guarantee you have worked hard to develop the reputations that they have earned during the course of their career and would not give away those reputations to do some type of slip shod job for me. lastly, as for relationships with with the firm, after seven years, heather, as u.s. attorney in this state and five years as governor, there's not a major law firm in this region, that i don't have some relationship with over that time and some personal connection to. so in the end, i decided to pick the people who were best to do the job and i did. and i think the report will stand the test of time. but it will be tested by the other investigations that are

ongoing and it is limited as randy mastro pointed out by some of the access they had and didn't have to sorenecertain pe. but in the end, all that's fronted in the report. it doesn't claim to be anything other than what it is. it's exhaustive and it's thorough. no matter what you're going to be contribute sized in these instanc instances. >> is there a reason for severing ties with step hrkstep you still think that -- can you imagine a time when -- [ inaudible ] >> let's be clear, it was tonight salty language, because as you know, matt, i have been known to use a word or two of those myself as have a number of

you as well. so it's not that. what it is is that the content of those e-mails showed me a lack of judgment that caused me to lose my confidence in bill's judgment. and so that's the basis upon which i made the decision, and a decision that i stand by today, because it was made purely on that basis, and not on the basis of anything else. so, no, i don't have any change of heart on that at the moment. and, you know, as far as the future goes, matt, i'm not, as you know, i'm getting into hypothetical questions about the future, it just doesn't make any sense for me to do so. kevin? [ inaudible ] >> i would have liked it on january 8, if i could have had

it. but, you know, as i have said many times before, i would have hoped that everybody would speak to this grioup, but i also havea healthy respect for people's constitutional rights, so i am again not going to be critical of people ---i don't know if we'll ever know what the motive is. as i said, what i -- it mysti mystified me on every level why this was done. and i hope someday to have an answer to why it was done. but i certainly don't have a crystal ball and i can't tell you if or when i'll ever know. but do i hope to after all this? you bet i hope to. charlie? >> since this issue has come forward, there's been considerable tensions in david sampson's overlapping business

interests with the port authority. did you raise that issue with him before he tendered his resignati resignation? did he raise that with you and what about these continued examinations that reveal close ties between him and the port authority? >> i think if you look at many of the commissioners both currently on the port authority and over history, there has always been those type of connections and potential conflicts. this is what happens when you ask people to come from the private sector and serve in a noncompensated, part-time position in a role at the port authority, the way to deal with that is appropriate recusals when the port authority has business that might cause conflict with a business interest or representation you might have. my understanding over the course of time is that not only general sampson, but other members of

the commission, on both sides of the river would engage in appropriate recusals when necessary. so i hope that that's what general sampson did, trust that that's what he did in most or all of those instances, that's an issue for him to deal with directly. i'm sure that he will. i have ever faith and trust and confidence in david's integrity, as do people on both sides of the aisle in this state over the course of the last 40 years that he's been involved in public live. i have complete confidence that he acquitted himself in a way that was appropriate and ethical. if it turns out that there were some instances that weren't handled in that way, that's something we'll all deal with. but i don't think, charlie, to get to the core of your question, i think the core of your question, is that you can expect that when you ask people from the private sector to come in and do these jobs, in a part-time noncompensated way

that you can ask them to give up their private sector life which they use to support themselves and their family. the way to deal with that is to have an effective system where people recuse when appropriate. i trust that's being attended to at the port authority, and if it's not, it should be attended to with even greater care. do you have a follow-up? >> for a lot of this examination examination--relationship with the port authority. >> that's your assumption. i don't believe that's in the facts. that's your assumption, it's your assumption as you often do. that's right, you're a columnist, you get to assume certain things and suppose certain things, but i don't think that draws a direct line to the facts. >> a two-part question, do you still believe that there was a traffic study, a, and do you still believe that those lanes

are -- >> well, first off, the report seems to date that there was a traffic study of some kind. and whether the motive for the traffic study was a traffic study now seems to have been disputed and put into, you know, real question if not completely blown away by the report that there seems to have been on the part of mr. wildstein and ms. kelly, some type of nefarious or inappropriate motivation for it. as to the ft. lee lanes being dedicated to ft. lee residents. i think i stayed they were dedicated to ft. lee. i understand that there are people who get off the highway and drive through the neighborhoods to get the easier route on to the george washington bridge. you know? maybe even once or twice i may have done that in previous life,

okay? so i understand that. and if i did i misspoke that they were dedicated to ft. lee residents. they are dedicated to the town of ft. lee, my understanding for their development was to relieve traffic con jessation going to the bridges. but i will tell you that that's an understanding that will only come into knowledge of in the last number of months, because even when i went that way a couple of times, years ago, it was -- i didn't know they were committed to ft. lee and to the town of ft. lee or to any of that history. that was a two-part question, you're not going to follow up on a two-part, are you? >> that was the first part. >> i said it appears that there was a traffic study that may have had behind it an ill or inappropriate motive. >> you said that was in the report, you didn't say if you

believe that. >> i believe what the report told me. terry? >> getting back to david sampson, do you think his step down was played out -- >> no. >> in other words -- >> no, i don't think it was essential, but he did. and so he called me this afternoon and told me that if you're going to have a chance to institute these type of reforms, i think you have to have somebody in there who will be able to take a brand-new look at this and not have to worry about the things in the past and so i'm going to go. now like i said in response to the earlier question over here, this comes as no great shock to me, terry, because david started talking to me a year ago about wanting to leave and the only reason he stayed is because i asked him to. it didn't come as a shock to me this morning that he called me and said it. i didn't expect the call this morning. so that was a shock to me.

i didn't believe it was essential or i would have asked for his resignation myself. he believed it was essential so i accepted his resignation. [ inaudible ] >> listen, as i have said all along, we will responsible and cooperate appropriately with all appropriate investigations and requests, which we have done, we have sent -- as far as i have been told, over 50,000 pages of documents to the legislature in response to their subpoenas, so let them work their way through that and then we can see if there's anything else they might need. yes, in the back, christine? [ inaudible ] testified that state and federal