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 laws -- but several days later -- >> no, i joked -- christine, stop.

you have to get the facts right if you're going to ask me a question. i made the joke on december 2, not on -- not after -- excuse me, excuse me. not after pat foy's testimony. [ inaudible ] >> again, christine, i'm not going to answer a question whose premise is absolutely -- well, i understand, it's nice that you eventually got to the question. but the premise of the question is so infirm that i'm not going to answer it. >> what do you think of the depiction of the -- not only did it describe youryour -- his act, but very -- do you think the report was fair to her and what did you think --- >> i think the report laid out

the facts as the investigators found them and however anybody wants to interpret those is up to your particular interpretation. yes, ma'am? >> you said that this was the most difficult experience of your professional life and you can see it's not over yet. do you have an estimation of what you feel you could look at this and -- and my second question is how has all of this impacted your confidence, being such a confidence man? >> well, i have no estimate on when this will be behind me, because i don't get to deside, exclusively, when it's behind me. i could tell you that, i think as you have seen over the course of the last six or seven weeks, i'm back to work. i'm out there, i'm meeting with the public, i'm doing my job, i'm working with the legislature on important pieces of legislation that they're dealing with. just as late as yesterday doing that. i can only do what i can do.

i can't control everything. and so, the judgment of when this will be behind me is not lefts purely to me. but what i can do is just do my job, which is what i'm going to do and live my life which is what i'm going to do. and in terms of my own confidence, there's no question that this shakes your confidence a and if it doesn't shake your confidence, then you're arrogant. some people i trusted and relied upon let me down. and as a result, we let down the people of the state of new jersey. of course that shakes your confidence. but in the end, whatitis -- what it's revofled me to do is get better. i never promised that i would have a perfect administration, there are going to be mistakes that are made, by human beings, myself included. what matters is how you respond to those mistakes and how you act. and i hope that as we go forward, we can avoid this type of stuff.

because this has not been pleasant for anybody. starting with the people who were caught in that traffic in ft. lee, from the 9th to the 13th of september. and everybody since then, it's an unpleasant situation and it continues to be. i will continue to cooperate where it's important for me to do so. but i'll continue to do my job, hopefully in that course of time, some of that confidence will also be restored and will be based upon the work that you go and the results that you produce and that's what's most important. [ inaudible ] >> i don't know the answer to that question. not something i deal with. that's what the attorney general's office deals with. so you should direct your questions to the attorney general's office, because that's not something i know.

melissa? [ inaudible ] . >> i don't -- listen, the facts are the facts, melissa. read the report. they can't make up facts. and i have read the report, every one of the factual assertions they make in the report is footnoted, end noted, backed up by documentary evidence they got from interviews. that just can't be manufactured. in the end, i've got relationships, personal relationships with most of the major law firms in this region who can handle this type of task. and so, in the end, i decided

not to worry about that stuff for two reasons, one because you'll be criticized no matter who you pick, and two, what i wanted was the best possible people i could find to get to the bottom of this and get me some answers. as a result, this is what we have got in the report that was issued and i think it's a report that is thorough and exhaustive and will stachbnd the test of t. michael? [ inaudible ] was your intention to try to get him not to leave? >> no, my intention was to not turn the whole place over at one time. what i wanted was to have interstability to get acquainted, accustomed to the

place and then move on david's request to move on. it wasn't that i was trying to get him to stay for the next four years. he made it very clear to me. i said give me a chance to do things in an orderly way, you're too important a presence there as the chairman to do this all at once. let me get rid of the underlying staff first and then we'll do what we need to do moving forward. [ inaudible ] >> i think in the short-term it has to be an elevation from someone inside. and then i'll work as i normally would to try to find a replacement and we'll go from there. but i just got the call about two hours ago. so initially from what i understand from counsel, in initial elevation, since the resignation is effective immediately, will have to be done with port authority

procedures from inside the -- to get a new person on, i have to nominate and go through the advice and consent process in the new jersey senate. that will take some time, it always does, so in the interim we'll have to have someone take over. there's the remaining five members of the new jersey commission. and we'll see where we go from there and i'll begin to have those conversations. [ inaudible ] >> because this is my press conference, not hers. [ inaudible ] here is a woman who -- you had an opportunity to talk to her. instead, you haven't talked to her because -- could you not have called her as chief counsel

and ask her what she was thinking? >> no, i couldn't have and put him in the same position that i didn't want to be in myself, to be accused later on of trying to coach, intimidate someone who had obviously been involved in wrong doing? no. listen, what you get with me is what you get. i cannot shed who i am. i am a former federal prosecutor. and when i thought about that choice, and i balanced the choice between whatever i might get from a conversation from someone who i know has already lied to my face, versus a look at this later on where people could say that we tried to do something to manipulate, coach, do whatever. i decided that the better course, the more prudent course was not to pursue someone who didn't tell me the truth when they had the opportunity to, but to let her go, fire her and then move on. because i think the risk of that and i can only imagine the

speculation that some of the more irresponsible members of your profession would be engaged in about what went on in that meeting between me and bridget kelly. i have been in this business for a long time. and i made that decision, that was my decision. and i have absolutely no second thoughts about it because i somewhere no great degree of confidence that in fact i would have gotten anything different from her then than i did in december when these questions were asked of her. >> governor, you said you had been doing a lot of soul searching over the last couple of weeks. we heard some of the things that david wildstein had done at the port authority and he had done some of these things in your name [ inaudible ] after you did that soul searching what have you found out about yourself and what are you changing?

>> nothing that relates to the premise of your question. because the premise of your question is so riddled with inaccurate si that it's hard for me to respond so it. david wildstein, as i said a long time ago, never was, and never has been a closing personal friend of mine. david wildstein is a close personal friends of bill barone, and it was david wildstein who brought bill barone into the port authority. yet you continue to do a question where the premise of this, that he was my close personal friend there for -- what led to soul searching was the fact that our administration disappointed the people of new jersey through the conduct of some of its members and that the entire premise of what i have tried to do as governor is to restore faith and trust in the

government. and in the motivationings of the people who are doing the work on their behalf. and when you fall short of that, as we did, that causes soul searching. and what i have said in response to this question now a number of times is, there's no question that now i need to be much clearer to people about what my expectations are. that i need to be even more direct about what i will permit and what i won't permit. and to the extent i didn't do that. and that any of these people to conclude, that this was appropriate, that that's my failing too. so that's the result of my soul searching over the last few weeks. [ inaudible ]

>> listen, i obviously believe that having david wildstein at the port authority was a mistake, let's just leave it at that. >> we know that -- >> i said phil, i meant bob. sorry about that bob. >> one of the things is that we know at the town hall meetings that you were very proud of the fact that -- [ inaudible ] this makes -- i was just wondering, is the attorney general like furniture now? it seems like you're relying on the federal government -- >> no, that's not fair. that's not fair. and to characterize the attorney

general as a piece of furniture is really beneath what you guys should be doing. the attorney general is doing an outstanding job. they're there to enforce the law. they're not there to act as an ethics advisor to the governor's office. and if you find that somewhere in the statutes or regulations, point it out to me. >> the attorney general is not the lawyer for the state in terms of production of document? >> no, he is not because he may also have to provide an investigative function at some point? time. so imagine that. imagine what you guys would be saying if the guy may at some point have an investigation of his own. [ inaudible ] that's a whole different story, i'm not getting into that now.

[ inaudible ] >> as far as kevin o'dowd, my support of kevin has never wavered because i knew how kevin conducted himself throughout this entire episode and i these the report backs that up, in terms of the efforts he took, particularly with bridget kelly to try to get to the truth and to the bottom of this. so my support of kevin is unwavering, i wasn't going to resubmit his nomination in the midst of all this while a report was pending. but kevin and i will sit down and talk now that the report's been issued and talk about the future and whether or not that's something he wants to pursue. we have been occupied with other parties so we'll constituent and talk about that, but as far as that's concerned, everything i said about kevin o'dowd the day i nominated him to be attorney

general applies just as much today as it did then. i have answered the question about bill stephien a number of times. i have talked about my reasons for severing my relationship with bill. and there's nothing new to add to that beyond what i said on the ninth and what i stayed in response to the question. [ inaudible ] >> yeah, my decision was that all you would do is ask me about this and i didn't have the facts that i needed to answer your question. so i wasn't going to sit up here and play dodgeball on your questions because i knew this is all eyou guys want to ask me about. i have held regular press briefings throughout my administration. i'm certainly not afraid to answer questions from you.

if i know what you're going to ask and i don't know the answer, why would i submit myself to that? so that's why i did it. it's amusing when you guys write stories about what you think you're entitled to. what you're entitled to is truthful answers. i'm not stupid, i get what this would be. so i was going to answer these questions as soon as i had answers to give them. because remember, when i gave answers before when i thought i had complete information, and i didn't, it turned out to be a big mistake. one of the things i have learned is to try to not make that mistake again. and i will hold regular press briefings. >> it mentions in the documents abo about. [ inaudible ] >> i asked him directly and he said he had no idea what he was talking about.

[ inaudible ] >> matt, anything, and this is for all of you. anything you ask me, which asks me to speculate on what david wildstein was thinking or what bridget kelly was thinking, i'm not going to answer, because i don't know. and i'm not going to get into the speculation game, because it will just put me in a spot where i'm throwing stuff out there against the wall where i don't have the factual basis. in an around that time. the thing i remember for sure i asked him on the 8th is what he knew about the bridge lane situation, did he have any involvement in it, did he have any prior knowledge, did he authorize or approve it in any way and he answered no. i could have asked him at some point very early on and he said he had no idea what he was talking about. >> the report has new knowledge about the state commission

study. [ inaudible ] >> i'm certainly not saying that they can't do an internal review, if they want to, they can. if the commissioners decide they want to do an internal review, that's certainly within their purview, i think the inspector general will probably serve that purpose. but this is not to be exclusive. okay? but what i think the report's recommending is that you need a group of people who have not been involved with the port authority. and one of the things i finding infirm about what the port authority is up to now is that they're recommending bringing back a bunch of former directors who created this situation in the first place. let me tell you, this isn't the first time that the port authority has been involved in incidents that grow out of inherent conflict between new york and new jersey. and so i think bring in the very

people who helped lay the foundation for this problem to examine the problem doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. i think that's why this type of independent commission may make some sense. but in the end, let's be clear, this is going have to be, if anything is going to be changed, this is going to have to be something that i work on with governor cuomo. the fact is that i haven't had any conversations with him guilt this yet. we have a good relationship and i think the idea of splitting the port authority into two may have some merit. i don't want to jump to conclusions, but i think it has merit to consider and something i'm sure will be a part of a lot of conversations that i'll have with our friends in new york over the course of the coming weeks. [ inaudible ] >> i gave them anything they

asked for. >> what was it? >> my cell phone and my e-mail accounts. and being interviewed? it's -- a number. i don't remember exactly. any time they asked. they called and they asked and said we need x amount of time to review certain matters with you and ask you questions and i said fine and i cleared my calendar and did it. i don't remember exactly how many times. it started all the way back in january and has continued through the time they issued the report. i don't remember exactly how many times. but it doesn't matter, but the bottom line is whenever they asked, i gave them time. in the end, my desire for this was for them to get all the information they needed to be able to put together a comprehensive exhaustive report which is i think what they have done.

it's incumbent upon me if i'm asking everybody else to do that to do it myself and i did. [ inaudible ] >> you know, seriously. i'm up here trying to very carefully answer your questions. and i didn't know whether you can't take notes or you're not listening. but for you to characterize my last answer as i didn't want to ask her because i didn't want to know is so awful. that it's beneath the job you hold. what i said was, that i made a

decision that given the chance, the likelihood that i had of getting honest answers out of bridget kelly given that she had lied to me eight weeks earlier, that somehow i attempted to coerce, influence, in any way intimidate this person and her story, that i made the decision that the cost-benefit analysis of those two weighed on the site of me not having a private meeting with bridget kelly in the after math of these revelations, that is far, terry, from saying i didn't want to know. and, you know, those kind of questions are just ridiculous. melissa? [ inaudible ] it didn't say anything really

about the emotional state of -- do you think that this report was fair to -- [ inaudible ] >> i assume that the only reason for that is they didn't get testimony or have any documentary evidence which gave them a window into the emotional side of those folks. i don't think there was any other reason why that would have occurred. yeah, brian? >> you made a very strong point about protecting the rights of people -- and yet the report uses the terminology in talk about those same individuals that says they assert their fifth amendment rights, from which an adverse inference can be drawn. >> that comes from the case law in a civil contest, brian, and i think they cited a case after that. in a civil context, which is

what this is, this examination was a civil examination, in a civil context under the case law cited, an adverse inference can be drawn. for instance in my old business, an adverse inference can't be drawn to have their fifth amendment rights -- it's the difference between a civil and a criminal inquiry. in fact the judge will charge the jury in a criminal instance to say, if the person has asserted the fifth amendment right no adverse inference can be drawn from the defendant not testifying. that is not the same case in a civil context. >> there's been some criticism of the pro -- >> first of all i don't know where they got the $1 million from because i don't know where they got that number. i saw it cited, but i don't know where the number came from. but again, if we want to have a search for the trust, and we

have an incident that people are concerned about, and you have investigations, which are asking for the production of enormous amounts of documents, and testimony, you need too get lawyers to help you shepherd that process, to do it appropriately. and so that means they get paid for doing that task. [ inaudible ] >> i assume it whether come from the attorney general's office why are the people who hired the lawyers in the first place and who reviewed the bills and who authorize payment of the bills. let me assure you, we're not going to do anything to try to hide what the cost of this are, if that's the thrust of your question. and i don't know and i have not been focused at the moment on what this is costing, i have been more focused on what they would produce and if it met my mandate and it appears that they

did. however that process works, when it happens, i'm confident that will make it public under the appropriate circumstances to do thachl that. [ inaudible ] >> tomorrow. [ inaudible ] oh, no, not at all, this report has nothing to do with it. and i have had lots of, seven or eight states in the last four or five weeks. it's not like i'm not going to have any meetings until after the report. i will tell you that there's sfarveltly -- i think appropriately so. so, no. and i don't know whether i'm having a private meeting with sheldon and miriam or not.

i haven't looked at my schedule yet for tomorrow. the only thing i know for sure in las vegas is that i'm speaking to the jewish coalition, that's the reason for going to las vegas, is i was invited to give a speech there, often times they set up other private meetings for me, with donors or potential donors to solicit them for the republican governor's association. i'm sure i'll have some meetings, i haven't looked yet as to what my schedule is, i usually wait until i get on the plane tomorrow and i'll look at what i'll be doing when i get there. [ inaudible ] >> i take complete responsibility for bridget kelly

being in position she was in. it was my decision. and i take complete responsibility for david -- being more searching, you can bet i'm sensitized even more than i was before to this when you go through an experience like this. and i think that the people who advise me on this stuff are for sensitized to it as well. yeah, bhet. beth. [ inaudible ] >> a pot that he had? all right. [ inaudible ]

>> my understanding is that what david wildstein stayed was that it was a legitimate traffic study and it was his idea. which would not have been news to me at the time. that had been related to me any number of times since october 1. so i don't think david wildstein said anything different from that. i think that he also said at that time that bridget kelly had some knowledge about it. that, again, triggered us to go back to bridget kelly and ask her. and she did not. you guys need to understand this, that's not a revolving door where anybody can walk in any time they want on any topic and just willie nilly have at me. there's a process around here. people report to certain people. and if they want to get certain information from me, they've got

to go through channels. the people who have unfettered access to me at that time were kevin o'dowd and charlie mckenna. and everybody else in this office reported to either kevin o'dowd or charles mckenna. and so, i have seen some recounting of this in the press and this kind of fiction about, well, why didn't this person come to you, why didn't that person come to you? i mean, i'm the governor of new jersey. i don't have everybody just walking in my door and saying, hey, i've got something to tell you. in order to run an effective and efficient office, you have to have lanes of traffic, especially towards me. i thought you would like that, we have to have some sense of humor. and in this instance, those access points are guarded and governed by kevin o'dowd and by

charlie mckenna. and what i'll tell you is, that mike always appropriately, i think, went either to his direct supervise maria camilla or to his indirect supervise kevin o'dowd to report on all those things, not directly to me, nor would i expect him to, nor would it be appropriate for him to. his job is to report directly to the people he's supposed to report to. and i these in this case, that's exactly what mike did, when mike had information that he thought was important or relevant to the organization, he either shared that with maria or he shared it directly with ketvin. and that's the way you're supposed to do it. and if i didn't do it, i would be taking people into my office every day on what they're newest idea is or whatever. i think mike conducted himself completely appropriately, that when he had information that he

thought was relevant. so in the end, from my perspective, that's the way an office runs efficiently and effective effectively. and i think if you look at most governor's offices, whether it's in the private sector, or in other areas of government, that's the way you have to do it. because if you don't do it that way, you'll just be overwhelmed by the people that want to come in and just have some face time. i don't somewhere the time to do that all the time. that's why i set up a two chief system here as opposed to the three or four chief systems that we have had in this office in the past. i wanted very clear lines of authority that ran to me. and those clear lines of authority exist today. the chief of staff and the chief counsel. they divide up the job of running this office as they see fit with my approval. and then folks beneath them,

like mike, follow that course of conduct because if they don't, then they'll have trouble because this is the way we have to run things. so, listen, everybody, i appreciate all the questions, it's such an extraordinary joy and relief to finally be able to come back and interact with you in the kind of gentle way that we always have, i would love to say i missed you, but i didn't. but i'm loog forward to having you all back. on a regular basis and the fact of the matter is this. the single most important thing for me to do is to learn from this experience, to learn from what i have read and what i have heard and to do my job. and all other considerations are really not even secondary and my

job is governor of new jersey and i have three and a half years left to do that and i plan to do it as vigorously as i did before any of this occurred. i look forward to seeing you all again soon, i'm not sure when that will be. >> it is friday afternoon so why not make us work four our weekend. chris christie wrapping up his comments on that controversial report on the bridgegate scandal. a $1 million, 344-page taxpayer funded report that found that he had nothing to do with the lane closures. let's remember this, this investigation is far from over, the state and the feds are still looking into what happened last

fall. so if you are dealing in facts and we do try to do that here, judgment must still be reserved. but the early political ramifications cannot be ignored. we will get into all of that with our mana for jersey politics, and we will also take you to the state capitol in trenton where where -- i do want to start with steve. and steve, much different tone here today than the initial two-hour plus long press conference, lots of barbs thrown as the press. he's reviewed this report, he accepts the recommendations he wants to make. he thinks that trouble churl -- pointed to sort of tensions tween the new york and new jersey sides of the port authority. and probably the biggest news here is about david sampson, the

chair of the port authority who he says has tendered his resignation. and to give a little context here, sampson was involved in those initial e-mail exchanges that were originally released on january 8. port authority gave ft. lee all three lanes back this morning. sampson has been trying to retaliation, so he has been in the mix of what happened. he has tendered his resignation, but he did not choose to participate in the investigation that led to this report being released. what do you make of all this? >> no. i mean you basically said it all there. i mean the interesting thing here is christie was saying, he seemed to be saying at one point that because david sampson had no day to day role in the port authority, there's no reason to be suspicious.

that obviously raises lots of questions, and it's one of those avenues that this report just chose not to go down. it didn't have access to the -- to david sampson, it said hey, david sampson said public -- in many other instances where the investigators did not have access to people for interviews, they were happy to make judgments, they were happy to p pursue it. they were happy to take hearsay in many instances. forethe last few months, david sampson has been waiting for this report

remember, addleson and his wife -- resident scholar of the american enterprise institute. in 2012, addleson had this

strategy he put a lot of money toward the gingrich campaign and romney, now it seems like he's taking a little bit of a different approach. what do you expect from him this time around? >> david sampson resigns to spend more time with david wild stoo stein's family. sheldon adleson has now decided to be more pragmatic. it's an interesting thing we're seeing from the donor who is tried to pull the party over to the radical right in 2012, now looking more for a winner. the question is whether any of the candidates who runs is going to appeal to a base that maze not listen entirely to the sheldon adelson's of the party and to have an advocate that will appeal to the base and appeal to a broader electorate. you hit on a key point here, which is we have more investigations to go.

we felt from the get-go partly because of steve's reporting that the investigations into how new jersey used or misused the billions of dollars for aid for hurricane sandy. i don't think this bridge investigation is anywhere close to being done. but he is going to be plagued by this set of things for a long time. and going out to las vegas right after this, no matter what he said, that it's just a routine event to meet with the republican jewish coalition, i don't think he's going to have a skating free trip out to las vegas. >> that was my favorite part of the press conference, when he said, i don't even know if i'm meeting with sheldon adelson, i'll figure that out tomorrow. what do you think of this press conference where christie seems to be going after the press.

that seems to have been crist kw christie's -- >> i think he had two major points here, the first is i've been exonerated and i must say, if you watched randy mastro's press conference, the idea that this was an independent report and that he's not basically a lawyer for the defense is, i found, almost laughable. but the second which is time honored is the enemy of my enemy is my friend and if i can get the republican base to look beyond any of these investigations, and a look beyond a record that fits new jersey a little bit better than it does alabama or south carolina, that they'll rally behind me because it's the liberal press corps and the liberal democrats who are out to get me. that has worked before, although of course it didn't make newt

the nominee. but it's the best route he has if he's going to pursue national ambitions. >> yeah. >> yeah, and i think -- >> i just wanted to get steve's take because a lot of people are asking, what is his strategy dealing with the media, it was pretty much a belittling tone to the media, i'm past this scandal, your questions are stupid, basically, i've moved on and then to think, this has finally, it seems to have quieted down the scandal, even here at msnbc, and now he's going on this media tour, speaking with diane sawyer and doing an hour and a half long press conference, what is the strategy behind all of this? >> i think this las vegas thing has everything to do with the timing of the report coming out this week. he wants to go out to las vegas and say i have been exonerated and second i'm a victim of the liberal press. there were two things going on in that room, one was christie's

combativeness. it was hard to hear the reports' questions because of the audio there. but there was a lot of skepticism among the press corps, and the regional press press corps that follows us on a day-to-day basis. he's asked about what he's going to be doing in las vegas, well, i don't know if i'm going to be meeting with sheldon and -- little things like that, ratchet up the -- i think the thing that was surprising to most repo reporters, nobody thought that this report would do anything but exonerate chris christie. nobody thought it would be a haf handed as it is. it put a fact out there that david wildstein claimed that he met with chris christie on january -- this was not an artful report. this was so heavy handed that it

aroused such skepticism from the press, so the press was a lot more -- the tone of the questions was extremely skeptical and it got christie going, that's what he does when he's facing this kind of heat from the press. listen, there's no smoking gun. he can make this a liberal press versus me thing, he'll lose some friends in that but he'll make more. >> thank you so much to you two and of course there will be much more in depth reporting on christie's redemption campaign. as for me, as interesting and important that will be, the big attraction tomorrow will be my attempt to make the championship game on up against the clock. i am a little bit nervous. that will be at 9:44ish. any last minute tips for me, steve? >> the offer still stands, $10,000 and i'll give you the questions and you can be on national tv.

>> see you tomorrow morning and we will be back with more on the cycle right after this. we asked people a question,

how much money do you think you'll need when you retire? then we gave each person a ribbon to show how many years that amount might last. i was trying to, like, pull it a little further. [ woman ] got me to 70 years old. i'm going to have to rethink this thing. it's hard to imagine how much we'll need for a retirement that could last 30 years or more. so maybe we need to approach things differently, if we want to be ready for a longer retirement. ♪

we're back with our coverage of missing malaysia flight 370. another dramatic turn of events shifted the search 700 miles to the northeast. investigators have released new data showing the plain traveled faster than originally thought, burning more fuel and reducing how far it could have traveled. several objects of floating debris of varying colors have been spotted in the new search zone which luckily does have

better weather. five different planes are on the hunt and this new development are leading to serious doubts of other objects spotted by thai satellites this week in the old search zone. lots of new information to digest with nbc's tom costello. hi, tom. >> hi, abby. good afternoon. they've moved the search zone north. here was the original search zone about 1600 miles or so from perth. the new search zone is about here or so. before i get to a close map, i want to show you something that's important. they have now projected based on projected speeds of the aircraft what the new search zone may be. so what they did is they said all right, if the plane were traveling at x, speed, at y speed or at z speed, where would it have landed? and what they've done is taken the assumptions that the plane is traveling at somewhere between 460 to 530 miles per hour and then they tried to do the math and based on that here is the new search zone that we're talking about.

it is, as you can see, a good distance north of the old search zone and here are these tracks. track a, track b, track c, or y, y, z, so now it's a matter of trying to define what is in the search zone. because we have had these reports specifically most recently from new zealand saying their aerial teams spotted some debris in the water. now, we don't know if what they spotted was debris if the aircraft or it's just more floating debris because there is a lot of that floating in this area of the indian ocean. the good news is by moving the search zone north, if this is an accurate idea for the debris might be, you are cutting the flight time out of perth, australia. the other good news is by moving at 700 miles to a thousand miles north you're out of this extremely volatile ocean area here between the indian ocean and the southern ocean which is called the roaring 40s because of the longitude and latitude. it's about 44 degrees south.

and they realized that this is going to be a losing battle in terms of weather. that's not why they moved it, but the battle with the weather was making it incredibly difficult to spot anything. the good news is further north they have better weather. so they're hoping now that based on these new calculations and based on these sightings that they've had from the new zealand air crews that they may be on to something in this area. it is still a good flight out. you're still talking a thousand miles or so just to get throughout from perth. so it's not an easy ride out, right? you're still talking about a three-hour flight to get out to this area and search it. meanwhile, they still have shut assets moving into this area, the chinese and australians moving in with their naval ships hoping they can spot something and pull it out because we have seen debris floating in this area. satellite images from the thais, the french, the australians, the chinese but none of that yet has been confirmed by any air crew and none of it has yet been retrieved.

so until they retrieve it they won't know for sure if any of that is from flight 370 and to date we still have no concrete evidence, concrete meaning physical evidence, that flight 370 went down in this area and guess what? it's now three weeks -- three weeks -- since flight 370 with all of those people on board disappeared from kuala lumpur to beijing. guys, back to you. >> tom costello, thanks so much. we now bring back to the show former ntsb investigator greg feith. we now have v two search areas, the old one and the new one. is it possible that these two could in any way be related? could they both have wreckage from the same plane or is the distance just too far apart? >> i think logically the distance is too far apart plus the currents aren't flowing in a northerly flow, they're flowing south from the old search site so it would be very remote if, in fact, this debris is anything related to the first search

zone. >> >> greg, we have a whole bunch of different countries in this search with planes and satellite images. are there concerns about what countries are willing and unwilling to reveal these satellites for national security purposes? particularly with the chinese. it is a concern there may be things getting held back? >> absolutely. it's been a discussion for the last three weeks about what the fidelity or the resolution of those satellite photos has been and whether or not that that is accurate resolution. of course, you know, with the chinese and some of the other folks in that part of the world they're always concerned for national security. we, the united states, didn't really have anything looking in that area. that's why you haven't heard much from any of our folks about our satellite photos because we weren't looking in that area. but i can see how there is a concern about resolution with their particular satellites, whether they're good or bad we don't know. they just don't want to give up, probably, how bad it may be or how good it really is.

>> and, greg, we have had airplanes in the new search area spot debris. we don't know whether it's from the airplane or not. but as of yet we haven't been able to actually go with a ship and retrieve any debris from the ocean. what will the sort of logistical challenges that they're running into from spotting something from an airplane to actually going and retrieving it? >> well, the one thing about spotting from an airplane now is that they're able to drop buoys, they're seeing it from the airplane rather than trying to figure out where it is on a satellite photo. that's the good thing because now they have an accurate location. the problem is is that a lot of the assets, sea-based assets, are spread out and so now it's just a matter of time to get them into that new search zone so they can actually get eyes on whatever that debris is. and we have to be cautious because the pictures that have come back early on from the aerial observation, those big square pieces, while they don't have measurement to it, there's nothing square on a triple 7. so, again, while it's

optimistic, possibly, that this new search zone may present us with some new debris to look at, it may be that this is still another part of this floating junk that happens to be in that part of the world. >> greg, we're three weeks out from the crash, the transmitters on the black boxes are supposed to last about a month. what are the hopes of recovering them the next then nine days if we don't find the site and we're not able to search for them yet. >> they do have an underwater listening device that's on station there. they just don't have a ship to pull it through that particular area and it probably won't be there for several days. so we're, again, now we're really critical in racing against the clock and trying to get some listening device under water. but, again, we don't know where that main wreckage debris is and we don't know how far, if this is, in fact, a piece of debris. we don't know how far it's floated so it's going to be real difficult to pinpoint an area. >> greg feith, thank you as always. >> you're welcome. >> that does it for "the cycle."

"now" starts right now. chris christie talks and he's talking about a bridge to 2016. it's friday, march 28 and this is "now" live from washington, d.c. >> his first news conference since january 9. >> if f chris christie survives, this chris christie is going to run for president. >> trenton makes, the world takes. >> the fact of the matter is i had nothing to do with this. >> a lot of this is theatrics at this point. >> 2:30 on a friday afternoon, it's a good time when you want to bury a story. >> why don't you get to the question and cut the commentary back a it will. >> this new report is being slammed by democrats. >> the report discredits bridget kelly and david wildstein. >> the attacks are so sexist and gras tu technical assistance. >> there's an odd insinuation that she's a jilted woman. >> this is the most elaborate one we've seen in a long, long time. >> the performance of the