mr. drewniak, his lawyer was very clear on this. we should be very clear. there's no indication that he is a target of the investigation. his lawyer is saying he's simply there as a witness. but as a matter of procedure, somebody called to testify before a grand jury, even just as a witness as mr. drewniak apparently was, do they have a choice about whether or not to do it? is this something where you're legally compelled? >> they have a choice in the sense that somebody can take the fifth amendment. it appears here he is not. i think what we're seeing, guessing lots of speculation, the feds aren't going to say a single word about what's going on inside the federal grand jury investigation. with respect to this witness' status, what his attorney says makes a certain amount of sense. he's there as a witness. otherwise, frankly, he wouldn't be there. and the corollary to that is the feds don't bring in somebody early on typically if that person is a likely target. they want to put everything together, build up to getting somebody to cooperate, flip, turn evid

mr. drewniak has testified before the grand jury.e don't have confirmation that anybody else has actually testified before the grand jury yet? >> no. no, we don't. and i've been told that there's no reason to think that michael drewniak is the first. >> interesting. okay. >> by someone who would know. >> you've also reported that governor christie's former chief counsel, charlie mckenna, a very important person in the administration, he met extensively with the u.s. attorney's office. that was back in january? >> yeah, january 20th, the week of the 20th. >> is there -- i guess there's nothing that we can infer from the fact that he met with them other than he has had some sort of conversation with them. is there any reason to believe that he may be cooperating with the probe? >> well, you could think that that might be a possibility. he's got a lawyer who was a former prosecutor and it'sprose. and it's very good lawyering to get in front of a case right away. so from his point of view he didn't want to get buried by the traffic study

mr. drewniak and wildstein might be testifying about, detailing christie's mounting anxiety about the bridge scandal, he relates the following -- on december 5th, michael drewniak told the governor he'd had dinner with wildstein the previous evening. he said wildstein said on september 11th, the third day of the traffic jam, he had told christie about the traffic issue when the two men were together at a 9/11 anniversary event. christie told drewniak that wildstein and port authority deputy executive director bill ba row knee, quote, had to go and the following day he forced them to resign. after noting that the governor personally edited a statement on wildstein's departure, lizza notes drewniak texted wildstein on december 8th, you are a great friend and this too shall pass. four months later, that has proved to be wishful thinking. joining me now is the politics editor for business insider hunter walker, and from washington, editor in chief of main justice, mary jacoby. hunter, in terms of the federal grand jury calling witnesses, what does this tep us about the scope of the inquiry? >> i