This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/31/christie-traffic-lane-closures-wildstein-new-jersey

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Christie knew of traffic lane closures as they happened, former official says Christie knew of traffic lane closures as they happened, former official says
(35 minutes later)
New Jersey governor Chris Christie’s political problems surrounding the closure of traffic lanes over the George Washington bridge may have taken a dramatic turn for the worse after one of the key figures of the scandal accused him of knowing of the closures as they happened. New Jersey governor Chris Christie’s political problems surrounding the closure of traffic lanes over the George Washington bridge may have taken a dramatic turn for the worse on Friday, after a lawyer for one of the key figures in the scandal accused him of knowing of the apparent act of retribution as it happened.
According to the New York Times, the lawyer for David Wildstein, the former Port Authority official who ordered the closures, has sent the Port Authority a letter in which he pulls the governor more closely to the heart of the scandal. Christie has consistently and repeatedly denied any prior knowledge of the politically vindictive lane closures that inflicted four days of traffic hell on the town of Fort Lee, whose Democratic mayor had declined to endorse Christie for re-election as governor of New Jersey. A lawyer representing David Wildstein, the former Port Authority official who ordered the closures, sent the agency a letter in which he pulled the governor closer to the heart of the scandal. Christie has consistently and repeatedly denied any prior knowledge of the lane closures that inflicted four days of traffic hell on the town of Fort Lee, whose Democratic mayor had declined to endorse him for re-election.
In the letter, Wildstein's lawyer writes: “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.” Three weeks ago, in a now-famous two-hour press conference, the governor insisted he only knew about the closures after they had happened. The lawyer, Alan Zegas, also notes in his letter that the leaked internal emails that made this scandal into a national story appear to show that the lane closures were the “Christie administration’s order”. In the letter, first obtained by the New York Times, lawyer Alan Zegas alleges that the lane closures were the “Christie administration’s order”. He goes on to write that “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”.
Wildstein, who resigned in December from the Port Authority, which controls the bridge, has long been seen as a central element of the billowing investigation into the bridge affair. A Christie appointee, Wildstein actually instigated the lane closures and, given his role, it has long been assumed that if anyone knows the full truth behind the scandal, it would be him. Three weeks ago, in a now-famous two-hour press conference, the governor insisted he only knew about the closures after they had happened. He told reporters at that event 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. And even then, what I was told was that it was a traffic study.”
The letter's tone seems to indicate that Wildstein may feel betrayed by his former boss, Christie, with whom he went to high school. “Mr Wildstein contests the accuracy of various statements that the governor made about him and he can prove the inaccuracy of some,” Zegas wrote. Wildstein, who resigned in December in response to the scandal, has long been seen as a central element of the investigation. A Christie appointee to the Port Authority, which controls the bridge, Wildstein instigated the lane closures.
In previous appearances in front of investigative hearings of the New Jersey assembly, Wildstein refused to say anything, pleading his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. But judging by the Times' report, he has now hit the nuclear button. The most incendiary aspect of the scandal so far was the public release earlier this month of an email exchange between Wildstein and Christie’s then deputy chief of staff, Bridget Kelly, in which she told him: “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee.”
Should his reference to evidence pointing to Christie’s knowledge of the order to close three access lanes from Fort Lee be substantiated, it would increase the governor’s already serious political problems. In the letter, Zegas expresses a sense of betrayal on the part of Wildstein towards Christie, his former boss who was also his high-school classmate. “Mr Wildstein contests the accuracy of various statements that the governor made about him and he can prove the inaccuracy of some,” Zegas writes.
In appearances in front of investigative hearings of the New Jersey assembly, Wildstein has refused to say anything, pleading his fifth-amendment right against self-incrimination. But Zegas, an experienced New Jersey criminal defence lawyer, has indicated that his client would be prepared to co-operate in return for immunity from prosecution.
The ostensible purpose of the newly-released letter was a complaint from Wildstein’s legal team to the Port Authority over its refusal to cover his legal fees in relation to ongoing legislative investigations. On Monday, the New Jersey legislature formed a committee that has promised to pursue the scandal “wherever the evidence leads”.