This article is from the source 'washpo' 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.washingtonpost.com/politics/christie-lawyers-report-bridge-traffic-jam-politically-motivated-governor-had-no-role/2014/03/27/b8a79116-b5c1-11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Christie lawyers’ report: Bridge traffic jam politically motivated, governor had no role Christie lawyers’ report: Bridge traffic jam politically motivated, governor had no role
(about 4 hours later)
Political motivations were at the heart of a plan by aides to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to close lanes on George Washington Bridge and spark a massive traffic jam in the town of Fort Lee, according to a new internal report conducted by lawyers on behalf of Christie. Political motivations were at the heart of a plan by aides to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to close lanes on the George Washington Bridge and spark a massive traffic jam in the town of Fort Lee, according to a new internal report conducted by lawyers on behalf of Christie.
The 360-page internal review, released Thursday, cleared the governor himself of any wrongdoing, however, finding he had no advance knowledge of the lane closures and no role in planning or directing them. It found instead that the plan was hatched by David Wildstein, a top Christie ally working for the Port Authority. The report also found that a top Christie ally, David Wildstein, said he personally informed Christie of the traffic jam while it was still underway – and that Christie said he had no recollection of the conversation.
The conclusion that the governor had no role came despite Wildstein’s statement that he alerted Christie to the closure of the lanes and its impact on traffic at a public event while the jam was still underway. According to the report, Christie has no memory of the conversation. The internal review,which generally cleared Christie of wrongdoing and found he had no advance knowledge of the lane closures, was greeted skeptically by critics. Lawyers leading the probe were hired by the governor’s office and key figures in the incident refused to take part.
The episode is also under investigation by a federal prosecutor, and by state lawmakers, who have questioned whether Christie had personal knowledge of the traffic jam and its political origins.
The release of the 360-page internal review Thursday came as Christie, who is mulling a 2016 bid for the Republican presidential nomination, continued to try to stabilize his image, which has been battered since the bridge scandal.
It erupted in the wake of Christie’s reelection romp last year, with critics seizing on the apparent act of political retribution against the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee as evidence of a culture of hardball politics on Christie’s team.
Christie is scheduled to sit for a network television interview tonight.
The review found that the plan was hatched by Wildstein, a top Christie ally working for the Port Authority, and that Wildstein included only one member of the governor’s staff in the scheme, deputy chief of staff Bridget Anne Kelly.
It was Kelly who wrote a previously released August 2013 e-mail to Wildstein indicating it was “time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee.” He responded, “got it.”
“What we found was that Gov. Christie had no involvement in the decision to close these lanes and no prior knowledge. Not a shred of evidence of it,” the attorney leading the review, Randy Mastro, told reporters Thursday.“What we found was that Gov. Christie had no involvement in the decision to close these lanes and no prior knowledge. Not a shred of evidence of it,” the attorney leading the review, Randy Mastro, told reporters Thursday.
The report says that the only member of Christie’s staff who also knew of the plan was Christie’s deputy chief of staff, Bridget Anne Kelly, who in August 2012 wrote an e-mail indicating it was “time for some traffic problems” in Fort Lee. The report also cast doubt on allegations by the mayor of Hoboken, who has said top Christie aides tied her city’s receipt of Hurricane Sandy recovery funding to her support for a development project backed by Christie allies.
The report found that Wildstein and Kelly arranged for the closure “at least in part, for some ulterior motive to target” Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, indicating that e-mails show the two had grown angry with mayor around the time they first discussed closing the lanes, in August 2012. It portrays the governor as both in the dark about Kelly’s and Wildstein’s actions and anxious to learn more about them when questions arose about the issue in the months after the closure.
The report generally clears the Republican governor of any knowledge of the traffic jam, portraying Christie as being as in the dark about Kelly and Wildstein’s actions and anxious to learn more about them when questions arose about the issue in the months after the closure. “The confessionals are open,” the report recounts that Christie told top staffers in December 2013, urging them to come forward if they had been involved with the bridge incident. Kelly did not do so, the report found.
Christie has struggled to move past the controversy since it was revealed that his top aides were involved with engineering the closures, potentially to get back at a political foe. The governor will likely cite the report as proof that he has been candid with the public about the issue. “There are people whose reputations have been besmirched because of what Bridget Kelly did--and besmirched unfairly,” Mastro told reporters.
But Democrats have dismissed the internal review as incomplete and insufficient. It was commissioned by Christie and conducted by lawyers who are being paid by New Jersey taxpayers but assigned to represent Christie and his office. Several key aides, including Kelly and Wildstein, refused to take part. Lawyers for Wildstein and Kelly did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Its findings will do little to silence critics who have said the incident shows Christie set a tone for his subordinates that allowed them to believe hard-ball tactics were acceptable. The revelation that Wildstein said he told Christie of the traffic jam at the time could contradict Christie’s public claim that he learned of the issue only after the lanes were reopened.
Parallel investigations are also being conducted by the New Jersey legislature and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Jersey, and Democrats have said they will wait for results of those inquiries before considering the matter closed. According to the review, Wildstein told Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak over dinner in December that he had alerted Christie to a traffic study on the bridge while the traffic jam was still underway. Wildstein said the conversation occurred at a public event the two had attended in that timeframe.
Though Christie has indicated he held no animosity toward Sokolich that would have motivated an effort to retaliate against the mayor, the report concludes that Kelly was indeed angry at Sokolich’s refusal to endorse her boss for reelection. Drewniak said Wildstein did not indicate that he told Christie there were political motivations for the closures, merely that a study was underway.
It reveals that the day before she and Wildstein agreed it was “time for some traffic problems,” Kelly had reconfirmed that Sokolich would not be endorsing Christie. Three days later, after learning an aide had met with the mayor, she reacted angrily. Wildstein and Christie were together for a Sept. 11 memorial ceremony and the investigators conclude that is likely the event to which Wildstein referred. However, they said Christie has no memory of the conversation and, even if it had occurred, the governor would have had no reason to find information about a Port Authority traffic study notable.
Democrats have dismissed the internal review as incomplete and insufficient.
In a joint statement, New Jersey Assemblyman John Wisniewski and Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, who are leading the legislative inquiry, said the review has “deficiencies that raise questions about a lack of objectivity and thoroughness.”
“The people of New Jersey need a full accounting of what happened,” they said, promising to press ahead with their own investigation.
The report’s findings will also likely do little to silence critics who have said the incident shows Christie set a tone for his subordinates that allowed them to believe hard-ball tactics were acceptable.
Though Christie has indicated he held no animosity toward Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich that would have motivated an effort to use a traffic jam to punish him, the report concludes that Kelly and Wildstein were indeed upset with Sokolich and had arranged for the closure “at least in part, for some ulterior motive to target” him.
The source of their displeasure, however, remains cloudy, according to the review, which found there was little evidence Sokolich was targeted because he had refused to endorse Christie’s reelection campaign, as has long been alleged.
Still, the report reveals that the day before she and Wildstein agreed it was “time for some traffic problems,” Kelly had called another Christie official in an effort to reconfirm that Sokolich would not be endorsing Christie.
“Kelly responded, in sum or substance, that that was all she needed to know,” the report indicates.
Three days later, after learning an aide had met with the mayor, she reacted angrily.
“I am on fire,” she wrote in an e-mail. “I am irate,” “[W]hy did he think it was ok to meet with Sokolich?,” and “He should not have met with Fort Lee without approval. I am really upset with him.”“I am on fire,” she wrote in an e-mail. “I am irate,” “[W]hy did he think it was ok to meet with Sokolich?,” and “He should not have met with Fort Lee without approval. I am really upset with him.”
Later, on learning from her staff that Sokolich was extremely upset with the September lane closures and snarled traffic that resulted, she responded in an e-mail: “Good.”Later, on learning from her staff that Sokolich was extremely upset with the September lane closures and snarled traffic that resulted, she responded in an e-mail: “Good.”
According to the review, Kelly grew panicked as questions emerged about the motivations for the lane closures December and asked the staffer to delete the email. Instead, the aide saved a copy of the note. According to the review, Kelly grew panicked as questions emerged about the motivations for the lane closures December. “Do me a favor and get rid of that,” she told the subordinate to whom the e-mail had been directed. Instead, the aide saved a copy of the note.
To prevent similar incidents in the future, the investigators recommended that state employees be restricted from using private e-mail accounts for public business. Kelly, Wildstein and others routinely used personal e-mail addresses, operating under the belief that their writings would not be subject to public records laws.
The investigators also suggested the creation of a ethics position in the governor’s office and eliminating the office Kelly had led, which was responsible for managing the governor’s political relations with local officials.