Omitting The Obvious

The following is my latest column in The Jewish Link of Bergen County, in which I discuss the most recent hurdle encountered by Governor Chris Christie on his way to the White House – yet another Israel gaffe:

 

OMITTING THE OBVIOUS

 

By: N. Aaron Troodler, Esq.

 

For Chris Christie, it was a chance at redemption. After his last big appearance at a Jewish event ended in controversy following his utilization of a provocative term to describe the Judea and Samaria region in Israel, the New Jersey Governor and Republican presidential hopeful was expected to make amends when he took to the podium as a featured speaker at yet another high-profile Jewish affair.

 

The posh awards dinner in Manhattan for The Values Network, which was founded by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, featured an array of impressive guests and speakers. Among those in attendance was Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson, Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel, actor Sean Penn, Texas Governor Rick Perry, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, and Jewish philanthropist and Birthright founder Michael Steindhardt.

 

The event was a perfect opportunity for Chris Christie to prove that his “occupied territories” gaffe was an anomaly and that his support for Israel is strong and unwavering.

 

Yet, when Governor Christie delivered his remarks in a speech that was laden with foreign policy references, he inexplicably left out a key word that left the crowd scratching their heads in bewilderment and wondering what had just happened.

 

Throughout his 16-minute speech, Christie did not mention the word “Israel” once. At no time during his remarks did he directly refer to the Jewish State by name.

 

Consider the implications of Chris Christie’s decision. This well-publicized gala was widely perceived as a pro-Israel event. The crowd in attendance was overwhelmingly pro-Israel. In fact, the public relations firm that promoted the “Champions of Jewish Values International Awards Gala” for The Values Network in advance of the event declared that Christie would deliver a “major speech on Israel and the Middle East.”

 

Despite that, in what could only be described as an enigmatic decision, Christie concluded that not specifically referencing Israel was somehow a good idea.

 

Christie’s glaring omission became even more evident after Rick Perry, another Republican governor that is angling for the GOP presidential nod, delivered an impassioned address that invoked Israel at every turn. Governor Perry talked about his numerous trips to Israel, empathically stated that the United States must renew its commitment to a strong Israel, and noted that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state.

 

The road to the White House is inevitably replete with pitfalls. With the spotlight of the world illuminating their every move, presidential candidates will unquestionably stumble and fall on occasion.

 

Often, the hurdles that cause presidential candidates to falter are complex public policy issues that prove to be challenging to navigate successfully. Yet, seldom does a presidential candidate trip and fall over an issue that on its face appears to be a no-brainer.

 

To be clear, I am not questioning Chris Christie’s position on Israel. As I wrote after his blunder at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s Annual Spring Conference in Las Vegas, that troubling incident was in no way evidence that Christie is anti-Israel; rather, it demonstrated that he needs to be better prepared.

 

In my opinion, the same statement holds true today. Chris Christie’s bizarre choice to omit the word “Israel” from his recent speech was both curious and confounding, but it is not indicative of how he feels about the Jewish State. What Christie’s latest faux pas does is call into question the Governor’s judgment and his readiness to step out onto the national stage.

 

No one can honestly tell me that leaving Israel out of a speech to a pro-Israel crowd at a pro-Israel event is a good idea. I doubt that anyone can convince me that it makes any sense whatsoever.

 

In the aftermath of Governor Christie’s recent address, one of his closest friends and top political advisers, Bill Palatucci, was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying that when it comes to Israel, Christie has a strong record of support. “He’s well known to be supportive,” said Palatucci. “He doesn’t need to wear it on his sleeve every time he’s in front of a Jewish group.”

 

There is some truth to that statement. As Jews, we certainly do not need to be pandered to by every politician who is seeking our support. However, there is a big difference between Chris Christie “wearing his support for Israel on his sleeve” and sidestepping the topic altogether. There is a happy medium, but Governor Christie has apparently not yet come to that realization.

 

A word of advice to Governor Christie: in the future, when addressing a pro-Israel crowd, do not ignore Israel. In this instance, omitting the obvious was not a prudent political approach.

 

N. Aaron Troodler is an attorney and principal of Paul Revere Public Relations, a public relations and political consulting firm. Visit him on the Web at TroodlersTake.blogspot.com, www.PaulReverePR.com, or www.JewishWorldPR.com. You can also follow him on Twitter: @troodler

 

Where In The World Is Chris Christie?

The following is my latest column in The Jewish Link of Bergen County, in which I delve into New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s frequent out of state travel and discuss how it impacts his ability to lead the Garden State:

Where In The World Is Chris Christie?

By: N. Aaron Troodler, Esq.

When voters in the Garden State overwhelmingly elected Chris Christie to a second term last November, they did so presumably because they thought that he was the best person to lead New Jersey into the future. They ostensibly believed that Governor Christie would demonstrate the same leadership qualities and focus on New Jersey that they felt he exhibited during his first term. Little did they know that Christie’s second term would be vastly different.

Let’s put Bridgegate, which has absolutely rocked the Christie administration since his reelection, on the back burner for the moment. Instead, let’s focus on the Governor’s attendance record.

As Chairman of the Republican Governors Association, Christie traverses the country on a regular basis in order to meet with key GOP personnel and raise funds for Republican candidates. And with his not so subtle presidential plans, Chris Christie’s travel activities have been occurring at a frenetic pace.

Over the past three months, Governor Christie has spent part or all of 25 days out of state, attending an array of political events aimed at bolstering his national image and positioning himself as a serious contender for the Republican nomination for president. Christie’s travels have taken him to Republican Governors Association events in Maine, Florida, Utah, Nevada, Michigan, and Georgia. He also attended the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland, the White House Correspondents’ Association Annual Dinner in Washington, DC, and the Republican Jewish Coalition Annual Spring Conference in Las Vegas.

An analysis by The New York Times in August 2013 found that Christie had been out of New Jersey at least 91 days over the past year, which equated to approximately 24% of the time. In response, John Currie, the Chairman of the New Jersey Democratic State Committee, offered a scathing critique of Christie’s absenteeism. “New Jersey voters deserve to know why their Governor has spent nearly 1 in 4 days of the last year outside New Jersey,” Currie said.

In March 2013, Barbara Buono, who was Christie’s opponent in the 2013 gubernatorial election, tried to make his seemingly incessant travel a campaign issue, noting that the Governor spent an inordinate amount of time out of state over the past two years.

In May 2012, The New Jersey Star-Ledger reported Christie had spent 54 days in the past eight months out of state.

Many of us remember Christie’s infamous Orlando vacation in December 2010, when he was mingling with Mickey Mouse at Disneyworld while New Jerseyans endured a brutal blizzard that crippled the Garden State.

To be fair, Chris Christie is not the first governor to spend a lot of time outside of his home state.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who, like Chris Christie, is believed to have presidential aspirations, spent 86 days out of state in 2012, which equals approximately one out of every four days.

Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee for president, spent part or all of 417 days out of state during his four-year tenure as Governor of Massachusetts. In October 2006, then Governor Romney spent part or all of an astounding 25 days out of state.

In 2011, Texas Governor Rick Perry spent approximately 80 days away from his home state. To add insult to injury, from the time Perry announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president on August 13, 2011 through January 2012 when he suspended his campaign, Texas taxpayers spent an astounding $3.6 million to provide security for Perry as he traveled around the country for his presidential run.

In a glaring contrast to Chris Christie’s globetrotting style, his counterpart on the other side of the Hudson River, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, rarely leaves his home state. Cuomo, who some have speculated may harbor presidential ambitions, has shunned the national spotlight, eschewed national media appearances, and foregone out of state vacations in favor of respites with his family in the Empire State. Andrew Cuomo’s actions send a clear message that he has a job to do in New York, and the national stage, which may indeed have a spot reserved for the popular governor, will just have to wait until he completes the task at hand.

Ancillary to Christie’s frequent out of state excursions is the issue of the cost of his trips. In fact, a reporter for the New Jersey Watchdog is currently suing the Governor in an attempt to obtain records from Christie’s office that would indicate who has paid for his outings and how much they cost.

The fact is that Chris Christie’s national ambitions should not come as a surprise. They were already apparent several years ago, which led the late Senator Frank Lautenberg to note in September 2012, that, “Governor Christie’s first priority is not New Jersey, his first priority is his national ambitions.”

The frequency of Christie’s trips outside of New Jersey is unquestionably a cause for concern. As he grapples with the recent downgrading of New Jersey’s debt and an additional $807 million budget shortfall, which brings the state’s total budget deficit to over $1 billion, it would behoove the Governor to put his out of state trips on hold and stick around for a while until he can properly address New Jersey’s budget woes and ensure that its fiscal situation is in order.

With his constant out of state travel, many New Jersey residents feel that they are the forgotten child and get the sense that their Governor leaves the issues that are important to New Jersey in the rearview mirror each and every time he leaves his home state.

When New Jersey voters reelected Chris Christie, they weren’t looking for a long distance relationship or an absentee governor. They were seeking someone to lead, not leave.

Where in the world is Chris Christie? Odds are, these days, it’s not in New Jersey.

Governor Christie, you need to come back home. I know the bright lights of the national stage are a big draw, but the fact is that you have a job to do in New Jersey.

N. Aaron Troodler is an attorney and principal of Paul Revere Public Relations, a public relations and political consulting firm. Visit him on the Web at TroodlersTake.blogspot.com, www.PaulReverePR.com, or www.JewishWorldPR.com. You can also follow him on Twitter: @troodler

Save Face Or Save The World?

The following is my latest post on The Times of Israel blog, in which I take a look at the latest news concerning Iran's nuclear weapons pursuits:

 

Save Face Or Save The World?

 

As the diplomatic efforts of the United States and other world powers continue to evolve, Iran’s ability to achieve nuclear weapons capabilities endures.

 

Following the execution of the Joint Plan of Action (JPA) in January 2014, the clock began ticking on an interim deal that theoretically would impair Iran’s capacity to produce nuclear weaponry. In return, Iran received significant sanctions relief.

 

On its face, the JPA is indeed an important step in the ongoing effort to curtail Iran’s longstanding nuclear pursuit. However, the devil is in the details, and in reality, the JPA is a toothless plan that in all probability will not achieve its desired effect.

 

The terms of the JPA will not fully prevent Iran from pursuing its nuclear ambitions. It may hinder their ability to do so to a certain extent, yet, it does not inhibit them from continuing to take certain steps in furtherance of their ultimate nuclear goals. Iran can continue enriching uranium, albeit at a reduced rate, and continue to maintain its centrifuges. As it stands currently, Iran is reportedly a mere several months away from having enough enriched uranium to produce a nuclear bomb.

 

Despite the interim agreement that is in place, for Iran, it is essentially business as usual for its ambitious and aggressive nuclear program.

 

The failure of the JPA to mandate a complete cessation of Iran’s uranium enrichment activities and the absence of a requirement that they dismantle their nuclear facilities, while simultaneously providing Iran with a respite from the sanctions, has the potential to further exacerbate the Iranian nuclear threat.

 

Although the United States’ mantra regarding Iran has been to give peace a chance, the fact is that Iran has not proven itself to be an honest broker. As the world’s most prominent state sponsor of terror, Iran continues to finance terrorist activities through its proxies, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and terrorists throughout the world. Its continued support of the Syrian government, which has carried out mass killings of innocent citizens, is confounding , and its brazen attempt several months ago to ship a cache of deadly weapons to Islamist militants in Gaza for probable use against Israeli cities and citizens was shocking.

 

Diplomatic overtures have been made, yet Iran has responded with actions and deeds that demonstrate an utter disdain for the process and for the attempt to achieve any semblance of a peaceful resolution to its nuclear situation.

 

In light of all this, Iran and other world powers are meeting in Vienna to try and break the impasse and achieve a final resolution as to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and capabilities.

 

What I found particularly troubling was something that I read in The New York Times on May 13th in an article entitled “Nuclear Talks Will Confront Iran’s Future Capability to Enrich Uranium.”

 

“As Ms. Rice (referring to Susan E. Rice, the National Security Advisor) and Ms. Sherman (referring to Wendy Sherman, the chief American negotiator) have told American lawmakers and outside experts, the key is to leave Iran with a face-saving nuclear infrastructure [emphasis added] that would allow its clerics and the nation’s Revolutionary Guards commanders the ability to argue that they have not given up the right to produce nuclear fuel, but with a small enough capability that the White House can overcome Congressional objections.

 

A “face-saving nuclear infrastructure?” Is that the objective here? Pardon my naiveté, but I would have thought that the goal would be not to save face, but to save the world.

 

We need to forget about helping Iran save face and instead focus on ensuring that the terms of the final agreement truly eliminate any possibility that they will have the wherewithal to construct nuclear weaponry. We must concentrate on making sure that Iran’s research and development program related to its centrifuges is terminated. We have to emphasize the importance of enabling monitoring personnel from the International Atomic Energy Agency to access Iran’s nuclear facilities without any restrictions whatsoever so they can get an accurate picture of exactly what Iran is doing on the nuclear front.

 

There is no doubt that a nuclear Iran poses a serious threat to Israel, to the Middle East region, and to the world at large. All of us would undoubtedly be better served if the international community came together and put Iran’s feet to the fire with the threat of stronger sanctions and perhaps the use of a military operation if Iran fails to forego its pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

 

With so much at stake, helping Iran save face should certainly not be a concern. At the end of the day, we need to protect ourselves, not Iran’s image.

 

Making A Deal With The Devil

In my latest column, which appeared in The Jewish Link of Bergen County and The Jewish Press, I analyze the unity agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas and examine the impact that it has on the peace process:

 

MAKING A DEAL WITH THE DEVIL

 

By: N. Aaron Troodler, Esq.

 

The announcement that the Palestine Liberation Organization, which essentially is the parent organization of the Palestinian Authority, had entered into a unity agreement with Hamas might have been the last straw.

 

As the United States was working feverishly to extend the April 29 deadline for the peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas openly thumbed his nose at the U.S. and slammed the door on the peace process, perhaps for the final time.

 

By agreeing to end their feud and form a unity government with Hamas, which has been deemed a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union, Abbas and the Palestinian Authority sent a decisive and disturbing message that they are not interested in peace.

 

The United States did not pull any punches in delivering a sharp response to the news.

 

“The timing was troubling and we were certainly disappointed in the announcement,” said State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki. “This could seriously complicate our efforts – not just our efforts, but the efforts between the parties, more importantly, to extend the negotiations.”

 

“Any Palestinian government must unambiguously and explicitly commit to nonviolence, recognition of the state of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations between the parties,” Psaki said. “It’s hard to see how Israel can be expected to negotiate with a government that does not believe in its right to exist.”

 

In response to the PA’s move, Israel announced that it was suspending the peace talks.

 

“Instead of choosing peace, Abu Mazen formed an alliance with a murderous terrorist organization that calls for the destruction of Israel,” said Prime Minister Netanyahu. “Abu Mazen has formed an alliance with an organization whose covenant calls for Muslims to fight and kill Jews. Whoever chooses the terrorism of Hamas does not want peace.”

 

Over the years, people have openly debated the merits of the seemingly endless peace process and questioned the feasibility of achieving a lasting and genuine peace agreement. However, the fact is that the present situation, which has continued to deteriorate, is untenable and unsustainable.

 

Sadly, we have seen the physical and emotional toll that the endless barrage of rockets fired from Gaza has on the State of Israel and the detrimental effect that it has on the thousands of men, women, and children who live under a constant threat of attack. We know how damaging and destructive the Hamas terrorists, who are lurking in the shadows waiting to strike, can be.

 

Peace is critical to the continued survival of the State of Israel. We pray for peace. We yearn for peace. We need peace. Yet, peace continues to elude us.

 

Unfortunately, it is a classic Catch-22 situation. Many have questioned the ability of the PA to enter into a peace agreement with Israel when it is not representative of the entire Palestinian Arab world and is at odds with Hamas, which in effect controls Gaza. At the same time, how can Israel enter into an agreement with the PA when it has chosen to make a pact with Hamas, a terrorist organization that has absolutely no interest in co-existing with Israel? Hamas wants to destroy Israel and all that it stands for, or die trying.

 

By abandoning the negotiating table and turning its back on the peace process, the PA has shown its true colors and validated what its critics have been saying for years, namely, that it cannot and will not make a good faith effort to achieve a peaceful resolution to the longstanding Arab-Israeli conflict.

 

With his decision to unite with Hamas, Mahmoud Abbas has gone from being the “statesman” that he desperately tried to be, to becoming an opportunistic obstructionist. He threw away diplomacy and chose terrorism instead.

 

The PA-Hamas marriage leaves Israel no choice but to walk away at this point. Making a deal with the devil that despises you and openly calls for your destruction is not a viable option.

 

Just several weeks ago, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas, the same man who just announced the unity agreement with the PA, delivered a fiery and inflammatory speech in Gaza meant to incite hatred and encourage violence.

 

“Resistance and martyrdom are the way to liberate Palestine and to restore Jerusalem,” Haniyeh said. “I say again and again, we will not, we will not, we will not recognize Israel!”

 

Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli government cannot put the safety and security of the State of Israel in the hands in Hamas – the very hands that have the blood of innocent Israelis on them.

 

Now that the Palestinian Authority has chosen to broker a deal with one of the primary terrorist offenders in the world, I would certainly hope and expect that the international community will tell them to take a hike the next time they come calling for help and claiming that they are victims.

 

Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority have made their bed. Now they have to lie in it.

 

N. Aaron Troodler is an attorney and principal of Paul Revere Public Relations, a public relations and political consulting firm. Visit him on the Web at TroodlersTake.blogspot.com, www.PaulReverePR.com, or www.JewishWorldPR.com. You can also follow him on Twitter: @troodler

 

A Christie-en Slip

The following is my latest column in The Jewish Link of Bergen County, in which I write about Chris Christie’s recent Israel gaffe and consider what his untimely slip of the tongue means in relation to a possible presidential run:

A CHRISTIE-EN SLIP

By: N. Aaron Troodler, Esq.

Many of us are familiar with the old adage “there is a time and a place.” For Chris Christie, the Republican Jewish Coalition’s spring event was neither the time nor the place to utter the reviled term “occupied territories.”

The RJC’s Las Vegas event was an opportunity for the GOP presidential hopefuls to speak to die-hard Jewish Republicans about the issues relating to Israel and the greater Jewish community. Governor Christie made the trek out west, where he joined Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, Ohio Governor John Kasich, and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, each of whom was hoping to win over the crowd and garner major Jewish support for their possible presidential runs.

But the real story was the Sheldon Adelson sweepstakes. After spending more than $90 million during the 2012 presidential election, Adelson’s support and the considerable campaign contributions that come with it are very much sought after. Every Republican with presidential aspirations dreams of winning this coveted endorsement.

Interestingly, Sheldon Adelson was not even present during Governor Walker’s address to the RJC, but he caused a stir when he entered the room as Christie took to the podium and sat down front and center in order to listen to what the Governor from New Jersey had to say.

Everything was going well for Chris Christie until he remarked that he had taken a helicopter ride during his 2012 trip to Israel “from the occupied territories.”

The crowd in attendance knew immediately that Christie had goofed. The term “occupied territories,” which typically refers to Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem, is generally used by Israel’s detractors to protest what they perceive to be Israel’s “illegal occupation” of these areas.

Perhaps understanding the magnitude of his mistake after the fact, Christie met privately with Sheldon Adelson to apologize for his faux pas and to reiterate to the casino magnate that his support for Israel is rock solid.

The bottom line is that this was a monumental error on the part of Chris Christie. He used a term that people perceive to be anti-Israel in front of an audience of people who are strongly pro-Israel.

Because of Christie’s major gaffe, there reportedly are Republican donors and people in the pro-Israel community who are suddenly questioning his stance on Israel and wondering about his true feelings towards the Jewish State.

Personally, I think all that talk is ludicrous. Yes, Chris Christie said the wrong thing. But does that slip-up call into question his bona fide feelings about Israel and the Jewish community? Absolutely not.

People are blowing this whole situation out of proportion. In my mind, all this is is a guy who has no foreign policy experience who suddenly finds himself on the national stage. If Chris Christie does ultimately throw his hat into the ring and decides to run for president, I assure you that there will inevitably be situations where his lack of familiarity with foreign policy matters will lead him to say the wrong thing.

This RJC incident does not prove that Chris Christie is anti-Israel. What it does prove is that Chris Christie needs to be better prepared.

I think that Christie would be best served by surrounding himself with knowledgeable people who can better educate him as to the numerous nuances associated with various religious groups and faith communities. If he is going to run for president, he needs to know what to say, how to say it, and when to say it.

As far as Israel goes, if Governor Christie wants to give me a call, I would be happy to help work with him on honing his message regarding Israel and the Jewish community. When it comes to Israel, what Chris Christie needs is simply a refinement of his message, not a complete overhaul.

This is a man who has a relatively good relationship with New Jersey’s Jewish community. He is a proponent of school choice measures that would aid the non-public school community, including yeshivas. His high-profile trip to Israel several years ago got him a lot of good press and engendered warm feelings within the Jewish community. I was at the OU Advocacy’s NJ Legislative Breakfast this past October where the crowd of about 600 people rose to their feet and gave Governor Christie a thunderous ovation when he was introduced.

I think that at this stage, calling into question Chris Christie’s feelings towards Israel based on a slip of the tongue or a lack of knowledge on his part is wholly unfair. I am willing to give Christie a pass on this one. The real cause for concern, in my mind, would be if he does it again. Everyone is entitled to make a mistake from time to time. Just make sure that the same mistake does not get made twice.

N. Aaron Troodler is an attorney and principal of Paul Revere Public Relations, a public relations and political consulting firm. Visit him on the Web at TroodlersTake.blogspot.com, www.PaulReverePR.com, or www.JewishWorldPR.com. You can also follow him on Twitter: @troodler
 

Internal Investigation Clears Christie

The following is a front page news article that I wrote for the April 3, 2014 edition of The Jewish Link of Bergen County, in which I report on the latest happenings in the Bridgegate scandal:

 

Internal Investigation Clears Christie

 

By: N. Aaron Troodler

 

Two months after his last press conference on the subject, Governor Chris Christie once again confronted the infamous George Washington Bridge lane closures head-on and addressed the issue that has mushroomed into a major political crisis.

On March 27, Gibson Dunn & Drutcher LLP, the law firm retained by Governor Christie to conduct an internal review of his administration’s role in the Bridgegate scandal, released its report, Randy Mastro, a partner at Gibson Dunn and a one-time Deputy Mayor under former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, unveiled the findings at a press conference in New York.

After a two-month long investigation, which consisted of 70 witness interviews and a review of 250,000 documents, The 360-page report essentially cleared Governor Christie of any wrongdoing and Mastro proclaimed the report “is a vindication of Governor Christie.”

“Our investigation found that Governor Christie did not know of the lane realignment beforehand and had no involvement in the decision to realign the lanes,” stated the report. “He does not recall becoming aware of the lane realignment during the period the lanes were closed, but would not have considered a traffic issue memorable in any event.”

While the probe found that Christie had not been involved whatsoever with the lane closures and the chaos and traffic jams that ensued from September 9 to 13, 2013, it did implicate some of the Governor’s chief aides and confidants as the main protagonists.

Concerning Christie’s former Deputy Chief of Staff Bridget Anne Kelly and David Wildstein, a Christie appointee to the Port Authority, the report stated that Kelly and Wildstein “knowingly participated in this plan to realign toll lanes leading onto the George Washington Bridge at Fort Lee, at least in part, for some ulterior motive to target [Fort Lee] Mayor [Mark] Sokolich.”

The report also alluded to a romantic relationship between Kelly and Bill Stepien, Christie’s chief political guru, which ended one month before the lane closures. Sources speculate this revelation was included to explain Kelly’s frame of mind in the weeks leading up to the lane closures.

The report detailed the contents of emails and text messages between Kelly and Wildstein prior to the lane closures, as well as throughout the three-day period during which the traffic patterns in Fort Lee were altered.

The report also noted that Wildstein said he informed Governor Christie about the lane closures as they were occurring during a 9/11 Memorial event on September 11, 2013, although it added that Christie, who has repeatedly maintained that he had no knowledge of his aides’ plan, did not recall the conversation. According to the report, “it seems highly unlikely such a brief mention, even if made by Wildstein to the Governor, would have registered with the Governor at all.”

The inquiry also examined the alleged threats that were directed at Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer by Lieutenant Governor Kim Guadagno. According to Mayor Zimmer, the Lieutenant Governor attempted to intimidate her and compel her to support a real estate project backed by the Christie Administration, allegedly using the withholding of Hurricane Sandy recovery funds as a means through which to garner the Mayor’s blessing and secure her approval.

According to the report, “Mayor Zimmer’s allegations are, in material respects, demonstrably false. They are contradicted by contemporaneous documents, other witnesses’ accounts, and her own prior statements. In sum, the subjective perceptions she may have do not match objective reality, as reflected in the hard evidence uncovered during our investigation.”

After conducting its investigation and assessing the circumstances behind Bridgegate, the Gibson Dunn report set forth a number of recommendations. In an effort to prevent similar occurrences in the Governor’ Administration and preempt future problems, the report suggested restricting the use of personal email accounts for conducting official state business, disbanding the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and reorganizing its functions within a new and expanded Governor’s Office of Constituent and Legislative Services, appointing an ombudsperson within the Governor’s office who would report directly to the Governor and issue periodic public reports, and appointing a chief ethics officer responsible for ethics enforcement within the Governor’s office.

In a sharp critique of the organizational structure of the Port Authority of New York and Jersey, the report recommended that the Governors of New Jersey and New York coordinate to restructure the Port Authority by appointing a Bi-State Commission to recommend reforms, and promote legislative reforms to promote transparency at the Port Authority.

The report’s release was met with much skepticism and an abundance of criticism.

“Lawyers hired by and paid by the Christie administration itself to investigate the governor’s office who then say the governor and most of his office did nothing wrong will not be the final word on this matter,” said Assemblyman John Wisniewski and Senator Loretta Weinberg, who co-chair a state legislative panel which is investigating the lane closures. “The people of New Jersey need a full accounting of what happened. This review has deficiencies that raise questions about a lack of objectivity and thoroughness.”

The Gibson Dunn attorneys did not interview Bridget Anne Kelly, Bill Stepien, and David Wildstein, a Christie appointee to the Port Authority, since they all declined to be interviewed or to participate in their probe.

Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer, who was harshly criticized by the report, was unbridled in her response. “Randy Mastro could have written his report the day he was hired and saved the taxpayers the million dollars in fees he billed in generating this one-sided whitewash of serious misconduct by the Christie Administration.”

Michael Critchley, Bridget Anne Kelly’s attorney, issued a statement strongly defending his client. “The report’s venomous, gratuitous, and inappropriate sexist remarks concerning Ms. Kelly have no place in what is alleged to be a professional and independent report…Ms. Kelly is not a liar.”

Critchley went even further, seeming to imply that his client may end up cooperating with the federal investigation.

“The only credible investigation into the lane closings is being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” Critchley said. “If Ms. Kelly were provided with the appropriate procedural safeguards, she will be fully cooperative and provide truthful and complete answers to any questions asked of her by the appropriate law enforcement authorities.”

Hours after the report was made public, Governor Christie and his wife, Mary Pat, sat down with Diane Sawyer for a much anticipated interview on ABC News. The Governor, who posted photographs of his children talking to Sawyer on his Twitter feed, pinned the blame for Bridgegate on his aides and expressed his displeasure at what happened.

The next day, Governor Christie held a news conference and announced that David Sampson, the Chairman of the Port Authority, had tendered his resignation earlier in the day. Sampson, a close friend of the Governor, had come under fire for his involvement in the lane closure episode and for reports that his law firm may have improperly benefitted from his role as head of the Port Authority. A state legislative committee is vowing to continue its investigation of the lane closures, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office is conducting its own inquiry.

Christie was confident and sometimes combative as he defended the Gibson Dunn report, proclaiming his innocence, and berating some of the reporters questioning him.