I am trying to avoid getting into what the meaning of the word “is” is.
But from the article:
Christie said,
“I knew nothing about this. And until it started to be reported in the papers about the closure, but even then I was told this was a traffic study.”
which means Christie said, he know nothing until the papers reported on the closure
which is basically what the attorney says
“Attorney Alan Zegas stated that “evidence exists . . . tying Mr. Christie to having knowledge of the lane closures, during the period when the lanes were closed
In my opinion, knowing about the 4 day lane closures until it is in the newspapers is the same as knowledge of lane closures during the period when the lanes are closed.
And even then, what I was told was that it was a traffic study. And there was no evidence to the contrary until yesterday that was brought to my attention or anybody else’s attention.”
As I read his statement, he didn't say that he didn't know that there was a traffic jam on the George Washington Bridge, which it sounds like the media is trying to say he said. There is always a traffic jam on the George Washington Bridge, so it would be ridiculous for him to claim that. He said he didn't know that his staff arranged a traffic jam to punish the Fort Lee mayor -- which makes sense since he fired those responsible.
Meanwhile, NJ Sen. Robert Menendez has paid a campaign donor $11,000 back for private jet trips http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Senator-Robert-Menendez-Reimburses-Free-Private-Trip-Campaign-Donor-243025191.html.
Odd coincidence. Wildstein's lawyer -- trying to get his legal fees paid for by the Port Authority -- includes something at the bottom of a letter that's not news, and it becomes headline news.
When the media creates a lot of smoke -- maybe there's something else behind the smoke?