paul nunziato had nothing to do with nor knowledge of the planning, implementation or closing of the access lanes. and about saying it was a load of garbage that anyone would criticize the lane closures, calling anyone who questioned the motives of the traffic study a conspiracy theorist, he was just trying to be loyal to his political allies. his attorney said my client was trying to be supportive of people who were supportive of his union. as for all those things he said about the traffic study that he now admits didn t happen? he never intended to mislead the new explanation for the bolstering he did of the cover story, those were colorful statements to the press. so after sticking by the cover story for months, after saying, this was a traffic study, i m the guy who came up with the idea, now today his lawyer puts out a statement saying, oh, my
on the leona helmsley in ft. lee. paul stood up not to just defend that story, but to take credit for it, it was me. until today. today paul nunziato took it all back. even though until today, he was said to be the origin of the whole idea for the supposed traffic study, today his attorney says actually, no, that was never true. this is amazing. he s told the new york times, paul nunziato had nothing to do with nor knowledge of the planning, implementation or closing of the access lanes. and about saying it was a load of garbage that anyone would criticize the lane closures, calling anyone who questioned the motives of the traffic study
today his attorney says, actual actually, no, that was never true. this is amazing. paul nunziato had nothing to do with nor knowledge of the planning, implementation or closing of the access lanes. and about saying it was a load of garbage that anyone would criticize the lane closures, calling anyone who questioned the motives of the traffic study a conspiracy theorist, he was just trying to be loyal to his political allies. his attorney said my client was trying to be supportive of people who were supportive of his union. as for all those things he said about the traffic study that he now admits didn t happen? he never intended to mislead the new explanation for the bolstering he did of the cover story, those were colorful statements to the press. so after sticking by the cover story for months, after saying, this was a traffic study, i m the guy who came up with the idea, now today his lawyer puts
baroni. again, bill baroni is one of the other point men at the port just after baroni s testimony last november before the state assembly transportation committee. it was in that testimony that baroni insisted not under oath that the closures had been part of a traffic test and adamantly maintained the access lanes in ft. lee had been closed represented some kind of unfair perk for that town. both claims have since been discredited by lack numbers. in his exchange baroni followed the testimony we learned this week from those documents obtained by the record, wildstein wrote, quote, o toole s statement ready. and sure enough the next morning an op-ed from o toole ran in the bergen record slamming them as an attempt and attack ft. lee for that supposed sweetheart deal it had with the access lanes. baroni s testimony, the
their fifth amendment rights are stepien and kelly. the committee investigating the scandal filed lawsuits against bill stepien and bridgette kelly. these are the civil actions they filed. if they continue to refuse to hand over documents they could be held in contempt which would be a matter of criminal prosecution against them. they are big heavy dense legal documents, these are the court filings against bill stepien and bridgette kelly today. it s legalese, but at times they readily pot boilers, this is the one from chris christie s campaign manager. the committee already has evidence demonstrating that mr. stepien received information related to the reassignment of access lanes, even while that reassignment was ongoing, and not only after it happened as