is paying dividends for her. interesting for her. what about a school. if a school is a benefactor of that money, should the school be culpable or pay a price, as well? well, that s interesting, fred, in terms of how this whole cheating scandal is playing out. even the fact that the individuals involved who have pled guilty, who have made deals, the sentencing recommendations tend to be a lot lower than what we saw when you look at the atlanta cheating scandal. there is this great documentary out about that cheating scandal that talks about how those teachers involved. not an apples to apples comparison, but a major school cheating scandal and those recommendations were 3 to 30 years in some of those cases. what we re seeing in this cheating scandal is that the recommendations are on the much lower end of the sentencing guidelines. now, with respect to those schools not clear that any of the administrators, particularly those who didn t have knowledge will be held criminally respon
involved, had knowledge, didn t have knowledge. that s what the legislative investigative committee is for. that s what the inspector general at the port authority is for. you have three independent investigations playing out. these people who didn t agree to be interviewed by the christie internal investigation team, they didn t agree because they said it would be inappropriate to meet with chris christie s lawyers while the attorney from new jersey is actively looking into this, many cases presumably interviewing these people. that s the ball game here. whatever this report ends up saying, it s interesting. it will be interesting if they throw anybody else under the bus, interesting if they offer their explanation of what happened. further documents or supporting information explaining what happened since they ve still never explained it. right. even if they do that, the real ball game is what the u.s.
christie internal investigation would do anything other than say chris christie had no knowledge, no involvement. that may actually be true. we don t know. that may end up being the case. nobody was looking at this as the definitive answer on whether christie was involved, wasn t involved, had knowledge, didn t have knowledge. that s what the legislative investigative committee is for. that s what the inspector general at the port authority is for. you have three indent investigati investigations playing out. these people who didn t agree to be interviewed by the christie internal investigation team, they didn t agree because they said it would be inappropriate to meet with chris christie s lawyers while the attorney from new jersey is actively looking into this, many cases presumably interviewing these people. that s the ball game here. whatever this report ends up saying, it s interesting. it will be interesting if they throw anybody else under the bus, interesting if they offer thei
to have all these details and names and dates it sounds like old news. they don t want people to lose sight of their bottom-line conclusion when they get this thick document and want people focusing on as they read it, this exonerates christie. that s the working theory of the talk around trenton. what s interesting is to see the governor s office today push out a very long, breathless press release about this information crediting the new york times for this incredible insightful look at how not guilty governor christie is when governor christie s office has been excoriating the new york times sort of above all other news outlets for the way they ve covered this in the past. right. here s the thing. so we say nobody who s followed this at all expected the christie internal investigation would do anything other than say chris christie had no knowledge, no involvement. that may actually be true. we don t know. that may end up being the case. nobody was looking at this as t