technically accurate report. it creates things that don t economist. and that whole report has to be questioned because ids was paid for by the governor s office to clear the governor s office. and the irony here is that now we have the governor s office, now holly and other committee members are saying okay, now we re done. in fairness, we have a law firm that respected the district party in new jersey and who representing our nonpartisan committee that we all agreed to. and there have been numerous discussions that have taken place. i am a committee member. i have no idea by way of example whatever happen with our council and the mayor of ft. lee. did you call him? we have sent letters. did you call him in. i want to understand factually what you re rephrase that a little bit so everybody understands the issue you re disputing. we re members of the committee and wear not being
the toes of the federal authorities. we ve been in contact with them. we know where the lanes are and what lanes to stay into. so we re able to do our legislative inquiry at the same time as they re doing their federal inquiry. you and christie work those lanes into this. let me say, steve, based on what assemblywoman just said, that would call into question the whole master report. if indeed their committee should just lay back now with the degree of involvement the federal government has. then should master have come out with his report at this point. and should all of the interviews that he conducted be turned over to the that s the problem. there are reference, copious reference to the report to 70 interviews. there are koip yous statements in the report about so and so said this, so and so said that. there s no footnote, no document that e could look at to say in fact they did say that or they
someone who is out of washington. i think he likes these governors. i think he actually likes christie. by the way, up until that occupied territories unforced error, christie probably had that room enraptured more than any of the other speakers. that s what i was going to ask you about. christie, the timing of the report being released, the press conference, i don t think was coincidental at all. he wanted to go out there and say, hey, i ve been vindicated. quickly take us through how he was received out there. you said he had the audience captivated. what were they talking about behind the scenes with him? it was interesting because christie spoke last in the morning. as you mentioned, he stayed up late, went to the two ncaa games and got on a plane very early. he was obviously tired by the time he got to las vegas, gave a speech about 11:15. he was the last speech of the morning. he was the most anticipated speech. he was by far the most comfortable of any of them up there. his
so here s what i heard from matt doherty yesterday. he said he never heard anything like what zimmer is alleging but also said it s possible he didn t hear the whole conversation. then he said he thinks he does hear it all but also dawn zimmer isn t fabricating anything, even though he didn t hear constable say anything she alleges he said. he guesses it s possible he missed part of the conversation if they were whispering, then he quickly adds they weren t whispering. this is the man the mastro report is relying on. a man who back in january said he hadn t heard zimmer s conversation with constable, who didn t accurately remember where he was sitting on stage, who the mastro report now touts as a key eyewitness, as the key eyewitness who discredits what dawn zimmer is saying about richard constable. if you re not confused enough, we got this e-mail this morning from doherty saying he wanted to clear up things, if there was any confusion. he says regarding the conversation i heard
authored about this about the disaster. one was a federal report. one was a state report. one was an independent report commissioned by joe manchin, governor of west virginia at the time. all three of the reports reached the same conclusion. charleston daily mail said core ventilation, dangerous amounts of coal dust in a corporate atmosphere that valued profit over safety. that s what those reports concluded was the root cause of this disaster. you re saying, no, it s natural gas. why should we believe you over what three reports are saying? simply put because the chemistry says it was natural gas. and all those reports ignore that fact. the government s own samples show it was natural gas contained ethane and propane. so all those they re ignoring it, why would they be ignoring it? why would all three of these, federal, state, independent, be ignoring it? you ve told some of those reasons and the fact that i ve been very politically involved,