you would be quick to jump on it. you would as you should. do you see anything? my issue with this paragraph is, first of all, it says did he know before and did he direct it? that seems to be the key question. this paragraph talks about evidence exists but nobody seems to have the evidence. well, in fact, that s right. i am a lawyer. steve, it s good to see you. good to see you. back in the day. even less than you say, steve. the lawyer does not say that mr. wilestein has evidence. it simply says evidence exists. mr. wilestein s been under subpoena. so he would be legally obligated to have already turned over what evidence he has. so, look, steve s right. there s no way you can spin this to be good for christie. it s terrible for him. at the same time everybody needs to take a breath and let the facts come out and evidence. let s get everybody under subpoena and under oath. get all the facts out there. steve knows this, the star ledger the biggest newspaper in that state and alr
innocence? i mean, this is the reason this still captures so many people s minds when they see this is people still don t know. i think today s interview she s very convincing. she s extremely sympathetic. she s for the first time almost weepy in her approach. the hair s been cut. it looks like she s sort of had a makeover for the purpose of projecting in a different way. a lot of the criticism of her initially was she came across as being cold and unfeeling. by the way, in jury trials or in judge trials the way a defendant comes across often has an effect. now i thought in that interview very, very emotional, very human and i think this is an attempt to humanize her because american public opinion is going to be very important on the extradition issue which she if she is convicted by the highest court in the land of italy, steve, obviously you have ardently made the case for her innocence. you just heard her speak.
jefferson said. i am not calling for that. i m not saying this is a crime but there is a pattern of bullying that this governor s had throughout his term in office and this fits into that. that, of course, is what he has to put all of those sound bites back into headlines. they both agree, both steve and paul, that this is not a bombshell which seemed to be our take reading it. i m not a lawyer. if we find out that he knew it before and that it wasn t a traffic study that s a different story. those would be bombshells and political changers. thanks very much to fwoet of you. go online, read this letter. cnn has made it available. out fro out front next, we ll take a ride over to the stadium in a blackhawk because they are circling all around the area. chinook, blackhawks. plus, amanda knox plans to fight it. a team of american olympic athletes doing something that has never been done before.
just played don t point to an exact date of when the governor knew and a source in the governor s office tonight tells me that chris christie stands behind what he said at the press conference and the source categorically tells me that while the governor has not been specific about the exact date that he learned about the lane closures, he learned about them through press reports and the source further tells me that christie is still categorical that he did not know about them before and he did not direct wildstein to close the lanes, that he knew nothing about the clees showers prior to the event. so is this latest development in this letter damaging to christie or not? joining me now, political analyst steve oddo bad doe and paula gala. steve, let me start with you. you re a very familiar face to me and in this area. to those around the country you are a person who interviews chris christie often. you host town halls. you know the manuel. what do you think about this letter? you ve l
american girl, they charged an italian national, they charged amanda knox with the thing and an american girl. why do they single out all of these people for a crime that they at least two of them they didn t commit? let me say one other thing about the case that s strange i think in terms of steve s approach. why is everything fwlong this case? the confession s wrong, the dna s wrong, the knife is wrong. i can tell you why. the motive is wrong. the prosecutors are corrupt and they re all ignorant superstitious idiots. that s over reaching. steve, reply. the week before the murder rudy, the burglar, was arrested in milan for the burglary. the police asked to lease him and send him back to perusia. the only reason to do that is he s a police informant. a week later he murders a woman