0 people in the chair and getting them under oath is the main issue. what the investigators need to ask is why every single member of the christie team without exception thought it was in the governor's interest to jam shut the commuter traffic lanes to new york, to render a whole community freeze fried for four days while his gang filled glee like they were high schoolers pulling off a prank on the school principal. nobody in the crew said a word against the caper, not a one. even when faced with resistance they pounded full speed eahead. they proceeded enthusiastically with their plan to punish the people of ft lee. now the governor says he will support an inquiry if he finds it appropriate. does this mean he reserves judgment and the right to claim executive privilege should the new jersey assembly plan to hear from the chief of staff and counsel charles mckenna or would asking them be inappropriate by the governor's decree? we will see. i am looking for the first time the governor puts up his hand and says no way and that is when probers need to probe with all the power they possess. the governor answered best of all. what made all of these christie people hand picked and put in their positions so determined to stop the traffic, screw the drivers and chuckle about what they had done. heather covering the story for the "wall street journal" which has been doing a hell of a job. assemblyman, what do you make -- you named a fellow here, reid schar has experience prosecutor blagojevich successfully in illinois. you went national. >> we wanted to get the best counsel we could get. this has become a very complicated issue. ewe started as a simple investigation into the port authority. now we have a lot of issues we have to deal with. we want to make sure that we are not crossing lines but doing it effectively. we believe having somebody like reid schar on our team will give us guidance that we need to make sure this is done well, quickly and effectively. >> i have been watching chris christie very carefully construct his defense. true or not we can assume it is true perhaps as he offers it up, he made a point to say he thought the whole bridge thing was about the traffic survey. then he said he quizzed my staff for an hour and nobody came clean and then said he had two direct reports. do you think he will try executive privilege on those two people? >> i don't know what his attack will be. i'm curious about his choice of the word appropriate. today me made apology and said he wanted to cooperate. yesterday in the state of the state he said he would cooperate with all appropriate inquiries. we expect his cooperation. we have a lot of questions to ask. and mr. mckenna and o'dowd are among many people we need to hear from. what perplexes me is the lack of curiosity when bridget kelly was terminated and never asked her a question. lack of curiosity when he asked his staff when he gave them a total of 60 minutes. he seems like he doesn't want to know or maybe is afraid there is something he knows. >> when wildstein went down and the questioning of the staff. if he wanted the truth he would have asked for it anonymously. he said unless you want to take personal blame for this i don't want to hear from you. that is an amazing way to blame the staff for not giving the truth. >> he set a high wall there. my thought. >> very high wall. i think the thing that is most amazing is he knows the name of the staff member on his team that sent the e-mail that closed the lanes, bridgett kelly. >> and who authorized them to do it. >> once terminated he didn't want to hear from her. i would have wanted to ask the question what gave you the impression that you could close the lanes? who told you you could close the lanes? that is very disturbing.