Q&A
Bridgegate investigation: Public perception and judicial criticism
5:56:37
·
4 min
Council Member Krishnan questions Mastro about the public perception and judicial criticism of the Bridgegate investigation, focusing on the cost to taxpayers and the judge's harsh words about the investigation's transparency.
- Mastro's firm was paid $8 million in public money for the Bridgegate investigation
- Krishnan questions whether the public got their money's worth from the investigation
- The council member cites a federal judge's criticism, calling the investigation 'opacity and gamesmanship'
- Mastro defends the investigation, stating it reached the same conclusions as other official investigations
- Krishnan expresses concern about the lack of transparency and the inability for the public to check Mastro's work due to the absence of notes
- Mastro maintains that the practice of not keeping notes is now common in sophisticated investigations
Shekhar Krishnan
5:56:37
Here's my question.
5:56:38
You were paid $8,000,000 in public money for this investigation.
5:56:42
Correct?
Randy Mastro
5:56:43
I don't recall the exact amount, but it was it was several $1,000,000.
Shekhar Krishnan
5:56:48
Let me tell you in the court records and papers, it was listed as $8,000,000.
5:56:52
You billed for $10,000,000.
5:56:53
You collected $8,000,000 from the taxpayers of New Jersey.
5:56:56
Do you think the public got their money's worth?
Randy Mastro
5:57:00
I believe that the work we did, which was confirmed in the results reached by the US attorney, the New Jersey AG, and the Bergen County prosecutor's office that We did the work ahead of all those other investigations that advanced those investigations and got, you know, to the core of what happened on Bridgegate and what happened in connection with Hoeboken, which no one even mentions, which was half our reports.
Shekhar Krishnan
5:57:30
So, miss Messer, I'm asking you a question.
5:57:32
Do you believe the public got their money's worth in hiring you for this matter?
Randy Mastro
5:57:37
I think we represented the the governor's office and the people of New Jersey in a professional, responsible, and ethical manner.
5:57:46
And if you'd like me to explain that, I will.
5:57:48
Because I
Shekhar Krishnan
5:57:49
don't need an explanation.
5:57:49
I just asked you if you if that's what you felt.
5:57:51
And and then you sound like you felt like you did, but probably did get their money's worth.
5:57:54
Let me read to you what the federal judge said.
5:57:56
Quote, the taxpayers of the state of New Jersey paid Gibson Dunn 1,000,000 of dollars to conduct a transparent and thorough investigation.
5:58:07
What they got instead was opacity and gamemanship.
5:58:12
They deserve better.
5:58:15
End quote.
5:58:17
Is it correct to say that your internal investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing by governor Chris Christie?
Randy Mastro
5:58:24
It found that there was no evidence that he had directed the lane closure in advance, and it attributed to 2 individuals and turned out the US attorney said a third who were involved in making that decision and implementing that in advance.
5:58:46
And our report reached the same conclusions as the US attorney the New Jersey AG, and the Bergen County prosecutor's office as to who was, you know, ultimately responsible for making the decision on the lane closure.
Jumaane Williams
5:59:00
Right.
Randy Mastro
5:59:00
He didn't exonerate anyone per se We we said that there was something wrong that had happened, and we identified the individuals who were responsible for the decision.
5:59:12
And that's exactly what the US attorney, the New Jersey AG, and the Burton County prosecutor, they reached the same conclusion.
Shekhar Krishnan
5:59:18
I just asked if you found no evidence wrongdoing by governor Chris Christie, and it sounds like you didn't.
5:59:22
But Mister Mastro, as as I mentioned before, you're one of the nation's leading litigators in one of the most high profile public investigations of that time.
5:59:31
When you were hired to serve the public interest, at extraordinary taxpayer expense, you quote intentionally changed your practice and did not preserve any records or notes.
5:59:42
And then you found no wrongdoing by governor Christie, and the public had no chance to check your work because you kept no notes.
5:59:49
My question is, is this how you intend to conduct yourself as corporation counsel?
Randy Mastro
5:59:56
The premise of your question is completely wrong.
6:00:01
The the practice at my law firm and among sophisticated law firms that do internal investigations now.
6:00:10
In my own law firm, there had been a an issue about notes where they had had to be produced in a litigation.
6:00:20
It was not actually best practice.
6:00:23
Got it.
6:00:24
Law firms today and sophisticated investigations like the FBI in criminal investigations They do not maintain notes.
6:00:32
They make one memo of an interview, complete transparency on all our interviews, and all the documents that we reviewed, and all were produced, but sophisticated investigations today do not, you know, have lots of notetakers.
Shekhar Krishnan
6:00:48
Miss miss Nesta.
Randy Mastro
6:00:49
I'm They have memos.
Shekhar Krishnan
6:00:50
Understood.
6:00:51
I'm not on your I I have to
Randy Mastro
6:00:52
That is actually what thank Canadian investigation due today.
Shekhar Krishnan
6:00:55
Thank you.
