Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
WELCOME TO "INTERCHANGE."
I'M DAN JONES.
THANKS FOR JOINING US.
IT HAS BEEN AN INTERESTING WEEK.
WE'VE GOT LOTS TO TALK ABOUT.
IT'S POSSIBLE THAT NEW JERSEY
GOVERNOR CHRIS CHRISTIE IS THE
NEXT REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR
PRESIDENT.
WE'LL TALK ABOUT HOW HE HANDLED
THE BRIDGE CONTROVERSY AND
WHETHER IT HURTS THE CHANCES TO
WIN THE WHITE HOUSE.
WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE WAUKESHA
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
REVEALING HE WAS CITED FOR DRUNK
DRIVING MORE THAN 20 YEARS AGO,
AND WHETHER THAT SHOULD HAVE ANY
BEARING ON HIS CAMPAIGN TO
BECOME WISCONSIN'S ATTORNEY
GENERAL.
AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE EFFORT
BY THE SON OF MILWAUKEE'S MOST
WELL-KNOWN CRIME BOSS TO GET HIS
LAW LICENSE BACK.
LET ME INTRODUCE EVERYONE.
YOU KNOW JOEL MCNALLY, LONGTIME
NEWSPAPER COLUMNIST.
DENISE CALLAWAY, COMMUNICATIONS
AND PUBLIC RELATIONS
PROFESSIONAL.
AND GERARD RANDALL, EDUCATION
CONSULTANT AND JOB CREATION
EXPERT.
RICK HOROWITZ WILL BE ALONG WITH
COMMENTARY AT THE END OF THE
SHOW.
LET'S TALK FIRST ABOUT CHRIS
CHRISTIE.
LOUD, BOMBASTIC, SOMETIMES
OBNOXIOUS REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR OF
NEW JERSEY.
IN HOT WATER THIS WEEK BECAUSE
NEWS BREAKS THAT SOME
OVERZEALOUS STAFFERS ENGINEERED
SOME MAJOR TRAFFIC TIEUPS AS
POLITICAL PAYBACK TO A LOCAL
DEMOCRATIC MAYOR WHO DIDN'T
SUPPORT CHRISTIE.
CHRISTIE APOLOGIZED, SAID HE
DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT,
AND THAT HE CLEANED HOUSE AS
SOON AS HE FOUND OUT.
A LONG APOLOGY, ABOUT TWO HOURS.
WAS HE SINCERE, OR DOES HE COME
ACROSS AS A BULLY BY
ASSOCIATION?
>> WELL, HE CAME ACROSS AS CHRIS
CHRISTIE, AND SOMETIMES, CHRIS
CHRISTIE DOES COME ACROSS AS A
LITTLE BIT OF A BULLY, SOMEONE
WHO IS A BIT IMPATIENT.
I THINK THE SMART THING THAT HE
DID WAS TO COME OUT AND SAY,
DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS, THAT IS
IN FACT THE CASE.
DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT, I FIRED
PEOPLE, I TAKE FULL
RESPONSIBILITY AND TO FOLLOW UP
HIS WAR AND PEACE NEWS
CONFERENCE WITH A PERSONAL VISIT
TO THE MAYOR AT FORT LEE, THE
TOWN WHERE THIS HAPPENED, WHERE
PEOPLE SOMETIMES SAT FOR FOUR,
FIVE, SIX HOURS, TRYING TO GET
TO WORK, TO SCHOOL, TO MEDICAL
APPOINTMENTS, TO APOLOGIZE TO
THE MAYOR, AND TO SAY HE'S GOING
TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF NOW
REEVALUATING AND PROBABLY MAKING
SOME CHANGES TO THE MAKEUP OF
HIS SENIOR TEAM.
ALL THAT'S FINE AND GOOD, BUT
THE QUESTION IS, AND WE STILL
DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT,
WHAT DO CHRIS CHRISTIE KNOW AND
WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?
I JUST FIND IT REALLY DIFFICULT
TO BELIEVE.
THAT YOU ARE THE GOVERNOR OF
THIS STATE, AND FOR DAYS, FOR
DAYS, YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO WENT
THROUGH YOUR COMMUNITIES,
SITTING IN TRAFFIC FOR HOURS AND
HOURS AND HOURS, UNABLE TO GET
TO WHERE THEY NEED TO GO, AND
THERE WAS NEVER A QUESTION
APPARENTLY ABOUT WELL, WHAT
HAPPENED, WHAT TRAFFIC STUDY IS
THIS AND AGAIN FOR A GUY WHO HAS
SEEN AND BUILT A REPUTATION AS
BEING PRETTY MUCH A NO NONSENSE
KIND OF PERSON, FOR THAT TO
HAPPEN AND FOR HIM TO NOT
INTERVENE, TO ME, THERE'S
SOMETHING JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO
QUITE MESH.
NOW, I THINK HE'S MADE A GOOD
EFFORT, BUT THE PROBLEM HE'S
GOING TO HAVE IS, IF ALL THESE
DOCUMENTS THAT CAME OUT ON
FRIDAY AFTERNOON, HUNDREDS AND
HUNDREDS OF PAGES, SHOW ANY LINK
TO HIM AT ALL, ANY INKLING THAT
HE KNEW THAT SOMETHING WAS
AFOOT, HE'S GOT A BIG, BIG
PROBLEM.
>> WHEN HE WAS TALKING ABOUT HIS
DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, THE AID
WHO THEY'RE PINNING THIS ON, HE
SAID, I CAN'T BELIEVE ANYBODY
WOULD BE SO STUPID AS TO DO
THIS.
NOW, SO, CAN HE BE HELD
RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HIS STAFF
DOES?
>> WELL, LET'S PUT IT IN A
LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT.
THIS IS AN AIDE THAT'S BEEN WITH
HIM SINCE DAY ONE AND YOU HAVE
TO BELIEVE THAT SHE ACTED MORE
BASED ON WHAT SHE BELIEVED HE
WOULD HAVE OK'D HER TO DO
POLITICALLY RATHER THAN NOT.
THERE SEEMS TO BE A CULTURE IN
THAT OFFICE, POLITICAL PAY-BACK
IN SOME MANNER, AND WHEN YOU
READ THOSE EMAILS THAT DENISE
HAD SPOKEN TO, I THINK YOU'RE
GOING TO FIND SOME TRACE BACK TO
CHRISTIE, WHERE EITHER THERE WAS
TACIT APPROVAL OF WHAT HAD TAKEN
PLACE OR THERE WAS OUTRIGHT
APPROVAL OF WHAT HAD TAKEN
PLACE, AND FOR RIGHT NOW,
THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO MANAGE
THE PRESS, TO HOPEFULLY LET THIS
THING BLOW OVER, BUT I DON'T
THINK THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
I ALSO THINK THAT FOR ALL OF
THOSE PEOPLE THAT THOUGHT THAT
HE WAS A BRIDGE BUILDER, SO TO
SPEAK, BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES,
HE'S KIND OF MUCKED THAT UP TOO.
HE WAS NOT THE DARLING OF THE
ACTIVISTS IN THE PARTY THAT ARE
MOST LIKELY TO BE ENGAGED IN
PRIMARIES.
AND SO HE HAD A PRETTY STEEP
HILL TO CLIMB JUST TO MAINTAIN
SOME TYPE OF STATUS AS A PARTY
FRONT-RUNNER.
FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION.
BUT THIS, I THINK, CALLS IN TO
QUESTION HIS JUDGMENT, HIS
ABILITY TO PICK A TEAM THAT HAS
GOOD MANAGEMENT SKILLS, THAT'S
FAIR, ALL THOSE THINGS THAT HE
MAY HAVE TRIED TO PORTRAY
HIMSELF AS, PRETTY MUCH WE'RE
DEEP 6'D BY THIS REVELATION.
>> OR DOES IT SHOW THAT HE
PICKED TEAM MEMBERS WHO
EXHIBITED LOYALTY ABOVE ALL
ELSE, INCLUDING COMMON SENSE?
>> WELL, THE REASON WHY I
CROSSED THE BOARD HERE, WE'RE
ALL VERY SKEPTICAL OF THAT, IS
IT IS SO IN KEEPING WITH HIS
PERSONA BESIDES.
I MEAN, THIS IS A GUY THAT IN
FACT, THE REASONS WHY A LOT OF
REPUBLICANS LIKE HIM IS THAT HE
IS A BULLY AND THAT HE IS A
THUG, AND THAT HE YELLS AND
SCREAMS AT PEOPLE, AND YOU KNOW,
HE WAS -- YOU KNOW, HE YELLED AT
SCHOOL TEACHERS AND YOU KNOW,
WHEN A REPORTER ASKED A
QUESTION, HE DOESN'T WANT TO
ANSWER, HE CALLS THAT REPORTER
AN IDIOT, AND YOU KNOW, IT THERE
WASN'T ANY REASON FOR HIS TEAM
TO KEEP THIS FROM HIM.
IT IS SO IN KEEPING WITH HIS
POLITICAL PERSONA, UNTIL JUST
RECENTLY, AND YOU KNOW WHAT
HAPPENED, WAS BEFORE THE ROMNEY
ELECTION AND AFTER, YOU KNOW,
THE SANDY, YOU KNOW, WHEN HE
NEEDED FEDERAL HELP, UNLIKE MOST
OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, HE WAS
WILLING TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED WITH
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA FOR HIS
OWN, YOU KNOW, GOOD, POLITICAL
GOOD.
AND FOR THE FACT, AND IN FACT,
THE STATE NEEDS THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT DURING TIMES OF MID
RANGE JUMPER, HE WAS A -- TIMES
OF EMERGENCY, HE WAS A VERY
PRACTICAL POLITICIAN THEN, BUT
THE FACT THAT HE ALLOWED HIMSELF
TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED PAL'ING
AROUND WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA,
WHEN THE REST OF THE REPUBLICAN
PARTY WAS TRYING TO SPREAD
HATRED OF PRESIDENT OBAMA DID
NOT MAKE HIM A MODERATE, AND SO
THAT IS WHAT I COULD NOT
BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, THE MEDIA
SAYING, YOU KNOW, HE'S REALLY
TONED DOWN AND YOU KNOW, HE'S
NOT A MODERATE REPUBLICAN.
HE'S AN EXTREMELY RIGHT WING
REPUBLICAN, ON ALL SOCIAL
ISSUES, BEATING UP ON UNIONS,
ANTI-ABORTION, YOU KNOW, THE
WHOLE WAR AGAINST WOMEN, AND THE
WAR AGAINST UNIONS.
HE'S PART OF ALL OF THAT.
BUT HE WAS TRYING TO PRESENT
HIMSELF AS MORE PRESIDENTIAL,
NOT QUITE AS FLY OFF THE HANDLE,
AND THIS LATEST INCIDENT, WHICH
IS BOTH PETTY AND ENORMOUS, YOU
KNOW, THAT, YOU KNOW, GOVERNOR
OF THE STATE, AND HIS OFFICE
WOULD BE INVOLVED IN SOMETHING
SO VINDICTIVE.
>> LIKE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL.
>> IT'S LIKE ROAD RAGE OR
SOMETHING.
YOU KNOW.
IT'S JUST CRAZY TO START -- TO
INTENTION TALE -- AND THE FIRST
TIME HE RESPONDED TO THE
PROBLEMS ABOUT THE TRAFFIC JAM
THAT KEPT PEOPLE THERE FOUR
HOURS, AND KEPT EMERGENCY
VEHICLES FROM GETTING THROUGH
AND EVERYTHING ELSE, HE
RIDICULED THE IDEA HE WOULD BE
INVOLVED, LIKE, OH YEAH, I WAS
OUT THERE PUTTING DOWN CONES,
BUT HE ALSO TOLD A LIE THE FIRST
TIME HE RESPONDED.
HE SAID, IN FACT, THERE WAS SOME
KIND OF TRAFFIC STUDY, THERE WAS
NO TRAFFIC STUDY, AND WE KNOW
NOW THAT THAT WAS A PHONY COVER
STORY.
>> I THINK THE ISSUE REALLY IS
GOING TO BE, HE'S NOW GOT A
NUMBER OF DIFFERENT
ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE TAKING A
LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED AND
LEADING INVESTIGATIONS FROM THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO THE PORT
AUTHORITY THAT OVERSEES THAT
STRETCH OF HIGHWAY FROM NEW
JERSEY INTO NEW YORK, TO THE
ASSEMBLY IN NEW JERSEY.
EVERYBODY IS GOING TO TAKE A
LOOK AT THIS.
THERE'S A LICK -- IF THERE'S A
INKLING OR SHRED OF EVIDENCE
THAT HE'S CONNECTED TO THIS,
HE'S DONE.
HE WOULD HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY
CAUGHT LYING ABOUT HIS LEVEL OF
KNOWLEDGE AND HIS LEVEL OF
INVOLVEMENT.
>> ALL RIGHT, NEXT TOPIC.
WISCONSIN IS THE ONLY STATE
WHERE FIRST OFFENSE DRUNK
DRIVING IS NOT A CRIMINAL
OFFENSE.
YOU GET A TICKET AND A FINE.
SOME, INCLUDING WAUKESHA COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND CANDIDATE
FOR STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL BRAD
SCHIMMEL, ARE HESITANT TO
SUPPORT EFFORTS TO MAKE IT A
CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
WELL, IT COMES OUT THIS WEEK
THAT HE WAS CITED FOR DRUNK
DRIVING MORE THAN 20 YEARS AGO.
SHOULD THAT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE
WHATSOEVER?
>> IN IN IN THIS -- IN THIS
SENSE, I DON'T THINK SO.
YOUTHFUL INDISCRETIONS SHOULD BE
FORGIVEN.
NO ONE WAS HURT, HE WAS GIVEN A
TICKET, THAT WAS THE LAW.
THERE WAS NO INDICATION THAT HE
TRIED TO USE OR HIS FAMILY TRIED
TO USE ANY KIND OF INFLUENCE TO
EVEN GET THE TICKET DISPOSED OF.
AND HE'S NOT THE ONLY ONE THAT
FACES IT.
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATE
OUT OF MADISON FOR ATTORNEY
GENERAL FACES THE SAME ISSUE.
>> WELL, UNDERAGE DRINKING.
>> HE GOT A TICKET.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE LAW
PRESCRIBES.
AND THERE WAS NO SEEMING EFFORT
THERE ON THE PART OF HIS FAMILY
TO DO ANYTHING TO SKIRT THE
PENALTY OF THE LAW.
SO I THINK YOU HAVE TO STEP BACK
AND TAKE A LOOK AT WHEN THESE
THINGS OCCURRED, THE CONTEXT OF
A PERSON'S AGE, AND THE LENGTH
OF TIME THAT HAS OCCURRED SINCE
THE CRIME OR THE INDISCRETION IN
THIS CASE HAD OWE CUSHION AND
WHAT'S HAPPENED -- OCCURRED AND
WHAT'S HAPPENED SINCE.
IF THERE WAS SOMEONE WHO HAD
MULTIPLE DRUNK DRIVING OFFENSES,
IF THIS WAS A SITUATION WHERE
SOMEONE HAD GOTTEN HURT AND
THERE HAD BEEN SOME EFFORT TO
SKIRT THE LAW IN ANY WAY, I
THINK THEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT A
DIFFERENT KIND OF SITUATION, BUT
I DON'T SEE THAT IN THIS CASE
AND I DON'T SEE WHY GIVEN THAT
THE LAW HASN'T CHANGED IN 40
YEARS THAT WOULD HAVE
CRIMINALIZED THE FIRST DRUNK
DRIVING OFFENSE, SINCE THAT
HASN'T HAPPENED, I DON'T SEE WHY
THERE'S THIS BIG HULLABALOO.
WE'RE INTO THE POLITICAL
SITUATION AND THERE'S BOUND TO
BE A JACK IN THE BOX.
>> IF IT WAS DRUNK DRIVING,
DISORDERLY CONDUCT, STEALING A
BIKE, WHATEVER, IF IT WAS 20, 25
YEARS AGO, DOES IT HAVE ANYTHING
TO DO WITH THE KIND OF ATTORNEY
GENERAL HE'D BE?
>> NO, IT REALLY DOESN'T, BUT IN
FACT, WE KNOW THAT POLITICALLY,
YOU KNOW, IT CAN BE FATAL.
IT CAN BE AT TIMES AND OTHER
TIMES IT CAN'T BE.
WE KNOW THAT GEORGE BUSH, WHEN
HE RAN FOR PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, IT CAME OUT THAT
HE HAD BEEN ARRESTED FOR DRUNK
DRIVING AND NO ONE -- THAT
DIDN'T RAISE A RIPPLE.
BUT IN FACT, -- HE TURNED OUT TO
BE A LOUSY PRESIDENT BESIDES,
BUT THAT HAD NOTHING DO WITH IT.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MAKES
THIS AN ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS
THAT SORT OF THE OPENING SALVO
IN THIS WHOLE CAMPAIGN FOR
ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS BEEN THE
LAWS AROUND DRUNK DRIVING.
AND SO YOU HAD THE CANDIDATE
TAKING POSITIONS.
INTERESTINGLY, I HAPPEN TO AGREE
WITH BOTH BRAD SCHIMMEL AND BRAD
RICHARDS THAT FIRST OFFENSE, YOU
KNOW, IT'S A BAD IDEA TO
CRIMINALIZE.
YOU KNOW, ANY ONE WHO DRINKS
ALCOHOL CAN BE ARRESTED ALMOST
VIRTUALLY EVERYONE WHO DRINKS
ALCOHOL, THERE ARE TIMES WHEN
THEY CAN BE ARRESTED FOR DRUNK
DRIVING, AND I DON'T DRINK
ALCOHOL, BECAUSE I WAS ARRESTED
FOR DRUNK DRIVING.
25 YEARS AGO NOW.
AND SO YOU COULD HOLD THAT
AGAINST ME TODAY IF YOU WANTED,
BUT PEOPLE GOT OTHER THINGS TO
HOLD AGAINST ME, SO I DON'T HAVE
TO WORRY ABOUT THAT.
BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS,
BECAUSE DRUNK DRIVING HAS BECOME
SUCH AN ISSUE IN THIS RACE
ALREADY, AND WE ALSO KNOW WE HAD
A FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO
WHEN SHE WAS ATTORNEY GENERAL
WAS ARRESTED FOR DRUNK DRIVING,
AND THAT BECAME A HUGE POLITICAL
ISSUE, VOTERS ARE NOT VERY -- I
THINK SCHIMMEL IS PROBABLY DONE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE D.A. FROM
MADISON IS OR NOT.
THE FACT THAT WHEN HE WAS 16
YEARS OLD AND HE WASN'T EVEN
LEGALLY DRUNK, HE WAS INVOLVED
IN AN ACCIDENT.
BUT HE HAD BEEN DRINKING UNDER
AGE.
I THINK -- TO ME, THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN SOMETHING A 60-YEAR-OLD
DOES AND A 24-YEAR-OLD, WHICH
BRAD SCHIMMEL WAS, I THINK THE
VOTERS ARE MORE LIKELY TO HOLD
THAT AGAINST LIMB.
RICHARDS IS THE ONE THAT, LIKE
OUT OF ALL OF THIS, YOU KNOW,
SEEMS TO BE COMING OUT OF IT
POLITICALLY THE BEST, AND MAYBE
THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
NO, IT'S NOT FAIR, BUT THERE'S A
LOT OF HYPOCRISY AND THERE'S A
LOT OF DEMAGOGUERY AROUND THE
ISSUE.
>> SHOULD IT BE MORE IMPORTANT
WHAT HE'S DONE IN THE 20 YEARS
SINCE THEN.
>> I THINK THAT FACTORS INTO IT,
BUT I THINK THIS BRINGS UP THE
ISSUE OF THE FACT THAT IN
WISCONSIN, WE REALLY JUST DO A
REAL, I THINK, VERY LOUSY JOB
WHEN IT COMES TO ENFORCING
ISSUES AROUND REPEATED OFFENSES.
OF DRUNK DRIVING.
YOU KNOW, WE JUST -- WE DON'T DO
A GOOD JOB ABOUT PROSECUTING
PEOPLE TO THE FULLEST AND WHEN
YOU'VE GOT SOMEBODY WHO RECENTLY
WAS ARRESTED FOR HER EIGHTH OWI.
HER EIGHTH.
SO I THINK IT'S A BIGGER
QUESTION FOR US ABOUT WHETHER OR
NOT THIS ONE INDIVIDUAL WAS
ARRESTED WHEN HE WAS 24 YEARS
OLD.
THAT SAID, I DO THINK WHEN YOU
DECIDE THAT YOU ARE SOMEONE WHO
IS RUNNING FOR AN OFFICE, WHERE
YOU WILL PUT YOUR HAND ON THE
BIBLE AND SWEAR TO UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS OF THE
STATE, THERE IS A DIFFERENT
STANDARD THAT YOU'RE HELD TO AND
I DO THINK THAT WHILE 24 YEARS
OLD, YOU KNOW, MAY HAVE BEEN 20
YEARS AGO FOR HIM, AT 24 YEARS
OLD, HE WAS STILL AN ADULT, I AM
SURE IT WAS NOT -- THAT OCCASION
WAS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT HE
HAD -- HAD ALCOHOL AND DECIDED
TO DRIVE, AND I DO THINK THAT IF
YOU -- YOU ARE HOLDING YOURSELF
TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD AND YOU
SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT,
OF SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO BE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE YVETTE
WILLIS.
-- OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN.
I DO THINK THAT FOR SOME VOTERS,
IT WILL IMMEDIATELY BE REASON
NOT TO VOTE FOR HIM, NOT TO
SUPPORT HIM.
FOR OTHERS, WE'LL GIVE DID A
SECOND LOOK, BUT IT CLEARLY IS
GOING TO INFLUENCE THE WAY
PEOPLE INFLUENCE HIM AS A
CANDIDATE.
>> I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING
ABOUT A FIRST ARREST IS WHETHER
IT'S A WAKEUP CALL AND WHETHER
YOU CAN ACTUALLY IMPROVE YOUR
LIFE AND CHANGE YOUR LIFE.
>> AND SO HE DID.
>> YES.
>> AND YOU KNOW, YOU LOOK AT
WHAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE TENOR OF
SOCIETY'S ACCEPTANCE FOR
PUNISHMENT, FOR DRUNK DRIVING,
24 YEARS AGO, VERY, VERY
DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IT IS TODAY.
I THINK PEOPLE ARE MORE INCLINED
TO WANT TO PENALIZE MORE
STRINGENTLY DRUNK DRIVERS.
THERE IS.
AND THAT WASN'T THE CASE 24
YEARS AGO, BUT WE STILL DON'T
HAVE ANYTHING MORE THAN A
TICKETED OFFENSE FOR FIRST-TIME
DRUNK DRIVERS, AND I THINK TO
MAKE THE PENALTY GREATER THAN
THAT, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T ACTED
TO MAKE IT MORE OF A -- MAKE A
CRIMINAL OFFENSE IN THE LAW, I
THINK THAT'S UNWARRANTED.
>> ALL RIGHT.
NEXT TOPIC.
>> FRANK BALISTRERI WAS
MILWAUKEE'S MOST WELL-KNOWN
LONG-TIME REPUTED CRIME BOSS.
HE WENT TO PRISON, SO DID HIS
SONS.
BOTH BOYS WERE LAWYERS BUT AFTER
THEIR EXTORTION CONVICTIONS,
LOST THEIR LICENSES TO PRACTICE
LAW.
FRANK DIED 20 YEARS AGO.
HIS SON JOE DIED IN 2010.
NOW SON JOHN, WHO IS 65 YEARS
OLD, IS ASKING THE STATE SUPREME
COURT TO GIVE HIM HIS LAW
LICENSE BACK, SAYING HE'S BEEN
CLEAN FOR NEARLY 30 YEARS, AND
THAT HE HAS PAID HIS DEBT TO
SOCIETY.
WHAT SHOULD THE SUPREME COURT
DO?
>> WELL, WE KNOW THAT ATTORNEYS
WHO HAVE GONE TO PRISON HAVE
GOTTEN THEIR LAW LICENSES BACK.
SOME THAT WE KNOW VERY WELL.
SOME PUBLIC FIGURES IN THIS
COMMUNITY.
IF JOHN BALISTRERI WERE A
BEETLE, HE WOULD BE THE QUIET
ONE.
HE WAS THE ONE THAT, YOU KNOW,
JOE, YOU KNOW, WAS PRETTY
FLAMBOYANT AND ACTUALLY MOVED UP
THROUGH THE LEGAL SYSTEM, HE
SERVED AS A COURT COMMISSIONER
AT ONE POINT.
HIS FATHER WAS IN THE PRESS ALL
THE TIME.
JOHN, I ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, KNEW
A LONG TIME AGO WHETHER, AS A
YOUNG MAN, HE WAS ACTUALLY
INVOLVED IN PROMOTING SOME ROCK
CONCERTS.
HE WAS SORT OF ON 0 DIFFERENT
PATH FROM THE REST OF THE
FAMILY.
AND BOTH HE AND JOE LATER SAID
THAT THEY FELT THAT THEY WERE
REALLY KIND OF SUCKED IN TO
THEIR FATHER'S BUSINESS.
AND THAT, YOU KNOW, IT ENDED UP
DESTROYING THEIR CAREERS AND
LIVES.
AND I BELIEVE AT 65, 30 YEARS,
WHEN YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, THE
LEGAL SYSTEM IS SO WEIRD,
BECAUSE YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT GOT HIM AND HIS
BROTHER JOE OUT OF PRISON EARLY
WAS DENOUNCING THEIR FATHER.
YOU KNOW, THE LEGAL SYSTEM WAS
REAL INTERESTED IN HAVING YOU
KNOW, THE SONS IN THE FAMILY,
YOU KNOW, DENOUNCE THEIR FATHER.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, WITH YOU'RE
IN A FAMILY AND YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT HOW YOU, YOU KNOW, TREAT
LOVED ONES AND REACT TOWARD
LOVED ONES, EVEN IF THEY DO
SOMETHING WRONG, YOU SUPPORT
THEM.
BUT THE LEGAL SYSTEM FORCES YOU
IN TO THOSE AWKWARD POSITIONS,
AND I SEE TO REASON NOT TO
RESTORE JOHN'S LICENSE AT THIS
POINT, AND HE SAYS HE'S JUST --
I DON'T KNOW THAT HE'S PRACTICED
A LOT OF LAW.
I BELIEVE HE JUST WANTS, YOU
KNOW, HIS REPUTATION RESTORED TO
SOME EXTENT AND I THINK AT THIS
POINT, HE'S EARNED IT.
>> 30 YEARS LATER, DO YOU SAY
OK, HERE'S YOU'RE A LAWYER
AGAIN?
>> I THINK THE SUPREME COURT HAS
A PROCESS IT GOES THROUGH,
THAT'S PRETTY RIGOROUS, TO
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE
WHO HAS LOST THEIR LAW LICENSE
DESERVES THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET
IT BACK AND TO GET A SECOND
CHANCE.
SO I THINK AFTER 30 YEARS, IF HE
IN FACT, AND HE HAS PAID HIS
DEBT TO SOCIETY, HE SERVED HIS
TIME IN PRISON, AT 65 YEARS OLD,
IF THE SUPREME COURT DETERMINES
THAT THEY ARE RECOMMENDING THAT
THIS HAPPEN, I DON'T HAVE A
PROBLEM WITH IT.
I GUESS I'M REALLY PUZZLED AS TO
WHY AT 65 HE WANTS IT BACK.
MAYBE PART OF IT IS TO EARN PART
OF HIS REPUTATION BACK, BUT THE
FACT IS, FAIR OR NOT, HE WILL
ALWAYS BE TIED TO HIS FATHER AND
THE ACTIONS OF HIS FATHER.
I THINK IT'S OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING
THAT'S IMPORTANT TO HIM, BUT I
THINK IN THE MIND OF MOST
PEOPLE, WHEN THEY THINK ABOUT
THE BALISTRERI, WHEN THEY THINK
ABOUT THE THREE BALISTRERIS WHO
WERE CONVICTED AND SENT TO
PRISON, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE
GOING TO THINK.
AND IF IT IS ANYTHING IN
PEOPLE'S MIND, IF HIS LAW
LICENSE IS IN FACT REINSTATED,
IT WILL BE A TINY ASSTER RISK IN
THE MINDS OF -- ASTERISK IN THE
MINDS OF SOME PEOPLE THAT
SOMEHOW HIS REPUTATION WAS
RESTORED.
I THINK IT'S TRUE.
THEY PROBABLY DID FEEL LIKE THEY
WERE PULLED IN TO OR DRAWN INTO
THE FAMILY BUSINESS.
BUT AT SOME POINT IN TIME, YOU
ALSO ARE AN ADULT, AND YOU MAKE
THOSE DECISIONS THAT YOU CHOOSE
TO MAKE, AND YOU KNOW, THERE ARE
CONSEQUENCES BOTH POSITIVE AND
NEGATIVE FOR THAT.
SO FOR HIM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE
CONSEQUENCES IS NOT ONLY
IMPRISONMENT, BUT LOSS OF THE
LAW LICENSE, WHEN HE HAD SPENT
HIS WHOLE LIFE PREPARING TO
STUDY THE LAW AND PRACTICE THE
LAW.
SO I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH
HIM GETTING IT BACK, BUT FOR
MOST PEOPLE, I DON'T THINK IT'S
GOING TO MAKE AUDIENCE.
THEY'RE STILL GOING TO SEE HIM
AS SOMEONE WHO WAS CONVICTED OF
EXTORTION AND SERVED TIME FOR
IT.
>> IF THE SUPREME COURT SAYS
YES, YOU CAN HAVE YOUR LAW
LICENSE BACK, DOES THAT SEND A
MESSAGE GOOD OR BAD TO THE
COMMUNITY ABOUT THE LEGAL
PROFESSION OR ABOUT THE SUPREME
COURT?
>> NO.
LIKE JOEL, I DON'T SEE HIM GOING
INTO THE BUSINESS OF PRACTICING
LAW.
BUT I ALSO THINK THAT IF HE GOT
LIST LAW LICENSE BACK, IT WOULD
BE SOME SORT OF TEST REDEMPTION
THAT HE'S PLACED ON HIMSELF.
THAT HE WANTS THE PUBLIC TO BE
ABLE TO SHARE IN.
BUT I LOOK AT IT AS WELL, HE WAS
IN THE FAMILY BUSINESS, THERE
ARE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
TO THAT.
I THINK HE WAS SUCCESSFUL AS A
PROMOTER, PRIMARILY BECAUSE HE
WAS IN THE BUSINESS.
IN THE FAMILY BUSINESS.
AND SO MUCH TIME HAS NOW LAPSED,
THERE AREN'T A WHOLE LOT OF
YOUNGER PEOPLE THAT REMEMBER
WITH THE SAME KIND OF DREAD THAT
WE MAY -- OR DISCUSSED THAT WE
MAY HAVE REMEMBERED THE
BALISTRERI FAMILY'S ACTIONS IN
THE SAME WAY, SO YOU KNOW --
>> YOU REMEMBER THE GOOD
RESTAURANTS.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
BUT I DO THINK THERE'S THIS
EFFORT THAT'S A PERSONAL MISSION
ON HIS OWN PART TO SHOW THAT
HE'S CONTRITE, AND THIS MIGHT BE
ONE OF THOSE WAYS IN WHICH HE
DOES THAT, BUT THERE WILL BE AN
AWFUL LOT OF SKEPTICISM FROM
PEOPLE WHO ARE MUCH, MUCH OLDER,
WHO REMEMBER THE FAMILY, AS
OPPOSED TO THOSE WHO ARE MUCH
YOUNGER, WHO JUST DON'T -- I
MEAN, THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW MUCH
ABOUT ORGANIZED CRIME EXCEPT FOR
HAVING WATCHED THE GODFATHER
MOVIES.
>> IT'S A MATTER OF BEING
CONTRITE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU GO OUT AND
SEEK TO RECLAIM YOUR LAW LICENSE
AS A WAY OF SHOWING THAT YOU'VE
BEEN REDEEMED.
I DON'T THINK THAT YOU DO THAT.
I THINK THIS IS VERY MUCH ABOUT
SOMETHING THAT IS IMPORTANT TO
HIM.
AND THAT'S FINE.
BUT THAT'S OK.
BUT I MEAN, LET RECOGNIZE IT
THEN AS SOMETHING THAT IS
IMPORTANT TO HIM, WHERE HE WANTS
TO RECLAIM SOMETHING FOR
HIMSELF.
AGAIN, I DON'T THINK IT CHANGES
IN THE MINDS OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO
MAY STILL REMEMBER OR KNOW ABOUT
THE BALISTRERI FAMILY.
I DON'T THINK IT WILL CHANGE
THEIR IMPRESSIONS OF WHAT THAT
FAMILY WAS ABOUT AND QUITE
FRANKLY, FAIR OR UNFAIR, HIS
ROLE IN THE FAMILY BUSINESS.
>> OK.
BACK TO CHRIS CHRISTIE FOR A
MINUTE.
YOU HEARD WHAT OUR PANELISTS
THINK ABOUT THE BRIDGE
CONTROVERSY, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE
AVERAGE PERSON?
THE AVERAGE NEW JERSEY PERSON?
RICK HOROWITZ HAS BEEN LOOKING
INTO IT.
RICK?
>> CHRISTOPHER, WHY DID YOU DO
IT, CHRISTOPHER?
WHY DIDN'T YOU LEAVE IT ALONE?
YOU COULDN'T LET, YOU KNOW,
SLEEPING DOGS LIE?
YOU HAD TO HAVE IT ALL?
OK.
SO MAYBE NOT YOU PERSONALLY, BUT
YOUR AIDES, CHRISTOPHER.
YOUR TOP AIDES.
RIGHT THERE IN YOUR OFFICE.
SO EITHER YOU KNEW OR YOU DIDN'T
KNOW, EITHER WAY IT STINKS.
YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING?
EITHER YOU GAVE THE ORDER, OR
YOU HAD PEOPLE REAL CLOSE TO YOU
WHO THOUGHT YOU'D LIKE IT, AND
THEY GAVE THE ORDER.
WHY WOULD THEY THINK THAT,
CHRISTOPHER?
ASK YOURSELF THAT?
PLUS, YOU HIRED LIARS.
SO THAT MAYOR WOULDN'T ENDORSE
YOU?
HE'S A DEMOCRAT, CHRISTOPHER.
HE'S NOT SUPPOSED TO ENDORSE
YOU.
ANYWAYS, WHO CARES WHAT THE
MAYOR THINKS IN FORT LEE, FOR
CRYING OUT LOUD.
YOU WERE WINNING, YOU KNEW YOU
WERE WINNING.
A LANDSLIDE, CHRISTOPHER.
YOU WERE READY TO GO NATIONAL
AND YOU GO AND TOSS IT ALL IN
THE CRAPPER.
WHAT, IT HAS TO BE UNANIMOUS OR
SOMETHING?
HE DIDN'T WANT TO ENDORSE YOU,
FINE.
YOU HOLD UP SOME POINT HE WANTS
REAL BAD, YOU FORGET TO SEND HIM
A CHECK, HE'LL GET THE MESSAGE.
BELIEVE ME, HE'LL GET IT.
BUT SHUTTING DOWN THE LANES?
ON THE BRIDGES?
SO THE KIDS, THEY CAN'T GET TO
SCHOOL?
AND THE WHATCHAMACALLIT, THE
FIRST RESPONDERS, THEY'RE STUCK
IN TRAFFIC, AND THEY CAN'T MOVE
AND PEOPLE ARE CALLING THEM AND
THERE'S EMERGENCIES?
THAT'S DUMB, CHRISTOPHER.
UNBELIEVABLY DUMB.
AND THOSE AIDES OF YOURS, THEY
WERE LAUGHING ABOUT IT.
THEY CAN'T EVEN KEEP THEIR
MOUTHS SHUT, THEY'RE LAUGHING
ABOUT IT.
BRAGGING ABOUT IT.
ON EMAIL.
AND YOU DIDN'T CAN THEIR SORRY
BUTTS, EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM,
FIRST MINUTE IT WAS ON THE NEWS?
IT TAKES YOU A WHOLE DAY TO SHOW
YOUR FACE IN PUBLIC?
GEEZ, CHRISTOPHER.
YOU KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE?
IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WERE SCARED.
LOOKS LIKE YOU WERE SCARED THEY
HAD SOMETHING ON YOU, EXCEPT YOU
BEEN SWEARING UP AND DOWN FOR
MONTHS YOU'RE CLEAN, AND YOUR
OFFICE IS CLEAN AND YOU DIDN'T
KNOW A THING ABOUT THE LANES, OR
THE BRIDGE, OR ANYTHING?
THAT'S WHAT YOU BEEN SAYING,
RIGHT?
ANYBODY GOING TO BELIEVE THAT
NOW?
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
YOU WENT TOO FAR, CHRISTOPHER.
YOU FINALLY WENT TOO FAR.
>> THANKS, RICK.
AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
JOINING US.
STAY WARM AND ENJOY THE REST OF
YOUR WEEKEND.