The scandal engulfing the governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, could deepen on Monday when the state legislative committee investigating allegedly politically motivated lane closures on the George Washington bridge, which happened in September, receives its first tranche of subpoenaed documents.

Speculation over whether Christie knew about the closures intensified on Friday, when a key figure in the controversy alleged that the Republican governor had lied to the public. On Sunday, it was confirmed that a member of Christie's administration who was one of 17 people subpoenaed resigned on Friday.

Christina Genovese Renna reported to deputy chief of staff Bridget Kelly, who apparently set the lane closings in motion and who was fired by Christie last month. Renna confirmed her resignation through a statement to the Associated Press from her lawyer. She said she had been considering leaving since after the November gubernatorial election, which Christie won decisively.

Earlier on Sunday, New Jersey assemblyman John Wisniewski, a Democrat who is chairing the state legislative panel investigating the scandal, told CBS's Face the Nation the new documents, which were demanded two weeks ago and could shed further light on Christie’s potential involvement, would start arriving on Monday.

Wisniewski added that the material would eventually be made public.



“We’re not going to release it publicly at the beginning. The committee needs to see it, and evaluate it and decide what next steps need to be taken,” he said. “Are there other subpoenas? Do we bring people in for testimony?”

He added: “Ultimately this will become part of a public record.”

Christie, a potential Republican presidential candidate in 2016, has consistently and repeatedly denied any prior knowledge of the lane closures that inflicted four days of traffic hell on the town of Fort Lee, whose Democratic mayor had declined to endorse him for re-election.

Three weeks ago, Christie told reporters at a press conference: “I had no knowledge of this – of the planning, the execution or anything about it – and that I first found out about it after it was over. And even then, what I was told was that it was a traffic study.”



On Friday, David Wildstein, a senior official at the Port Authority who resigned after it emerged he administered the bridge closures, accused Christie of misleading the public.

In a letter to the agency, Wilstein’s lawyer said the closures were the result of the “Christie administration’s order” and added: “…evidence exists as well tying Mr Christie to having knowledge of the lane closures, during the period when the lanes were closed, contrary to what the governor stated publicly.”

The letter, obtained by the New York Times, went on to say Wildstein “contests the accuracy of various statements that the governor made about him and he can prove the inaccuracy of some”.

The allegations have reignited the controversy swirling around the governor, who has gone on the offensive against his accuser. Wildstein is seeking immunity before giving evidence and is lobbying the Port Authority to cover his legal fees.

In an email, Christie’s office personally attacked Wildstein, suggesting he was an unreliable witness who would “do and say anything to save David Wildstein”.

The email, obtained by Politico, was ostensibly addressed to supporters but was clearly meant for public consumption. It went to considerable lengths to dredge up potential dirt on Wildstein, a former Christie loyalist whom the governor appointed to the Port Authority post.

The memo contained links to articles that were critical of Wildstein, pointed out he had once blogged using a pseudonym and said that, aged 16, the former Port Authority official sued over a local school board election. It also added that Wildstein was once accused of “deceptive behaviour” by a high-school teacher.

The email also lashed out at the New York Times's “sloppy” reporting, echoing a previous strategy of attacking the MSNBC network over its coverage of the so-called “Bridgegate” scandal.



The decision by Christie to go to such lengths in trying to undermine Wildstein, and his trenchant criticism of reporters, was construed by critics as an act of desperation by a governor running out of options. The governor was booed at a Super Bowl rally in Times Square, New York, on Saturday, and his poll ratings have tanked, leading many to question whether he can still mount a serious bid for the White House in 2016.

Monday could prove a pivotal moment for Christie's presidential ambitions. It is not clear how many documents Wisniewski’s committee will obtain in the first wave. But the committee is understood to have demanded thousands of further emails, documents and data related to the closures, and it is unlikely that anything implicating Christie will remain confidential once in the hands of his Democratic opponents.

A second legislative committee and the US attorney's office in New Jersey are also conducting investigations that may turn up fresh evidence.

Wisniewski, a longtime opponent of the governor, conceded on Sunday that there was confusion over Wildstein’s lawyer’s letter – in particular, its cryptic reference to the existence of material that proves Christie has been untruthful.

"We don't really know what the evidence is," Wisniewski said on NBC’s Meet the Press, pointing out that if Wildstein had personal possession of material implicating Christie, he would have been expected to include it in his previous submission under subpoena.

"He submitted over 900 pages of documents in response to the subpoena," Wisniewski said. "Apparently what he's talking about must be something other than what he submitted."

The legislator said the wording in Wildstein’s lawyer’s letter – which referred to the existence of evidence that Christie knew of the bridge closures – was “curious”.

"The use of the words 'evidence exists', as opposed to saying, 'I have documents', or, 'I have an email' – it's a curious choice of words," he said. "Maybe he knows somebody else that has information. Maybe this is a conversation he had. Maybe this is something else that is not within the scope of the subpoena the committee issued."

On CBS, Wisniewski added: “I’d like to see the material that Mr Wildstein’s attorney talked about. We need to get all the subpoenaed documents that we’re supposed to start receiving tomorrow.”

For the third week in a row, top Republicans were forced to come out for Christie, whose problems dominated the Sunday morning talk shows. The Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindal, and Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan both gave a cautious defence of Christie, saying he should retain his post as the head of the Republican Governors Association (RGA).

Christie's tenure leading the RGA should have been a springboard, enabling him to tour the country supporting other GOP governors in their election races, maximising his exposure in the run-up to any presidential bid. Instead, the scandal over the bridge lane closures has turned Christie into a potential liability for other governors.

The former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, a close friend of the New Jersey governor, played down Wildstein’s reference to evidence that could implicate Christie.

“First of all, there is no evidence – it is the tantalising suggestion that there may be evidence,” Giuliani told CBS.

“So far, there is no evidence to suggest that he [Christie] is not telling the truth. If he is lying, it is a really bad situation. If he is not lying, then something really unfair is being done to him.”