WildsteinZEGAS.JPG

(Patti Sapone/The Star-Ledger)

The letter disclosed yesterday from the attorney of a former Port Authority official claiming Gov. Chris Christie was aware of controversial lane diversions at the George Washington bridge as they were happening and the subsequent denial by the governor have raised more questions than they served to answer.

In a letter to Port Authority officials seeking a reversal of their decision not to pay former Port Authority official David Wildstein's legal bills, run up while answering a subpoena for documents and testimony from the Assembly committee investigating the bridge scandal, lawyer Alan Zegas dropped a bombshell.

"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 in a two-hour press conference," Zegas wrote. The subsequent New York Times story sent the political world into a frenzy of commentary and speculation over Christie's role in the debacle and his political future should the claim turn out to be true.

Christie fired back, saying Wildstein's claim supports the governor's own assertions that he knew nothing about the closures that backed up traffic in the borough of Fort Lee over five days in early September.

"Mr. Wildstein's lawyer confirms what the governor has said all along — he had absolutely no prior knowledge of the lane closures before they happened and whatever Mr. Wildstein's motivations were for closing them to begin with," the statement from a governor's spokesman said.

So while, Wildstein claims to have the answer to the question - when did the governor find out about the lane diversions - his claim leaves a whole host of questions unanswered.

1. Who's lying?

The governor has said repeatedly that he found out about the lane diversions after the fact. Initially he said it was after a report about an angry email from the Port Authority's executive director pulling the plug on the lane closures. That report was on October 1. Later, the governor said it was earlier, when the traffic problems were first reported. The earliest story on the traffic closures ran on September 13, the day after they ended

But Wildstein's attorney now says Christie knew about the incident as it was playing out. The point would be less significant if Christie's denials had not been so vociferous. Should it come out that he knew earlier in the week, it's not the smoking gun, but it is an indication that the "truth" about who knew what and when has been fluid.

2. What did Christie actually know?

Whether the governor knew about the lane closures earlier in the week or not, we don't know - and may never know - what he knew about the motive behind them. In his statement, Christie makes clear he had no knowledge of Wildstein's motive for shutting the lanes and the governor has held fast to his statement that he believed Wildstein's former boss, Port Authority Deputy Executive Bill Baroni, when Baroni told him the lane diversions were part of a traffic study.

Knowing they were happening before he said he did is one thing, knowing why they were happening would be quite another.

To date, the intrigue has centered on who ordered the lane closures and why. Though Wildstein's claim is a bombshell, even if true it doesn't do much to answer those questions.

3. Was someone else in the administration involved?

To date, the only administration staffer whose involvement is certain is former Deputy Chief of Staff Bridget Kelly, whose role was revealed in an email chain turned over as part of Wildstein's subpoena response.

"Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee," the now infamous email read.

In his letter, Zegas called the lane closures a "Christie administration order" communicated by Kelly. People familiar with the structure of the governor's inner circle say it's unlikely that Kelly ordered the plan on her own. She may have, but if she didn't, who did?

4. What was to be discussed at a proposed August meeting between Gov. Chris Christie and Port Authority Chairman David Samson?

Until Friday, that meeting was the focus of the who knew what and when question. That Wildstein included a reference to the meeting in the documents he supplied to the investigating committee led committee chairman Assemblyman John Wisniewski and others to believe it was relevant to the lane closures.

But in his letter, Wildstein's attorney claimed Christie knew about the incident while it was occurring, not before. Why did Wildstein include reference to the meeting in his response to the subpoena? Since it's unlikely anyone will ever testify before the investigating committee, we may never know the answer to this one.

5.Why did Wildstein, through his attorney, decide to drop the Friday afternoon bomb?

There is wide speculation that Wildstein released the letter as further enticement for the U.S. Attorney's office, which is conducting its own investigation and has already issued at least some subpoenas, to offer Wildstein immunity. His attorney has already laid the groundwork, so this supposition is not too much of a stretch.

Bridget Kelly, who emails show was in on the plan from the start, is also circling out there and it's possible Wildstein is seeking to get in line ahead of her if immunity is in play.

Others speculate that Wildstein may already have been turned down for a full immunity request and will now seek to burn down the house. No matter what the answer, the man who as Wally Edge chronicled the political game like no other, has turned Trenton on its collective head.