|
Washington, D.C. - U.S. Reps. Bill Pascrell and Frank Pallone, Jr welcomed the decision by Chris Christie to participate in the upcoming congressional hearing on deferred prosecution agreements and urged him to finally provide answers to all the unknown and undisclosed information on his use of deferred prosecution agreements.
"We welcome Mr. Christie’s to finally answer for his decisions and his actions," said Pascrell. "His use of DPA's has been covered in near secrecy with the only information indirect and incomplete. The partial disclosures have only triggered more questions. Mr. Christie is the only one who can provide the answers because he appears to have executed the agreements unilaterally with no guidelines and no standards of accountability."
While serving as U.S. Attorney, Mr. Christie refused to answer even the most basic questions and former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft was defiant in his lack of disclosure at a congressional hearing last year.
"We expect Mr. Christie to disclose more information than his former boss, John Ashcroft, revealed in last year's hearing," said Pallone, noting Ashcroft's defiant refusal to answer for the lucrative contract he received from Christie. "Piecemeal disclosures about the selection and payment of monitors, as well as potential conflicts of interest, have added to the growing list of unanswered questions."
Pallone originally asked for explanations more than 18 months ago when he wrote to Mr. Christie after the deal with Ashcroft, the former attorney general and Christie's boss, was revealed through news reports. Since then, the same questions about other monitors have arisen, along with additional questions about other contracts, including multiple instances of apparent conflicts of interest and the cross-connection with campaign contributions.
"He's a former law enforcement official answering to lawmakers in the United States Congress," said Pallone. "We hope he respects his responsibility for accountability and for full and complete answers."
Anecdotal accounts of other prosecutors using bidding procedures, judicial involvement and other objective practices to select monitors, to determine payments and to establish oversight and accountability have been noted, calling into question if these steps were considered or used in New Jersey.
|
