In 2013, Gov. Andrew Cuomo launched an anti-corruption commission meant to root out wrongdoing in state government. Less than a year later, that commission was shuttered as Cuomo reached an agreement with state lawmakers to approve a package of ethics law changes. 

Ultimately, the closure of the commission would be investigated by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, who ultimately dropped the probe in 2016 and after Cuomo won a second term — an early instance in which the governor first faced real scrutiny from an independent investigator.

The circumstances surrounding Cuomo's decision to close the commission after some of its findings led back to his office is being re-examined in the days before the governor is set to resign following a bombshell investigation into sexual harassment allegations leveled against him. A story this month in The New Yorker found Cuomo had called the White House in 2014, urging the Obama administration to have the Department of Justice drop the investigation.  

Capital Tonight spoke on Thursday with Democratic Rep. Kathleen Rice, who was one of the commission's co-chairs and was the Nassau County district attorney at the time. 

Rice in the interview affirmed Cuomo was unhappy whenever the commission's work got too close to him or his allies as it also uncovered a pay-to-play culture in Albany. The commission, for Cuomo, was ultimately a tool for the governor to gain leverage over lawmakers, Rice said. 

But Rice also faults the media for not picking up the clear threads of interference by the governor when it came to his involvement with the commission. 

Here's a transcript of the interview, with light edits for clarity. 

When you were working on the Moreland Commission as its co-chair, what sort of interactions did you have with Governor Cuomo and his office?

I was one of three co-chairs and we also had a number of commissioners and a chief of investigations Donyea Perry, with whom I worked very closely.

I had quite a bit of contact with the governor and which in the in the beginning. I had no problem with that because it was a commission that he had set up and he wanted to make sure that as co-chairs we understood what the parameters of the investigation were and one of the reasons why I even agreed to be a co-chair of the commission was because I was told that we were going to have subpoena power, I said I would not do it if we didn't have subpoena power. I had been on another Moreland Commission earlier, having to do with Superstorm Sandy, and it was not as great.

It was not a great experience, so I insisted that we get our subpoena power, And we were sure that we were going to be able to look into corruption, wherever it was in Albany, and that turned out not to be true and some of the nastier interactions that I had with the governor, usually were around, you know subpoenas that were sent to people that got a little too close to him so there were difficult interactions, but we stayed strong and kept trying to do the work of the commission.

When did it become clear to you the governor did not want the commission looking into him or his allies? Was the whole point of this to get leverage over the Legislature?

He wanted to use them on commission as a cudgel against the Legislature, and he wanted us to dig up some dirt on them to enable him to do it. Unfortunately, some of the things that we did actually lead to the doorstep of the governor. So, I mean, I think we started the commission was in the middle of 2013, and by the spring of 2014 it was over so I would say within a couple of months, it was very clear that the governor only wanted us to look into certain things. And you know as we got deeper and deeper into things.

We got the distinct feeling that he was going to try to do anything he could to stop the work of the commission and ultimately that's what he did.

What we what we made clear on through our investigation is that there were, we were looking at the intersection, as part of our investigation, it was the intersection of legislation, lobbyists, political donations, things getting done or not getting done in Albany, and trying to make a connection there to see if there was what people have always described in Washington, DC was a pay to play kind of system.

And whenever it got to people who were deemed to be, you know, friends, or allies of the governor. That's when it got a little uncomfortable, that their assertion by the governor that, you know, this was his commission he could shut it down, he could do whatever he wanted with it, belied the whole, you know, public statement that he made when he created the commission which was we are going to look at, corruption, wherever it is in Albany and we're going to do away with it.

Do you think Governor Cuomo acted illegally when he shut down the commission? 

I think that was a decision for the US attorney, who at the time was Preet Bharara, one thing that we did to make sure that all of our hard work was not either destroyed or hidden was we put together all the cases that we made that we felt needed maybe a little more investigation that had some potential to go and possibly a criminal direction, and we told them out to the, the prosecutors of jurisdiction whether that was the attorney general, the US Attorney's offices or various DHS offices. And so, you know, Preet Bharara got obviously got involved at the end there. And ultimately he came up with it you know his conclusion was that he did not think that the governor acted illegally, although it was incredibly distasteful, and self serving.

Did you ever speak to the U.S. attorney's office about this? 

They wanted to know what my experience was, especially with the pulling back of subpoenas and what our interaction was with the second floor, which is what we referred to as the governor's office which is on the second floor of the Capitol in Albany. And I, you know, ended up keeping a pretty detailed diary, so I was able to kind of go chapter and verse through, almost every single interaction I had with the second floor. Members of the second floor and others regarding investigations and directions of investigations that they were not happy with.

Has the governor tried to harm your political career post-Moreland?

I mean, you'd have to ask him that I know that he has certainly, you know, called certain donors of mine and ask them to stop giving me political contributions, which, you know, look, I'm one of 10 kids, Irish redhead I'm pretty tough I think I can take it, but he was never able to be successful because at the end of the day what voters want are people who are authentic, and really have their best interests at heart. And so there was only really so much damage he could do to someone like me.

A lot of people may be wondering, why speak out now as the governor is leaving office? Why not raise this earlier?

Well, so you know it's funny that you say you know, why are you speaking up now, you know, Donnie Perry and I as the two most involved people on this commission. Back in 2013, was when this commission, when we were put together. We were saying this stuff from the very beginning, we were very open and honest about the interactions that we had with the governor's office. There were numerous journalistic reports about the interference. And the general behavior of the governor being that of pretty much a bully.

What I never understood was why the media didn't care. We were exposing exactly who the governor was eight years ago. And no one wanted to listen.

Now you have to remember this is before #MeToo. This was before, Shelley Silver and Dean Skelos. It was a very different world, right? This was before President Trump, no one was listening. Donyea and I were speaking our truth to a powerful person, and begging the media to do something about it. I think there was one pretty lengthy New York Times article that talked about the governor's interference, but other than that, no one was interested, which is really, you know, sad.