Advisory Opinions - In Mourning for the DOJ | Interview: Chris Christie

Episode Date: March 31, 2026

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie joins Sarah Isgur and David French to discuss his explicit argument with the former FBI Director Robert Mueller, remember a Christmas carol session with former Attorney General John Ashcroft, and weigh in on whether or not you should go to law school. The Agenda:–Birthright Citizenship: Preview–Welcome back, Gov. Christie!–Contempt of Court, Rule 11 Sanctions, and Disbarment–Going Full Monty on the Robert Mueller story–The state of the Justice Department–You should go to law school Show Notes:–John Ashcroft’s performance Order Sarah’s book here. Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch’s offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you’d like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ready? I was born ready. Welcome to advisory opinions. I'm Sarah Isgher. That's David French. And we are going to start by telling you that the birthright citizenship oral argument will be Wednesday at 10 a.m. We'll give you a little birthright amuse, if you will, as we start out this podcast. The three questions the court will be considering and what David and I are most looking at to determine what exactly the vote is on this case. And drum roll please. We have brought your treat, a present wrapped up in a nice little bow.

The 55th governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, is here to thank you all for donating to the Supreme Court Historical Society. And I can't even begin to describe where this conversation is going to end up. Has he ever been held in contempt of court? Did he really tell Bob Mueller? Well, that's what gets you the explicit rating in this podcast, I guess. It's short, though. It's a short explicit rating. Does he think that Ford should have pardoned Nixon? And what exactly was he doing at John Ashcroft's house that Christmas? All this and more on advisory opinions. Oh, and don't worry, he weighs in on whether you should go to law school.

After 19 years, they're back. Frankie Munis, Brian Cranston, and the rest of the family reunite in Malcolm in the middle, life's still unfair. After 10 years avoiding them how and lowest demand Malcolm be at their anniversary party, pulling him straight back into their chaos. Malcolm in the middle, life's still unfair. A special four-part event, streaming April 10th on Hulu on Disney Plus. Getting ready for a game means being ready for anything.

Like packing a spare stick. I like to be prepared. That's why I remember, 988, Canada's Suicide Crisis Hubline. It's good to know, just in case. Anyone can call or text for free confidential support from a train responder anytime. 988 Suicide Crisis Helpline is funded by the government and enough. Well, David, we have to do this before we can get to the governor, and that is the

birthright citizenship oral argument is Wednesday morning. We will be live blogging on SCOTUS blog. We will have a live advisory opinion with special guests. I mean, not only you, my always special guest, but Berkeley law professor Amanda Tyler, who wrote one of the amicus briefs. A brilliant amicus brief, by the way. It was really good. Really smart. Professor Akeel Amar, of course, from our AO extended universe, who will be attending the oral argument, and he will be being interviewed by our own Amy Howe outside the court when they leave. So it'll be a very special advisory opinion that will stream live on SCOTUS blog after the oral argument, or of course, you can listen to it as a regular podcast. And if you tune in to C-SPAN

for the oral argument, you will also be surrounded by SCOTUS blog because they are including our live in their show as well. David, we have a new explainer video. If you remember that last video that we did from briefly, they make legal training content that people actually want to watch. So they combine the skills of top lawyers like SCOTUS blog and yours truly for the voiceover with animators, illustrators, and writers to turn dense legal topics, like the birthright citizenship argument into short, polished,

videos. So we'll put that in the show notes so you can watch it. I tweeted it out. I think it's like, I mean, obviously I did the voiceover, but I think it's amazing. How many times can I say I did the voiceover? That's getting awkward. All right, David, let's dive into the content here. Just a little brief overview. I will read the 14th Amendment, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States on Donald Trump's first day in office, he issues an executive order saying that that now will apply only to someone who has at least one parent who is a citizen or a permanent resident. And the question for the court is, one, what about the original meaning of the 14th Amendment? What did they intend?

Two, Congress passed a statute in 1952, which has the exact same language as the 14th Amendment. but does that mean something different because it was 1952 versus 1868? And three, can a president acting alone through executive order without Congress do anything or say anything about birthright citizenship? So, David, those are the three questions for the court at this oral argument. What will you be looking for? I'm going to be looking for, is the court going to be going for unanimity on question three as sort of a way of dealing with the issue that, in other words, will the institutionalist sort of view be,

okay, we don't even have to deal with the underlying merits here. This executive order, however you want to slice it, is just it cannot, it's not going to overrule, or essentially reverse decades of interpretation of the statute, more than 100 years of interpretation of the constitutional provision, this executive order just ain't it. As I could easily see nine votes for that proposition. Part of me wonders if it's going to be a little bit anticlimactic in the sense that we, yeah, we will have discussion over what the amendment actually means, but could there be a punt in the offing? And I don't know, Sarah. That's genuinely something that I'm stumped about. I'm very interested about in the oral argument. How much do they want to go ahead and

stampede straight to, you know, the actual underlying substantive issue. And is there a way that they can deal with this case without going to that? That's one of the top things I'm looking at. Because in that sense, this case could look quite a bit like tariffs or student loan debt forgiveness. Congress is welcome to do this and we'll hear them out. But a president by executive order can't do this thing because they don't have the statutory authority from Congress. But this gets to an interesting question that the amicus briefs touch on, this idea that in 1868, you have this, you know, all persons born and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. And the history around that, including diplomats, for instance, were not included,

obviously. Indian tribes were not included. Then in 1952, so nearly 100 years later, Congress passes the statute. In the meantime, we have had birthright citizenship. So if Congress wanted to clarify or change that practice, they would want to do that in this 1952 statute. Of course, at that point, we've also had Japanese internment, for instance. And this is a point that Amanda, Professor Amanda Tyler made where nobody questioned the citizenship of the children of Japanese people who were in the United States. They were interred by God, but nobody even thought to say. say, well, they're not citizens of the United States or challenge birthright citizenship. So in

1952, when they have this statute, I think one of the better arguments substantively is that that statute actually could have a different meaning than the 14th Amendment. And David, you know, I just, I reflect on how we talk about versions of like bad man stays in jail and the ability of, for instance, the solicitor general's office to be able to pick the facts of the cases that they bring to the Supreme Court. And, you know, Rahimi being an excellent case if you're the government to want to do some 922G work, right? He's shooting up water burgers. This is like the reverse of that. It would have been really an interesting case, for instance, if the executive order had said that if you come here on a student or tourist visa, that the children of someone of parents

who are, have no citizenship, no permanent residence, no asylum, no asylum. for instance, nothing. Both parents are here as student visa holders or tourist visa holders that they are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And so don't have birthright citizenship. That would have been an interesting executive order to me. This one's not that interesting. This is the Rahimi of executive orders. Exactly. And so I would imagine a 90 on the, on the very, that third question, can an executive order do this? But it's really hard for me to count to one even on the underlying substantive issue, given this executive order. Now, I'm with you on, if you had a denial of citizenship when you actually, like you had one of these

crystal clear birthright tourism cases, like you have an Airbnb opened for the, a birthing center opened for the specific purpose of foreign families to come and land for three weeks, give birth, pop back out, that, that I think you would have a much more. serious searching inquiry, but not challenging birthright citizenship, but challenging subject to the jurisdiction thereof because of those very unique circumstances. But that doesn't get to the scale of the issue that Trump administration wants to get to. If you're talking about like actual birthright tourism, that's a rounding error on a rounding error on a rounding error of human beings relative to the whole population. What he's trying to get to are children of illegal immigrants.

He that that's who he's wanting to get to here. And that's just a much heavier lift than the birth, you know, than say a birthright tourism fact pattern. So yeah, I'm with you 100% that that, the factual circumstances here are really not working in the in the president's favor. Exactly. It's why I think we're hard pressed to find people who actually follow the Supreme Court closely. Like the main debate is whether this is going to be nine zero or eight. one potentially. And I think it turns around, like you said, this question three, you know, can the president do this acting alone on an executive order? How much of the oral argument will only turn around that question? Then the fact problem, they could have done this incrementally.

And, you know, there's a lot of debate out there, especially among young people of whether you should be, you know, an incrementalist, take little wins along the way towards your policy goals and make compromises and notch little victories or be an absolutist. And there's no right or wrong answer, right? Like if we're talking about slavery, obviously you are morally with the angels if you were an absolutist. But in so many other places in our public policy life, the incrementalists tend to win because they have sort of this sustained battle over time. And the Trump administration is full of absolutists. And when it comes to something like this, again, I just can't help but think if they had done the executive order first on, like you said, David, some egregious place that literally

advertises birthright tourism. And then they had done not just tourist visas, but, you know, student visas. And like, done these executive orders, piecemeal, my piecemeal, I think they would end up in a far better legal spot and potentially get a far better opinion from the Supreme court. But like I said, I think this is the Rahimi of executive orders. You're challenging a gun law on domestic violence. And instead you have a guy who is shooting at his girlfriend as she runs away from the car. The Waterberger declines his friend's credit card. So he shoots up that. And bonus, he's a drug dealer. Wee. Like, if you actually want to bring a Second Amendment challenge, that wouldn't be my guy. If you actually want to challenge birthright citizenship, this wouldn't be

my EO. So. lots of things we're looking for in that oral argument. And as I said, we'll have a live advisory opinion podcast afterwards. You can tune in on scotusblog.com. I'll be there all morning, live blogging, live podcasting. It's pretty much an all-day birthright citizenship, oral argument fiesta for Sarah. Okay. Now, coming up, the thing you've all been waiting for, your reward for donating money to the Supreme Court Historical Society and to the hometown program after these messages. Great news. The federal EV rebate is back. Eligible customers get up to $5,000 with the federal EVAP rebate on select 2027 Volt and 2026 Equinox EV models. Visit your local Chevrolet dealer today for more details.

This episode is brought to you by FedEx. These days, the Power Move isn't having a big metallic credit card to drop on the check at a corporate launch. The real Power Move is leveling up your business with FedEx intelligence and accessing one of the biggest data networks powered by one of the biggest delivery networks. Level up your business with FedEx, the new Power Move. In communities across Canada, hourly Amazon employees earn an average of over 24, $0.50 an hour. Employees also have the opportunity to grow their skills and their paycheck by enrolling in free skills training programs for in-demand fields like software development and information

technology. Learn more at aboutamazon.ca. And we welcome back to the podcast, the 55th governor of New Jersey, but more importantly, that dangling treat that I offered all of you, if we raised enough money for the Supreme Court Historical Society. Sure, we can all tell ourselves that Abriel, the freshman who skipped school to tell us about the hometown program, was the real draw. But we know, we know why you guys donated. It was to get Chris Christie, the one the only. Welcome back, sir. Sarah, David, so great to be back. And I now have a new title in addition to the 55th governor of New Jersey, master bookseller. That's what I am. So, Governor, I asked you this right before you hit record, when you say 55th, that goes all the way back to colonial era, right?

So this is pre-founding. Number one is William Livingston, who was the first governor of New Jersey post the Declaration of Independence. So it's before the founding of the country, but after the Declaration of Independence. So William Livingston was the first governor of New Jersey in 1776. We don't count Ben Franklin's son, who was a colonial governor, before that, he doesn't get a number. William Livingston, who is actually the person who my hometown is named after. I grew up in Livingston, New Jersey, named after William Livingston, the first governor of our state. And someday we'll have someone on this podcast who's growing up in Christy, New Jersey,

and will tell us about this long ago governor. And you'll still be alive. That's how much older I am than you, Sarah, so that'll be great. That's my point. I wanted, I'm glad you picked up on the subtext. Okay. I want to start. There's this viral video going around of a lawyer who gets held in contempt in Oklahoma. People have picked apart exactly what this lawyer did wrong. That being said, I don't think you need to be a lawyer to see what the lawyer did wrong. As one person put it, you know, the judge can interrupt the lawyer. It's a one-way street. The lawyer does not get to interrupt the judge. And if you do get held in contempt, just my piece of advice, don't resist arrest. I think that will not go particularly well for you. And so, Governor, I start with this. You're known as an outspoken guy. Have you ever been held in contempt of court?

No, not even close. Look, you learn, as you know, as a trial lawyer early on, that there are two folks that you don't want to tick off in the courtroom. number one is the judge because that could turn very bad for you not only personally but for your client and you don't want to take off the jury so you know my goal always when I was trying cases was to be as absolutely respectful of the judge as I could be even when I had no respect for the judge at all and to be as charming as I could be to the jury because I figured if they like me they might like my client. David, you have said versions of this as well, right? Yeah. You know, I was just

thinking, as the governor was talking, if you want to solve all American civility problems, just have a jury box that goes with you everywhere that is going to be ruling on you, you know, at the end of the day, the week, the month. And you're going to just be on your best behavior 100% of the time. I have seen lawyers fighting like cats and dogs snapping at each other. and then as soon as the jury walks in, big smile, handshake, you know, the, I am the most reasonable person in the room and you just want to stand up and go, he's fooling, he's putting on an act. But it is remarkable. Like John Kasich in the 2016 presidential campaign. Like John Kasich, like John Kasich, like John Kasich, any time he's in public.

Okay, what about Rule 11 sanctions? Have you ever been sanctioned or have you filed for sanctions against another party? No to both. Yeah, no, I have never filed for Rule 11 sanctions against anyone. Look, my view was, and especially in a place like New Jersey, it's a very tight-knit legal community. It's a bar that does not allow people to wave in. You cannot be admitted in New Jersey unless you take and pass the New Jersey bar exam. And so as a result, it's a very tight-knit group.

You don't have a lot of outsiders wandering in and out. So I always try to feel like, you know, whatever problems I had, and I certainly had them over the course of my career with other lawyers, I tried to resolve it without going to Rule 11 sanctions. And so, no, never filed for Rule 11 sanctions. And how dare you? Never had Rule 11 sanctions filed against me, ever. I've never had him imposed as on me, but as befitting my reputation. is by far the more cruel and mean person compared to Governor Christie, I have absolutely filed for Rule 11 sanctions

and gotten them imposed to such an extent that I got a lawyer banned from ever practicing law in that particular courtroom again. Now, he committed grotesque acts of aggression against me. You are the person who ruins other people's careers for one step out of line. Well, great to be with you, David. Okay, so I think what will surprise people about this video if they go watch it is the also universal belief that this lawyer probably isn't going to get disbarred. In fact, it's probably not even a close call. And so the line between like being held in contempt, being sanctioned by the court, and then the very long mile over to being disbarred, I think surprises people. Governor, have you ever dealt with disbarment proceedings and like what the, like I, I, I, to this moment, standing here, have looked into all sorts of lawyers that I thought, ah, maybe that will do it.

And no, I've never actually seen one get really disbarred beyond, like, what is basically criminal behavior. Look, in New Jersey, one of the hard and fast rules, which has never been compromised, is that if you touch in any way your attorney trust account, you're disbarred. Like if you take money out for a day and put it right back, you're disbarred. And I've seen it happen. The only people I've ever seen that get disbarred are the two, the other instance you mentioned as well, which when I was U.S. attorney, I saw a number of lawyers who I prosecuted and convicted,

who then wound up getting disbarred as well for committing federal felonies. That's pretty understandable. But the trust account thing, well, it is very serious because you're messing with your client's money, not your own, even in those situations where there were really extenuating circumstances, alcoholism, drug addiction, gambling addiction, those kind of things. It is a hard and fast rule and the Supreme Court in New Jersey, which makes those decisions. In New Jersey, the Bar Association does not make those decisions. It's the seven members of the Supreme Court. They have never wavered. You touch your trust account for five minutes, you are going to be disbarred.

I feel like we should disbar more attorneys. What do you think? There's already too many. And there's a whole bunch that really deserve it. So yeah, I think, I do think that our profession is a very lenient self-policer, only exceeded in leniency by the medical profession. Because let me tell you, a lot scarier, a lot scarier. And I, you know, I've dealt with doctors over the years who, you know, it is.

seemingly almost impossible to take a doctor's medical license. And so they're even more lenient than we are, but it's not, I think, the perfect model of self-policing. And we've got too many lawyers out there that are just not up to the job, but they're good bullshit artists. And so they wind up getting clients convinced of their skills or what they're doing for them when in fact they're not up to the job. Okay.

Well, speaking of being held in contempt, Robert Mueller, former FBI director passed away recently and you and I were on this week together that week. And you told me a story that you couldn't tell on TV because there is no option for an explicit rating on network news. But here at advisory opinions, they're sure as hell is. So you want me to go full Monty on this one. You want me to give the entire story? Good. Okay. Well, that's no problem. So when I was U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, beginning in in January of 2002. It's the fifth largest office

it was at least at that time in the country. And we had our main FBI office was the FBI office in Newark. And, you know, having a good special agent in charge is extraordinarily important to the U.S. attorney because the FBI is your main investigative agency that's really important for there to be consistency and agreement between the FBI SAC

and the U.S. attorney on what we're going to pursue what we're going to put resources on, both from an investigative and a prosecutorial perspective. And if you get that lined up, you could do some really great stuff. My problem was that I went through in my first 13 or 14 months, I was on my third special agent in charge in Newark, all of whom had been taken back to Washington, D.C., beforehand. So when the third one is getting ready to be named, I called Director Mueller and said, look, you know, you know, This is incredibly difficult. You've been a U.S. attorney, Bob, you know what this is like.

Please don't send me someone who is, you know, prone to be taken back to D.C. or sent someplace else by you. I'd rather have someone a step down in terms of talent, but who's going to stay and I can work with and we can do good things together. And he said to me, oh, let's Chris, you're absolutely right. I'm sorry that I had to do those things, you know, this post-9-11 period. we're moving a lot of pieces around the board. Sure you understand.

Now we're in 2003, spring, spring summer of 03 when he's telling me this. And he said, but I give you my word. He said, the next person you get, you'll have at least for two years. Like, perfect. That's great. So he names a really fine FBI agent, especially Indian Charms, name Joe Billy. And Joe and I get together, man, we're right on the same. page. It's great. We're doing some really great investigations. And literally within months of when

Joe Billy gets there, I get a call from Joe Billy. He said, I need to see you. He comes over and he says to me, I'm leaving. I said, you're quitting the FBI? He goes, no, no, no. The director called me, I'm going to be the new head of the counterterrorism section in Washington. And he says he really needs me, so we're moving and moving quickly. Well, as it would turn out, That very week, I was heading down. I was a member of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee, which is, you know, Sarah, is 17 U.S. attorneys who are selected by the Attorney General from around the country to give advice and counsel to the AG and the DAG.

And get to spend quality time with the head of public affairs, which not every U.S. attorney gets that privilege. No, and although the head of public affairs during the Ashcroft years was not nearly as interesting as you, Sarah. So, hey, I worked for both Barbara Comstock and Mark Corallo. They are my mentors. And little side story here when I worked for Mark, one of my jobs is to bring him in the morning papers and I could sit there in his grand office and read them while he did his morning, you know, return calls to reporters. And I had this great memory post 9-11 also of him talking to, I don't know who.

And because all I hear is his side of the conversation. And he says, they want to to kill you, they want to kill me, and they want to kill all our families. And this was definitely about Patriot Act reauthorization. And that's how I learned to do my job. Yeah, well, and, and Carollo has taught us all a thing or two over the years, for sure. So I'm going to go down to this meeting and we're going to meet with Bob Mueller. So I show up early to the meeting with Bob Mueller, and I'm waiting outside the conference room and down he strides, former, you know, a former U.S. attorney, Marine Corps veterans striding straight and stiff down the hallway, Bob Mueller, with his entourage. And I said, director, can I speak to you for a moment? And he said,

of course, Chris. So we go off to the side a little bit. And he says, what's up? And I said, seriously, you're taking Joe Billy? I mean, didn't we talk about this? And he said, we did, but I need him down here. So, yeah, he's coming down here. I said, well, wait a second. I said, you promised me that the next person was going to stay at least two years, and you broken your promise. I mean, how the hell am I supposed to work with you if I can't take your word for anything? And he said to me, hey, you know what? I have priorities down here. This is what I have to do. He said, all I can say to you is, we'll try to get you a good person. And I said, well, then why did you promise me at all if that's the way it's going to be? And he said, live with it.

And I looked at it and I said, well, I said, you know what? I have a suggestion for you. I said, don't write checks with your mouth that your ass can't cash. And now other U.S. attorneys are walking into the conference room, and we're standing outside and they're hearing this. And then he looked at me and he said, fuck you. And I said, fuck you too. And then we walked into the conference room together. And Deborah Yang, who was the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles at the time, I was sitting

next to her. And I sat down and she goes, did you just tell the director of the FBI to fuck off? I said, no, I did not. I told him, fuck you. I said, and in response to him saying, fuck you to me first, so I think it's permissible. And some of the people in that room, Sarah, that day, Debra Yang, Patrick Fitzgerald, Jim Comey,

this was a cavalcade, Paul McNulty, this was a cavalcade of stars, and they all were like with their mouths wide open. What did you just do? I'm like, hey, after the meeting was over and Bob left, Then we had a conversation about that. They're like, what happened? So I explained the story.

And they said, and you basically just said, fuck you to him? I said, again, can I be clear here? He said it to me first. I said, now, maybe I shouldn't have said, don't write checks with your mouth that your ass can't cash. Maybe that was a, it is a New Jersey special. And he seemed, having spent most of his time in California, he seemed completely mystified by this statement, but he knew it was not flattering. And so, yeah, that was Mueller and I. And then fast forward, I didn't, you know, we worked together at a distance for the next five years or so when I was U.S. attorney.

And then it became governor and we really didn't have any interaction. But then when he was doing the Trump Russia investigation, I get called to come down and be interviewed in the Trump Russia investigation. You were part of the transition team, you know. I was the chairman of the transition team, so they wanted to know. I'll be it briefly. Actually, to be fair, I was chairman of the transition from April to November. It was just the after November part that I didn't get. They let me do all the unfund work and then let someone else do the fun work.

So I go down there and I'm being interviewed by a number of the lawyers who are on his team. and then the door swings open and in walks Bob Mueller. And he comes over to me and a stand-up and we shake hands. And I said, Bob, how are you? And he said, pretty good, governor. How are you doing? And I said, I'm doing just fine. I was still governor at the time when this interview went on.

And he said to me, so, writing any checks lately with your mouth that your ass can cash? And I looked at him and I said, as far as I know, there's only one of us in this room who's done that. And he laughed and said, I'm going to sit in on this interview. And I was like, feel free. And he sat down and sat in on what was a rather uneventful interview for about an hour. And it was over. And he gave me another hearty handshake on my way out. And that was, in fact, the last time that I ever saw Bob Mueller was in 2017 during that interview.

But he remembered, I mean, think about that. he remembered that insult from 14 years earlier. So it obviously made an impression. Well, that was going to be my question, because how, I guess from the shock around you, that a U.S. attorney and an FBI director don't normally tangle like that, that this is not, yeah, very hierarchical.

And although he's not your boss, he's bigger, I would suppose, in the pecking order. He's got some influence. Yeah, but I mean, the other thing to remember, too, David, is I was, this was 2003, so I was 40 years old at the time. So, you know, I think that your control of your temper at 40 is significantly different than it was at 50 and is now at 63.

And look, for me too, I felt like, and this is the stuff that always gets me and got me when I was U.S. attorney. I felt like if you're dealing with someone inside DOJ, and this is funny given what we're dealing with today, but I don't even dealing with someone inside DOJ, we could tell each other the truth. And if you made a promise, you were going to keep it. And so to me, I thought, God, the director of the FBI, Bob Mueller, he makes me a promise. I could take that to the bank and deposit it. And when he didn't, I was just like, I wanted him to know that I wasn't going to be played like some full. like some of these other people that he might be dealing with who would just be so scared of him

that they would let him walk all over him. I just, and by the way, the next special agent charge I got stayed for three years. So maybe it was effective. All right. When we get back, Governor Christie is in mourning related to our previous conversation. And we'll talk about why. Where are my gloves? Come on, heat. Any day now? Winter is hard, but your groceries don't have to be. This winter, stay warm.

Tap the banner to order your groceries online at walla.ca. Enjoy in-store prices without leaving your home. You'll find the same regular prices online as in-store. Many promotions are available both in-store and online, though some may vary. When West Jet first took flight in 1996, the vibes were a bit different. People thought denim on denim was peak fashion, inline skates were everywhere, and two out of three women rocked, the Rachel. While those things stayed in the 90s, one thing that hasn't is that fuzzy feeling you get

when WestJet welcomes you on board. Here's to WestJetting since 96. Travel back in time with us and actually travel with us at westjet.com slash 30 years. All right, Governor, there's two more big issues I want to discuss with you. one, the Department of Justice in its current state, as you alluded to. And two, I have been going around the country quite a bit lately. And the number one question that I get is the number one question that David and I have been getting since we started this podcast in 2019. Should I go to law school? So we're going to get to that in a second. But first, you said on Sunday

that you are in mourning for the Department of Justice. I guess I'm not as curious as to why, although I want you to say a little bit as to why now versus at any other point in the last year, but also what you think will happen next? Like what's the solution coming out of this? How do you get back to, you know, the Department of Justice that you and I walked through in the marble halls and the WPA artwork in the stairwells that was both beautiful and a little bit creepy sometimes, the baby faces. For whatever reason, they could not paint children very well.

So if you ever are in the Department of Justice, you're going to want to go to any of the stairwells because for some reason they were both very fond of and very poor at painting children's faces. And so they're all a little creepy. There's like a mom in like a wheat field holding a baby and you're like, that's not a baby, ma'am. I know the one you're talking about. That's very good. Very scary. Very scary. So why right now? Yeah, look, I'm someone who was a political appointee like you. So I had involvement in politics before I became U.S. attorney. But it was made very clear to me by John Ashcroft before I took the job, who also came from the world of politics, that our political days were over for the next number of years, however long we were in the Department of Justice. I don't want to interrupt because this is an.

important story, but just while we're on John Ashcroft, because I think some of our younger listeners will not know about his previous political career. And he was a U.S. Senator. Who cares? The point is, you need to go find the YouTube video of the Barbershop Quartet that John Ashcroft was a part of with other senators and him singing, Let the Eagle Fly, I believe, was the title of the song. We'll put it in the show notes. But, yeah, if you are... are under the age of 40, you're going to need to watch that if you haven't seen it. Because in the post-9-11 world, this was like a moment of levity that was not intended to be a moment of levity awkwardly.

Well, and that, see, you've now diverted me off to another absolutely necessary story. When John Ashcroft was leaving as Attorney General at the end of President Bush's first term, he invited those of us on the HAC, we invited him out to dinner. as a goodbye dinner in D.C. That man's not going to spend money on dinner. No, we took him out. We paid. Oh, okay, that he might be willing to do. I mean, he, like, one of my jobs at one point,

something I needed to bring him his lunch or come up during lunch. Anyway, it was the saddest brown bag. Not like brown bag in the colloquial sense. It was literally a brown bag with a smashed peanut butter and jelly sandwich. And that was it that the man had. It was depressing. He was not a big spender. You're absolutely right.

So we all took him out to dinner. And then he said, Janet, his wife's name is Janet, Janet and I would like you all to come back to the house for dessert. So, okay. So we come back to their house. They have this great brownstone house in Georgetown, or not in Georgetown, I'm on Capitol Hill, rather. And so we all come to the house. And it's one of those kitchens where there's a window into the kitchen with like a block that comes down. like and so she lifts up the window and she had made a cake. It's a big round, yellow cake with

chocolate icing. And she had a tub, like a half gallon of vanilla ice cream next to it. She's like, okay, everybody, grab your plates and come get some cake. And so she's, here's Janet Ashcroft serving as cake. We then go into their living room and there's a big bookcase in the living room. And as you probably know, Sarah, Janet Ashcroft has written one of the definitive text, law school text, on tax, on tax law. And there are all these books up there, first edition, second, third, fourth, fifth. Ashcroft takes us over and he says, is showing us the books and he goes, you all might wonder, how did I afford a house like this, having only been governor and the United States senator? He goes, it's these books. My wife has put me in the style to which I become a

custom. And then, oh yeah. I had no idea either. This is news to me. Yeah. Then John Ashcroft sits down at the piano and says, okay, we're all going to sing Christmas carols together. And he played a number of Christmas carols, no music in front of him. He plays completely by ear. And the first one he started was jingle bells. So he's and he's singing jingle bells, and we're all standing there, not doing anything. And he gets about three lines in to jingle bells, and he stops, and he goes, I'm still the attorney general. Sing. And so everybody has to sing jingle bells with John Ashcroft. And then we finished the cake, and he's like, okay, thanks for dinner. Good night, everybody. And we're up in

this neighborhood in Capitol Hill, and we all walk out. We have been brought there by Justice Department vans. So we thought the vans would still be out there to bring us back to our hotel. Oh, no. And there are no taxis anywhere. So here are 17 of supposedly the most prominent U.S. attorneys in the country who are wandering down the street on Capitol Hill looking for, oh, I don't know, six or seven taxis to take us back to our hotel. So John Ashcroft, so thrifty that he's he sent the vans back to DOJ while we were inside. We later found out that he was the one who sent the vans back. Oh, they'll get their way back.

Don't worry about it. I turned again to Deb Yang, the Los Angeles U.S. attorney, and while we were singing Christmas carols, and I said, can you believe this? As he's like, we'll be talking about this 20 years from now. And now here I am on advisory opinions, talking about it 20 years from now. So, you know, when you bring up John Ashcroft,

I think about his wife, Janet, how she was the one who made all the money, and him playing piano by ear and singing Christmas carols and demanding that we sing them with him in 2004. Well, let me tell you the difference between John Ashcroft and Jeff Sessions. When we went over at Christmas time to Attorney General Sessions' home, Mary Sessions, his wife, did not make us cake. She taught us her special eggnog recipe. and let me tell you, it's just a shot of whiskey with, like, that's what cures the egg. You basically

crack the egg into the whiskey and stir, and like, that's the ball game. It's incredible and, like, it's a totally different drink than eggnog is that you, like, buy at the grocery store that's, like a custardy flavor thing. Like, that is not Mary Sessions eggnog. And she gave me her cookbook that has the eggnog recipe in it. So every year I make everyone else try this incredible eggnog because you haven't had eggnog, in my opinion, until you've had Mary Sessions Eggnog. And don't you feel that that is a metaphor

for Attorney General Ashcroft versus Attorney General Sessions? Yeah, I mean, you know, you want to think about sentences you never thought you'd hear said out loud in your lifetime. You ain't had eggnog, so you had Mary Sessions' Eggnog. Like not something that I really thought I'd ever hear out loud. I thank you, Sarah, for that. You've contributed to... Alabama don't mess around, y'all.

Apparently not. And, you know, there's Jeff, you know, counting the money out of the collection plate of church and then getting hammered on the eggnog. That's great. Very good. I mean, a story repeated a million times across the South. I mean...

So Ashcroft told us, no politics, your political life for the next number of years is over, and it is a firing offense. If I see you getting involved in partisan politics in any way, I will recommend to the president that you be fired. And he told us each one of us that individually, when we went for our meeting with the Attorney General right before we were, the president signed our commissions. And so to see Todd Blanche go to CPAC,

first of all, just going to CPAC. is breathtaking, breathtaking. Then to see him become this master suck up, how am I going to get this group of people to cheer for what is in essence a Wall Street lawyer who these people at CPAC hate as much as anybody? So how am I going to get them to cheer for a Wall Street lawyer? I'm going to tell them that anybody who was ever involved,

in any investigation of President Trump, either a lawyer inside DOJ or an agent inside the FBI, has been purged. They're gone. In fact, he said, there's no one with a gun who has, you know,

investigated President Trump at the FBI. And here's the ironic thing about this Justice Department. They expect every one of their employees right now, career employees, to do exactly what they're told by them, yet they fired dozens and dozens and dozens of employees who only did the very same thing, which was to follow orders from politically appointed

and Senate-confirmed superiors to conduct investigations that were directed to them by the Attorney General of the United States and his leadership team. I mean, the hypocrisy of Todd Blanche is nauseating. And look, I served under a number of different DAGs when I was U.S. Attorney. Larry Thompson, who I think is one of the finest attorneys and people that I've ever met. Then Jim Comey, not one of the finest attorneys and human beings I've ever met. Paul McNulty, he was in charge during the U.S. attorney,

firing scandal. That's about all you need to know. None of them, though, despite whatever my personal feelings might be, none of them would have ever gone to CPAC. They wouldn't have gone to their local municipal Republican club. And it just shows that the only object of anyone in senior leadership in the Trump administration is to suck up to the boss. That's it. That's their only objective. suck up to the boss, and that's what Todd Blanche was doing by showing up at CPAC. Let me guarantee you something. When Todd Blanche leaves the Trump administration, he'll never be at CPAC again, ever. He only went to suck up to the President of the United States and to gloat over firing decent public servants

who did what they were ordered to do by their Senate-confirmed superiors. fealty, which they demands without exception now. I want to be thoughtful about sharing some of the details of this. But when I was at the Office of Public Affairs, the head of the office is responsible for the attorney general. And then you have usually your political deputy who's responsible for the deputy attorney general. But of course, I had two attorneys general.

I had an attorney general and an acting attorney general. And then he was also the deputy attorney general. And so we had to sort of shuffle how we did things. So I handled the acting attorney general and the attorney general. And my political deputy handled deputy attorney general world. But that still left the team that was working for Mueller in that investigation, which, of course, had endless media needs and public affairs stuff going on. And so I assigned one of my career staff. And I wanted to be very thoughtful about that.

obviously I wanted someone who was very talented to be able to handle just the huge amount that was incoming on that investigation. But I also was looking for a certain temperament. And so I picked the most hardworking and talented career guy on my team who also had been hired during the Bush administration, again, as a career, but nevertheless, and had a conservative temperament. That's why I picked him for the Mueller team because I didn't want someone who was like a rabid, you know, super liberal who's like going to go after Trump or leak things to the media in order to hurt the president, et cetera. So that's the person they went and fired as soon as they came in this time.

And like there's no thought to like why that person might have been picked in the first place and that they're literally getting rid of someone who as a career guy had far more in common with their, you know, with conservatism at least than lots of the other people. And like, that's why a lot of these people were picked by politicals. And it's, as you said, it's endlessly upsetting because they, they did what was asked of them and what their duty was in the department, the very thing that we ask of civil servants. And that's why they were fired. And there was no thought given to the hard work, the talent, the dedication, and the fact that it's what they expect of the rest of the staff that's there, which is galling.

I lack a better term. And by the way, Sarah, you know, the idea that they posit is that these investigations into President Trump were all completely political and without basis. Yet, grand juries indicted on this evidence. Grand juries indicted. Now, at the time, what did you hear from Trump people? Oh, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. Well, now that they're in charge, what do we have happening?

They can't get those ham sandwiches are getting away with murder. And so are they now going to fire the agents and the lawyers who were involved in bringing those cases? because obviously against James Comey and Letitia James and others, they were baseless because the grand juries, no, build them. No, they won't do that. So, I mean, Todd Blanche, you know, I said this yesterday on ABC, and it bears repeating, I think. You know, this is the administration that now has us in the midst of a war in Iran,

I think to end Iran's nuclear ambitions. That they're the same administration that in June of last year told us that Operation Midnight Hammer had obliterated the nuclear capability of Iran. And anybody who thinks they could rebuild that in, you know, eight months, hasn't been following the history of this endeavor. What's being obliterated is not the nuclear program in Iran. The reputation of the Justice Department is being obliterated. And Todd Blanche, who had a good reputation inside DOJ before he got involved with the president of the United States, is now obliterating his reputation.

I can't imagine that there would be a sane law firm or a sane client who would hire this guy after he gets out of there. I know some will, because there are plenty of insane clients, but there are no sane ones who would hire a guy who would so sell his soul to be Deputy Attorney General of the United States. It profit a man, nothing, to sell his whole soul for the world, but for DAG? I mean, seriously, for the DAG? Come on. So how do we put Humpty Dumpty back together again?

I mean, I feel like people don't understand the magnitude of what we've lost, because you could have the next administration, let's say it's a Democratic administration, they could double down on this. You could have a Democratic DAG and an Act Blue convention next time, or maybe they say we need to restore, return to normalcy. But even then, you're trying to knit back together again customs and habits and practices that were built up over years and years with no assurance that the next administration, when you repair these customs and habits will appreciate the effort at all.

And so how is Humpty Dumpty reassembling here? And can I just mention a rumor that I've been hearing? And I want to be clear that, like, yes, I started it, but, like, nevertheless, I want to ask you about it. What if Rahm Emanuel won the presidency and appointed, like, a former U.S. attorney who was, like, a Republican to be attorney general? like he'd been the 55th governor of a state, like any state will do, but like just 55th governor of a state, I think is important. But like, you know, a Democratic president picking a Republican

attorney general, would that, would that be something that one should consider? I think the first thing is the next president has to care about it, about putting Humpty Dumpty back together. If the next president does not care about it, it won't happen. And then I do think, as Sarah just suggested, having nothing to do with me, but I think whoever the next president is, Republican or Democrat, should give serious thought to appointing someone to the opposite party. And that they're charged to that person who would have to be someone that they, I think, that they knew and completely trusted their integrity, that they would say to them, look, I don't want to know anything about the criminal. investigations that are going on at the Justice Department. I just want to know that they're being done with one goal in mind, and that is to achieve justice. And go and do your job. Now, on policy stuff, yeah, we're going to have to talk about the policy of what we do on the president, you know,

and you have to, you know, we have to work together on that. But on anything having to do criminal investigations, and I want you to instruct your U.S. attorneys, that if there is a hint of partisanship, that they will be fired. Now, if you get a president who's willing to do that, and an attorney general is willing to partner with them, I think after six to eight years, we could have restored some trust. But it's going to take that long, even under that construct,

because there's still going to be conspiracy theorists all over this country who are going to say, no matter what they do, that, you know, they're in the tank. You have to provide at least as much time as it's taken for them to break this. And quite frankly, I think it really started with Eric Holder and the Obama administration and the president picking his wingman to BDAG,

kind of like Nixon picking John Mitchell. I think Obama's selection of Holder was just as flawed as Nixon picking John Mitchell. It started then slowly and is obviously accelerated during the Trump and Biden years. And it's another reason why the other thing for sure is the next president of the United States should be under 75 years old.

So you guys are out? How dare you? How dare you? I won't be 75. For months. So 2033. So calm down. 75. No, I won't be 75 until 2037.

Oh, he's already losing some of his faculties, you guys. He doesn't even do it. I couldn't pass to the test apparently that Trump is passing. you know, for cognitive ability because it's so difficult. But look, I just think that, David, that's the only way to do it. Because anybody from your own party who you were to appoint, it would be very difficult for a large part of the country to believe that they weren't acting in a way that was partisan.

And, you know, when I was U.S. attorney, there was a lot of talk about those kind of things because we did 130 political corruption prosecutions in seven years. 60 plus percent of them Democrats. And oh, is he being partisan? I said, look, I'm happy to have any of the cases examined. And the first time someone's found not guilty, like, go ahead.

And, you know, we can examine that one. But juries have found every one of these people guilty or, quite frankly, like Charles Kushner, they pled guilty pre-indictment. So, you know, a fact is that we did that in New Jersey but even during that time when we didn't have any losses, there were still people who thought there might be some partisanship involved.

And so, you know, it's going to take a long time to fix it. And when I hear Democrats say, oh, he's a threat to democracy. I don't think Donald Trump is a threat to democracy. I think what he is is a threat to our democratic institutions. And I think that's different. We're not going to not have elections. We're not going to have a dictator or a king. We're not going to have any of those things.

but he is destroying institutions like the Department of Justice. David, I'm very torn on this question, and I think you and I are probably going to come out on opposite ends of it. So we'll see if Governor Christie would be the tiebreaker here. Assume it's a Democratic administration that comes in. Assume they don't follow your advice, Governor, and it's a, you know, democratic ally of the president, but a high integrity one.

Or for that matter, assume it is someone, you know, who's a Republican, it's you. Let's make you attorney general. Do you take a pass on investigating people from this administration who you have a high belief committed a crime potentially, but in order to restore the institution and restore trust and norms, you got to kind of take a pass on this or else it's just going to be this tit for tat and back and forth because people aren't really going to know the difference between investigations that are partisan versus meaningful because that difference can be a little bit in the eye of the beholder. David, I'm curious what your take on that is. Well, first, I think it's not ever going to be a dilemma because I think

Trump is going to be pardoning at scale. Okay, assume he doesn't or assume there's someone who doesn't get the pardon or whatever. Like, from a philosophical standpoint, would you tell your Department of Justice to stand down on those things? I would not say to stand down on a criminal investigation, although what I would try to do, because the one thing that I would be very worried about is these revolving purges. So you come in and you have a Democratic administration comes in and then just starts purging everybody who was sort of brought in because, you know, right now the DOJ is having trouble hiring. They're looking at people right out of law. school, which they've, you know, typically have not done. So I think I would look at it and sort of say,

if you're an employee, everyone's sort of amnestyed. I'm just going to judge you on how you do your job while you're under my, you know, my direction. But when it comes to the criminal investigations, you know my song and dance, Sarah, about accountability and immunity. I just don't see how we're making our country better without accountability and by extending so much immunity. And so, you know, That's why I've done a complete 180 on the Ford pardon of Nixon is we've just been going down a road where if you ascend to a certain level of power in the government, then you operate with a degree of impunity. That, by the way, the founders would boggle the founder's mind because a lot of these things that they would have said, if you're George Mason and you could see into the future and you're in the Virginia ratification debate and you're running through these non-hypos that have occurred. you know, in the distant future, James Madison would be sitting there going, oh, all those people have been impeached. I mean, obviously. Like, of course they're impeached. There's just no way that's

not happening. This is the same James Madison that was a total lackey for Jefferson. So I disagree, at least later, my second James Madison, where he has his brain transplant. Governor, I still think that the Ford pardon of Nixon was correct for the country. Well, let me first start off that. I thought that you guys were like, one of the things on this show was that you watched what the United States Supreme Court was doing. David's talking as if the recent decision on Trump immunity didn't happen. I mean, like, how do you, you know, the United States Supreme Court has granted enormously broad, in my view, and I think incorrectly granted enormously broad immunity to the President of the United States. And so some of this stuff, as to the president, even post office, is not even hypothetical. It's just impossible, given the current state of the law in the country.

And I was stunned by that decision. But to be clear, I'm going to push back here. I didn't like the decision in terms of how it was written or lack of writing. But DOJ filed the exact same charges against Donald Trump, like statutory charges. The second the Supreme Court had that decision, and it would have moved forward. but for him winning the election. So like, How do you know it would have moved forward?

How do you know it would not have been dismissed by a district court judge based upon that decision? I mean, when I read that decision, I think it would have been dismissed. Fair enough. We can arm wrestle over that. But they changed their theory to all, you know, that it was all unofficial conduct and therefore they could move forward with it. It's at least a-

Yeah, I know, but that's a factual determination, Sarah. Fair, but we at least have the outstanding question of whether, the Supreme Court decision would have prevented the exact prosecution in question from moving forward. They refiled same charges. Yeah, look, I do not want to get into an argument about the Supreme Court's decision in the Trump case with you, except to say that you're wrong. So, but let me tell you that I agree with you. Look, if I were in that position, I wouldn't use the phrase take a pass, but what I would say to my folks is the bar is now significantly higher. The bar is not beyond a reasonable doubt, and it's higher than that.

And if you're going to bring me a criminal case against the last administration, then it's going to have to be a slam dunk headshot that the simpleton in second year of law school would go, oh, yeah, that definitely is a crime. I mean, that's the kind of thing that they would have, the kind of place they would have to reach. And when they complain to me about it, which they would, I'd say to them, this is what we've inherited. And it's not the way I would normally operate. It wasn't the way I operated when I had prosecutorial authority. But this is different now.

And we're here to serve the country. And I'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat situation over this stuff. And I do agree with you that the Ford pardon was correct. and the Ford pardon in my view was correct because the country is more important than the criminal liability of any one person. Which is why the Ford pardon was incorrect. No, it's just wrong, David. I mean, the fact is the country needed to move on from it. And the idea of having some year, year and a half long criminal trial of Richard Nixon would have put, set the country,

back even further. Richard Nixon was punished in a way that no one else in the history of this country has been punished. He resigned the presidency of the United States after being reelected with 49 of the 50 states. If you don't think that that's an ample punishment, you don't because you've never been elected to an executive position by the people of your state or your country and to have to look and give that back because of your own conduct. is a greater punishment in my view than spend in 18 months at a federal prison camp at Allenwood. I'm letting the governor have the last word here, but it's a short preview because we're going to tangle again very soon. On April 9th, we're going to be debating governor the legality of sports gambling at Chicago, University of Chicago.

And I've been thinking hard about what to name this clash because, you know, the war on the shore is taken. The thrill and manila is taken. the rumble in the jungle, and there's no shore, there's no manila, there's no jungle. And the stakes are lower than actual physical combat, and it's at the University of Chicago. I was thinking something more lighthearted, like the lark and hide park. But I don't know. I don't know. David, you could call it whatever you like. But I can't imagine that we're going to have a disagreement over the legality of sports betting in America

because it seems to me that it's crystal clear. But hey, I can't wait to get out to Chicago. I think that's the 9th, right of April. Can't wait to get out there to find out what fococta position you're going to be taking on sports gambling in Chicago on the 9th. I'm just asking you, Governor, whatever happens, don't ruby owe me. Do not ruby owe me. I was going to come into this and talk some trash and everything.

But then I realized I watched the demolition of a presidential candidacy in like 90 seconds. And I thought, well, I was just refrain from the normal trash talk and just, you know, ask for a tad bit of forbearance, maybe, just like 5%. No forbearance. No forbearance of any kind. If you're going to name this thing, you get no forbearance. There is the Ford pardon of Nixon on which David and I disagree, though I see his position.

I just can't get there. I was raised to believe that that was one of the great, you know, political sacrifices for the country what Ford did. But the other great thing that David and I disagree about is when a college student asks, I love your podcast. Should I go to law school? What would you tell them, governor? I'll tell them what I, because I do get asked this a decent amount by folks when I go to universities. And what I would say is, it's a great education.

It's a great way to learn how to think, how to analyze problems, and how to create craft compromise and to understand where our country came from and what it's based on. Because my view's always been that this country is at bottom based upon freedom from government oppression and the rule of law. And so I think it's a great education to get. You don't have to go be a practicing attorney if you don't want to. You don't have to go to big law and, you know, bait stamp documents for three years. You don't have to, you know, do any of that if you don't want to.

But I think that most people I know who have taken their law, legal education seriously, have benefited from getting a law degree, whether you wind up being a practicing lawyer or not. And when you look at a number of people who have been enormously successful in pursuits that are outside of the practice of law, a large percentage of those people have a JD degree. and I do think that that is at least a contributing factor to why they've been successful. So I don't know where each one of you have landed on this. No, it's because the incentives are so well aligned to get the hell out of a law firm. No, I'm taking the dub on this one.

Sarah, you know I just took the dub on that one. That was, I have the governor on my side. I mean, which... Sarah tells people not to go to law school? I tell people don't go to law school unless you know what it means and want to be a lawyer at a law firm. Why is that the requirement? Because too often they look at people like you and think that looks awesome. I want to be Chris.

And it's like, no, that's very, very statistically unlikely because they don't really know what the denominator is because all the people that they see with those, you know, doing fun jobs have JD's. But like, that's misleading because those people basically were so miserable at law firms. They decided to do anything but. And I will note, took real things. pay cuts to do it. And so you've also got to avoid that golden handcuff problem, which a lot of people get trapped in. Sarah, I'm statistically unlikely, okay? When I entered law school in 1984, if someone had told me, oh, by the way, in 17 years, you're going to be U.S. attorney. and then 25 years from now, you're going to be elected governor of New Jersey.

I would have told them they were crazy, outright and nuts. I don't think, at least my view has always been, and this is what I've told my children, too. You don't decide what you want to do with your life based upon statistical probabilities. You decide what you want to do with your life based on what you think may bring meaning to your life. and then figure out how to make money at it, then figure out how to be successful at it. But if you're miserable with what you do, then none of the rest of it's worth it.

So, you know, the way you get rid of golden handcuffs at Big Law? Stop being miserable and leave, okay? I don't think any of this stuff is a death sentence. So I am, given what you've done with your life, with the education that you've received and earned, it's stunning to me that somebody like you would advise others not to, and I can only conclude that it's because you don't want the competition. I think that's fair too.

Yeah, I meet a lot of these young people that are incredibly talented, and I'm like, yeah, definitely don't, don't do that. That high school kid, I'm going to be out of the workforce by the time she gets in. I'm done. I listen to her. Just to be clear here, I got the win and you got a scolding. Like, this is the best. That's true, actually.

Now, at this point, it's a full win and a scolding. But, Governor, so when I graduated from law school, the starting salary was 190 at Big Law, and I made 65. And so everyone else took a fun bar trip to Asia and toured around amazing places. I went to go work at the NRSC. And by the way, how has it? it turned out? If you are willing to do that because you want one of these careers, that's great. But I think a lot of people want both, right? They want the big loss salary and they want to be, you know, David French when they grow up. Well, any kind of dipshit who thinks you can have both

is going to fail whether they go to law school or not. That's that. Okay? I mean, like, like, I don't think that, you know, like, if you think you can have your cake and eat it too, if that's what your goal is in life, forget it. You're probably not going to get a either. And so, you know, part of your job as a parent, and given how young your children are, I can give you this advice, Sarah, is to make your children understand that there's only two things in life they can control. This is the other thing that I tell college students all the time. There are only two things in your professional life you can control. How hard you work and how you treat other people. And if you work hard and you treat other people with respect and dignity and integrity and

kindness, you're going to land pretty well. Well, that's a great place to end on. I'm trying to teach my five-year-old about trade-offs. And so yesterday, he wanted to play ski ball. So we took him to the arcade, but we got home too late to make his favorite, you know, just like a whole chicken in the oven. He calls it inside chicken. So he was going to bed and the inside chicken wasn't ready yet. And so I explained what tradeoffs are. And I said, so knowing what you know now, would you rather have played ski ball but not gotten an inside chicken or gotten the inside chicken but not gotten to play ski ball? And he thought for a moment and he said, for a lot of other chickens, McDonald's, Chick-fil-A, I would rather play ski ball. But for inside chicken, I wish we hadn't gone.

And that says something about your ability, Sarah, to prepare. To be clear, it's got, I don't do the inside chicken. He says that mommy's omelets are better than daddy's, but daddy does inside chicken. I love it that you're teaching him tradeoffs at age five. Does this mean like age six is going to be dangers of central planning and road to serfdom? David, do you have any doubt about that? I mean, come on, like zero doubt. That's exactly.

This kid is, this kid, you know what this kid needs to do? I'm going to tell you right now, Sarah. he needs to come up this summer for a week to stay with Uncle Chris. Oh, no. He needs to stay with Uncle Chris at the Jersey Shore. And let me just say, he'll learn tradeoffs all right. And he'll learn a lot of other stuff too. And since ski ball was invented here in New Jersey,

in Atlantic City, New Jersey, was invented. We could take him to the original ski ball machines. And he can play ski ball like he's never played it before. And there might be a few other things that he might learn here at the Jersey Shore in the summer. It's where all young men learn lots of important lessons. I think I've seen some movies about that. All right, everyone, this was your special AO treat. a little Mrs. Ashcroft yellow cake with chocolate frosting on a plate a la mode, Governor Chris Christie. Thank you for joining us.

Sarah, David, thank you. And Sarah, I think we're going to need to come back after the lark in Hyde Park to be able to review what happened on April 9th in Chicago. And by the way, no calling Marco between. now in April 9th getting hints, all right? Team A-O, thank you for having me. Okay, David, that's it for us today. If you like what we're doing here, there are a few easy ways to support us.

You can rate, review, and subscribe to the show on your podcast player of choice to help new listeners find us, and we hope you'll consider becoming a member of the dispatch, unlocking access to bonus podcast episodes and all of our exclusive newsletters and articles. You can sign up at the dispatch.com slash join, and if you use promo code A.O., you'll get one month free and help me win the ongoing, deeply scientific,

internal debate over which dispatch podcast is the true flagship. And if ads aren't your thing, you can upgrade to a premium membership at the dispatch.com slash premium. That'll get you an ad-free feed and early access to all episodes, two gift memberships to give away, access to exclusive town halls with our founders, and a place in our hearts forever. As always, if you've got questions, comments, concerns, or corrections, you can email us at advisory opinions at the dispatch.

We read everything, even the ones that say David's right. That's going to do it for our show today. Thanks so much for tuning in. We'll see you next time.