The Bulwark Podcast - Chris Christie: Why I Want to Beat Trump

Episode Date: June 20, 2023

Gov. Christie joins Charlie Sykes to explain campaign strategy, his error in judgment in 2016, and how Trump knows he lost. Plus, why Trump voters expect him to join the candidate debates, and the worst manager in the history of the presidency. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This message comes from BetterHelp. Can you think of a time when you didn't feel like you could be yourself? Like you were hiding behind a mask? BetterHelp Online Therapy is convenient, flexible, and can help you learn to be your authentic self so you can stop hiding. Because masks should be for Halloween fun, not for your emotions. Take off the mask with BetterHelp. Visit BetterHelp.com today to get 10% off your first month. That's BetterHelp, H-E-L-P, dot com.

This is an ad by BetterHelp Online Therapy. October is the season for wearing masks and costumes, but some of us feel like we wear a mask and hide more often than we want to. At work, in social settings, around our family. Therapy can help you learn to accept all parts of yourself so you can stop hiding and take off the mask. Because masks should be for Halloween fun, not for your emotions. Therapy is a great tool for facing your fears and finding ways to overcome them. If you're thinking of starting therapy, but you're afraid of what you might uncover, give BetterHelp a try.

It's entirely online, designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist and switch therapists at any time for no additional charge. Take off the mask with BetterHelp. Visit betterhelp.com today to get 10% off your first month. That's BetterHelp, H-'ve been promising this for some time. And so, of course, we're going to be sitting down today with the former governor of the state of New Jersey,

Chris Christie, who identifies himself on his Twitter handle as husband, proud father, former governor and U.S. attorney, Springsteen fan, running for president. Good morning, Governor Christie. Charlie, thanks for having me. Well, we're going to get to the what were you thinking question a little bit later, but I want to start off with last night. I'm sure that like a lot of other folks, you were watching the former president sit down with Brett Baer. They covered a lot of ground. Where do you want to start on all of this? I want to talk about the personnel record of the president, all the very best people he hired. But as a former U.S. attorney, I just wanted to get your take on what he said about the indictment against him, his acknowledgement that he

had the records, that he was too busy to look at them, did not deny that, in fact, he defied a grand jury subpoena. Your reaction, did he make things worse for himself last night? Well, I think the best way to answer that, Charlie, is to say that what I was thinking as I was watching it was that his defense lawyers were jumping out of whatever window that was nearest to them as they listened to him essentially admit on national television that he engaged in obstruction of justice by saying, yeah, you know, we got the subpoena, but I wasn't giving him any boxes until I had time to go through it. And two things struck me there. One, that he had just admitted obstruction of justice on national television. And two, what the hell was he busy doing? I mean, it seemed to me every time I saw him, he was playing golf, you know, and maybe traveling to Doral to play golf and then back up to Palm Beach to play golf and giving interviews

to people who were writing books. That's more important than complying with a grand jury subpoena. I think it tells you everything you need to know about Donald Trump is that when he decides he doesn't want to do something, he just doesn't do it. The other thing was to say that the important stuff that he had to get out of those boxes before they went to National Archives were his golf shirts and golf pants and God knows what else. One, I don't believe that. But two, if it were true, how extraordinary that he was concerned that the National Archives wouldn't send back his golf shirts. I kind of doubt that they would care about those too much. He also once again acknowledged that he knew that as a former

president, he could not declassify the documents. He said, you know, when I said that I couldn't declassify it now, that's because I wasn't president. I never made any bones about that. When I'm not president, I can't declassify. That seemed like an interesting admission. I'm guessing that Jack Smith was taking notes. I think Jack and his team was probably very happy to hear the president admit that again, as he had on the tape recording that they have of him that day, talking about the Iranian battle plan that he now claims he never had. It's interesting, Charlie, you know, when you hear him last night speaking, what you realize is what a child he really is. He essentially, you know, got his hand caught in the

cookie jar. He has the cookie crumbs all over his mouth. And he looks at us as his parents and says, no, I didn't have any cookies. For any parent that's out there, you know, you would send a kid like that to his room. You wouldn't send them to the White House. Okay. So the other thing that went viral was Brett Baer's question about all the best people that he hired. And I know that you have a Twitter thread on that this morning. Let's just play this as Brett Baer walks through all of the people who had been appointed, had been named to high office by Donald Trump, who have now broken with him. In 2016, you said that I'm going to surround myself with only the best and most serious people. Well, I did do that. This time. We had tremendous luck. We had the best economy we've ever had. This time. The world has ever seen.

Your vice president, Mike Pence, is running against you. Yeah. Your ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, she's running against you. Your former secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, said he's not supporting you. You mentioned National Security Advisor John Bolton. He's not supporting you either. You mentioned Attorney General Bill Barr says you shouldn't be president again. He calls you a consummate narcissist and troubled man you recently called, and Barr, a gutless

pig. Your second defense secretary is not supporting you, called you irresponsible. This week you and your White House, called your White House chief of staff John Kelly weak and ineffective and born with a very small brain. You called your acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney a born loser. You called your first secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, dumb as a rock, and your first defense secretary, James Mattis, the world's most overrated general. You called your White House press secretary, Kayleigh Kennedy, milquetoast, and multiple times you've referred to your transportation secretary, Elaine Chao, as Mitch McConnell's China-loving wife. So why did you hire all of them?

What does this tell you, Governor Christie? Because I think he said some choice things about you as well. Yes, he did. He did hire some very good people. And there were some really extraordinary people on that list. But what they learned, and it's one of the reasons I never took a job in the Trump administration, what they learned was that you're not allowed to disagree with them. And if you do, that's the way you're going to be treated. I remember telling

John Kelly when he first took the chief of staff's job, I said, here's all you need to know. You're trading at a hundred cents on the dollar today. You will trade to zero. The only question is how long will it take? And you see that with every one of those people, because what Brett didn't do, which I did in the tweet that I was putting out the day before the interview, was saying what he said when he hired them, which was nothing but laudatory things. I mean, the same guy in John Kelly, who he called ineffective with a small brain, he said was, you know, a great American and one of our best generals. About Mattis, he said he's the best general we've had since Patton. Now he calls him an overrated general. So it's not just the horrible things he says on the

way out. It's what he says on the way in and how that changes and what caused that change was those people disagreed with him. He will not put up with anyone disagreeing with him or anyone getting credit for anything other than him. And if either of those things happen, you are bound for the toilet and about to be flushed down it. And all those people and many more that weren't mentioned. Mark Milley as well, he mentioned that whole parade where he said that, you know, Mark Milley was a blanking idiot. All those things are an indicator of why I say he is the worst manager that we've had in the American presidency in my memory.

In turning that around, you have these voices coming from within the House. You have Bill Barr, who was very much a Trump loyalist. You have his former Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, who are saying how reckless and irresponsible he is. You had been a supporter of Donald Trump, and you're very, very clear on how you feel about him now. Does it make a difference? I guess the question is, given the state of play in the Republican Party right now, the electorate, the fact that people who had been in the Republican Party right now, the electorate, the fact that people who had been in the room when Donald Trump was making decisions, who were closely with him,

who saw him in the raw, are saying, don't do this again. This man is erratic. He's narcissistic. He is a child. Does that break through? Does that make a difference to the voters? I think it does, because I think you didn't have any of that happening in 2016 from anyone who had ever worked with him. And you certainly didn't have much of any of it in 2020 either. And so this is going to be the first election where he's standing up as a candidate, where there are people who have worked with him closely, directly, have had his trust, who are now saying he is an absolutely unacceptable alternative for president. I don't think it's a silver bullet, Charlie, and I don't

think it happens overnight. But I think the repetition of this message over the course of the next six to seven months will break through when combined with the criminal charges that have been brought against him and more that may still be brought against him between now and when anybody even starts to vote in Iowa or New Hampshire. Okay, we'll double back to all of that, but we have to do the obligatory, what were you thinking segment of all of this. And this will be my edited version of it because I have to say that it is still burned in my retina watching you stand behind Donald Trump. And I was thinking, what were you thinking? February 26th, 2016. Here's the lead in Politico. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie endorsed

presidential frontrunner Donald Trump on Friday in a stunning announcement that adds fuel to the real estate mogul's runaway campaign. Governor, you arguably contributed as much as anyone to making Donald Trump happen and make him president. What were you thinking? The F-bomb is implied. And I feel it, so you don't even have to say it. And I've read it before. Here's what I was thinking. First, I was convinced after the South Carolina primary that the race was over. He had nearly won Iowa. He had won New Hampshire two to one. And he had won South Carolina by double digits. And so my view on it was it was over.

And if anybody but Donald Trump had done that, whether it was Mitt Romney four years earlier, anybody else, the media would have been declaring it over. And in my view, it was over. Secondly, I didn't want Hillary Clinton to be president under any circumstances. Third, I'd had a relationship at that time with Donald Trump for 15 years. And so my view of it was he listened to me and that I could make a difference, make him a better candidate. And if he won, make him a better president. Now, I turned out to be wrong. And I've admitted that. I was wrong.

But that was what I was thinking at the time and why I made the decision that I did. I do think that my endorsement has been overplayed a bit in terms of the impact that it had ultimately on the primary. I think he would have won anyway. But in the end, you want to know what I was thinking? Those were three things I was thinking. One, that it was over. Two, that given the nature of our relationship, I thought I could make him a better candidate. And if he won, a better president.

And three, because I didn't want Hillary Clinton under any circumstances to be president. And so on part two, I was wrong. I couldn't make him a better candidate or better president. And I didn't have a full understanding of that at the time. But believe me, I came to understand that over the next number of years. The problem I had with the I wanted to beat Hillary argument is this was February. It was still early. Yes, there was tremendous momentum, but it wasn't over. You were one of the first major political figures to endorse Donald Trump. There were a lot of other people who, you know, did not think that this thing was completely done. You could have gone a number of different directions.

They were wrong. I was on that stage. Okay. There was nobody on that stage that was left who had the ability to be able to beat Donald Trump. Marco Rubio had shown his failings by the time of the New Hampshire debate in 2016. Ted Cruz was a uniquely unlikable public figure who was not going to sway anybody. John Kasich couldn't get one governor to endorse him, even when the only two alternatives left were Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. And Ben Carson, in my view, was never a serious candidate for president. So when you look at who was left in that race, I think it was over. Now, you know, in the end, I had people at the tail end then, you know, talk about, you know, we should do something different like Mitt Romney. But I said to Romney, the chance you had to make a difference in this race was if you, he liked both

me and Marco, if he had endorsed either one of us before New Hampshire, where he could have had a really big impact, he chose to stay on the sidelines. So the other thing, Charlie, I think you need to think about here is that a lot of leaders of our party, including all but four of our governors, right? Paula Page, Charlie Baker, and Larry Hogan endorsed me. And Governor Bentley, who was later convicted of a felony, endorsed Sean Kasich. Every other Republican governor sat on the sidelines and did nothing. And so there are those of us who did something that you disagree with. I would tell you that

guys like Scott Walker, guys like Doug Ducey, Bill Haslam, you know, Phil Bryant in Mississippi, Rick Scott in Florida. They all sat by and did nothing. And I would argue to you that contributed just as much, if not more, to Donald Trump getting the nomination than my endorsement did. I want to get to this, you know, why you're doing this right now and your breaking point. But back then you did endorse him and there were a lot of reports that you wanted to be his vice presidential running mate and later his chief of staff. Did you? And are you glad that you didn't get those positions? He asked me to be vetted for vice president and I allowed myself to be vetted. I never

in a million years thought I'd be asked. One, because of the regional comedy, I would put it, between a New York and a New Jersey guy, I didn't think he'd pick me. And two, quite frankly, he knew me well and he knew I was not going to be somebody who would sit by and not express my opinions when I felt they needed to be. So I didn't think he'd pick me. In the end, when he called to tell me he was picking Mike Pence, the reason he gave was he goes, come on, Chris. He said, you're not a vice president. He goes, look at Pence. He's straight out of Central Casting.

And I couldn't argue with him about that. I was offered chief of staff, Charlie, in December of 2018 by the president. I turned it down because I just didn't believe I could effectively work for him. He also offered me secretary of labor. He offered me secretary of Homeland Security twice. And I turned all of them down because at that point I'd already known there was no way I thought I could effectively work for him. And the only thing that I did show willingness and did do was to chair the opioid commission. And that was because I knew that that was not something he was going to be involved in

on a day-to-day basis. He basically gave me free reign to run it as I wanted to run it. He even allowed me to select the people who were going to be on the commission. And I think we came through with a really effective report, all of which he adopted. And half of our 120 recommendations were actually adopted statutorily by Congress. So that was the one thing that I agreed to do because I cared about that issue. And also because he promised me and did deliver autonomy for me to make those decisions because he trusted that I knew that issue better than he did. One more question about this period. You were the head of the transition committee until shortly after the election, after which you were fired. And the suggestion at the time was that it was at the urging of

Jared Kushner because you had rather famously put Jared Kushner's father in prison. Is that correct, first of all? Do you think it was Jared Kushner that got you act from that position? No, I know it was. I was told that both by Steve Bannon at the time and later by the president himself. Raising Jared Kushner's father again, talk to me a little bit about the way Donald Trump has used the pardon power of the presidency, used it to, at least according to the Mueller report, perhaps obstruct justice, but also to reward friends and to let Jared Kushner's father go free. All presidents have a pardon power. Do you believe that Donald Trump abused his pardon power? Well, look, I think that he abused it first and foremost by using it for a family member. You know, I just don't think that's

appropriate to do. And I don't know, I don't know of any other time in American history where a president used their pardon power to pardon a member of their family. And I think the pardon of Charlie Kushner was not only ill-advised from that perspective, but having been the person who prosecuted that case, you know, he pled guilty to every count of a criminal complaint. I think there's no question about his guilt in what he did and the really horrible nature of the crimes that he committed, ironically, against his own family members. And that's what made it even wilder that Trump used his pardon power to pardon Charlie Kushner. But I think in a general sense, he used it in the way

that he uses a lot of power and authority, which is to make himself look more powerful and to strike retribution against people or institutions that have disagreed with him. And so if the Justice Department under Bill Barr, you know, brings a case against Roger Stone, he decides to exercise his clemency authority for Roger Stone. The same thing for Michael Flynn. You know, these are people who, you know, in my view, didn't deserve to have a pardon, but I don't think Trump gave it to them because he thought he deserved it. He did it because he wanted to stick it to the institutions that he didn't like, even though he had picked Jeff Sessions and he picked Bill Barr to be attorney general. So I don't know who he's looking to blame for those things. He picked these folks.

I think Bill Barr was an outstanding attorney general, but nonetheless, he obviously doesn't after calling him a gutless pig last night. So I guess he's changed his point of view, as we talked about before on Bill Barr. But I think his use of the pardon power just shows you how he feels about any of the powers of the presidency. They're there for his personal use, his personal aggrandizement, and his personal ego satisfaction. And if, by the way, it helps the country at the same time, great. But if it doesn't, he didn't care. So how alarmed should we be? How alarmed are you at Donald Trump's rather explicit pledge to, in fact, weaponize the Department of Justice to immediately go after Biden and the Biden crime family?

I mean, there's a lot of talk about whether the Department of Justice has been weaponized. It certainly sounds as if Trump does not believe in the independence of the Justice Department at all and is promising to be your retribution if he gets in. How alarming is that? Well, it's really alarming. Look, and I think quite frankly, the criticism of the Justice Department under Barack Obama and Eric Holder is apt. I think they used it to go after their enemies,

and I think they used it to look the other way with their friends, most particularly in the Hillary Clinton situation. You know, then when you go forward, I think it wasn't weaponized, I think, the first time that Trump was president. I think that Jeff Sessions was incapable, even if he wanted to, of weaponizing it. And I don't think Bill Barr would have ever agreed to do something like that. And I think it remains to be seen in this Justice Department what's going on. I think the idea of saying that Trump should have been given a pass on these obstruction charges and the document charges because Hillary wasn't prosecuted,

that does nothing to restore the rule of law. Because Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch and Jim Comey decided to abandon the rule of law doesn't mean that you're justified in abandoning it yourself. And if I were to get elected, Charlie, I would pick an attorney general who was going to aggressively enforce the rule of law without fear or favor. And, you know, I have a history of doing that in New Jersey. You know, one of my former attorneys general came out recently and said, you know, I never heard from him on anything regarding criminal matters.

And I publicly said a number of times that I wouldn't get involved in that kind of stuff because I think it's wrong. So I think if Donald Trump were to become president again and he were to do that, it would be wrong and it would be dangerous for the country. You actually helped Donald Trump with his debate prep in 2020 and contracted COVID. You're completely recovered. No long COVID? Yeah, no long COVID, thankfully, no. Okay. So what was your breaking point? And why did you stick with him through that entire first term? What was it that you said, I'm just done with this. I am all

out of bleeps to give. Election night 2020, when I was sitting on the set at ABC and he said that the election was stolen from behind the seal of the president in the East Room of the White House. I just said that, you know, I know there's no way he could know that the election was stolen. And yet there are going to be millions of Americans who are going to hear this coming out of the mouth of the president of the United States, and they're going to believe it. And I turned out to be right about that. And, you know, I looked at George Stephanopoulos while we were watching the speech, and I said, come to me right after the speech first. And he said, why?

I said, believe me, you'll understand why when you do it. And I went after him hard, hard enough that I got a call that night right afterwards from the family complaining about my comments. And I just said, look, you know, this is ridiculous. He can't be saying this stuff. He has no proof of it. And it looks like he's going to lose this thing. And he lost it. And it's his responsibility.

He needs to step up and take the responsibility for having lost to Joe Biden. And that really was the end of our relationship. We spoke once or twice during November and December about the same topic of stolen election and my continued comments against that and refuting it. And the last time we spoke was in mid-December of 2020 when I called his legal team a national embarrassment. And he called me to complain about that. And we had an argument again about conceding the election and welcoming Biden to the White House and going to his inauguration. And he told me he would never, ever, ever do that. I said, what else you got, Chris? And I said, I've got nothing else, Mr. President,

because there is nothing else for you. And he said, well, then I guess we've got nothing left to talk to each other about. And he hung up and we haven't spoken since. That's two and a half years now. Does he believe that he won that election? Because I mean, as recently as last night, he's talking with Brett Baer and Brett Baer asked him this sort of softball question about what will it take to get the swing voters from the suburbs back. And Donald Trump's answer was, well, you know, I won in 2020. He is still saying that. And he has persuaded tens of millions of your fellow Republicans to believe it as well. I know it's hard to get into his mind, but does he sincerely believe it or is it just his brand that he can never acknowledge loss? He knows he lost. And I can tell you because during debate prep, he was afraid that he was already losing and knew that he needed to do well in the debates to try to make up the gap. So he

was talking to me about that at the time, Charlie. So I know he knows he lost, but I will tell you his philosophy is if you say something enough times, even if it's untrue, it eventually becomes true. And he has said that to me and to my wife directly. And so I absolutely believe that he knows he lost the election, but his ego is so damaged by the fact that, you know, he's the first person, you know, to ever lose a general election to Joe Biden outside the state of Delaware, that he can't deal with it. His ego can't deal with it. He can't deal with being a loser, which is what he is. And that's why. But in his heart of hearts, he absolutely will be lost.

Okay, so why is this happening? The Republican Party has had one opportunity after another to take exit ramps. Some people, some people took it before 2016. Some took it during the first term. The party could have taken an exit ramp after he lost for reelection, certainly after January 6th. It looked like many were going to. And yet here we are, and there are so many Republicans that are afraid or unwilling to take that exit ramp.

I know you've obviously thought about that. That's why you are running. What's your explanation? Because you're looking at Donald Trump, looking at the election, looking at his character, and yet this party cannot quit him. Why not? I think part of it is that there's been a divisiveness

that's been created in this country where people feel they have to wear their uniform 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and that there can't be any objective evaluation of how people on our own team are doing or not doing. And I think we see that in both parties, quite frankly, because there really is no other explanation for the Democratic Party being uniformly behind Joe Biden either. I mean, every time you look at him, you kind of know the guy's not up to the job, but yet they stick with him. It's of a different character, but I think it's analogous to some extent. I think also on the Republican side, there is fear, political fear,

among a number of office holders who believe that he could impact them in a potential primary situation. And I also think that there are some who, and this is a much smaller percentage, who just truly believe everything that comes out of Donald Trump's mouth. And I think the combination of those, it creates the atmosphere that we're in. But the only way, in my view, Charlie, to break the fever is to go right at it and make the cases I'm making now about him. And I can't guarantee you that that's going to be successful. But what I will tell you is I know having participated in 2016 when we all ignored him, that that wasn't successful either. So I'm convinced of what's not going to be successful, which is ignoring him. I don't know whether going right at him

will be successful, but I think it's not only the right thing to do, but it's the only way to try to wrest the nomination away from him. Okay, so how does Trump lose? I'm trying to work through this scenario because I can't imagine him ever conceding defeat. I can't imagine him ever quitting the race. What will it take? What scenario in your mind? You know, you're playing out, you go directly at him, you maybe create a permission structure, maybe there's collective action, maybe you successfully, you're able to wound the apex predator and he's stumbling and other people sense blood as well. But how does it end? What is the scenario that you envision, Governor? I agree with you generally that he would not quit a race,

knowing him as long as I've known him. I don't see him doing that, except for one scenario. I'll get to that second. First is that he fights it out all the way to the convention and that you have slayed him, but he's unwilling to admit it. He will fight it all the way to the convention. He will give a negative, nasty speech at the convention saying it's been stolen

from him and that the establishment is stealing everything from him and that they've never liked him. And that's why, because he's a threat to them and all the rest. And then there's a vote on the first ballot in the convention. And whoever, I hope it's me, I think it could be, winds up beating him in a convention vote. The second scenario, which I think is also possible, is that he loses Iowa and New Hampshire. Now, we just talked about how he can't bear losing. If he lost both Iowa and New Hampshire, I think he would sit there and say to himself, do I get out of this thing because I don't want to prove I'm a loser? And why the whole bunch of these other races? He feels the momentum going in the other direction and feels like at that point he could say, look, you know, this has been rigged against me.

The Justice Department's been after me. It's an unfair fight. And I'm not going to waste my time anymore on this because it's obvious they've stacked the deck against me. And gets up and walks out and is able to say he's still undefeated in his own mind. I think that's the only way he walks away is a couple of early losses that put him in a much different position and make him think that he might as well get out before he, you know, people can suspect he's a loser then, but they haven't proven it. I think that's the only scenario, but I think the first scenario is the more likely one. And again, part of the problem, I think, for Republicans is that they can't win with him. But maybe if he burns the House down on the way out, they can't win without him either. I mean, isn't that the fear of a lot of Republicans, that if you antagonize him, antagonize the base, that they will just simply walk in the general election?

I think that is a fear, but I think it's an unrealistic one because I think that the Republican base fears Joe Biden more than they are angry if Donald Trump were to lose the nomination. I don't think there's any scenario under which this base, after how far left Biden has gone in his tenure so far, would ever let him willingly become president. And there would be a period of time of reconciliation where the candidate who vanquished Trump would have to reach out to that part of the party and try to bring them back in definitively.

And I think you do that anytime after a primary, but this time it would be even more important to do it. I had a challenger in my race in 09 to run against Sean Corzine, and it was a very, very contentious race. But I went and had lunch with him two days after the race was over and tried to bring him around. And he eventually did come around and was supportive,

as were the people who voted for him in the primary. So, you know, you got to know how to do it. You got to know how to be smart about it. But I think those are the two scenarios. Either he fights you all the way to the convention and you reunite the party thereafter, it. But I think those are the two scenarios. Either he fights you all the way to the convention, and you know, we need to unite the party thereafter, or a couple early losses may so mortally wound his ego that he'll get out then. Okay, well, speaking of coming around, you've made it clear that you will not come around, you will not support Donald Trump if

he is the nominee. That's correct? Correct. Okay, So what will you do if he is the nominee? You know, look, my guess is I probably wouldn't vote for president because I have to assume Biden's the nominee as well. I couldn't vote for Joe Biden. And so I probably would just skip that line on my ballot. Now, look, you know, at the end of the day, I'm going to work as hard as I can to make sure I am the nominee so that I have somebody to vote for. But you ask the direct question and you're owed a direct answer. So let's talk about the debates then, because in order to participate in debate, you have to sign the pledge. You made it clear that you will take it as seriously as Donald Trump took it in 2016, which has always been an irony. That was, you know, the one guy.

Because I remember that, right? They asked, They asked, who will pledge to support the nominee? And what, 11 hands went up, 12 hands went up. The one hand that didn't go up was Donald Trump, right? Nine went up and one didn't. We had all signed it. There were 10 of us on the stage. Nine hands went up and one didn't. And I said this to Ronna McDaniel, there was no penalty for that. And now she was in charge, then Reince Pr, but nonetheless, you know, part of my argument against the pledge this time is it's meaningless. He proved it was meaningless eight years ago. And does anybody really believe he'll even sign it this time? But if he does, we already know that he won't regard it with any type of loyalty.

And so, you know, if that's the way we're going to play this game, well, then, as I said before, and you repeat it, I will take the pledge just as seriously as he did in 2016. The most important thing is to get on that stage, Charlie, and to make this case for Republican voters. Let's talk about the debates and getting on the stage and what you need to do to get there. Do you think that you will ever be on a stage with Donald Trump? And I ask that as a skeptic that Donald Trump will ever participate in any debate, much less a debate where you have to go up against Chris Christie. What do you think? Will this ever happen? I believe it will for two reasons. One is his ego. He may skip a debate, and if he does, well, then he will hear me and maybe some others if they decide to, going after him and his record pretty good.

And the only chance I'll have to respond will be on Truth Social, which I think will be an ineffective response for him. So I think his ego wouldn't permit him to admit that he was dodging it and he would hate those charges being levied against him without his ability to respond. But secondly, I also think it would hurt him with his voters, Charlie, because his voters support him. One of the biggest reasons they do is because they see him as a tough guy and a fighter. Well, if he's unwilling to get on the stage and defend his record, fight for his record, fight for their record and the things they believe in, I think it will damage him with a number of his voters, that he'll look like he's dodging. And they won't like that because that's inconsistent with his

brand. And so I think for those two reasons, he will eventually be on a stage, no matter who else is up there. You know, will he miss the first one or two? That's possible. But I think eventually he will be up on that stage. To get on the stage, what, do you have to be at 1% in the polls and have a certain number of small dollar donors? Yeah, 40,000 donors. People can go to chriscristie.com to make that happen. You could donate as little as a dollar to make that happen. It's not the amount of money, it's the number of donors. So it's 40,000 for the first debate, 1%, sign the pledge. And also of the 40,000, 200 have to be 200 each from 20 different states to show a bit of a breadth of support as well so that you don't get it from just one state.

You know, Charlie, we're making great progress on that. We've already reached the 220 states threshold in less than two weeks in the race. And we said just two nights ago that we were already at 15,000 donors in less than a week or just about a week. So we're doing real well. I never count chickens until they're hatched. But in the end, I think we're making great progress towards reaching those numbers and qualifying for the debate stage. Okay, so we're getting to the end here. And I haven't asked you about specific issues. I mean, clearly, I think the overriding issue with Donald Trump and his character, but in your mind, what is the most important issue where you and he diverge the most clearly, a specific issue?

I think it's Ukraine. I believe that we are engaged in a proxy war with China. China is supporting this Russian effort. In fact, they're supplying the money to buy the weapons by buying Russian oil that are killing Ukrainians as we speak and that funded this invasion. And if we don't stand up and supply the Ukrainians with the weapons they need to be able to defend their country, every one of our allies around the world is going to be looking at us and wondering whether America can still be counted on to be the arsenal of democracy and to stand up against totalitarianism all over the world. And most particularly, China will be watching as it applies to Taiwan and other hotspots around the world. And so, you know, Donald Trump, you heard him last night, ridiculous, how he said he was going to resolve this in 24 hours. He'd go into a room and say something to Zelensky and say something to Putin.

And they'd get in the back of the room and it would be all resolved in 24 hours. My guess as to how he would resolve it is he would give Ukraine to Russia and he would abandon them, hand over Ukraine to Russia, and that's the way he'd resolve it. That's one issue that we are very, very different on. A second one quickly, I'd say, is federal tax credits for school choice. He had a chance to do that for four years. He didn't do it. I believe it is the educational issue of our time that we need to treat poor minority students who are in trapped failure factories across our urban centers and give them the same opportunity and a great education. And the way to do that, in my view,

is to give their parents choice to send those children to whatever school they want, to have a federal tax credit to help pay for it. Donald Trump had a chance to do that for four years. He didn't do it. I would. One last question. Why are you doing this? You had a pretty comfortable life.

You have to know the odds are stacked against you. You have to know that you are going to be punched in the face over and over and over again. So, Governor Christie, why? Why are you doing this and why you? Because it needs to be done because the truth matters, Charlie. The truth matters. And if our country is going to continue to be a great country that does big things and leads the world and gives better opportunity for our children and grandchildren, we got to start with the truth. And what I saw happening in this race was that nobody else seemed willing or able to

do it. And my wife and I talked about this a lot as we were considering it. And she continued to encourage me to do it because she said, you know him better than anyone. You are uniquely qualified in terms of your skill set to be able to take him on directly. And I know you're not afraid of him. And she said, I don't want you sitting here months from now saying no one's doing this.

I can't believe what's happening to our country. You got to go out and try to make a difference. And that's what my whole public career has been about. Charlie is, you know, taking on big things and try to make a difference. And that's what my whole public career has been about, Charlie, is taking on big things and trying to make a difference. And I succeeded more than I failed, but I failed too. And this may wind up not working out. Anybody other than Donald Trump who tells you they know what their path is to winning this race is full of it. They don't. But the one thing I know for sure is the only way that you defeat the front runner and become the front runner is to go after that front runner directly and prosecute the case against him. And I would say, I don't think there's anybody

in the race who has more experience or a better skillset to prosecute the case against Donald Trump than I do. And if that leads to me being the nominee, which is going to be my effort every day, then I can tell you I will do the exact same thing against Joe Biden in November and prosecute that case. And I think that's the way to get the White House back. And then you'll have someone in there who's actually governed in a blue state, who knows how to bring people together, who knows how to craft conservative, smart solutions that you can also get some Democrats to vote for, too. And we might actually accomplish some things in this government again, Charlie, rather

than just yelling and screaming at each other. Is there any part of you that is doing this as kind of making up for the role you played in 2016, like clean up on aisle 45, clean up on aisle Christy? Any of that? No, there really isn't. That's not enough of a motivation to get up every day and do this, Charlie. It just isn't. My country is the motivation. My children and hopefully someday grandchildren are the motivation. I've had a great American life already. I'm 60 years old. There's very little left that can happen that will ever change my opinion about the fact that I've been afforded

a great life. But I want that for my children and my grandchildren someday as well. And I don't want this country to be known as a country that tolerates falsehoods that doesn't stand for the truth. That's why I'm doing it. And so the rest of it, look, there'll be some people who think that would be a great venture and some people who don't, but it's just not my mission here. My mission is to win the presidency. And at the same time, it's to take down Donald Trump because of what he's done to my party and what he's done to our country.

Chris Christie, thank you so much for joining me on the Bulwark Podcast today. Charlie, thanks for having me. And thank you all for listening to the Bulwark Podcast today. I'm Charlie Sykes. We will be back tomorrow and we'll do this all over again. The Bulwark Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper and engineered and edited by Jason Brown.