The Dispatch Podcast - Trump Is Only Getting Worse | Interview: Chris Christie

Episode Date: February 25, 2025

Steve Hayes was joined over the weekend by Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey, at the 2025 Principles First summit in Washington, D.C. The two discussed why Christie initially endorsed Donald Trump in 2016, the Trump administration’s decision to side with Vladimir Putin, and where the line of a “constitutional crisis” is. Watch the interview here. The Dispatch Podcast 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 members-only newsletters, bonus podcast episodes, and regular livestreams—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When you're with Amex Platinum, you get access to exclusive dining experiences and an annual travel credit. So the best tapas in town might be in a new town altogether. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Terms and conditions apply. Learn more at Amex.ca. www.ca.com. Did you lock the front door?

Check. Close the garage door? Yep. Installed window sensors, smoke sensors, and HD cameras with night vision? No. And you set up credit card transaction alerts, a secure VPN for a private connection and continuous monitoring for our personal info on the dark web.

Uh, I'm looking into it. Stress less about security. Choose security solutions from TELUS for peace of mind at home and online. Visit TELUS.com. Total Security to learn more. Conditions apply. Afternoon, everybody. How's going?

Heath, thanks for having us, and thanks for putting this together. Tond of credit, I know everybody's going to, who comes up here, going to heap praise on Heath for everything that he's done over these past very strange and disorienting years. And I want to join that. I want to associate myself with those remarks. Thanks, Heath, for everything you've done. So, Governor, I want to, we've got 30 minutes. Neither one of us

is good at lightning rounds. So I want to just jump, jump into it here. In, 2016, you endorsed Donald Trump, and you endorsed him early. You worked on his transition, you supported him again in 2020, but you're a fierce critic now. What do you see today that makes him a danger that you didn't see back then? Well, I think first off, to make it clear, the night that I broke with him was election night at 20. and it was sitting on the set at ABC when he came out to give his speech at two or three in the morning, whenever it was, and he said the election had been stolen

and that they'd actually won. And I knew, one, going into it, that he was likely to lose and that he knew he was likely to lose. And I couldn't believe what he was saying. And so as the speech was going on, I turned to George Stephanopoulos, who was hosting that night. And I said, come to me first out of the speech. And he said, why?

I said, I won't disappoint you. And I took off after him and said, you know, this is the most irresponsible thing a president's ever done in my lifetime. He knows that he was likely to lose tonight. He knows he is in the process of losing. And this undercuts everybody's confidence in our electoral system. And that's the worst thing you can do for our democracy. And this is something that's unforgivable.

And that they went to commercial after that. as smart TV people do, because they weren't going to top that. I don't think from the guy who had prepped him for the debates in 20. And then I got immediately got a text message from Eric Trump saying, like, what the hell are you doing? And I said, you know what he's doing is wrong, and I'm not going to stand up for it. And he texted back, he said, wait until you see the evidence, you're going to be, you're going to look stupid. and I said, I'm prepared. I'm from New Jersey. So that was really the break, Steve.

I mean, I think, you know, to go back briefly as painful as it is to 16, I made what I thought was a conventional political decision, which was I had run hard against him in the primaries. I had come short in New Hampshire. It was clear to me from watching the other people on the, stage that none of them were going to be able to beat him. Okay, so this is our nominee. I didn't want Hillary Clinton to be president. So I did what I think most people who have run for president in my lifetime did, which is say, okay, I'm going to get behind the guy who's going to be our

nominee, and I can make him better. And I was chairman of the transition, and I think for a period of time in 16, I did make him better. And even during the presidency, you know, there were lots of things that I said publicly against him during that, but because it came for me, he took it surprisingly well. He didn't change his conduct often, but he took it surprisingly well. And so that's why I made the decisions I made back then, but it was clear to me on election night of 20 that he was beyond repair. Given what you've said about his character now and even then, were you surprised by what he did? on election night in 2020 and in the aftermath?

I was. I was surprised at that. You know, there's one thing to be saying those things before an election. Like, oh, he's nervous about the right-in ballots or the mail-in ballots, rather. He's worried about that. I understood what he was doing. He was softening the ground and trying to gain some advantage. And all that, I think, was fair game during a campaign.

But, you know, there's always been kind of the water's edge in our policy. politics at the presidential level. And, you know, I would have had no problem with him doing what he did in the immediate aftermath if he hadn't given that speech of challenging things in court and all the rest of it. That's part of the process. But once you go that much further, what he did on election night, then I think you're beyond repair.

And I think that, quite frankly, that the four years of the presidency made him worse and worse, as power often does the people who only want the power for themselves and not for the people who put them there. And that's the category I put him in back then. And that's only gotten worse. Yeah, I mean, my old friend and colleague, Charles Crouthammer and I, when we would talk in the green room before special report, these early days back in the campaign, these early days, Charles, who's never short of words, I mean, absolutely brilliant. And he used to to complain to me that there was no English word that meant shocking and yet totally unsurprising at the same time. Yeah, no, I think Charles is exactly right as he often was. And I think we all got,

or many of us, I shouldn't say we all, many of us got to that point. One interesting aside that I'll tell you about the time between 17 and 20, when Wright's previous got fired as chief of staff, And General Kelly got appointed. He called me in his first few days on the job. And he said, look, you know, I've talked to a half dozen people around this building. They all say, you know Trump better than anybody personally. And I really am trying to figure him out personally. I don't know him all that well.

Would you be willing to come down for lunch and talk to me about how to deal with them? And I said, look, General, I'd be honored to have lunch with you any time you want. But I can give you the briefing in 45 seconds right now. and he said oh i'm in general i love efficiency sure and i said um i said today you're trading at a hundred cents on a dollar you will trade to zero it's only a question of how long it'll take and he said that's rather bleak and i said welcome um and i and my evaluation hasn't changed and it will happen to Elon musk um it has already happened to the head of ice who's already been fired and when he appointed that person

they were the greatest person to run ice like this just repeats itself Rex Tillerson Jim Mattis you just go through the list and you know General McMaster through the list of people even Paul Manafort who when he hired him was the greatest political mind

in American history in March and by July he was fired and he barely really knew him so I want to dive into some headlines from this morning, from the last couple of hours, actually. There's news this morning that the Trump administration, and I'm going to read from a Wall Street Journal reporter, news this morning that Trump administration is, quote, pushing Kiev, Kiev and Europe

to kill a Ukraine resolution marking the third anniversary of the war, unquote. The U.S. has made direct demands of Ukrainian leaders to withdraw the resolution and replace it with a short statement that doesn't label Russia the invader, doesn't blame Vladimir Putin, doesn't hold Russia responsible for a single Ukrainian death. Russia, this Wall Street Journal reporter, tells us, is likely to support the resolution. The US sent a note to European allies,

urging them to join the US in pressuring Ukraine to kill its own resolution about the third anniversary of the war. Donald Trump says Vladimir Putin wants peace. He says Waldemir Zelensky is a dictator. He says Ukraine started the war. Marco Rubio is now talking about quote-unquote opportunities available to the United States in collaboration with Russia after the war. Is it accurate to say that we just switched sides? There's a lot there, but there's a lot there. The answer in short is yes, but we didn't just switch sides.

I mean, look, anybody who was paying attention during the 24 campaign knew this was what was going to happen. I mean, I was the only presidential candidate beside Joe Biden who went to Ukraine during the campaign. And it wasn't easy to get there. It was a 24-hour trip to get there during wartime. but I felt like it was incredibly important to go and to see it for myself and I traveled around the country, went to different places where the Russians had invaded, spoke to the local people there about what happened when the Russians came in, the atrocities they engaged in, saw visual evidence of it, photographs, et cetera, and then met with President Zelensky for over

an hour in the Capitol. And he asked me at that time, what did I think was going to happen? And I said, look, I don't know. That's why we run these things. But if Trump wins, I said, you're in big trouble. And I said, and you need to be, you know, using your influence now to make clear that that's an unacceptable alternative to the Ukrainian people. What did he say in response?

And wouldn't he plausibly want to respond? Hey, look, I don't want a medal in your politics. He was smart about it. He just nodded and nodded, and then he smiled, and then he winked, and said nothing that could be quoted by anybody in the room that would be able to put him in a bad spot. But, you know, I think, and I blame him very little for not having done it, given that he's the president. of a country that was relying upon us to try to help him defeat someone who had invaded him. But I do think that it is indicative of what so many people refused to do in 23 and 24.

I can't tell you when I was running how many people would say to me, you know, you're right, but. It would be you're right, but I agree with some of his policies. you're right, but he really got screwed in 2020. He deserves another chance. You're right, but I don't like Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, depending upon the time frame it was said. What I think he's caused among a lot of Republicans and a lot of independents and some Democrats

has been the greatest public display of rationalization that I've ever seen in American politics that like you just rationalize everything he says and does if it's something that repulses you you either say he's not really serious he's joking that kind of stuff but he he he says everything for a reason

it's not always well thought out don't misunderstand me but he's saying it for a reason and so you know I looked at the Ukraine situation as he was saying all of this during 23 and 24. So the fact that he's now executing on it, people are like, oh my God, I can't believe he's doing it. And my answer is like, why? Why can't you believe he's doing it?

He told us that he was with Putin. He told us that he didn't trust Zelensky. And let me guarantee you it all goes back to Zelensky being unwilling to dig up dirt on Biden during the 2020 race and deliver it for him. everything that Donald Trump does, that's negative, goes back to what he considers a personal affront. And once that happens, even with somebody like Marco Rubio, he's made Marco Secretary of State for whatever reason, you know, he got convinced to do that. But if you think for a second, he's forgotten any of what Marco said about him in 2016. you are sadly mistaken.

And that's why Marco is saying some of the crap he's saying right now because he knows he cannot afford to step a millimeter out of line. Because if he does, he'll get canned too. And he'll get canned even quicker than some of the others because he's got a history that Trump has been willing to forgive because of his being on an unbended knee for the last eight years. Well, I'm very tempted to just take that. digression on Marco Rubio and ride it with you and keep talking about that.

You know me and Marco, but I'll resist. You had some history at that debate in New Hampshire. Let me ask you just a blunt and brief question. I agree with you entirely about the animosity towards Zelensky. What explains his solicitous behavior toward Vladimir Putin, which started a long time before that? because he wants to be Vladimir Putin. That explains his solicitous conduct to Putin, to Kim Jong-un, to Erdogan, to Erdogan, to Xi. And if you doubt that, if you haven't seen it yet, make sure you pull up on YouTube his interchange with the governor of Maine yesterday. Now, the key part of that is not that he was extraordinarily rude and called her out.

Now, I've been in that room eight times. We're not really opposed to being rude and calling people out either. Let's be honest. No. But context is king, Steve. You're sitting in the east room of the White House with all of your other governors. This is like a made-for-tiv event. Nothing really happens in this room.

The questions are usually prescreened. three Republicans, three Democrats get to ask the questions. They're judged beforehand. I never was given a question in those eight years because they were concerned that I might go off script. And that's what it is. So in that context, to have a president unsolicited call out another governor of either party, it just never happens. It just doesn't.

And, but the key part of that was not his rudeness. It was when she said, we will follow federal and state law. And his answer was, we are the federal law. Now, like, that's the key thing from yesterday. And what everybody needs to remember about all of this is, why does he love Putin and G? And because they are the law in their jurisdictions. And that's what he wants to be.

And that's what his first five weeks has been aiming to have it become. And if Republican members of Congress continue to, you know, be AWOL, which they have been in the main, every once in a while. But notice that even the votes that are against some of these cabinet members, which are these like little, little displays of independence, they never get. to four ever and they and now all the big ones are done and they won't so susan collins who i have great respect for but if she was the fourth vote against pete hexif i'm willing to bet she wouldn't have if she was the fourth vote against cash pettel she wouldn't have been they gave some of the people in some of the tougher states or who they just can't control like Murkowski or McConnell, a pass. But how did McConnell vote for some of the people he voted for? Because he was in danger

being the fourth. So we are the federal law. To me is the most important thing he has said in the last two weeks, because that tells you exactly what he thinks. When he says those things in a fit of anger, which is what happened yesterday, when she dared to challenge him in that room, then you get the most honest response. You get on him, and I used to see it a lot of time in 2020, I was in the White House with him, and Bill Barr was there, and Mike Pompeo and his chief of staff at the time. And he just went off on a toot at one point, and he's said, you know, you know who the worst person I've appointed in this administration is? By far the worst person, and he was looking at me.

Now, I knew that I had said no to like four different jobs, so I knew wouldn't talk about me, but I knew it had something to do with me. And he said, Chris Ray, Chris Ray, the worst, and he said, he looked at me, and he goes, that was your appointment, because I had suggested, Chris, and proud that I did, suggested Chris to be the head of the FBI. And I ignored him at first. and then he kept back at me. You, you appointed that guy.

And I said, Mr. President, let me just correct you. I recommended him. You appointed him. And we then left that little dining room off the Oval Office, and we were walking back through the Oval Office to leave. And Pompeo put his arm around me, and he goes, let me tell you something, man,

I have no fucking idea how you get away with that stuff. I really don't. And I said, man, it's because I never took a job. Like, if you don't take a job, you can't fire you from a job you don't have. All you can do is fire you from talking to him. And he did that later, but, like, you know, it was all right, even then. We are the federal law. I do think that's a very telling moment.

And I agree with you that often he will say things like that in his unrehearsed moments and when he's just sort of rambling. He also, however, does these things when he has time to plan. And I would point to the January 6th pardons as evidence of that. Remember, there was going to be a systematic review and look, were some of these people overcharged? And Trump basically just said, screw it, I'm doing it. How should we think about Trump and the rule of law for the things he's doing in advance, for the things he's thinking about? Doesn't that make it more concerning?

Yes. But first, I would argue to you that, knowing him that January 6th pardons happened the way they did because of Biden's pardons of his family. I think that Trump saw that and went, shit, all rules are off.

Right? I mean, we can't, if we're going to be credible about our criticism of Trump, we have to also be willing to criticize other outrageous actions by other political leaders in this country.

And when when Biden waits till 11.45 a.m. on the day he's leaving office and then parts his entire damn family. I mean, I am convinced based on what I had heard from friends of mine who were joining the new administration that that was the process that was going to happen, that there was going to be kind of a systematic review. And that when Trump got out of the Capitol on inauguration day, having been told while at the Capitol that Biden had parted his entire family, that he went, screw it. That's it. There are no rules anymore. So I'm doing all of it. Hell of it. And it's not to rationalize what he did because it's an irrational act

in response to an irrational act or a selfish act in response to a selfish act doesn't make either of him any good. But I think that's really what happens, Steve. Now, on the rule of law, look, this is really simple. He believes that the Attorney General of the United States is his personal lawyer. That's it. He believes the Department of Justice is to do what he instructs them to do. And I can tell you this. I served for seven years as the U.S. attorney in the fifth largest office of 94 in the country in the Bush administration, Bush 43.

and I never once, once was called by the White House or by the Attorney General to tell me either to do something or not to do something. Not once. Attorney General Ashcroft and then Attorney General Gonzalez gave me the same instructions, which is, do what you believe is in the interest of justice. And if you do that, you'll never hear from us. And I never did. That will not be the experience, I can guarantee you, of any United States attorney who decides to serve in this Justice Department. And I think all you have to look at is what's happening with the Adams case in New York City to know that there is no longer any independent thought or analysis permitted. So the rule of law is at grave risk of being selectively enforced.

So get specific here. Why specifically about the Adams case? Because I don't think it's just what was done. It's how it was justified. Look, to me, if the Attorney General of the United States decides that she wants to dismiss an indictment because she thinks it's unfair, political, doesn't have a basis in fact or law, that's her right to do. Here's the problem, in my view, with the Adams decision. it was that they decided to dismiss it without prejudice. Now, for those folks who are not lawyers in the room, what that means is you can bring it back without regard to the statute of limitations or anything else. If you believe what they say, which is this is tainted, politically motivated, and much too aggressive on the law and the facts, well, then dismiss it for good. if it's tainted it should go forever why didn't they they didn't because they want to hang it over

adams's head they want adams to be their servant in new york city most particularly on the immigration issue but if there's others that come up they'll be happy to hang it over his head for that the reason why what amel bov has said and what pam bondi has said is complete BS is because if you believe that to be true then you have an ethical and legal obligation to dismiss it forever? How could something that is politically tainted today somehow become not politically tainted after an election? So, you know, that's my problem with it, Steve. I don't, if they truly believe that that was the case, even though I might disagree with it, I would say it's their right to do it. But no, they're doing the tweener. They want it both ways.

And they're copping to it. And they're telling us that they're doing tweener. Totally. Now they're backing off a little bit in court now this week, and they've got a judge now who I still think he's going to allow them to do it. But he's certainly making an interesting. Like now he's, now he's appointed Paul Clement to represent the point of view that it should not be dismissed. Man, that's only because poor Ted Olson passed away, you know? And so, so now he's getting Paul in there, who's an incredibly outstanding lawyer. Well known, conservative, one of the brightest conservative legal minds in the past half sector. Absolutely. And a guy of unquestioned ethics.

So Clement will go in there and he'll make the case. Now, I still think it's really hard because in the end, think about this logically. Can you order the Justice Department to continue to do a prosecution if you're an Article 3 judge? And I think the answer is no.

Because let's say he refuses to dismiss it. Then she's going to, she meaning Pam Bondi, is going to say to the U.S. attorney in the Southern District in New York, do not staff it. You were not permitted to staff the prosecution. Then is a judge going to order them to say, yeah, Hayes and Christy, you got to go try the case.

Like, it's not going to happen. So ultimately, they will get what they want. But I do think it's important that the judge is making the process as detail-oriented and painstaking as he can to try to deter them from doing it again. And if that's the result, then he's done a very good thing. Or at least to make them continue to explain what they're doing in ways that ought to be embarrassing, but apparently... If they're going to have a hearing and they're going to start putting witnesses up there, I can't wait. Man, that's going to be... You know, unfortunately, it's in federal courts, so there won't be any TV.

But the ex-posts that you'll see out of there about what some of these folks are saying. Because remember, in the first meeting when they brought Danielle Sassoon down to DOJ, Daniel deserves a lot of applause. She had someone with her, which when I was U.S. Attorney, I would always have brought a colleague or two with me to a meeting at justice. And he was taking notes. And Emil Bove ordered him to stop taking notes and then confiscated the notes he'd already taken before he left. So I can't wait for Danielle Sassoon and her AUSA's who she brought with her if they could put on the stand to testify about what was said, because I suspect what you're going to hear.

is that there was active negotiation going on between Eric Adams' lawyers who were in the room at the time and made justice about under what circumstance, what can we say that you'll agree to while the prosecutors are sitting right there

watching the quid pro quo in action. Real, real time. Real time. That'll be some interesting testimony. And knowing Danielle, who I know well, and she's an extraordinarily talent, and here's another one, they'll tell you, They'll be calling her a rhino soon, who, like, clerked for Antonin Scalia.

And by the way, was selected by the Trump Justice Department to be the acting U.S. attorney. Another person who went from 100 cents on the dollar to zero in about three weeks. Final question, we've got about a minute and a half. What would need to happen for you to say we're in a constitutional crisis? He'd have to define order of the court. Look, I think that we use this constitutional crisis thing much too liberally. And what we're doing is cheapening it. Because when we really do have a constitutional crisis, half the country is going to go,

they've been saying that for years. It's like when the Democrats wouldn't stop calling him a fascist. Like, I said to a Democratic friend of mine who was in the Harris campaign, I said, like, don't you get that the people who believe that are already voting for you? Like, you're trying to convince the people who haven't decided yet who are stuck between, we can't stand to him and we don't think she's qualified. And they're trying to figure out which way do I go. And you keep calling him a fascist, and that's your main argument, they ain't coming to you. People don't, in the main, the independent voter who decides late, doesn't vote that way.

They don't vote based on hate in my experience. They vote based on hope. and if all you're doing is being negative and he's being negative and you don't like where the country is right now you go they both suck I'll take him and that's what happened so I think we got to be careful about using that Steve but what I would say is if the if the moment comes where either an intermediary court or the United States Supreme Court orders him to either do or not do something and he defies it that's a constitutional crisis because then you have this Article 2 executive

who is defying the constitutional right that the Article 3 judges have to interpret the law and to place orders on them in accordance with their interpretation of the law. Will you be surprised if he defies a court order? No. Like, but I want us to be careful, right? Look, everybody in this room is here

because you're concerned, desperately concerned, about the future of the country. And I join you, and that's why I'm here. But we cannot stop being strategic about this because it is politics, everybody, and to the extent that you do not act strategically, you will play right into the hands of the people that you're trying to restrain.

And so every time that everything he does, we set our hair on fire. After a while, it's like your mother used to say to you, you know, you're crying wolf. Like, and any adult, let alone an adult who's a little bit detached from all this and not following it as closely as we are, we'll just go, enough. They were complaining again. They just hate him. And the poor guy, he's trying to do the best he can. You've heard this stuff. Like, I see people like nodding their heads.

you have been at dinner parties, at cocktail parties, at soccer games, at whatever you do when you're not here. And you've heard people say to you, oh, you know, people don't give them a chance. I was sitting, I got off a flight from Detroit on Thursday, and it was one of those horrible experiences at Newark Airport, which you think, how does it distinguish it from any other experience, but where you land at, like you see on your phone, you're going to gate 71V. Now, I used to run Newark Airport as the governor with the governor of New York. And like, there is no 71V, right? That means literally they park you in the middle of the tarmac and they

bring a gate, like a ramp out to you. You walk down the ramp, you walk outside to a bus. And then they put you in the bus and take you to the terminal. So it's like the final indignity of commercial air travel on the day. So, you know, and when you're recognizable, crazy stuff happens when this happens, right? So I'm walking off the plane and I get on the bus. And a guy gets on and he looks at me, he goes, they make you go on the bus? It's not a walk, brothers. So, you know, given that it's nine degrees out here, I'm taking the bus.

And then a woman comes and sits next to me. And she turns to me and she said, you know, I voted for you for governor twice. And I said, well, thank you very much. I appreciate that. She goes, always really liked what you did. And I said, well, thanks. And she's, and I admire that you stood up to Trump the way you did. She said, that was really good.

And I said, well, thank you. And she said, but you know, he's really shit. taking things up and and maybe some of it will turn out okay now look at that moment when I'm at the end of my travel day my Sicilian instinct is to like grab her by the shoulders and go are you kidding me but you don't want to do that on the bus when everybody has cameras like you do and I'll be on YouTube in 15 minutes. So I look at it, I say, what about, and I

kept it in this tone, and it was hard, I said, what about everything you've seen about him for the last 10 years lead you to believe that it might turn out okay? And this is what we have to

be smart about, and I want to end with this, because I think it's the basis of why I'm urging everybody from Heath on down here to be strategic. She looked at me and she goes, well, you know, governor, I didn't vote for him, but he is the president,

and we have to give him a chance. Now, I want you to understand, really try to understand where that woman's coming from. She's probably not steeped in politics. She's probably not reading everything by a long shot, right?

But there's something really good. about that. And that's why I think the country is going to be okay. Because there's going to come a moment where that woman, I believe in my heart, is going to say, yeah, no, this is not okay anymore. But we all get there at a different pace. And if we try to, and this is not to say we shouldn't stand up and continue to do what we're doing and I'm going to continue to do it, but everyone's going to get there at their own pace. And to the extent that we try to force that pace because we can't stand it anymore. We run the risk of lengthening it, not shortening it.

And a lot of damage can be done during that. So, you know, when we got off the bus, the end of the story is, I said that to her, and she gave me the answer back, and I didn't respond because I actually thought it was not a bad answer in the context of the conversation and us being on the bus. So we had to get off the bus, and we walk off together, and we're going up the escalator into the terminal. And she said, I want you to make sure you don't misunderstand my answer. And I said, okay. She said, I wanted you to be president. And I looked at her, I said, hey, man, me too.

And she said, well, I'm glad to hear you're not discouraged. I go, no, no, no. Because if I was president, I wouldn't be on the bus. And that made her laugh and it ended the conversation well. Well, we went, I think we went about four minutes over. We're probably giving the timekeeper a heart attack. Yeah, I'm sure. But it was worth it.

That was pretty good, pretty good bus story. Thank you. Thank you all for having us. Thanks again to Heath. And thank you, Governor Christie. I'm going to be able to be.