In conversation with Chris Christie

1. 0:00 – 2:14

   Besties welcome former NJ Governor and Republican Presidential Candidate Chris Christie!

   1. JCJason Calacanis0:00

      All right, everybody. Welcome back to the All-In Podcast. We're very excited today to do our third deep dive, long form discussion with presidential candidates for the 2024 election. Started with RFK, and he got a huge boost in the ratings (laughs) after he was on the pod. We had Vivek, and now Governor Chris Christie is with us. Governor, thanks for coming.

   2. CCChris Christie0:21

      My pleasure. Thanks for having me, guys.

   3. JCJason Calacanis0:23

      All right. So it's a little bit different here than I think some of the other news hits that you do. This is not short form, it's long form. We like to, you know, have a thoughtful discussion with the candidates, not with talking points, and I, I know that you're a straight shooter, so I think you'll fit right in here with the other boys. I think you're very unique amongst candidates that you've actually brought up the deficit, as we know. Uh, just two facts here, and then I'll hand it over to Freiberg for his question. Last two administrations have run up the deficit massively. Here's a chart of our debt. Trump added almost eight trillion, Biden's added four trillion, and this is obviously an unpopular issue to bring up, as you've mentioned. Bringing this up is unpopular, it doesn't get you votes necessarily to say, "We have to cut spending." And Freiberg and I are very much... I'll speak for myself, this is my number one issue in terms of picking a candidate. Freiberg, I think you said it's your number one issue. So Freiberg, I'll hand it over to you in terms of a question for Governor Christie.

   4. DFDavid Friedberg1:29

      Yeah. Governor Christie, nice to see you. You and I sang on a karaoke stage together in Idaho-

   5. CCChris Christie1:33

      (laughs)

   6. DFDavid Friedberg1:33

      ... a few years ago-

   7. JCJason Calacanis1:35

      (laughs)

   8. DFDavid Friedberg1:35

      Uh, but it's, uh, it's nice to see you.

   9. CCChris Christie1:36

      I do remember that.

   10. DFDavid Friedberg1:37

       Yeah.

   11. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:37

       Is that a sly way of saying (beep) Idaho? I had to put that two and two together there. Well, nice, Freiberg.

   12. DFDavid Friedberg1:43

       It was a small bar in Idaho.

   13. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:44

       Oh, wow.

   14. DFDavid Friedberg1:45

       It was a small bar in Idaho.

   15. CCChris Christie1:46

       Small bar in Idaho.

   16. DFDavid Friedberg1:48

       Small gathering.

   17. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:48

       The establishment class has thrown-

   18. DFDavid Friedberg1:50

       Small gathering-

   19. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:51

       ... the ruckus.

   20. DFDavid Friedberg1:51

       ... with a few, few folks who happened to be in a bar together.

   21. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:53

       At the B conference that shall not be named.

   22. CCChris Christie1:56

       (laughs)

   23. NANarrator1:57

       All in. Let your winners ride. Rain Man, David Satterfield. All going all in. And I said, we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you guys. Queen of Quinoa. Going all in.

2. 2:14 – 14:04

   US debt crisis, cutting entitlements

   1. NANarrator2:14

   2. DFDavid Friedberg2:14

      We watched the Republican primary debate a few weeks ago, and I think what struck me, at least was how little focus and attention is given on the fiscal situation, the US government deficit in excess of $2 trillion this year, debt to GDP in excess of 130%. 30 plus percent of US debt is coming due in the next year, which means it's going to get refinanced at the higher rates of probably 5.5% plus. And then when you look at the, the demands on Social Security, Medicare, forecasts are that both of those systems necessarily go bankrupt unless there's some extraordinary measures taken. And that seems to be a very kind of hot topic, golden goose that can't be t- touched or debated. All of this seems to be largely ignored. And so much of the conversation is around social issues in the United States, military issues, war, et cetera, when fundamentally there's no gas in the tank. I guess the point of view I'd love to hear from you is how do you think about that? Does that matter to you right now? Or do we think that this is a can that we kick down the road and we'll solve this problem later, we'll grow our way out of it? If we cut some spending, it'll fix itself. It seems so core to me that the future of the United States is going to be dependent on how we're going to manage this fiscal emergency that we're facing.

   3. CCChris Christie3:35

      Well, look, uh, David, it's core to me too. And, and I'm, you know, if you've seen any of the excerpts from any of the town hall meetings I've done so far, um, you know, I've been talking about both the issues you just raised. Um, it, first off, I think on the, on the deficit and debt side, I learned about this after becoming a prosecutor and having to come to New Jersey and inherit two problems immediately. We had a $2 billion short-term deficit for the last five months of the fiscal year that I inherited. And then we had a $11 billion deficit on a $29 billion budget for the fiscal year starting July 1st of 2010. And I had to deal with both those things. And as you know, unlike chart that was just shown, you don't get to run it up. You, you, you have to square it. Um, and so, you know, I learned how hard it is and how ugly it's going to be for your popularity to do these things. So on the, on the first piece, on the two billion, we sat down, I refused to raise taxes, and we sat down and we eliminated 683 individual programs completely, and then swept every surplus from a school board in the state. And the way we did that was we reduced their state aid by the amount they had in surplus to get the two billion in balance. And then extended that into the next budget cycle, kept all those cuts in place, which did some structural, uh, you know, refiguring of the deficit. Um, and then made additional cuts after that. You know, I'd gotten elected with, um, 48.5% of the vote, and after I did that, my approval ratings went down below 40, uh, in my first six months. But what I knew was it was absolutely necessary because in our state, we were already overtaxed, and the idea of raising taxes again was not an option that was, to me, viable. So when you learn and you go through that process, and then you look at what we're dealing with federally, I think you realize three things right off the bat. One, it is an imperative that we need to reduce spending. Um, what it's doing to inflation and the long-term ability of the country to grow, it makes it absolutely necessary. Two-... to me, kicking the can down the road is not an option because the, the problem's only gonna get worse, and, and it's going to begin to impact our ability to be able to do some of the core things that government is supposed to do. And then third, that you've got to be willing to sacrifice popularity for results. And, you know, I'm not gonna sit here and say it'll be fun to do. It won't be, but I went through it once already on a smaller scale, and quite frankly, you have a much longer runway to do it at the federal level than I did at the state level. I had (laughs) no, hard deadlines of, you know, June 30, 2010 and July 1, 2010 to accomplish both. On the entitlement side, I think I'm the only person who's been talking about this and saying out loud, "We've got to consider raising retirement age, and we've got to consider means testing and eligibility, um, for Social Security." And, you know, those t- also, uh, you know, I remember watching Biden's, uh, State of the Union address, and to me, the most disgusting part of it was when he said, "Can we all agree, we're not gonna touch Social Security?"

   4. DFDavid Friedberg7:15

      Yeah.

   5. CCChris Christie7:15

      And both sides stood up and cheered.

   6. DFDavid Friedberg7:16

      Yeah, I agree. That was the, that was the, the worst moment for me as well, just hearing-

   7. CCChris Christie7:20

      Liars and- liars and hypocrites. Like, they all know it's going broke in 11 years-

   8. DFDavid Friedberg7:24

      Yeah.

   9. CCChris Christie7:24

      ... and that's an automatic 24% benefit cut on the Social Security side and automatic 25% Medicare benefit cut on that side. So, y- y- you're not gonna be have to, you're not gonna be able to let that happen, um, and so you've got to deal with those issues. And I think you can deal with them, um, through both, um, eligibility issues, uh, regarding means testing, and you can deal with it, um, by also dealing with retirement age. Retirement age, I would do it over the longer term, not for people in their 50s and 60s currently, but for people in their, uh, 40s and below.

   10. DFDavid Friedberg7:58

       And let me just say one follow-up because, to your point, I think the, the recent polling showed something like 83% plus of Americans support the benefit they get from these two programs, Social Security and Medicare, that it should not be touched, that that is the popular opinion. That is what the voters are saying. Do you not think that you put yourself at risk in your campaign by making these statements, and how do you get elected and instigate change? (laughs)

   11. CCChris Christie8:25

       (laughs) I put myself at risk by running-

   12. DFDavid Friedberg8:27

       Yeah.

   13. CCChris Christie8:28

       ... let alone put myself at risk by... I, I, I just think you have to be honest with people. It's 11 years. It's not 20 years, it's 11 now. And, and it means that if the next president doesn't deal with it, then it is going to be in absolute crisis mode when it has to be dealt with, will be inside three years. And at that point, the options will be even fewer. So yeah, of course it's... yeah, and I know someone will run a commercial s-

   14. DFDavid Friedberg8:53

       By the way, is that the part, is that the behind-closed-door conversation? Is that what's going on is the folks that you know that you talk with, everyone behind the closed door, when they're not on in front of a camera, are saying, "We are gonna have to deal with this in the next presidential administration"?

   15. CCChris Christie9:07

       Yeah.

   16. DFDavid Friedberg9:07

       Yeah.

   17. CCChris Christie9:08

       But, but the, but they all say, "I can't believe you're saying it out loud."

   18. DFDavid Friedberg9:12

       Right.

   19. CCChris Christie9:12

       But, you know, th- to me, we are in such a bad place in politics in this country. If we don't start telling the people the truth about the problems we have, we're never gonna have an opportunity to solve them, and that, that's, that's risky, but my entire candidacy is risky, so, you know, you might as well just go for it and tell people what you really think. And I do think there are a number of people out there who are thinking people. I think most people who answer that 83% number, um, you know, David, is, are, are people who, um, ha- don't even know that we're 11 years away from insolvency, 'cause nobody talks about that part. Um, and, and if you don't talk about that part, why would any of them want Social Security touched? But I'm finding in my town hall meetings when I tell people, "It's 11 years from insolvency, how would you deal with a 25% cut, 24% cut in your Social Security benefit?" People, older folks in j- uh, in particular look horrified. And so, you know, I think it's an educational process, and I've always tried to treat politics, at least in part, that way, that, you know, um, uh, you know, something I used to say in New Jersey all the time when press would ask me about a poll that didn't like a position I was taking on an issue, I'd say, "You know, a leader's job is not to follow polls, it's to change them, and, and my job is to change them and to persuade and convince through facts and argument that this is the right way to go." And sometimes you'll win and sometimes you won't, but if you don't tackle the problems, what the hell are you doing there? Um, you know, the housing behind you is nice, but, um, you know, frankly, it's not worth it to me if I'm gonna go there and just be another, um, one to kick this can down the road as, you know, um, Obama, Trump, and Biden have all done. Bush tried to do something about it, and the Congress rejected it, but Obama, you know, Trump, and Biden have done nothing.

   20. DFDavid Friedberg11:15

       What are your top two areas where you would cut in order to save entitlements? What are the other areas where you would go to find savings?

   21. CCChris Christie11:24

       Well, look, I think, I think we, we have to look at social spending in general, um, that's really drastically increased post-COVID, and those increases have not been taken back. So, I think you have to look at all the programs that were ramped up during COVID and say, "Okay, um, what's it gonna be to bring it back to pre-COVID spending to start?" And then after you do that, a further evaluation of, of those programs to see if they're effective. And I think that would get you a good part of the way there given how much spending increased during COVID. Um, I, I think secondly, um, we need to look at the way we fund education in this country as well.... um, and whether or not when we're spending 800 billion, um, what do we do with the 80 billion the federal government spends? Another place, an interesting place to look, small in comparison to a $2 trillion debt, I understand. But, um, that's the other place I would look. And the only place I really wouldn't look is on the military side at this point, because I think you've got to increase efficiency and effectiveness at the Pentagon. But on the other hand, I- I- I don't think, um, that this is the time to be cutting back there when our Navy and Air Force are both in the conditions they're in.

   22. JCJason Calacanis12:48

       That's a good segue, uh, with the military. Obviously, one of the major, um, differences i- in thinking on this pod, and, you know, a big debate inside the Republican Party, is around should we defend Ukraine, uh, and then eventually will we defend, you know, Taiwan? And so maybe I'll hand it off to David.

   23. CCChris Christie13:09

       I'm stunned that this is coming up on your pod.

   24. DSDavid Sacks13:12

       (laughs)

   25. JCJason Calacanis13:12

       Yeah, uh, it's- it's- it's a point of contention, uh, I think-

   26. CCChris Christie13:16

       Well-

   27. JCJason Calacanis13:16

       I won't speak for Sachs, but I-

   28. DSDavid Sacks13:17

       Have you heard our pod before, Governor?

   29. JCJason Calacanis13:19

       Yeah. (laughs)

   30. CCChris Christie13:19

       Yes, sir. A- as- as does my- my oldest son listen to it, so in times when I miss, my son Andrew is... And- and- and he wanted to give me a full briefing before I was gonna go on the pod today.
3. 14:04 – 25:28

   Level-setting on foreign policy

   1. DSDavid Sacks14:04

      level set here on foreign policy first before we get into Ukraine. I want to go back to th- the Bush era, forever wars, the Iraq War. One of the reasons why Trump, I think, really took off in 2016 is he was the first Republican to really come out and say that the Iraq War and all these Middle Eastern forever wars we got into was a big mistake, and he said-

   2. CCChris Christie14:25

      Even though he was, even though he was for it when we did it.

   3. DSDavid Sacks14:28

      Okay, well fair enough, but he said on the campaign trail-

   4. CCChris Christie14:30

      Well-

   5. DSDavid Sacks14:30

      And h- hold on, let me just finish the question. In 2016, he said that Bush lied us into the war, and he said, "No more Bushes." Putting aside Trump for a second, we can get to Trump, what is your view on it? Do you fundamentally agree with that, that we were lied in the Iraq War, or do you, do you defend it?

   6. CCChris Christie14:46

      No, I think that, I think that most people would admit that we were misled. I wouldn't use the word lied, um, I would say misled into the Iraq War because of the WMD issue. I mean, I supported the Iraq War because of WMD, and I thought if Saddam Hussein had WMD, that that was something that we had to deal with in the context of the post-911 world. Um, when it turned out that he didn't have WMD, I don't think there would've been many people who would've been supportive of the Iraq War, um, absent WMD. So I thought Trump's statements in 2016 were typical for him. Um, he changed his opinion, and instead of giving a rational reason for it, he gave a sophomoric one, and so I don't give him a whole lot of credit for that, but-

   7. DSDavid Sacks15:36

      Well, you did at the time in a sense. I mean, when Bush- Bush said... Sorry, Trump said that Bush lied us into the Iraq War at the South Carolina debate. That was on February 13th. You endorsed him on February 26.

   8. CCChris Christie15:48

      Yeah, so what's that mean?

   9. DSDavid Sacks15:50

      Well, I mean, if you thought his answer was sophomoric, why'd you endorse him two weeks later?

   10. CCChris Christie15:55

       Uh, I endorsed him because I was convinced he was going to be the Republican nominee for president, and I didn't want Hillary Clinton to be the president. And so having been in that race, competed with him, after he won South Carolina, convinced he was going to be the nominee, and having at that time had a 15-year relationship with him, my view was I could go in there and try to make him a better candidate, and if he won, a better president. And that's why I endorsed him. It had absolutely nothing to do with his sophomoric answer on that. I didn't like his answer, um, on the wall either, saying Mexico was gonna pay for it, and I thought that was sophomoric as well. But you know what? In American politics, you don't get to all f- vote for the candidate you want to vote for. Um, you get to vote for the ones who are left. And if- if I had my first choice in '16, it would've been me, but that didn't work out. So I defaulted into Trump because I thought he was a better choice than Hillary Clinton. And by the way, still do think he was a better choice than Hillary Clinton.

   11. DSDavid Sacks16:52

       Okay.

   12. JCJason Calacanis16:53

       But you probably agree with that, right, Sachs? You thought Trump would be a better choice than Hillary Clinton.

   13. DSDavid Sacks16:58

       I mean, honestly, back in 2016, I wasn't sure what to make of Trump because he was such a, you know, outsider and sort of a wrecking ball. I agree with him about the Iraq War, but I can accept the governor's answer that we were misled on that war, and- and if we had known the truth about it, we never would've gotten into it. So I think we can all agree on that.

   14. CCChris Christie17:16

       Yep.

   15. DSDavid Sacks17:18

       Uh, I want to get to Ukraine, but just- just quickly, 2012, do you regret not running in 2012? There's a lot of, lot of commentators who say that you kind of were the Trump before Trump, you had this combative style, this kind of take-no-prisoners sort of attitude, and you kind of had a moment in 2012 where it looked like maybe you could have been the front-runner or the candidate. I guess, why didn't you go for it in 2012, and, I mean, do you regret that at all?

   16. CCChris Christie17:44

       I don't regret it, and I wasn't ready to be president, and that's why I didn't run. I know it s- seems quaint now, after Barack Obama and Donald Trump have been president, but, you know, back in 2012, I really felt like it was necessary to feel in your heart and your mind you were ready. When people started talking about me running for president, I hadn't even been governor for a year, and before that, I'd been a prosecutor.And in my heart, I just, David, you know, it just didn't feel like, um, I was ready to be president. And if I don't feel something in here, I'm not going to be very effective at making the argument politically, nor am I gonna be able to convince people to give me their money, which you need to do as well. And so, no, I don't regret it. And by the way, you know, all those commentators who say that never ran for a goddamn thing in their lives, and, you know, they all can think, "Oh, you would have won. You would have beaten Romney, and you would have beaten Obama." Maybe I would have, maybe I wouldn't have, but that's kind of like the dog catching the garbage truck.

   17. DSDavid Sacks18:48

       (laughs)

   18. CCChris Christie18:49

       If you don't think you're ready and you catch it, the worst moment wouldn't have been losing that election, the worst moment might have been winning it, and getting into the Oval Office for the first time and saying, "Oh my God, am I really ready to do this?" So, I don't have any regrets, I really don't. And, and, um, everybody who usually, you know, commentates in that way are people who've never put their name on a ballot for anything, and until you do that, you don't know what it feels like and what it means to have to offer yourself up to people, um, s- for anything, let alone for president.

   19. DSDavid Sacks19:24

       Yeah. Okay, fair enough. Going chronologically here, uh, 2014, Biden is now Obama's vice president. He requests the Ukraine portfolio, to run it for Obama. There is a famous phone call that gets leaked where our Deputy Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, is on tape picking the new government of Ukraine, which takes effect a few weeks later after the violent overthrow of the democratically elected Ukrainian government, the Yanukovych government. Three months after that, Hunter Biden is appointed to the board of Burisma. Do you believe that that appointment was made for any other reason than Joe Biden was the de facto ruler of Ukraine?

   20. CCChris Christie20:07

       I, I, I don't know about him being the de facto ruler of Ukraine.

   21. DSDavid Sacks20:11

       (laughs) I mean, he was the one- (laughs)

   22. CCChris Christie20:12

       I don't think Joe Biden could be the de facto ruler of anything, but-

   23. DSDavid Sacks20:15

       (laughs) Well, no, let me, let me clarify what I mean by that. On the, on the Victoria Nuland-

   24. DFDavid Friedberg20:18

       Yeah, it's a little bit of a stretch.

   25. DSDavid Sacks20:18

       On the Victoria Nuland phone call, she says she needs to get approval from Biden and Jake Sullivan, his national security advisor, for this new Ukrainian government that she's picking. So, she basically is saying that Biden is the boss, he's gonna sign off on this. They apparently get the approval from Biden, and that government does go into effect after what appears to be a US-backed coup. So, Biden clearly has enormous influence over that country. Now, okay, it's a little too glib-

   26. CCChris Christie20:50

       Or J- or Jake S- or Jake Sullivan.

   27. DSDavid Sacks20:52

       Or Jake Sullivan. So, uh, look, it's too glib to say he's the ruler of the country-

   28. CCChris Christie20:55

       Right.

   29. DSDavid Sacks20:55

       ... so I don't mean that. I just mean he's the ultimate authority, it seems like, in approving or picking this new government. Three months after he does that, Hunter Biden's appointed to the board of Burisma. So, my point to you is, what reason could there be for Hunter Biden's appointment other than Joe Biden's influence over that country?

   30. CCChris Christie21:15

       None.
4. 25:28 – 36:47

   Ukraine / Russia: culpability, where to go from here

   1. DSDavid Sacks25:28

      Ukraine.

   2. JCJason Calacanis25:29

      ... Ukraine, w- to Ukraine war and, and, you know, who do you think's ultimately responsible for the invasion of Ukraine? Do you think the United States?

   3. DSDavid Sacks25:36

      Well, uh, look, obviously the governor has said he supports Ukraine and he believes that Putin is responsible.

   4. JCJason Calacanis25:39

      Well, I'd like to hear, I'd like to hear from him, Sax. Yeah, so maybe just in terms of governor, do you think the United States is responsible for the i- invasion of Ukraine because we didn't do enough in terms of taking NATO off the table like some people think? Or do you think Putin is responsible for invading Ukraine because he invaded Ukraine? I don't want to lead the witness.

   5. CCChris Christie26:02

      (laughs) You already did. But the, the, the, um, the... My answer is that Putin is responsible. Now-

   6. JCJason Calacanis26:09

      Shocking.

   7. CCChris Christie26:10

      I do think, though, that United States' inaction, um, and- and bad signal sending to Putin, going all the way back to George W. Bush, who said, "I looked into his eyes and saw his soul," um, then to Barack Obama, who was, you know, completely uninterested, um, in anything in- in when, uh, Putin made moves on Ukraine under the Poo- under the Obama administration he did nothing, um, to Donald Trump, who saw it as an opportunity to extort Vladimir Zelensky, um, to get dirt on Joe Biden, um, in return for military aid, to Joe Biden, who I think has been a hand wringer on this issue. And when he said, "Well, maybe a small invasion wouldn't be so bad," um, you know, it reminds me of, uh, you know, something I said to folks, um, when I was US attorney, everybody's definition of the word small is different, um, and you can't assume what they mean is the same thing you mean. So I do think there were American actions and inactions which contributed to sending signals to Putin that maybe we wouldn't care if he did it. Um, but, um, that's a small sliver in my view of the responsibility. The lion's share of the responsibility is, in my view, on Putin.

   8. DSDavid Sacks27:31

      Fair enough. Would you admit Ukraine into NATO?

   9. CCChris Christie27:36

      Well, I think that in the situation we're in now, David, um, they're gonna be... It- it's almost a de facto point at this point. Uh, I don't... I think that given that we permitted Russia to do what they did, um, given that we're... that- that they have now executed what they've executed in terms of their aggression against Ukraine and the NATO support, um, uh, from a military hardware and other perspec- and intelligence perspective for Ukraine, I think it is now a- a foregone conclusion that Ukraine will be, will be admitted to NATO. And frankly, it's gotta be now, I think, one of the penalties and one of the prices that Putin pays for his aggression.

   10. DSDavid Sacks28:17

       But when would you do that? I mean, so Jens Stoltenberg at the Vilnius Summit made it explicit that Ukraine's future is in NATO, but it could not happen unless and until they win this war. Would you admit them sooner than that?

   11. CCChris Christie28:30

       No.

   12. DSDavid Sacks28:31

       Okay.

   13. CCChris Christie28:32

       No, I would not.

   14. DSDavid Sacks28:32

       Because that would lead to World War III, obviously.

   15. CCChris Christie28:35

       Uh, that's what I'm attempting to avoid.

   16. DSDavid Sacks28:37

       Yeah. Okay.

   17. CCChris Christie28:38

       Yeah.

   18. DSDavid Sacks28:38

       Fair enough. Would you have been willing to take NATO expansion off the table in 2021 in order to avoid a war?

   19. CCChris Christie28:47

       No, I think that was too late. If you were gonna take NATO expansion off of the, off of the table, if you were gonna do it, it would have been done much earlier, because if you did it then, that would essentially be giving into Putin's threat, um, and I think that would have sent an even worse signal than some of the signals that I, that I mentioned before. So no, I wouldn't have been willing to do it in '21 in order to avoid it, because quite frankly, I don't believe that it would have avoided it. It just would have forestalled it.

   20. DSDavid Sacks29:16

       Do you believe that we made the correct decision? I mean, I know I'm going way back here, but in 2008 at the Bucharest Summit, we declared our intention to bring Ukraine, and Georgia for that matter, into NATO, but we didn't have a plan to do it. Do you believe that was a mistake?

   21. CCChris Christie29:30

       I think it was a mistake not to... If you're gonna do it, you should have a plan that lays out exactly how and when and why. And I think just, um, expressing aspirational goals in that regard is dangerous in foreign policy in that regard. And so I think the mistake was made not necessarily by ever having Ukraine in NATO, but by doing it the way it was done, again, um, was an un- in my view, an unnecessary, or at least a not well thought out provocation.

   22. DSDavid Sacks30:03

       Is there anything about Joe Biden's policy in Ukraine that you would change?

   23. CCChris Christie30:08

       Yeah, I would have been much more aggressive in providing military hardware much sooner, um, than what he did, and I think he's been, he's been the hand wringer on it. Every step has had- has been preceded...... by fretting and f- burrowing fr- fr- uh, um, furrowing brows, and, and, and, uh, hand-wringing. And I think if you're gonna be in this, you have to give them the tools they need to win. Um, when I met with Zelenskyy a month ago, he made it very clear to me he had no interest in American or allied troops in Ukraine, now or ever. He felt this was Ukraine's war to win or lose, but that they needed the, uh, the, the military hardware necessary to, to compete in this war against Russia, and that, you know, my view of what their biggest concerns were, which I... The ones that I agree with are the pace and amount of armaments that have been given, not only by the US, but by the rest of the NATO allies as well.

   24. JCJason Calacanis31:15

       For me, I-

   25. DSDavid Sacks31:15

       I mean, for, for a lot of us... L- let me just ask a quick, a couple of quick follow-ups here and then we can move on. I mean, for a lot of us, Biden has not been half-hearted about this. He sought $113 billion appropriation. That seems like a ton of money that could have been spent domestically. What little hand-wringing there was, was on the giving of F-16s and Abrams tanks, and the reason for that, Biden said, was that it could lead to World War III. I mean-

   26. CCChris Christie31:39

       Wrong.

   27. DSDavid Sacks31:39

       ... are you not concerned about those kinds of escalations? I mean, isn't that a good thing to be concerned about, not dismissive about?

   28. CCChris Christie31:45

       It's always... It's always important to be concerned about it, but you have to be thoughtful about it and look at what the, what the alternatives are. And to me, the alternative of allowing ch- the, the combination of China and Russia, um, to, to rout Ukraine, uh, is something that's not in the US vital interests, and will lead to other problems as well with China going forward. And so, um, these are... None of these are easy decisions, Dave, but what they are, are the ones that you want someone who is thoughtful and has some experience making them as president, and I don't think Biden checks either of those boxes sufficiently, and I think his conduct has shown that. And by the way, the same applies to Trump.

   29. JCJason Calacanis32:34

       What do you think the resolution is here? And if in, I don't know, 16 months you're president, or when you're president, uh, how would you deal with this if the war still raging here?

   30. CCChris Christie32:46

       Well, I think it depends on what disposition the war is in at that point.
5. 36:47 – 50:01

   US defense budget, optimizing spend, zero-based budgeting, influence peddling

   1. CCChris Christie36:47

      shows what I was saying earlier in regards to the budget question, that, you know, this massive military buildup that Donald Trump says he did was baloney.

   2. DSDavid Sacks36:57

      I think you have an interesting point there, actually, which is, to me, one of the biggest surprises of this war is that we spend $877 billion on the Pentagon, and that we could run out of ammo.

   3. CCChris Christie37:06

      Right.

   4. DSDavid Sacks37:07

      So, I mean, without blaming Trump per se, or Biden, I just think we're getting ripped off. I mean, the military-industrial complex is royally screwing the American taxpayer. How can we spend $877 billion and not have ammo? Can you explain that to me?

   5. CPChamath Palihapitiya37:21

      Or have food insecurity for a lot of members of the military, not have paid leave, not have healthcare. The idea that you don't want to look at that budget is an enormous-

   6. CCChris Christie37:33

      That's not what I said.

   7. CPChamath Palihapitiya37:34

      That is what you said.

   8. CCChris Christie37:35

      It's not what... No, it is not.

   9. CPChamath Palihapitiya37:36

      What did you say?

   10. CCChris Christie37:37

       It's not.

   11. CPChamath Palihapitiya37:37

       You said you wouldn't touch it.

   12. CCChris Christie37:37

       I said I... No. No, I did not say that. What I said was that the Pentagon has to be made more efficient and more effective with what it spends, but not reduce what it spends. And that goes right to the point that David just made, which is, you have to get answers as president to the questions of what are you spending $877 billion on if we're running out of ammo, and there's food insecurity, and there's not paid leave, right? So, what I, what I was saying through the answer I gave you on the budget was, I did not see that as a place to cut, but I did say very clearly that it's a place where we have to make the Pentagon more effesh- efficient and effective. And we need a secretary of defense and a president who want to a- and demand answers to those questions first before-

   13. CPChamath Palihapitiya38:29

       Are you not sympathetic to the idea that efficiency sometimes means spending less to get the same or more?

   14. CCChris Christie38:35

       If that's the conclusion we come to after examining it, then I'm very, um, sympathetic to that.

   15. CPChamath Palihapitiya38:40

       So then you are opening to cutting the defense budget?

   16. CCChris Christie38:43

       I'm open... It is a secondary issue. The f- primary issue on defense-

   17. CPChamath Palihapitiya38:49

       No, I understand. I just want a clear answer so I understand where you're coming from. You want to look at the defense budget. You have an intuition that there's potentially extreme levels of waste.

   18. CCChris Christie38:59

       Right, but I wouldn't-

   19. CPChamath Palihapitiya38:59

       And so if you find that waste, will you just cut it?

   20. CCChris Christie39:03

       No.

   21. CPChamath Palihapitiya39:03

       Or will you just reallocate it?

   22. CCChris Christie39:04

       Reallocate.

   23. CPChamath Palihapitiya39:05

       Why?

   24. CCChris Christie39:06

       For the f- for the very reasons that David's just talking about. If we're running out of ammo, if our submarine capacity is not where it should be, which I believe it is not, if our ship capacity is not where it believe, I believe it should be, and it is not, in my view, and if our monetarization of our, of our Air Force is not where it should be, which I believe it is not, then you reallocate that money. So-

   25. CPChamath Palihapitiya39:29

       Okay, so there's a principle in capitalism called zero-based budgeting, which I, I actually like what you're saying, but just to kind of double-click on what that is, zero-based budgeting starts with the principle that you just started, which is, "What are our priorities? What do we want to accomplish?" And then you go and systematically build up where the budget actually starts at $0. "Hey, Pentagon, you get zero, not 800 billion." What do we need to accomplish? Oh, we need bullets? Okay. We need armaments? Okay. We need to have food security for all of our armed servicemen and women? Absolutely. And then what happens if that number gets to 350 billion? Do you just cut half a billion or do you find ways to spend the other half a trillion dollars?

   26. CCChris Christie40:08

       Well, I- I'm glad you brought that up because that's what I did as governor. I was the first governor who did zero-based budgeting and I did it, um, first governor of New Jersey to do it. And I did it because of the, the dire straits that we were in. I didn't think we could assume any longer anything in terms of our spending. So, I absolutely would want to take that approach. Now, I don't think you're going to go from 877 billion to 350 billion, um, and say that we've met all of our defense needs and the needs of our fighting men and women with that, with that number. But let's just leave the number blank for a minute. If I concluded that we could do everything we needed to do through the re-engineering of what we, how we were spending in the Pentagon, and that ultimately it would check the boxes I want it checked in terms of some of the issues I just talked about, and it turned out to be less than 877 billion, of course I would look not to spend 877 billion. But that assumes a lot of things in there, as you know. But the principle of zero-based budgeting, from my perspective, worked when I was governor, not only in terms of keeping our spending at an increase of 2% a year annually for eight years, but it also educated me much more on the intricacies of the budget as the ultimate decision-maker.

   27. CPChamath Palihapitiya41:42

       Chris, you were-

   28. CCChris Christie41:42

       And I think that was useful.

   29. CPChamath Palihapitiya41:43

       You were a very effective prosecutor, and part of that is having a good intuition. So I'm just going to ask you, your intuition, how much waste do you think is in the military-industrial complex in that 877 billion? Do you think there's 30 cents of waste? Do you think there's 40 cents of waste? Do you think there's five cents of waste? Or do you think there's, like, 70 cents of waste?

   30. CCChris Christie42:03

       My intuition tells me that it is significant. I can't put a number on it. It'd be irresponsible for me to put a number on it. But there's no doubt that when you see us spend the 877 billion and we don't have 155 millimeter artillery shells, that there's waste.
6. 50:01 – 1:02:24

   Immigration policy, how each party co-opts the issue

   1. JCJason Calacanis50:01

      one of the most controversial topics between the two parties, which is immigration. And I'll pull up two charts here to queue up the, uh, discussion. Here's the first chart. Just since 2000, we've been, uh, net migration to the United States just on a steady stream down at around five million. Second chart is border crossings. That orange line there that you're seeing, that's COVID. And then the blue line, obviously, is the return from COVID. But, uh, the border agency seems to think not much has changed over (laughs) the last couple years at the border. However, we have... And that's across, obviously, multiple administrations. Other countries have point-based systems. They have very logical discussions over immigration. Is this person going to add and be accretive to the society? Is this person gonna be a drain on society? And, you know, they just... UK, Australia, New Zealand, countless countries now use this point-based system. It's incredibly polarized here, and we have the lowest im- We have the lowest unemployment of our lifetime, plenty of jobs. We still have 1.6 jobs per American who is loo- who are looking for jobs. I'm curious w- why you think this immigration discussion is so polarized and not factual, and how you, as president, would, uh, resolve this issue, an- and, and maybe make it make more sense to the American public.

   2. CCChris Christie51:26

      Well, I... Look, I think the first thing, the first part of the question is, how has it gotten so polarized? And I think it's because people in political life have used this as a weapon, um, on both sides of the aisle, um, to try to, uh, promote their own, um, political agendas. Democrats have wanted this perception, um, on the, on their positive side, from their perspective, um, that they'll let anybody in, because they think ultimately those folks who come in will be their voters, ultimately, over the long haul. And they also wanna raise restrictions, they wanna raise the issue of restrictions that are placed by Republicans on this to make us seem to be heartless, uncaring, unfeeling people. On our side, um, we wanna make the entire system seem completely lawless, because that plays into our view of ourselves as the law and order party, and the Democrats as the party who could give a damn about law and order. And we wanna play into the populist side of it, which says that any person who comes over the border is likely to take your job, not just a job, your job. And then when you present it to people that way, they, of course, are gonna be (laughs) anti-immigration, because they'd like to keep their job, and support their family, and have a life that they wanna look, um, forward to, and for their kids as well. So, that's my explanation on the first part as to how we got here.

   3. JCJason Calacanis53:06

      Seems logical, yeah. And, and fair, by the way. Uh, your assessment of both parties, by the way, on these topics I think is excellent. Um-

   4. CCChris Christie53:12

      A- a- and, by the way, completely unfair-

   5. JCJason Calacanis53:14

      (laughs)

   6. CCChris Christie53:15

      ... way to have conducted this stuff. The problem has been that we haven't had presidential leadership on this issue since Reagan. And Reagan ultimately... And I think he learned this as a conservative governor in a blue state, where he had to deal with Jesse Unruh running his legislature. And Reagan, um... And this is all front of mind, 'cause I just finished writing a book on Reagan, so it's fresh in mind to me. Um, Reagan learned that it was only he, the governor, who could force people into a room to, to get issues resolved. In the same way, when he was president, he didn't love the deal he made on immigration, same way he didn't love the deal he made on Social Security, but he liked it more than he liked the alternative of doing nothing. I think the only way we're gonna resolve the immigration issue, Jason, is to have a president, as I said in response to David Friedberg's earlier question on debt, a president who's willing to sacrifice some popularity to try to force a resolution. And I do think that most Americans would support a merit-based immigration system.

   7. JCJason Calacanis54:40

      Why does it never come up? I mean, it's... If, if these other countries have had such great success with it, why won't any politician say it? I, I haven't heard you say it.... in the debates, I don't know if you have, I haven't heard everything you've said, but-

   8. CCChris Christie54:50

      They didn't even ask us about immigration in the debates. They didn't ask us about immigration, entitlements, or the debt.

   9. JCJason Calacanis54:56

      Hm.

   10. CCChris Christie54:57

       Three things we've already talked about here today.

   11. JCJason Calacanis55:00

       Yeah.

   12. CCChris Christie55:00

       But they had time to ask me about UFOs. (laughs)

   13. JCJason Calacanis55:03

       Yeah, that was pretty bizarre. They're like, "Hey, let's give you the most meaningless question of anybody in the debates." (laughs)

   14. DFDavid Friedberg55:08

       Yeah. Governor, that's what the base wants to hear. Come on.

   15. CCChris Christie55:10

       Yeah.

   16. DFDavid Friedberg55:11

       I mean, it's just-

   17. CCChris Christie55:11

       Wrap it up for us, uh, Governor. Um, let's talk about UFOs. I mean-

   18. JCJason Calacanis55:15

       What did you think of the ending of secession, Governor? Gov? (laughs)

   19. CCChris Christie55:18

       Yeah, I mean, you know, it's like... I... So, um, so I have talked about my town hall meetings about Republicans should be advocating for a merit-based immigration system. But we need to also recognize while I think both parties will be in f- should be in favor of a secure southern border, if for no other reason than the fentanyl and drug related issues that are, that are involved. But there's ever-

   20. JCJason Calacanis55:49

       Wh- why is there such a debate over the numbers? 'Cause, you know, I, I just pulled up those numbers, and, and that's the Border Patrol, and that's across multiple administrations, and then people are saying people are-

   21. DSDavid Sacks55:57

       You're living in some kind of simulation, Jason. Do you see the Washington Post just last week? The headline is, "Families Crossing US Border Illegally Reached All-Time High in August." This is the Washington Post.

   22. JCJason Calacanis56:09

       Oh, you trust the Washington Post now? (laughs) Um-

   23. DSDavid Sacks56:11

       I'm saying that if a liberal-

   24. CCChris Christie56:12

       Yeah.

   25. DSDavid Sacks56:13

       ... uh, Democrat publication that serves the DC blob is admitting-

   26. JCJason Calacanis56:18

       (laughs)

   27. DSDavid Sacks56:18

       ... this problem, why can't you admit it?

   28. JCJason Calacanis56:20

       Oh, oh, I, I'm not saying that it's not at all-time highs, but it doesn't seem to have gotten much different than over the last two administrations and-

   29. DSDavid Sacks56:29

       You wanna act like it's not a serious problem.

   30. JCJason Calacanis56:31

       No, no, I don't actually.
7. 1:02:24 – 1:15:57

   Fentanyl crisis in SF, LA, and NYC, incarceration and criminal justice reform, political activism in law enforcement

   1. CCChris Christie1:02:24

      tough guy.

   2. JCJason Calacanis1:02:24

      So let, let me double-click on that 'cause since you, you brought up fentanyl, we have this crisis here in San Francisco, open air drug market, cheapest fentanyl you can get, plus we give subsidies if you come here and you're a fentanyl a- addict, we, we pay for you to come here, essentially. It's absolute chaos. We keep getting promises in San Francisco that we're gonna turn it around and we're gonna take it seriously. It never happens. Given that, is there not a case for the feds coming in and cracking down on the fentanyl trade here? And if you were president, would you come in and usurp the local authorities and, and just take out all these crazy open-air drug markets in some cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco?

   3. CCChris Christie1:03:01

      I actually said that in debate.

   4. JCJason Calacanis1:03:03

      Yeah.

   5. CCChris Christie1:03:03

      What, what I would do, um, would be to instruct the attorney general to instruct the US attorneys in the cities with these kinda problems that we are taking over the prosecution of violent and drug crime in those cities. If the prosecutors on the state level are unwilling to do it, the US attorneys have the laws under the, on the federal books to do it, we have the rooms of the federal prisons, and we will police these cities until they get their act together. Um-

   6. JCJason Calacanis1:03:32

      But you just got a couple of million votes in California (laughs) 'cause people here are fed up with the locals.

   7. DFDavid Friedberg1:03:36

      Governor, can I just push back on that? I recently started reading the Federalist Papers again. Sachs, I don't know when you last reviewed them. And I'm just struck by how so much of our modern political rhetoric is driven by what the federal government will do for you on a national basis, a state basis, and now even a local basis. Is that really the role of the federal government?

   8. CCChris Christie1:03:57

      No.

   9. DFDavid Friedberg1:03:57

      Or should each state and each city ultimately decide what the hell kind of city they wanna build, what they wanna live in, and then deal with the consequences and let the federal government become responsible for the things that were defined in our Constitution and that the constitutional republic was meant to set out to do for the federal government, rather than use the federal government as a hammer to smash all nails everywhere? At some point, the hammer's gonna break.

   10. CCChris Christie1:04:23

       So, let me answer the question, which is, no, it's not the role of the federal government to do it, unless the discord and the inability of the states to deal with an issue begins to affect the entire country. And I believe that these, this failure, and it's, by the way, it's a planned failure, David, this is the Soros group going around and electing these completely liberal prosecutors who say, "I, I don't, I'm not gonna, uh, prosecute these crimes anymore," it begins to affect the very nature of the entire country. If we don't have functional cities, David, we can't have a functional country. And so, no, I would do this only because I think by the time I get there in January of '25, we are gonna be at last resort world. Now, if in the interim between now and January of '25 the discord in places like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and others got so bad that the citizens there rose up and demanded something different and the states and cities started to respond to it, I have no interest in doing this unless we are the law enforcers of last resort. And so, philosophically, I completely agree with you, but we're now in a situation where when... I was in New York City all day yesterday. It is the worst I've seen New York City since the late '70s.

   11. JCJason Calacanis1:05:58

       I agree, yeah.

   12. CCChris Christie1:05:59

       And I was old enough then to go in, I was a high school student in the late '70s, and going to the city, and my parents used to be petrified if I insisted on going into New York to go to a basketball game or a hockey game. The walk from the Port Authority Bus Terminal on 41st and 8th to Madison Square Garden on 33rd and 8th was a absolute youthful, uh, youthful (laughs) , um, education, um, on drugs and porn and, and violent crime. But, so I agree with you philosophically on that, but I think in the instance we're in right now, this is what we'd have to do in order to get it back under control. Um, and so I'm not thrilled about it, but I think it's absolutely necessary.

   13. DFDavid Friedberg1:06:43

       In the United States, we have somewhere between two and three million Americans incarcerated, one of the highest per capita incarceration rates of any country in the world.And a lot of this justice reform movement arose from what are considered to be very deep inequities in the imprisonment of, of American citizens for various petty crimes, misdemeanors that turn into felonies, that turn into three strikes, that turn into spending your life in prison, and that obviously there's a big racial divide in how this affects the population. And from that movement, arose this effort to try and address the social inequities and how the prison system has become, to some, an extension or the follow-on to America's torrid history with slavery. What is your point of view than ... Do we have inequities in the prison system, in how we address crime in this country, and if so, what would the right path have been? Looking back now at the efforts and the dollars that have gone into trying to solve this problem, through decriminalization has obviously led to massive problems in, in inner cities. Is it a problem, the criminalization in this country, the incarceration in this country, and if so, what's the right path to addressing it? And obviously, you have an intimate history here, so you would know this better than most that we were talking to.

   14. CCChris Christie1:08:00

       Yeah, look, I, I think it is a problem, and let me tell you what I did as governor. We did criminal justice reform in New Jersey, and we did it in a bipartisan way, and this is what we did. I thought that the biggest problem we had in New Jersey was our, um, our state constitution required, it was a shall-issue state on bail. Everyone was entitled to bail under our constitution, and the only factor that could be taken into account, constitutionally, David, was risk of flight. So if you had a rap sheet as long as my arm and your arm put together, that could not be considered by a judge in whether or not to grant bail or not, nor could the v- the nature of the violence you committed in those acts. I saw that as an enormous problem. I agreed with Democrats that on a lot of these minor drug crimes, and I don't mean dealing crimes, I mean possession crimes, with addicts being arrested for small amounts of possession, that we had become a debtor's prison in New Jersey, that if somebody couldn't afford the 500 bucks for the minimum bail, which was usually $5,000, they spent more time in s- in, in county and state prison than they ever would have spent if they'd, you know, just pled guilty and been allowed to plead guilty and get sentenced. So the deal we made was this. On certain defined non-violent crimes, I would agree to the state law allowing release on people's own recognizance. In return, the Democrats would amend our constitution to make it a may-issue state on bail, and to add dangerousness to the community as a factor to be considered in granting bail or not. What's happened since then? Crime in New Jersey is down-

   15. DFDavid Friedberg1:10:02

       Good.

   16. CCChris Christie1:10:02

       ... since we did this. We closed two state prisons, and we have not had any spike in violent crime like you've seen in New York since then, because we did it smartly and in a way that was balanced. And what you've also seen is 98% of the people released on their own recognizance have shown back up for their court hearings, so we're not having some, you know, people running around and jumping the ROR, um, release that they've gotten. And I took one of the two state prisons we closed and turned it into a drug treatment prison so that folks who had documented drug and alcohol addictions while in prison were able to go for the concluding parts of their term to this secondary prison to get, which is fully secure, and they weren't detained, but they also got drug and alcohol treatment while they were in there. And what we've seen with that is we've seen recidivism drop among those people who have gone through that program by nearly 40%. There are ways we can do this without having the results New York has had through their ridiculous criminal justice reform. We could do it the right way across the whole country.

   17. DFDavid Friedberg1:11:26

       Have you seen other states follow New Jersey's lead there, or New Jersey's model, or ...

   18. CCChris Christie1:11:30

       Uh, I have seen a couple of other states that have done it. Um, I don't think anybody's done it as well as we did it.

   19. DFDavid Friedberg1:11:35

       Hm.

   20. CCChris Christie1:11:36

       And, uh, imagine this, you know, a Republican governor got support from the PBA and the FOP for that reform, so from law enforcement professionals, and got an A+ from the ACLU. Now, when you can get both of those, it's kinda hard to get that done, and I think we've gotten it done, and we just had a, at my policy institute, we just had a seminar on this from people from the public defenders, to crimina- private criminal defense lawyers, prosecutors, and cops, all on a panel, and not one of them had an objection to criminal justice reform in New Jersey. And this is now nearly 10 years after we did it. So I think there are ways to do this. Um, unfortunately, a lot of people don't want to have an int- a, a, a long-form conversation (laughs) on criminal justice reform. Um, they wanna have either the Joe Biden approach from when he was in the Senate, mandatory minimums for everybody, throw everybody in the can, three strikes you're out, all that stuff, or they wanna have the George Soros conversation, you know, where, um, nobody who commits a crime really meant to do it, and all jail is unfair.... both of those are dead wrong.

   21. DSDavid Sacks1:12:59

       Governor, you mentioned the FBI briefly before. One of the revelations that came out during the Twitter files is that we had 80 FBI agents monitoring Americans' social media accounts and submitting takedown requests to Twitter, this is, you know, pre-Elon Twitter, and presumably many other big tech companies because I'm sure they weren't just doing this with Twitter. What business is it of the FBI to be monitoring and censoring Americans? Do you think there's any justification for that? What is your view of that?

   22. CCChris Christie1:13:31

       I think the only reason to monitor those kind of things would be for terrorist information, and I think that would be, that would be reasonable to do. Um, but I don't think for any other reason, other than terrorist activity, d- domestic or foreign, um, w- I think the FBI has a, a right to do that, and I think it's the right thing to do. Um, but I, I don't think under any other circumstances, David, they should be doing that.

   23. DSDavid Sacks1:13:58

       Are you willing to say to Chris Wray, as I understand it, you, you recommended Chris Wray for the position, uh, many-

   24. CCChris Christie1:14:03

       I did.

   25. DSDavid Sacks1:14:03

       ... years ago, and, and you're, I think you're a fan of his. Are you willing-

   26. CCChris Christie1:14:07

       I am.

   27. DSDavid Sacks1:14:07

       ... to say to him, "Knock this off. You should not be, you know, involved in censoring American social media accounts"?

   28. CCChris Christie1:14:14

       I'm willing to say to Chris exactly what I just said to you.

   29. DSDavid Sacks1:14:17

       (laughs)

   30. CCChris Christie1:14:17

       And, and by the way, I, I've known Chris long enough, I mean, we were in the Bush Justice Department together starting back at nine, you know, right in the medi- post-9/11 period, so I've known Chris now for 22 years. Um, I will say exactly what I think to Chris, and will instruct him appropriately with the attorney general. And let me just make a point, David, since you brought that up. I don't think presidents should be involved in criminal investigatory activity of the Department of Justice in any way. And so you should set policies that say, like, that, you know, your work should be restricted on monitoring to just domestic or inter- or, or, or, or international terrorism, but you shouldn't be commenting in any way on what they're doing from a criminal investigatory perspective. I think that started in the Obama years with Eric Holder, when you appoint your wingman attorney general, I guess that's what happens, and the fact is that it's continued through the Trump years and now through the Biden years. And my instruction to my attorney general will be the same as it was, 'cause in New Jersey, we don't elect attorney general, we appoint them, like you do in the federal system. And what I said to each of my attorneys general was, "I know I was the US attorney for seven years, I got a lot of expertise and opinions on criminal prosecution, I'm never gonna call you, ever." And I never did, because once you decide to be a political figure and not a law enforcement figure, you should stay out of criminal investigations. So I know you didn't ask it, but it struck me when you were talking about that, so-
8. 1:15:57 – 1:17:41

   Why Chris Christie is running for president

   1. DFDavid Friedberg1:15:57

      let me ask you one last question from my end, which is, why are you running for president? Recent polling data shows a 52% unfavorable rating, 23% favorable, and you're three and a half percent in the average of the national polls. What's the goal here? Help us understand how you think about the campaign and how you think about your future as a political operator, and what your goal is with the campaign.

   2. CCChris Christie1:16:20

      (laughs) My goal is to be president of the United States. And since I've been doing this for a while, I don't pay attention to national polls, because we don't have a national primary, and in fact, we don't have a national general election. What we have is 50 individual state elections, that's the way we nominate candidates, and if you look at the most recent poll in New Hampshire, I'm in second place in New Hampshire at 14%, ahead of Ron DeSantis, ahead of Vivek, ahead of Nikki, ahead of Pence, um, and behind only Trump. And now I'm behind by 20 points, I'll give you that, but I'm behind a guy who's only at 34% in that poll, and so I absolutely believe I can win New Hampshire, and I believe if I win New Hampshire, David, then the whole race changes.

   3. DFDavid Friedberg1:17:07

      You have a line there, yeah, yeah.

   4. CCChris Christie1:17:09

      Right? So, so let's start off with I'm running 'cause I wanna be president of the United States.

   5. DFDavid Friedberg1:17:13

      Yep.

   6. CCChris Christie1:17:13

      And that's the only reason to run. I think, I, I don't need to run to become famous. I'm famous enough. I don't need to run to, I don't need to run a- to get a book deal 'cause you know what? I've already written two books, and my third one's getting ready to come out. I don't need it to get a job on TV, I gave that up to run for president. So I'm running for president to be president, David, and-

   7. DFDavid Friedberg1:17:36

      Governor, should-

   8. CCChris Christie1:17:37

      ... and, and that's why I'm doing it, and for no other reason.

   9. DFDavid Friedberg1:17:40

      Should

9. 1:17:41 – 1:23:16

   Thoughts on prosecuting Trump, January 6th, and more

   1. DFDavid Friedberg1:17:41

      Donald Trump be in jail?

   2. CCChris Christie1:17:43

      We'll find out when these trials happen.

   3. DFDavid Friedberg1:17:45

      What do you think?

   4. CCChris Christie1:17:46

      I'm willing to give everybody the presumption of innocence 'cause that's what the Constitution demands that I do. Um, do I think-

   5. DFDavid Friedberg1:17:53

      What's your prosecutorial intuition?

   6. CCChris Christie1:17:55

      ... that he c- I would have indicted both federal cases. I would not have indicted the New York case or the Atlanta case as to Donald Trump. I think on the New York case, the Manhattan DA has much more important work to be doing than bringing a case on a seven-year-old payment to a porn star that he was having an affair with to keep it from the American people after the American people already know everything they need to know about it. So I think that was useless and purely political. In the Atlanta case, once Jack Smith indicted Trump on election interference federally, I know that, um, Fani Willis was probably very upset that she had been i- investigating it for two and a half years, and he beat her to the punch, but he beat her to the punch, and there's no reason to indict somebody for the same acts twice. And so I wouldn't have indicted him in Atlanta. I would have indicted him for sure on the, uh, documents case, but I will tell you, since you asked, I wouldn't have indicted him on the documents, I would have just indicted him on the obstruction of justice and the lying...... I think by indicting on the documents, you just made it a much more complicated case that may not get to trial for a year and a half or two because of the classified documents involved. And I would have ind- indicted him on the January 6th case, because I believe his activity, um, from election night forward, um, is worthy of the probable cause standard. Now, we'll see if the government can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt on both those cases. I will tell you...

   7. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:19:30

      But on those cases that you would bring, that you would indict as prosecutor, what sentence would you seek? Because, you know, these Democrat prosecutors are, are seeking over 500 years of jail time for Trump. I mean, like-

   8. CCChris Christie1:19:42

      Yeah, well, and, and that's just the statutory-

   9. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:19:44

      ... what do you think the appropriate punishment to seek is?

   10. CCChris Christie1:19:45

       David, that's just the statutory number. It's not whatever is done. It, it, and people do that all the time. They look at the statutory maximum, they add up each count in the statutory maximum, they come to five years. It never happens, and it's never asked for.

   11. JCJason Calacanis1:19:58

       That's the opening salvo, yeah.

   12. CCChris Christie1:19:59

       And it's never asked for. Um, what you do is you-

   13. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:20:01

       But if you- if you were the prosecutor, what punishment would you be seeking?

   14. CCChris Christie1:20:05

       I don't think that it makes any sense, um, for Donald Trump to go to jail, and it's not just because he's Donald Trump. It has more to do, quite frankly, with the fact that he'd probably be 79 years old before he'd be ready to go to jail. And when I was prosecuting cases, I, I really felt like when you get to that age and you send someone into the atmosphere that federal prison is, even the minimum security federal prison, that you're essentially giving them a death sentence. And unless they've done something w- like Bernie Madoff, for instance, which is worthy of a death sentence, then I, I, I would not think that sending him to jail would be appropriate. Um, now, uh, you know, a judge may feel differently, and in the end, all the prosecutor does is make a recommendation. The judge makes the decision. If I were president of the United States, while I would not consider pardoning Donald Trump if he were convicted, unless the trial for some reason showed itself to have, you know, unconstitutionally unfair elements that were not corrected by the courts. Other than that, I wouldn't pardon him. But if he were sentenced to jail, I certainly would consider commuting the sentence for the reasons I just said.

   15. JCJason Calacanis1:21:22

       Let's talk about what happened on January 6th for a second. Uh, a lot of folks in the Republican Party are framing it as, like, you know, a day out, uh, at the park, and, uh, we just saw Trump-appointed judges give the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys sentences, multi-decade sentences, for seditious conspiracy. Do you think this- these sentences that have been handed down, uh, by Trump-appointed judges are part of a deep state conspiracy against the Republicans, or do you think these people are domestic terrorists and that they got appropriate sentences?

   16. CCChris Christie1:21:56

       You know, I don't wanna, Jason, give an answer on each one of the cases, because I, quite frankly, could tell you that I haven't followed the cases, each one of them, closely enough-

   17. JCJason Calacanis1:22:05

       You just did on the other four.

   18. CCChris Christie1:22:06

       ... to give an opinion. Pardon me?

   19. JCJason Calacanis1:22:07

       But you just did on the other four, though.

   20. CCChris Christie1:22:10

       No, no. There were no... You're asking me about... That was the Trump cases.

   21. JCJason Calacanis1:22:16

       Yeah, yeah, so now I'm asking about this.

   22. CCChris Christie1:22:17

       And I'm talking about as a, uh, and I said that because of his age.

Episode duration: 2:08:14