Chris Christie, on the Record

On why he’s running for president:

To me, at this point, our country feels a lot like the late ’70s: a country that’s pretty horribly divided, angry, a country where inflation is running rampant, people feel insecure about the economy. You know, back in the ’70s, foreign-policy issues were difficult: hostages in Iran, Soviets in Afghanistan, Olympic boycott, and a president who basically appeared to be either unwilling or unable—or a combination of both—to be able to handle the depth of the problems and to have ideas that a majority of American people are willing to accept to try to solve them.

And what the country did in 1980 was take a conservative governor from a blue state who knew how to get things done. And I think the case is that we’re at a point in Washington now where it’s not that people don’t want to get anything done. They don’t even know how to get things done. The current president doesn’t have the intellectual, physical or emotional energy to do it—even if he did know how to do it at one time in his career, which I think he did. And nobody’s taking the time or has the experience to know how to solve these problems.

And I think that’s one of the things that discourages the American people as much as they are discouraged. Because even if they believe in somebody—like many folks believed in some of the things that Trump had to say—he went there and showed no ability to be able to get these things done. Whether it was dealing with the budget, dealing with the border, dealing with healthcare—all things that he said and made big pronouncements on but showed that he had no ability, even with a Republican Congress, to be able to get anything done pretty much other than a tax cut, which was fine by me and I would support its renewal.

But I think the case is you need somebody who is tough enough to have the fights that need to be had but experienced enough and smart enough to know when to make a deal and to get things done and put some touchdowns in the end zone. . . . Governing in a blue state for eight years with a Democratic legislature . . . we got things done on pensions and health benefits and crime and criminal-justice reform and got things done on educational choice that people thought would be impossible in a state like New Jersey to do, but we got a lot of it done. We didn’t get everything we wanted, but we got a lot more than anybody thought we would.

Lastly, Trump can’t win. . . . By the time we get to the debate stage in three weeks, he will probably be out on bail in four different jurisdictions. I hardly think that’s going to play well. . . .

How anybody in the Republican Party thinks that that’s going to be appealing to the independent voters, the suburban women that we lost in 2020, which cost us the election, that we’re going to get them back because, well, we’re nominating a candidate who’s on indictment in four jurisdictions, not to mention all the other problems. That’s why I’m not taking the polls at this moment too seriously. And no one else is willing to take him on. . . . They all are either playing for a position in a potential Trump cabinet or they just don’t have the ability to do it.

On what he learned from 2016:

There’s no way to beat this guy unless you beat him. And the idea that we tried out in 2016—I was there and I participated in it, wrongfully—which was to allow him just to do what he was going to do and assuming no one’s going to take him seriously . . . was a failure for me, for Jeb Bush, for Scott Walker, for Marco Rubio, for Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, and all the rest of us and John Kasich.

On the first two indictments against Mr. Trump:

New York is a joke. It shouldn’t have been done as a matter of law. It shouldn’t have been done as a matter of prosecutorial discretion. Let’s do it as a matter of law first. They are stretching those statutes to their absolute limit and I think beyond them to charge him in the way that they did, to get felonies, which is what they wanted to get. So I think it’s a matter of law, there’s going to be a real question about whether or not those charges hold up in front of a judge.

But as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, it is obscene. . . . I think a payment to a porn star seven years ago, if that wrong is righted, will not improve the quality of life in the island of Manhattan one scintilla. And that’s your first job as a prosecutor, to protect the rights and safety of the people in your jurisdiction. This is purely a political prosecution by Alvin Bragg. He ran on it and said he would do it. He’s doing it. He’s playing to a constituency here in New York that in Manhattan, it’s not a big Donald Trump

Now the underlying conduct is reprehensible. And I think you have to separate the two. I don’t think he should have been charged politically, but paying off a woman that you had an affair with months before a presidential election in order to buy her silence so the American people don’t know that this is part of your character plate is reprehensible conduct. For people in the country who are voting, they should know about it, but it didn’t need to be charged.

The classified documents case I think is a serious case, with serious evidence, with—if as alleged in the indictment—absolute violations of the law. And so, from a legal perspective, I don’t see any problem with it at all. From a prosecutorial-discretion perspective, I don’t buy the argument that the way we right the wrong that was committed by Loretta Lynch and Jim Comey is to then let the next guy off, if he happens to be of the other party. . . . These are real crimes and the obstruction and now the superseding indictment is an example of his disregard for the law. . . .

So I think the case against Trump on the classified documents is serious. If the conduct as alleged is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, there’s no question it’s a crime, both on the classified documents and on the obstruction. And if he takes the case to trial and loses, there’s a presumption of jail for him.

The one other thing I would say about the case is that I wouldn’t have charged it that way. I wouldn’t have charged the classified documents portion of it, and not because those crimes aren’t serious crimes—they are. But if your goal is to interfere as little as possible in the election, charge the case as narrowly as you possibly can so that the case will get to trial as quickly as possible and be resolved before people have to vote. When you add the classified documents into it, you’re adding an element that will delay the trial. It’s already delayed until May of next year and my guess is it won’t happen then either. . . . You could just charge this as a straight obstruction and false statements to federal agents. . . .

They quietly, professionally, privately asked him for 18 months to return the documents. He didn’t, of course, because he was too busy. Now, I watched what he was doing for those 18 months—it seemed like mostly playing golf every day and giving interviews to people who were writing books about him. I think he could have squeezed a couple of minutes in to maybe go through the boxes and return documents that were classified. . . .

How about we not try to predict the political dynamic and just do what’s right? And then, let the chips fall where they may. And if it turns out that indicting Donald Trump re-elects him president, while that would trouble me deeply, what would trouble me more is if we let him get away with significant crimes against the country and said because it might help elect him, we’re going to let him get away with it. Because that’s what he’s counting on. And beside his massive ego, it’s the only other reason he’s running. You think he gives a crap about the country and he’s got all these great plans for the future of the country? Have you heard any of them? Every one of these speeches is about what happened three years ago. He’s doesn’t have a great plan for the country. But he’s smart enough . . . to know that if he’s a candidate, there are going to be people out there who say, “I got to vote for him because he’s being picked on or we’re going to criticize the justice system for this because of it.”

On the Hunter Biden case and whether it reflects a double standard:

For three weeks—go back and look at the tapes—I was saying the judge is not going to accept this plea because it’s a one-sided plea, and she’s going to look at it and say: What’s the government get here? . . .

The fact is that if it was corruption, the system stopped it. The judge did her job. . . . Most of [the federal judges] that I know and I interacted with are not impacted by politics and don’t care about politics, because guess what? They got lifetime tenure. . . .

I never met David Weiss, but if I was the U.S. attorney and one of my prosecutors brought me that plea on any case, let alone a case that I knew was going to get worldwide scrutiny, the first thing I would have done, was fire them and then assign two new AUSAs [assistant U.S. attorneys] who could actually bring me a competent plea back. David Weiss obviously didn’t do that. So David Weiss is either lying that he had the jurisdiction he says he had to make the decision on his own, and he was getting pressure from above. Or he is incompetent and thought that was going to be a plea that was going to be acceptable. . . .

So my point in all this is that, you want Joe Biden prosecuted? As soon as I see the evidence I’m happy to have there be an impeachment inquiry, right? My view is that Hunter Biden should have had to eat felony tax pleas given the amount of money that was involved and should have had to eat the gun charge. And if he’s unwilling to do that, then you bring the trial because the trial’s a lay-up, man. This is not a multiple LLC tax scheme. This is: this much came in, here are the 1099s, this is what you paid, there’s the delta. . . .

I think they should appoint a special counsel because I don’t think Merrick Garland can be trusted anymore to do this. And you’re really going to let David Weiss take a second crack at this? I mean, it’s ridiculous. There should be a special counsel who should have brought enough jurisdiction to also look at the allegations that are now being made about the president’s involvement with his son’s business.

On his own relationship with Mr. Trump:

I’m not a Never Trumper, as you know, who never tried to help him, never supported him, was against him the whole time. I’m actually coming from the perspective of, I tried to make this guy a better candidate, I tried to make him a better president. I did almost everything I could to do that. He disappointed me and he disappointed the country. I think you have more credibility when you’re making the argument to Republican voters from that perspective, then if you’re someone who has never been supportive of the president.

On what’s changed in the Republican Party:

I think you have voters who are now voting in the Republican primary who never voted before. . . . From the Republican Party, I think a lot of these middle-class voters, working-class voters, came to the conclusion that we cared more about world trade and what was happening in other countries than we cared about what’s happening here economically. They became very disaffected with the Republican Party in that regard, even though they agree with us on a lot of other issues. But they hated Nafta, they hated the things that they felt were making them, their families, less marketable, less competitive, less employable.

The Democrats moved way far to the left. And so, these voters didn’t see the Democrats, even though they liked some of their economic theories, but they moved so far culturally away from them, that they were no longer a viable alternative.

Enter Donald Trump . . . somebody who is shameless in his willingness to say anything and talented in his ability to communicate it. And the combination of the two appeals to this group of folks. And they see him as somebody they’d like to be. He’s rich, he’s famous, he’s got a beautiful wife.

When you listen to some voters, and this is hardly all of them, but you listen to some—the idea of the profile that a three-times married, three-times bankrupt, billionaire, allegedly, real estate developer who lives in Manhattan would become the champion of people in central Pennsylvania—it is preposterous. But for this set of circumstances: the cultural departure by the Democrats to a place where these folks could not relate to them on a cultural basis at all, their view that Republican policy had abandoned them economically, and then a guy who comes in who they kind of would like to be like, and seems like the kind of guy who will say and do anything, and that’s kind of appealing to them because they feel like nothing else is breaking through.

On Ron DeSantis:

I mean, if we were endorsing résumés, then the DeSantis campaign would be neck and neck with Trump, if not ahead. We don’t. You actually have to go out and be a person, be a human being, and show that you can relate to other humans whose votes you want to have. And—I’m sorry, you know, it’s just the truth and you know it, and you’ve seen it, and I’m sorry that I have to be the one to say it, but it is what it is. You can’t look at what’s happening here and not say to yourself, jeez, why would this be happening?

Well people look at someone and they make judgments based upon how they interact with them. And whether it’s the hill you want to die on is the curriculum on African-American studies in the K-12 school districts in Florida? OK. You want to send out homoerotic videos and then pretend they’re not yours, but then get caught that they are yours? I mean, this is like amateur hour and people see that, and they go, oh, maybe he’s not ready to be president. Despite the fact that he did this, this, this in a red state with a red legislature and no discernible critical media in the entire state. OK, I wish I would have had those benefits when I was governor. You would have been, you know, giving me a parade in the Canyon of Heroes. I mean, come on.

On the Aug. 23 first Republican primary debate:

There is only one person right now who matters in this primary, and it’s Donald Trump. That’s it. I don’t waste my time predominately on other people. Now, if someone says something monumentally stupid, and I see it as the moment to say, “That’s really stupid,” I’m going to do it. . . . Yes, I have a plan, but I am absolutely both willing and able to change the plan on the fly, depending upon what happens on the stage.

On what happens if Mr. Trump doesn’t show up to the debate:

Doesn’t matter. Doesn’t matter to me, won’t change what I’m going to do. He’s still the central focus and issue, except I’ll have more time. And he won’t respond. He’ll be sitting in Bedminster on Truth Social going berserk. That’s why I don’t think—if he skips it, I don’t think it will last long.

On the Christie policy agenda:

First is that we’ve got to go back to controlling government spending. It’s what caused the inflation that we’re still living with. And the fact is that I dealt with this when I was governor. . . . I inherited $11 billion deficit on the $29 billion budget and everybody said that I was going to have to raise taxes to balance it. I didn’t, we didn’t raise taxes for eight years. And that first year, we cut 836 individual programs out of the budget along with other measures to get ourselves into balance. We’re not going to balance this budget in four years, and probably not going to balance it at all, in the first term, given the level of the debt and deficits that we have. But you got to start moving in that direction and showing people that you could do that.

Second, the K-12 educational system in this country is failing every family in this country. And by that, I don’t mean that no one’s getting a good education, but the ones who are, are paying much too much in taxes for what they’re getting. And the ones that aren’t are also paying those taxes and not getting a good education. And I think we need a completely new approach to the K-12 educational system. And I think that even the system that we have now in some states of vouchers for people only in a certain economic class is no longer what fixes the problem. I think we need to make that universal in the country, that everyone should be able to choose where they send their kids to school. . . . I am tired of having the teachers unions in this country decide exactly how this is going to go. . . .

On crime, I am tired of seeing what’s happening in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and all these places. And I’m going to go to each one of these states and appoint U.S. attorneys, and their policy instruction from me is to go after violent crime in each one of these cities, to supersede the local authorities on it, to take these folks federal and to put them in jail. And when the localities get tired of it, of us intervening, then they’re going to go back to doing it themselves. But until they’re willing to do it themselves, we’re going to do it. . . .

In terms of our posture around the world, I am an unabashed supporter of Ukraine. I absolutely believe this is a proxy war by China against us. They are funding the Russian war effort; they are coordinating the provision of more sophisticated weapons to Russia with Iran. And we need to fight this fight there and now because otherwise we’ll be fighting it with American troops someplace else in the world at China’s instigation, directly or even indirectly.

And I don’t believe that we’re a country that can’t do all those things at the same time. You know, this idea that somehow an America First agenda is an agenda which must turn its back on the rest of the world is contrary, in my view, to our historical experience. . . . I would give [Ukraine] F-16s. I would have done it a long time ago. I would have been much more aggressive even than the Trump administration was in terms of providing them with offensive weapons in addition to defensive weapons, that they needed to, at that time, deter the war. . . .

We need to make it very clear to the Chinese that they can continue to play and say that there is no limit to the friendship between Russia and China. There may be no limit, but there will be a cost.

On federal involvement with funding schools:

Well, I think you start with leveraging, the $80-plus billion or so that the feds do spend on K-12 education and say to them, the only way that money is going to your jurisdiction is if it goes into accounts for these families and leverage that money that way. . . . Because in a lot of these states, you already have close to this system, and so you need to go and make the argument for this. This is a moral argument. These folks—families are getting ripped off by this educational system, both in terms of dollars and in hope. And you got to go out and make the case, you got to use the presidential bully pulpit to do it. It is not going to be easy, but I refuse to continue to invest in a system that’s producing failure at every level. . . .

When you look at the NAEP scores that came out in the last three months, it is now a trend that reading and math scores continue to go down. And yes, some of it is Covid-blamed, but part of the reason that that happened was because the teachers unions were deciding policy during Covid and not the public officials in many states.

On the tax code:

I would renew the Trump tax cuts. I think that they were the right prescription at the time and I think they produced results. . . . The more we can get the government towards a flatter tax, is what we should be doing. I don’t think we’ll ever have a flat federal tax, but moving it much more towards that.

On energy and climate policy:

I think that we have gone much too far. We are way out ahead of not only the American people, but we’re way out ahead of the technology and the availability of it. And not only, using EV as an example, not only the technology of EVs but the technology of actually fueling EVs. . . .

One of the things that I would really push for is increase in nuclear. And that comes from my experience in New Jersey, we’re the most densely populated state in the country by far. Fifty-three percent of our electricity is from nuclear. If you can safely run nuclear in the most densely populated state in the country, which we have for now four decades, you can certainly do it in every other area of the country. . . .

This has to be a bigger conversation with China. We’ve lowered our CO2 emissions by a billion tons a year over the last decade. At the same time, China has increased them by five billion tons a year over the last decade. I believe in climate change, but we’re not going to solve it by ourselves and our Western European friends.