Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie joined me this morning:

Audio:

12-11hhs-christie

Transcript:

HH: Joined by former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Good morning, Governor. Welcome back.

CC: Hugh, thanks for having me.

HH: The most important issue in America today is what do we say and do about Israel’s war in Gaza and the threat from the north from Hezbollah. What do you think of President Biden’s policy?

CC: Look, I think, and as I’ve said to you before, Hugh, I think generally, what he did in the immediate aftermath of October 7th was the right thing to do. I think his trip to Israel was the right thing to do. Now of late, I don’t like the way he’s showing and having Antony Blinken show as much daylight as he’s showing between Israel’s efforts and the United States’ support. The fact of the matter is that Hamas executed a horrific terrorist act. They have made very clear publicly that they intend to do it again and again if they’re able. And so the Israelis have an obligation to the safety and security of their people, and the integrity of their territory to dismantle the Hamas military machine as best they possibly can. And we need to be completely supportive of that effort.

HH: Governor, I don’t think President Biden has the ability to deliver a clear, concise and inspiring speech about this. It’s an upside down Maginot line. It’s going to take forever, and they’re going to have to do an upside down Roman, we made Carthage a desert and called it peace. But it’s going to take a while. How long do you think it will take the Israelis to do this? And should we support them every step of the way?

CC: Look, I think that the Israelis could probably get, you know, it depends on how much you want to dismantle it, Hugh. I don’t think it’s possible to completely eliminate Hamas. I just think that the territorial problems make that very, very, very difficult. But I think you could degrade them significantly enough that they are not an immediate threat. And then, you have to do better than the Israelis have done, quite frankly, in their intelligence gathering and their execution on that gathering in the future. I think this could take another couple of months, and I think if that’s the time frame, we should be completely supportive.

HH: Thank you for that. Again, like the fact you answer my questions. Here’s a hard one. Over the weekend, the National Security Advisor of Israel, who’s a very little known but very important guy by the name of Tzachi Hanegbi. I hope I’ve not butchered that too badly. He said that they could no, “we can no longer accept the Radwan force sitting on the border. The Israeli public understands that the situation in the north needs to change, and it will change. If Hezbollah agrees to change it diplomatically, that’s good. If not, we will have to act. We will have to ensure that the situation in the north is different.” What do you think that means, Governor?

CC: I think they’re sending a warning shot across Iran and Hezbollah’s bow and letting them know that the type of activities that they, you know, either negligently have permitted, is probably the best way to put it, from Gaza, will not be permitted in the north. And I think this is a warning shot. This is the diplomacy that you engage in, hard diplomacy, to let people know what you’re willing to put up with and what you’re not willing to put up with. I don’t think it means that anything is imminent in terms of action from Israel, because I think Israel knows that they would like to avoid, if possible, a two-front war. And they’re not going to try to initiate something like that. But in the end, I think they’re doing what they need to do, which is to say to Hezbollah and most importantly to its state sponsor, Iran, don’t try it.

HH: If they go full 1967, Governor, ought America to support them?

CC: Look, it depends on what the provocation is for that, Hugh. But again, I don’t think there can be any question that we must support Israel as long as we believe what Israel is doing is meeting two criteria – protecting the safety and security of its people, necessary to do that, and two, necessary to support its territorial integrity.

HH: Governor, last week, I’m sure you saw Elise Stefanik questioning the presidents of Penn, Harvard, and MIT. Thus far, we have a split decision. Penn accepted the resignation of their president, MIT did 100% support of theirs, and Harvard’s board is meeting today. What should Harvard do?

CC: They should fire their president. Now Hugh, you remember at the debate in Miami, I was the first one to say this. I said that all those presidents should be fired, and I said it back in early November. The fact is that this anti-Semitism is a symptom of a greater problem in our higher education system, especially in what’s constituted to be the elite colleges and universities in this country. They have been on a hiring spree over the last decade and a half or more of radical people with radical ideas that put their DEI type of function into place. And what it’s done is it’s infected the entire educational process in these schools. And look, I have personal experience on this. Our oldest son went to Princeton University, graduated in 2016. I saw its presence back then, Hugh. And it’s only gotten worse and worse and worse over time. Claudine Gay should be fired. She should have been fired quite some time ago. And MIT is making a huge mistake in maintaining the presidency that they have there.

HH: Governor, you know about the two-state solution. I’ve got the two secretary solution as a Harvard alum. I’ve been putting it out there. Bring in Hillary Clinton to run the place for three years, and put Mike Pompeo in charge of the search committee and the reform committee at Harvard. What do you think of my two secretary solution?

CC: (laughing) Well, look, I have absolutely no problem with Mike Pompeo leading a search committee. I think there are very few people who have greater integrity than Mike Pompeo, and I think he would bring integrity to the process. As for Secretary Clinton, I don’t know if she’s really qualified to be a university president. And would she bring the right type of leadership there? Would she be willing to stand up to the DEI culture and the woke culture that’s going on in these places? I’m less sold on your one secretary, more sold on your other.

HH: Well, it’s just a question of the art of the possible. And you know, I don’t know that the board of trustees or the overseers of the corporation are going to bring in a Republican. Governor, let me ask you some technical questions about personnel. Do you have any idea who would be your chief of staff in the White House?

CC: I have a couple ideas, but I’m certainly not going to spring them on your show, Hugh.

HH: Why not? Make some news.

CC: Well, it would be news to the people I’m thinking about, so I think I owe it to them to talk to them first. Don’t you?

HH: Well, what I was, you know, we had these debates before the debate…

CC: Let me tell you, well, let me tell you, how about this. How about this, Hugh, because I like to answer your questions. I would say this. I think you would, you should consider it very likely that my chief of staff will be somebody who either was a governor or currently serves as a governor.

HH: Ah. Very well put. Good, good, good. I think these personnel questions, you know, there are only 3,000 appointments, and we always elect a president and a vice president. Do you think we ought to have more clarity on who’s coming in with the team?

CC: Yes, I do. And I think if that were something that people got a little bit of notice on, let’s say before the next set of debates, that there might be a question on the kind of people you would consider, then you could have the time to at least give those people a heads up that their name will be thrown out in front of millions of people on national television or millions of people here on the Hugh Hewitt Show. But I absolutely think it’s important, because look, the guy who can’t answer that question is Donald Trump, because 40 of his 44 cabinet level people have said not only that they wouldn’t work for him again, they wouldn’t vote for him. And so who’s he going to bring in? Is this going to be the Kash Patel’s of the world? The Jeffrey Clark’s of the world? The Michael Flynn’s of the world are going to be the people who are going to populate the next Trump administration, a bunch of deranged sycophants who will just do whatever the masters tell them to do regardless of the law and the Constitution? I’d answer these questions, because I want Trump to answer these questions, because you know what? He’s not going to be able to find anybody good to work for him.

HH: Do you expect him to come to the debates that are allegedly going to happen before Iowa and New Hampshire? Non-sanctioned RNC debates are now allowed.

CC: I don’t expect that he’ll come to Iowa, but I think because he knows he has greater risk in New Hampshire, he might show up at the New Hampshire debates.

HH: Will you do a debate that just has legacy media running it, because the RNC’s backed away. That means legacy media will fill in and they’re not going to bring any Republicans with them.

CC: Look, I’ll show up at any debate, any time, any place, because I am self-confident in my ability as you saw on Wednesday night to not only answer questions directly, which none of the other candidate on the stage were willing to do. And I think they have to be called out on that, Hugh, because in the end, you had Ron DeSantis on Wednesday night who would not answer if he would send troops into Gaza if we had a plan to successfully rescue hostages, wouldn’t answer whether he would send troops to Taiwan if China invaded, and wouldn’t answer whether Donald Trump was fit or unfit to be president of the United States. Now you know, these debates, sometimes, are just as instructive for what the candidates won’t say as they are for what they will say. And I don’t want people to forget. The first debate in August, Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, and Vivek Ramaswamy, the remaining people on the stage, raised their hands and said they will support Donald Trump, even if he’s a convicted felon. Now you know, then why wouldn’t Ron DeSantis easily say that he was fit to be president? He said he was going to support him even if he was a convicted felon. So I would go to debate these folks any time, any place, if for no other reason than to act as the force moderator and actually embarrass them into answering some questions.

HH: You know, Governor, I’m a pretty good lawyer. You’re a pretty good lawyer. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit reworked the gag order on the former President. All three of those, two Obama, one Biden appointee all got out of committee on a partisan vote. I think this make our country look really bad, and I think prior restraints are awful. What do you make of the gag order on the former President?

CC: The problem, Hugh, is the President’s conduct. And you know, any other criminal defendant would not be permitted to do what he’s doing. And you know that.

HH: Actually, I don’t. I don’t know anything about criminal law, but I know the 1st Amendment, and I hate prior restraints.

CC: Well, but let me say this. When I was U.S. Attorney for seven years, if a criminal defendant started, ad hominem, tried to intimidate potential witnesses, they would be sanctioned and probably, look, he’s getting a break. These other criminal defendants would have their bail revoked, and they’d be put in jail.

HH: But you see, Governor, that’s where it’s a sanction after the speech occurs. I have no problem with sanctions, but prior restraints give me the shivers.

CC: Well, look, so I want to make sure I understand what you mean. So you would be fine given if he was intimidating witnesses, which he has done already, if he was intimidating witnesses, you would be okay with him being jailed.

HH: Well, it’s an interview, not a debate, but yes, I believe all criminal defendants have to live up to the rules under which they have achieved bail. And if those bail rules are clear and he violates them afterwards…but prior restraints are anathema to me, Governor.

CC: You know what? This is why it’s such an impossible position that this former President has put this country in, because now we’re in a situation where if he were jailed for violating his bail conditions, you know that people would be yelling, screaming, how can you put a former president of the United States in jail prior to his trial. He knows this, so he acts recklessly and violates those things, calling out the judge to dare her, or him in the New York case, to put him in jail, because that’s what he wants. He wants to play the role of a victim.

HH: Well, if there’s one set of rules, that one set of rules is no prior restraint, and I would live with that. Governor, very quickly, you have the best finance chair in the country. I had lunch with him on Friday.

CC: Yes, sir.

HH: Are you 100%, 100% staying in this race through New Hampshire?

CC: Absolutely 100%.

HH: Governor Chris Christie, always a pleasure to talk to you. Keep coming back. I appreciate the time.

End of interview.