Biden initially stated he wouldn't pardon Hunter, but later did, likely due to concerns about potential legal exposure and the impact on Hunter's life, including his struggle with addiction.
Biden's pardon gives Trump political cover to pardon anyone, as Trump can now argue that Biden also pardoned his son, thus normalizing the act of presidential pardons for personal reasons.
Christie believes the pardon power itself doesn't need reform but that better people should be elected to wield it responsibly, citing his own criteria for pardons as evidence of its proper use.
Kushner hired a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law, videotaped it, and sent the tape to his sister to intimidate her from testifying before a grand jury, along with other tax and campaign finance violations.
Trump's appointment of Kushner is seen as a 'human middle finger,' demonstrating his disregard for norms and showcasing the influence of Jared Kushner, Charles' son, over Trump's decisions.
Charles is known for his volcanic temper, which often led to rash decisions, while Jared is more calculated, having learned from his father's mistakes to avoid letting emotions cloud his judgment.
Patel's idea to dismantle the FBI's intelligence operations and reassign its personnel could undermine the agency's ability to handle national security threats, including counterintelligence and terrorism.
Christie believes Bondi is capable but must understand she represents the country, not the president, while Patel lacks the qualifications and understanding necessary for the FBI director role.
Hegseth's history of public drunkenness, lewd behavior, and mismanagement of veterans' organizations raises questions about his ability to command respect and effectively manage the Pentagon's large and complex operations.
Kennedy's history of promoting anti-vaccine conspiracy theories and other unfounded health claims raises serious concerns about his ability to lead agencies responsible for public health and safety.
Hey, pull up a chair. It's Hacks on Tap with David Axelrod and Mike Murphy. Hacks on Tap.
Well, that was then.
And this is now Heilman. Yeah. Yes. I actually went back and looked at the, uh, he was interviewed by David Muir, uh, when he was over it in Europe in June, Dave Muir asked him, will you accept the verdict? He said, yes. Will you, are you ruling out a pardon? He said, yes. Then I believe two weeks later at the NATO summit, um, uh,
In Washington, late June, he was asked again. And again, he said, without even being asked whether he was going to rule out a pardon, he said directly, I'm not going to pardon my son. I believe those are only two examples of countless examples. Yeah, including one after the election. I don't know.
There's a lot of it. You could make a lot of super cuts if you were in the mood to do super cuts right now. And obviously a lot of people on the right are in the mood to do super cuts. But we haven't even said hello to our guest. Well, we need to hear it. Well, a special guest, Hackeroo, an illustrious guest, Hackeroo, who has had more than a little to say about the rule of law lately. Chris Christie, former governor of New Jersey, former presidential candidate.
candidate. Gov, what do you make of... He's been nodding sagely throughout this recitation of Joe Biden's assurances. He's practicing. He's practicing. He's getting ready. He rarely speaks. He likes to speak softly and carry a big stick, Chris Christie. That's one of the things. Yeah, that's the rep. That's the rep. What do I think? He lied. And to me, that's the biggest problem in all this, is that he just flat out lied.
And I don't want to hear about changes, circumstances. You knew all along that there was at least a possibility, if you were Joe Biden, that Donald Trump was going to get elected. And so don't tell me, oh, well, now circumstances have changed. Or some of the things that Donald Trump has said has made me forget it. He's not said anything different recently than he has said over the course of the nine years he's been at the front of political life in the country. And so I think...
You know, look, I think this is a much bigger, broader problem. It's a generational problem. And I think that Joe Biden and Donald Trump represent the narcissism of so many of the baby boom generation. They got handed the greatest country in the world by the World War II generation. And for many of them, it's been all about them ever since.
And that reflects in Joe Biden, not only in his pardon, but in his decision to run for re-election. Lied to us there, too. Said that he was going to be a transitional figure and really made the election a much bigger mess than it had to be because of that decision.
And and we could go through the list of the ways that Donald Trump does the very same thing. So, you know, the worst part of it from a practical political perspective, I think, is this now gives complete license to Donald Trump to do whatever he wants on pardons, because no matter who he pardons, his answer is going to be, well, I didn't pardon my son.
After I said I wouldn't. And so Joe Biden has handed him that politically as well. Yeah. You know, I when whenever I was asked, whenever I've been asked on TV or anywhere about about the rule of law and so on, I said, look, there's no greater example than the fact that the president kept hands off the Justice Department when they were prosecuting his own son.
And that stands in stark contrast to Donald Trump, who believes that the Justice Department should be an organ of the White House and his own political needs. And so this kind of Heilman blasts that right out of the water and just adds. I mean, the thing that Trump thrives on is this notion that no one that they're no better than me, that everybody swims in the same murky water.
And it just adds to the cynicism. 100%. And I think that you two guys both have one thing, well, probably more than one thing that you have, experiences that you have that I do not have, and that is fatherhood. And I will say, it's weird to be the one non-father here saying the following thing.
I think that it is 100% explicable. Like, I can understand why Joe Biden did what he did. It is not justifiable. You can explain it. You can understand why any father would want to help his son. You can understand why a son who's been a drug addict...
why a father would worry about putting him in a place and potentially in a prison where there will be drugs everywhere. You can understand his feelings about the justice system as being unfair level of prosecution that, you know, for the charges that we wouldn't, the gun charges wouldn't ever normally lead to prison time. You can understand all of that. And yet I'm with, I'm with both of you guys. It's like, you know, as someone who was on like you, David, and maybe like you governor, like it was on television saying, well,
You know, Joe Biden has allowed the Justice Department to go after his son. It was like a kind of a point that you would make in contrast with Trump. You'd say, you know, he didn't stop the Justice Department from prosecuting his son. He said he won't pardon his son. I can't remember the number of times I said that in the course of the campaign. And then to have him turn around and blithely just throw that over the side. And in that NATO press conference, he was asked specifically,
whether he had any... He felt his son had been fairly treated by the justice system and whether he thought it had been independent and not tainted by politics. And he said...
I have, you know, he expressed confidence in the justice system and said he had no complaints with the justice system. And now that's part of his rationale for doing this is he says the justice system is unfair. So it just makes the lie that much more gratuitous. Trying to slice the salami a little too thin. He's saying it's not the justice system. It's the political influence that intruded here on the justice. In other words, Congress. And there's no doubt. Well, sure. I mean, here's the God's honest truth. Yeah.
And, you know, rightly or wrongly, but predictably, Biden put a target on his son's back and his family's backs when he decided to run in the first place, knowing that they had this exposure. I mean, I, you know, but yeah, I agree with you. I mean, I understand it as a father. I'm sympathetic as a father, as an American father.
I'm really worried that this is just one more, you know. I have a question for Governor Christie about this, though, which is, first of all, I have two questions, related questions. One of them is that
I'm not totally convinced. I'm also not a lawyer. David's not a lawyer. There's only one lawyer on this podcast right now. Good for me. Yeah, good for you. I actually put you down a rung from us in some ways. But you could probably comment on this. I'm not sure I really have ever understood the pardon power. I mean, I get that there should be an executive, whether it's of a state or a nation, should be able to exercise power.
mercy or try to overturn a wrongfully decided case, although I'm not sure any chief executive is really in a position to make that claim. But I think the whole thing is just open to abuse, and more and more we see abuse of the pardon power. The pardons Trump gave in 2020 on the way out the door were outrageous, and one of them we'll talk about later related to
to Charles Kushner, but they were outrageous. I felt that way about the Bill Clinton, Mark Rich part. And I felt, I feel like there was a lot of examples in the past where presidents abused this power. I wonder if you think there's some kind of reform that might be useful to, to, to, to make it,
to place some constraints on it, number one. And number two, how do you feel about the fact that it's this 10-year blanket pardon? Because the right is really focused on that. This is basically about Burisma in their view. That's why it goes back 10 years. I'm curious what you think about that. Well, I do think there's a reform available, John, and it's pretty simple. Elect better people.
OK, we haven't had these problems with the pardon power for, you know, probably the better part of 180 or 190 years in the country's history. Yet all of a sudden of late, we've had Bill Clinton and Donald Trump and now Joe Biden who have clearly abused the pardon power. So I don't think the pardon pardon power needs to be changed. We need to elect better people. And look, I'm not the only the only lawyer on this on this panel. I'm the only one who's ever pardoned anyone.
And I pardoned hundreds of people when I was governor of New Jersey. And I took that incredibly seriously. And I looked for one of two things. Someone whose life had changed significantly for the better after they had been convicted. They had been reformed, essentially. And that their conviction was preventing them from having a full and complete life.
Or when I would have used something where I thought a verdict or a sentence had been unjust. That was it. Those were the two criteria that I used. And if you didn't fit in one of those two boxes, you weren't going to get a pardon. Now, on the 10-year nature of it, there is no other conclusion to reach but that Joe Biden feels as if his son may have some exposure to
his conduct as a, whatever you would call a lobbyist influencer, whatever term you want to use influence peddler, right? You could use that one too. And I, and I,
And I think that that's why he did what he did. There's no other explanation for it. Yeah, just in fairness to him, and I'm not excusing any of this, it's pretty clear, but I think that what he would say if he were here is, I don't think he has exposure, but I think that they will still investigate the hell out of this, make him spend millions of dollars defending himself,
and it will ruin his life. And he keeps saying that they're trying to tip him back into addiction, which is something I know you have a big interest in as well. I do. But that's what they would say. But you're...
Your point is, I mean, clearly it was a pro it was a prophylactic, if you can call it that way. Prophylactic pardon. There's a whole new a whole new category of pardoning. We can say that on this podcast. Yeah, prophylactics. It's fine. Look, and what I'd say to David, to you on that is, you know, this is the whataboutism that our that our system is now affected by because of characters like Trump and Biden.
Oh, no, no, I'm doing this because what about when they did that? You know, immediately what you heard from the right was, oh, look at this. And then immediately the answer from the left was, well, what about Charlie Kushner and Roger Stone? And what about how about we go to a standard where everyone's judged by the same standard? Was it right or wrong? And instead of saying, well, I'm justified to commit this wrong.
Because he committed a wrong that I consider to be even worse. Look, as a father, I just want to weigh in on the father portion of it too. I thought at the time when the president said he would not pardon his son, that it was the stupidest answer that any father could ever give. And that politically, it was stupid. Because he was putting himself in a box I hardly thought
the 2024 presidential election was going to be determined by whether or not Joe Biden gave a definitive no to the answer of whether we pardon his son. And what I would have said was, I have no idea what I would do because I will judge this based upon the trial, whether I think the trial was fair, whether I think the sentence was fair.
And then I'll make my judgment. But I can't prejudge it. And I'm not going to prejudge it for my son in the same way I wouldn't prejudge it for anyone else who was seeking a presidential pardon. I thought before, and I may have said this on this podcast, I thought for sure that Trump was going to. But I think Biden was so blind.
damaged in that debate. He didn't, didn't, but if I were Trump, I would have said in that debate, I don't understand why you would, you would pardon your, your son. I, you know, I know, you know, most people out there would have a hard time understanding. I mean, I thought he might, cause I think he thought it might trigger Biden. Yes. Yes. It would have been a clever, it would have been a clever move. If that had been a real debate, you might've wanted to, you might've been able to get some mileage out of that, but Trump didn't even need to go there. I just, you know,
I totally agree with Christy's point about this because not only – you don't have to go so far as to say that the Hunter Biden – the pardon issue would have no effect. Not only would it not change the outcome of the election, it wouldn't even take the Hunter Biden issue off the table. Trump was going to hammer Joe Biden over Hunter Biden regardless. I mean whether he pledged to a pardon or didn't pledge to a pardon, it didn't matter. But he was trying to avoid –
what we see now. He was trying to set up a standard way that he was observing the rule of law and Trump didn't. And right. Of course, Trump was going to call him a liar and say, of course, he's going to pardon his son. If you wanted to say that he was going to say it anyway, it wasn't going to matter. And I do, I do think, you know, ultimately to the both sides, the both side or something, I've seen some people on cable doing this the last two or the last 24 hours. I'm like,
Guys, if you are going to be Democrats, the party of upholding democracy, the rule of law, democratic standards, your argument can't be, well, look at what Trump did. Yeah, of course, of course. I mean, it's obvious to say that, but it's amazing to me that you now hear people on the left going,
Yeah, I heard some of them on your network, actually. I've heard some of them in a variety of quarters, including my network, yes. But I find it stunning that that's now, well, the standard's going to be, you know, well, Trump's doing worse things. Speaking of, we ought to talk about what Trump's doing, because he's the guy who's going to be president now. And one of the things he did over the weekend, John mentioned, Gov, was he pardoned,
Charles Kushner, Charlie Kushner. Governor, do you have any familiarity with Charlie Kushner? Let me just give, let me refresh the governor's memory. Yeah, he might've forgotten because he's dealt with a lot of cases in his time. He's dealt with a lot of cases. Governor, as I say in the court, let me refresh your memory. Thank you. Mr. Kushner pled guilty. He admitted the crimes. And so what am I supposed to do as a prosecutor? I mean, if a guy hires a prostitute,
to seduce his brother-in-law and videotapes it and then sends the videotape to his sister to attempt to intimidate her from testifying before a grand jury. Do I really need any more justification than that? I mean, it's one of the most loathsome, disgusting crimes that I prosecuted when I was U.S. attorney.
And I was U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, Margaret, so we had some loathsome and disgusting crime going on there. I was glad for that addendum. That little coda was really important there because I was going to say, before the coda, I was going to say, one of the most, come on, Governor. But as the French would say, ooh la la, sending this guy over there as ambassador. But he was, Trump appointed him ambassador to France over the weekend. And I just was wondering,
What you thought when you heard that news? Well, first off, I wasn't the least bit surprised. And the first thing it should tell you is the still existing enormous influence that Jared Kushner has over Donald Trump.
The fact that he's disappeared to his, you know, investment fund and to his, you know, conclave in Miami does not mean that he doesn't still carry significant weight with the president-elect, as does his daughter and wife, Ivanka. So that's the first thing that jumped to mind is like, you know, Jared's never going to go away. That's for sure. Secondly, I'm not the least bit surprised.
This is who Donald Trump is. And really, I think that the appointment of Kushner is like a human middle finger. That's what it is. Like, I can do whatever I want. And how about this? Now I'm going to do this. Say it like that. And see if any of you have the guts to say no to that. That's what Charles Kushner has become. And now I do wonder about Mr. Kushner, why he would want to drag all this up
You know, this case did happen 20 years ago. And so, you know, why he would want to drag all that up now
in order to be the ambassador to France. I mean, it's a good job. It's a nice job. It's a good job. Yeah. Yeah. Not a bad job for a rich guy. I'm sure it's good over there and they have a quick croissants, everything. It's awesome. Hey, I think you can get those in New York, but nonetheless, you know, nonetheless, I think that, you know, part of this, you know, is a really interesting analogy to what David said about Biden.
You know, Biden decides to run for president knowing that his son is in recovery, that his son had engaged in a lot of really destructive conduct in his life, knowing that that would be scrutinized if you're going to run for president. And he says, screw it, I'm doing it anyway. Charles Kushner knows that the Democrats at a minimum and probably some Republicans will dredge up that entire story
with the prostitute and, you know, what he did to his sister, not to mention that he was a complete tax chief and, and, and a liar on his campaign contributions. But the real thing they'll bring up is what he did. You know, it's, it's people should know that, you know, he did this. He watched the video himself and,
He then arranged for the video to be delivered clandestinely to his sister on the day of her son's engagement party. Okay. We're talking about somebody here who, you know, just didn't care at all about one of his siblings. In fact, you know, acted in that kind of way. So I don't know why he wants all that dredged up because it's not going to be pleasant for his wife, his family.
But, you know, these guys, another baby boomer, I'm off like saying it's all about me.
And it's another guy in that long chain. Wait a second. You're in that category, too. Aren't you a baby boomer? Just barely. You're a self-loathing baby boomer. Well, no, I don't loathe myself. I just loathe those others. Well, one thing that occurs to me when you describe the whole thing with the tape and the prostitute, it's like, must have made Thanksgiving awfully uncomfortable, don't you? Just coming off Thanksgiving dinner. Any number of holidays.
I have a question of fact that Chris can answer, which is he, he was doing, he did this, he engineered this really skeevy thing. I mean, again, you call it loathsome. It's pretty, pretty loathsome and cruel to his sister and obviously sick in a bunch of ways. But the, the goal was to, as I read, I'm not familiar with all the details of this case, probably more than many of our listeners, but not as many as you, but
He was trying to intimidate her from testifying in before the grand jury. And what way, what, what, just explain what the thinking was like, why was this the, the, the mechanism or the tool that he tried to use to achieve that end? What just to explain it from his point of view, why he went down this path as opposed to many other forms of intimidation and how was the intimidation he was supposed to work on the basis of this particular gambit? I wish I could, John. Um, he never testified.
He pled guilty, admitted to doing the things that I just outlined. And so I would only be speculating. I don't know. But intimidation was the goal. So there has to be some theory of how the intimidation was supposed to function. Well, I mean, certainly our theory at the time was that he had this and she would not want this broadly publicized in their community, that her husband was engaged in this type of activity. Basically, like, I have the evidence that your husband's a runaround,
And I'll use it. So there's a blackmail element to this too, basically. Yeah. Yes. Okay. I think so. Now look again, I want to be clear that speculation on our part, but it's what we believe was behind what he did. Go ahead, David, take your shot. How is it? How has already, he's already working his screenplay in his head here. So he's asking, I can't believe someone hasn't done it already. A hundred percent. It may be a French version and a English version, but canal clue will finance this in a heartbeat.
Okay, let's take a break right here for a word from our sponsor, and we'll be right back. So Heilman, as I think you know because I talk about them, I have three grandchildren and another on the way. And so that puts me in the generation that would not be known as tech-savvy.
But, but. Well, it also puts you in the generation of someone who takes a lot of pictures. Absolutely, I do. Yeah, which my grandchildren complain about a lot. But the great thing now is there is something called an Aura digital frame. And I've got grandkids who can help me set it up. And it is tech, but it is easy. Tell the folks how Aura frames helps you interact with family and friends when they're not even around.
Right. I mean, look, I'm a lunatic on my phone. Even off your phone.
It pairs photos together, like two pictures of the same person or the same puppy or whatever it is, or from the same day. They go straight into the Aura system and pop straight up on the frames without any kind of hassle. It's like, it's basically a one-click thing. You can be the biggest tech idiot in the world. Even you, David. I know. It's simple enough even for you. And I know you're a man who still loves his pager. I just can't, I just can't figure out where I'm supposed to insert the film is the problem. Right, yeah.
But I'll tell you what, you can even upload a video message to play on the frame as soon as you plug it in. So the first thing that your family will hear is your voice and how much you love them.
Right. It's like you want to share the pictures you've taken. You upload them. You send them to your family. It pops up on the frame, and it's you basically saying, hey, check out the next 457 pictures of my adorable Axelrod grandchildren. There are no memory cards or USBs required. There's a reason Wirecutter named it the number one. That's the top digital photo frame.
Yeah, no memory cards, no USBs, and no film canisters. We have a limited time offer here. You go and visit AuraFrames.com. That's A-U-R-A Frames, all one word, AuraFrames.com. You get 45 bucks off of Aura's best-selling Carver mat frames by using the promo code HACKS at checkout. That's A-U-R-A Frames.com, promo code HACKS.
This is an exclusive Black Friday, Cyber Monday deal, even though both Black Friday and Cyber Monday are in the past. We're still stretching Cyber Monday. It's their best deal of the year, so don't miss out. And we know what they say, David. Terms and conditions apply.
But let's get back to the main issue here, which is this. You said something so interesting, Gov, which is that the, you know, the big middle finger thing. And that's what all these appointments are. These nominations are about. But let's run through some of these. Can I ask one one last Kushner question? Oh, God. Just do it. Just goes. No, just I think it's worthwhile.
Get your mind out of the gutter. No, no, no, no. This is a Jared Kushner question because the governor brought it up. He said, you know, this is evidence of the fact that Jared Kushner still has enormous influence. And I think that's obviously pertinent going forward.
So you spent a lot of time, you prosecuted this case. You've also spent a fair amount of time around Jared, not necessarily always a happy time, but you got to watch him work in the milieu that he was working in, the Trump milieu. Is it too much to say that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree when it comes to the Kushners? Is that?
overstated or are they are they are they character a lot let me ask you a serious question is it are you know both of them are they similar in terms of how they operate how they behave are they characterologically similar i don't know either one i know jared a tiny bit i've never met his father are they similar um i'd say there's as many fathers and sons i think there's a lot of similarities um i think the biggest difference between the two of them is that charlie has a volcanic temper
And I think the one thing that Jared learned from watching his father was that it was that volcanic temper that got him in trouble. And I think what Jared was committed to was not allowing emotion or temper to cloud his judgments. Now, he might make many of the same judgments that his father did.
but they would not be born in Jared's mind out of anger and temper, which the father was legendary in terms of, in New Jersey, for his temper tantrums and the actions he would take. I'm calling a halt to the Kushner thing. It was a good answer and interesting, by the way. It was. No, no, I think you elicited something. I myself found that interesting. Yes, good. I could see that. Now get back to all the middle fingers. Maybe
Maybe it's time for me to go then. If I can end on this fascinating note. No, no, no. Who knew that Trump had like 30 different middle fingers, David, who knew he has a lot of middle fingers, a lot of people, John, his middle finger is stuck in the upright position, but, uh, but let's talk about, let's first talk about the, uh, the appointment to, uh, the department of justice and to the FBI. Uh,
And obviously Matt Gaetz flamed out quickly. Do you think he knew he would flame out or was he just testing the waters to see how far he could go? I don't think he cared. I think he thought it was a good idea. But as often happens with Donald Trump, when the heat got too much, he made sure that the person cut and ran.
And that's good. That's we've seen that over and over again over time. Almost happened to Brett Kavanaugh. Yeah, I've never I've seen Pam Bondi a lot on on Fox News over the years. She's never struck me. And again, I'm not comparing her to Gates now. I'm trying to compare it to the to the actual platonic ideal of a of a attorney general. She does not strike me as a heavyweight, a legal heavyweight. Am I fair? Is that a fair assessment, Governor?
I don't know that it is, John. I mean, look, I worked with Pam on the Opioid Commission. She was one of the commissioners on the Opioid Commission. I got to know her quite well during that. And she was a really insightful, caring person on that issue.
And she worked really hard on the commission. And I was, because I really didn't know her at all before then. That was one of the people the president appointed to the commission. I knew most of the others on the commission. I didn't know Pam all that well. And I can just tell you that I think that Pam is certainly got the capabilities to be the attorney general. I think the big caution for Pam has to be that she's got to understand she's not the president's lawyer.
Right. She's the country's lawyer. And that's going to be her big challenge. And I will see if she meets that challenge or not. But to say that she's not intellectual enough or hardworking enough or all of a sudden, I wouldn't say that about her. I think if he had started with Pam right from the beginning,
Pete Hexeth would be feeling a lot more comfortable right now. Well, we're going to get to him. But just on this issue of not being the president's lawyer, that is something that Donald Trump does not believe. He believes the attorney general should be politically responsible.
loyal to him and should execute his his wishes on prosecutorial decisions and other matters. I mean, so she's smart enough to accept the job under those qualifications. And as you know, she was one of the outspoken voices on the election lie of 2020. I mean, she was a
purveyor of those lies. And she's been on the record, you know, on Fox News in the last year saying we should prosecute the prosecutors, investigate the investigators, go after the deep state. She's been, whether she believes that or not, I don't know, but she's a less...
A less incendiary version of Kash Patel in terms of what she said on the record over the last year, in terms of what she thinks should happen to the McCabe's and the Strux and the whoever's, that long litany of people that Kash Patel wants to see drawn and quartered. So she does seem like she thinks she's been...
at least espousing the view that the role of the attorney general should be that of a cudgel for Donald Trump within the Justice Department and not America's lawyer. I mean, listen, the through line through all of these appointments, by and large, you know, Donald Trump's about as settled as a part in a spacesuit, right? He's been saying from the beginning,
That that he last time he appointed people who weren't loyal enough and he was going to prize loyalty first. And the question is about her and certainly about Patel, that weren't these loyalty first appointments? Well, yes.
and two different answers as to Bondi and Patel. You know, as to Bondi, what I'd say is now she's going to, assuming she gets confirmed, which I believe she will, she's going to now have to prove what kind of Attorney General she's going to be. And there's going to be enormous scrutiny of the Department of Justice by the media, by the legal community, and she's going to have to stand up to that scrutiny, and her actions are going to have to stand up to that scrutiny, and I hope
That what Pam does is to work to her capabilities, because I think if she does, she'll be able to, you know, make her way through some of these things without, you know, having to do things that are purely based on the loyalty test and not based upon what's right and what's just. And I'd say to you, look, I think the attorney general needs to follow the president's priorities in terms of law enforcement, but that's where it should stop.
It should not be on individual cases and all the rest, but say, all right, I want to prioritize violent crime. I want to prioritize white collar crime. Those things, I think, are things that presidential candidates run on and they should have a right to have an attorney general who directs it in that way. I hope that's the way she shows her loyalty. But we know we know that he asked his previous attorneys general to go after people.
And they drew some lines. The question is, will she draw some lines? The answer is I don't know. But I think she's capable of doing it, unlike Gates, who I think was neither capable nor interested in doing it. Right. I think Bonnie's capable, and we're going to find out. It sounds like you would vote for her if you were in the Senate, based on what you know. I would, based on what I know. Because in addition to the fact that having been a governor, I do think,
that the president has the right to have his choice as long as it's reasonable. It doesn't have to be my choice as a senator, right? So I think he has the right to his choice. I think Patel is an entirely different –
kettle of fish, so to speak. I don't think, I don't think he has the qualifications. Chris Wray was someone you, you recommended, uh, for FBI director and you see someone you worked with when you were a U S attorney. Uh, now apparently he's, uh, being lined up for dismissal in, in, uh, the way Comey was, uh, to make way for, for cash Patel, who's a,
serial conspiracy theory purveyor, and he said what he wants to do with the FBI. Look, I think there's, let's, I want to break apart your question there. I think that there was absolute justification for the firing of Jim Comey. In fact, I recommended to then President-elect Trump during the transition that he fire Comey during the transition based on the Hillary Clinton letter.
I said, that was completely inappropriate and improper. No FBI director should have made that run, written that letter, nor should he have had the press conference that he had. And I said to him, look, I know it helped you, but he's going to, he's going to, he has shown the capacity to do it, which means he'll do it to you too. And wrong is wrong. And okay, you're here now in part because of that, but you need to get rid of him. And he said, no, I think I can work with him. Okay.
Can I just say that the idea that the argument wrong is wrong would have any purchase with Donald Trump is one of the most hilarious things I've ever heard. It shows my undying optimism, John. I mean, I know he helped you. Donald, I know he helped you. I know he won the election for you. But listen, wrong is wrong. And being strictly adhering to principle is one of your strengths.
It's one of the things that you've shown over and over again. John, to show that I'm not completely stupid, I then added the thing that I thought would motivate Trump. Which is that he'll do it to you. He'll do it to you. And so he didn't buy it. Comey did it to him. And so he fired him. Chris Wray has done absolutely nothing. Nothing.
to justify termination. In fact, what he did was clean up all those people in the Comey leadership team and got them out of there. All the people who counseled and supported Comey doing what he did. He has worked incredibly hard on the issue of the Chinese problem and has really put a spotlight on that for the country as the lead law enforcement person in the country. And the morale at the FBI has never been higher
And I think that what Trump is once again discounting is whether Patel winds up there or it's somebody else. The firing of Ray is going to seriously damage the morale inside the FBI. And I just want to say this now and go on the record now. Right. Let's turn the tape on. Yeah. If there's a terrorism attack in this country. Yeah. Over the next four years.
and he's put someone who is judged to not be qualified in as the director of the FBI, then that blood is going to be on his hands because it hasn't happened in seven and a half years under Chris Wray. Okay, then let's take a break right here and we'll be right back.
This here podcast, Hacks on Tap, that is sponsored by The Washington Post. And if you listen to this podcast, it's obvious you're the kind of person who cares about what's going on in the world, especially the world of politics. But if you want even more great coverage of our crazy world, especially as it intersects with politics, you should subscribe to The Washington Post.
When you go to WashingtonPost.com slash hacks, our listeners can get an exclusive deal to subscribe to The Washington Post for just 50 cents per week for your first year. It's one of the first things that I look at every day. I'm sure that's true of you as well, Heilman. You know, their political coverage is excellent, but they also have great coverage of government and other things. I'm looking at a headline right here about Bonnie Raitt.
A profile of Bonnie Raitt, who is among this year's Kennedy Center honors recipients, who's one of my favorite musicians. So there's so much good commentary and so on. You should really take advantage of this offer. I use their app and it makes it easy for me to stay up to date on the latest news, save and share stories and follow my favorite authors.
The Post also offers a cool feature for audio lovers like all of our listeners. You can actually listen to articles in addition to reading them or not in addition to you could just listen to them. You can tackle your to-do list and you can catch up on the news at the same time as we start this new Trump administration.
It's really pretty important to stay up to date because a lot of stuff's happening. It's more important to stay up to date about the world and Washington, D.C. than ever before. So go to WashingtonPost.com slash hacks to subscribe for just 50 cents per week for your first year. That's 80% off their typical offer. So this is truly a steal.
Not the first steal that's happened in Washington. Once again, that's WashingtonPost.com backslash hacks to subscribe for just 50 cents per week for your first year.
Let's play first, just because this opens the door on Kash Patel in a way that I want to comment on just briefly. But let's play the clip of the Patel. I know, David, you cut this clip, the clip of Patel saying he wants to shut down the Hoover building and send all the field, all 7,000 people who work there out of the field. Let's play that and then talk about Kash Patel on the other side.
The FBI's footprint has gotten so freaking big. And the biggest problem the FBI has had has come out of its Intel shops. I'd break that component out of it. I'd shut down the FBI Hoover building on day one and reopening the next day as a museum of the deep state. And I'd take the 7,000 employees that work in that building and send them across America to chase down criminals. Go be cops. You're cops. Go be cops. Go chase down murderers.
and drug dealers and violent offenders. What do you need 7,000 people there for? Same thing with DOJ. What are all these people doing here? Looking for their next government promotion, looking for their next fancy government title, looking for their parachute out of government. So while you're bringing in the right people, you also have to shrink government.
So, John, you think that's bad for morale? Well, so that's Kash Patel. That was in September of this year on a podcast with Sean Ryan. I seriously recommend that anybody who wants to know how –
fucking bonkers Kash Patel is. Go listen to the whole two-hour interview because it includes things, not only things like that, which is a great soundbite. Who knows if he really means it about shutting down the Hoover Building and turning it into a museum of the deep state. But he talks in great length, Chris Christie, about the...
It goes into detail about all of his conspiracy theories about these members of the intel community, including FBI Director Wray, where he talks about why Chris Wray has to go because he's corrupt about all of the... There's...
There's so many different— Well, and he also—the other clip that you didn't run was one where he talked about going after all kinds of people, including journalists. Yes, the media. So there's the retributionist part, but there's also this crazy conspiracy theory part. And that's part of what I think is so—when he talks about—just make the obvious point here. I'm not an expert in this area, but I know what some of those 7,000 people do at the Hoover Building. They handle national security and counterintelligence.
and monitor for terrorism and the things that Chris Christie was just talking about. Well, let him talk about it. So that's what I'm about to say. Governor, I mean, is, is that kind of, is there, is it, what do you make of someone who has just been nominated to this job? Having been very explicit about what he says he would do if he got this job and those ideas that he's put on the table? Well, I, I suspect that he knows that that's not true.
And maybe he doesn't. And that might be even more disturbing. But let me give you a couple of examples instead of just talking in, you know, vague generalities. When I was U.S. attorney, I don't know. I'm sure you know what podcast you're on right now. Big Generalities is our middle name. I understand. I've tried to be loyal to that all. But now I have to break the rule. I had two cases when I was U.S. attorney that can shed a light on what the FBI does from an intelligence perspective inside the United States.
We worked, believe it or not, with the Russian FSB to catch a guy who was attempting to broker shoulder-fired missiles from the old Ukraine to a Yemeni terrorist group in New Jersey to shoot commercial airliners out of the sky as they took off from Newark Airport. It was the FBI that worked to find this guy.
to put this thing together to capture him. We then prosecuted him and put him in jail for the rest of his life. Secondly, inside the United States, there was a group of Muslims who were plotting to attack the men and women of Fort Dix, New Jersey.
And they had a detailed plan to come in to kill the power at Fort Dix and then to have mayhem occur with the murder of as many American men and women on that basis they possibly could. It was the FBI.
and their intelligence operation that discovered these folks, worked with my office, we prosecuted them, and sent them all to jail for the rest of their lives. Now, there's no one else in this country who can do that other than the FBI. The CIA is not allowed to do domestic intelligence investigations. The FBI is the only one. So the idea we're in that answer, and maybe he's saying it flippantly,
I don't know that he would break apart the intelligence capability and send them out, you know, to chase murderers and drug dealers. All things that, by the way, FBI agents, at least as the drug dealers do every day already. That should raise a lot of concern if for people in the United States Senate, because we have gotten complacent guys over the last 23 years about attacks on American soil.
And part of the reason we've gotten complacent is because in the main, the FBI has done such a good job at shutting this stuff down as have the prosecutors at the Department of Justice. And it annoys the hell out of me
When I hear people like him denigrating and trivializing that work, because that's what he's doing by the statements he made. There are two aspects here of this. There's that one, just the basic functions of the FBI. I mean, the week before the election, the FBI thwarted a plot that was apparently inspired by Iran to assassinate Donald Trump. Uh, I don't know who they think is going to do that work, but, uh,
Sheriff Arpaio, I guess. The other aspect of this is that Patel wants to spend a lot of time going after the people he said conspired with Joe Biden to steal the last election.
And so, you know, you have to you have you know, they're just a whole range of concerns. The question is, you guys, how much will the United States Senate swallow? I want to play Senator Bill Hagerty from Tennessee was on on Sunday. Let's just listen to how he responded to some questions about these nominations.
What he's doing is he's reaching out and broadening the party and broadening our reach. He's bringing Tulsi into his cabinet to achieve a specific purpose, and I look forward to supporting that. But Senator, you're saying you're not familiar with those meetings because they were secret meetings. Do you have questions about those meetings that you want answered before you vote yes? My only understanding about the meetings is they took place some time in the past. Do they concern you, Senator? Do they concern you at all?
I can be concerned about it. I can understand it. I may even disagree with it. But it doesn't mean that I have to vote against or for a given candidate. But I plan to support President Trump's candidates because the American public needs to see dramatic change. And she's the type of candidate that will do that. That was him commenting on Tulsi Gabbard, who was nominated to be director of national intelligence, despite the fact that she has no intelligence background and that she had secret meetings with Bashar
Assad and has been carrying the Putin line. And the question is, Governor, as a Republican, whether they accept you or not. Many do. I mean, how much...
backbone do you think the Senate's going to have on these nominations? We should talk for a few minutes about Wegg, Seth and Kennedy, but just how much backbone do they have? They ran Gates out. How many bullets do they have in there? I guess I shouldn't use that term, but how many chances do they have, do they think, in your mind? I don't think many.
And I said this on TV a week ago, I think, that they should pick the one or two that they find the most unqualified, the most objectionable, and spend their time and energy on that rather than, you know, taking a more, you know, broad approach to it because I think that will, by definition, fail politically. And so, you know, and I caution Democrats in the same way.
That, you know, the continued, I thought they would have learned in the election that the sky is falling in rhetoric was ineffective. And if it was ineffective in the midst of a presidential election, it's really going to be ineffective in the midst of a transition.
When the people feel like we've made our decision, give us a break. You know, now Donald Trump contributes to this, right? So they've got to decide which do they find the most troubling and
The most unqualified is the way I would look at it. And they need to focus on those and where they can build a coalition to do that, to push back because the Senate has their prerogatives and they should not, you know, do what Bill Hagerty kind of implied there.
which is just, you know, rollover. I know Bill really well. I hired Bill to be the director of personnel for the Trump transition in 2016. And what he said there is not the same guy that I hired in 2016. Here's the challenge, though, that I that I that I pose. And I agree. There's a limited amount of political capital. Donald Trump's middle fingers are not all going to get chopped off. Right. And some of them are going to get through are going to remain standing erect, so to speak. And and here's the challenge. Pete Hegseth
you know, just got, got hit with this just brutal, brutal piece of, of investigative work by, by Jane Mayer and the New Yorker, which is about his behavior, uh, running these two veterans organizations that he was drummed out of, um, the, the level of, of drunkenness, licentious behavior, uh, uh,
sexual advances. It's just, it's like, it's a, it's a, it's an incredible laundry list and a long history. And malfeasance as in running organizations. And malfeasance in running organizations. So here's a guy who's being asked to take over the Pentagon, 3 million people who work there and has 20 years of like basically public drunkenness, lewdness, strip club activity, all kinds of like nasty shit. And,
That is the easy target for Republican senators who – it's like Gates, right? Are we really going to approve an accused sex trafficker who apparently had sex with a 17-year-old girl at some point, paid her for it? Are we going to make that person attorney general? No.
Pete Hagseth has those kinds of those in that type of of flaw. And you could argue more or less. But is this person ever going to learn the trust and respect of the United States military? I think any Republican senator who is being honest would say probably not. No, I just want to ask because you raised.
whether you, Chris, you think he's one of those, if you had a couple of vetoes, whether you would use one on him? Well, I think the way they should do this, David, is not to focus on almost any of what John just said. They generally don't. Yeah, the public is exhausted from this discussion of personal behavior. And while I think personal behavior is important,
Um, it's not a winning way to go about this in terms of trying to put the spotlight. I think David, you touched on the right thing, which is that he has not shown an ability in any of his previous endeavors to manage at $880 billion budget with 3 million employees. And that at a minimum, what we need from someone who's going to run the Pentagon is some track record to show that
that you have the ability to run large organizations and run them well. There are hardly any organizations as large as the Pentagon, so you're not necessarily going to have something that's completely analogous. But, you know, large organizations should have someone in charge of them that knows how to run and has shown an ability to do that. And I think that's where they need to focus because all the rest of this stuff... Yeah, I agree. If the Trump years have shown us anything...
Anything is not going to move public opinion. And that's what these senators are going to react to. That's what they reacted to at Gates. I'm certain, Governor, that your position is not that someone who has over a long period of time been falling down drunk, that that person is someone who I go back to John Tower, who's who's who's who's who's sins in this area were considerably less. I'm sure I'm certain you wouldn't disagree with the person that New Yorker piece who says someone who's
has a persistent problem with alcoholism, with alcohol use in public, shouldn't maybe be in the nuclear chain of command. That's not a great idea on the merits. John, you know, here you guys are reminding me that I'm on hacks on tap.
And now you're the one who's going to the moral high ground. I'm trying to be – I'm trying to get political analysis here. So then the question is, to David's point, which is, does this – if you think about just ranking – being a political analyst and ranking, are the kinds of things that are coming out about Hegseth that –
that are a kind of mirror some of the things that came out about Gates. Are those the things that make him politically vulnerable? Do you think he is politically vulnerable relative to the rest of Trump's middle fingers, so to speak? They ain't helpful, that's for sure. And here's the way that they're most unhelpful, I think, for Hegseth. If this continues, this drumpy continues, and more stuff comes out, Trump will cut and run. And that's what will happen. This is not a guy who says,
Remember what Donald Trump is all about. Loyalty is a one-way street. And whether you think that Pete Hicks deserves loyalty or he doesn't, this is not a concern Hicks is going to have to worry about. Because I can guarantee you he won't get it. Okay, let's take a break right here for a word from our sponsor and we'll be right back.
Have a few drinks in the evening. As happens from time to time. Yeah, occasionally. It's not something that happens that often. But when it does happen, I don't bounce back the next day the way that I used to. I'm an old, decrepit, sad, unresilient man. And I have to make a choice on a lot of nights. I'm like, I can either have a great night out
having a few drinks, have some fun, or I can have a great the next day. And then the night before is kind of dull and it's not enlivened by the spirits that alcohol brings to bear. That choice was the choice I was facing until I found Prostate.
pre-alcohol. Yeah, Z-Biotics pre-alcohol probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists, not just some lowly scientists, but scientists with PhDs to tackle rough mornings after drinking. They'll be spreading some of that around the Pentagon in the future, I bet. Here's how it works in my experience. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in your gut.
And it's this byproduct, not dehydration like a lot of people think, that's actually to blame for your rough hangover-ridden next day. Free alcohol, however.
that special thing that Z-Biotic brings, it produces an enzyme that breaks this byproduct down. Just remember to make pre-alcohol your first drink of the night. Drink responsibly and you'll feel your best tomorrow. With the holiday season upon us, David, I know I'm going to be consuming a bit more alcohol than usual. How could that be?
That is a high bar, I will say. But with pre-alcohol, I can stay on track and not let the season throw me off course. So go to zbiotics.com slash hacks to learn more and get 15% off your first order when you use hacks at checkout. That's zbiotics, Z-B-I-O-T-I-X.
B I O T I C S.com slash hacks. It's backed with a hundred percent money back guarantee. So if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they will refund your dough. No questions asked. Remember to head to Z biotics.com slash hacks and use the code hacks at checkout for 15% off. So I want to ask both of you guys this question, but to come back to the thing I wanted to raise again, which is Patel and Bondi together, right? So,
So Patel is, is, and Bondi are both, they have CVs that will qualify them for the job. Let's assume that they, that neither one of them has any kind of financial improprieties or any kind of personal improprieties. All that we, that, that the argument about cash Patel would revolve around his ideology. And Chris Christie, I would say to you, this is the question that I, this is why I think this is an interesting question from the point of view of politics is
You have the Patel-Bondi appointments are a reflection of what David was referring to earlier, which has been articulated loudly by Steve Bannon, which is,
His view is that Trump is not just the commander in chief and not just the chief executive, but also the chief magistrate and that the DOJ and the FBI work for Donald Trump and they should be pursuing his agenda. They think that that is that is the revolution they want in the administration and prosecution and investigation of justice.
If you think that that is inappropriate and that the FBI and the DOJ should be in some way independent from those kind of political objectives, how do you stop that? How do you try to make the argument against it in a way that would be politically effective in the Senate to stop either Patel or you've already said before, Bondi? He already made the argument on Patel, which is he's not equipped to keep us safe. He doesn't understand from his public comments.
I have to conclude that he doesn't really understand or have respect for one or the other, or maybe both the intelligence capability and necessity of the FBI.
And I think that's the way that you make the argument and you use his own words that look now, I don't know, John, I'll be honest with you. I don't know that it's a winning argument because of the complacency that I discussed because people are 23 years removed. I mean, I, I taught a class at Yale this semester that, that David came and spoke to 90% of the people that I taught in that class were
were either not born or under two years old when 9-11 happened. So they don't have any clue about the import of that except what they may have been taught about it. And so the way that we all feel, who lived through it in our adult years, about what that did to the country, and then the pursuit of Osama bin Laden for 10 years after that, and how important that was to the country,
I'd rather have people who are in charge of that, you know, like Leon Panetta, rather than somebody who doesn't seem to have the appreciation or the understanding of the way that intel works to help keep the country safe. I meant to mention when the Hagerty clip was up, my favorite quote in there was,
All I know about those meetings is that they took place in the past, which is... As most meetings do. Exactly, exactly. But I do want to ask you about Bobby Kennedy Jr., because in much the same way you're talking about Kash Patel, the guy who runs the Department of Health and Human Services and the CDC and the FDA and the NIH has life and death responsibilities.
And we have here a guy who is a purveyor of conspiracy theories about vaccines. I've got some my grandchildren over Thanksgiving. I don't want them being exposed to diseases that we thought were obviously they'll be vaccinated, but that we thought were defunct, you know, polio and measles and so on. That can be really dangerous.
Chris, isn't there the same, it doesn't, isn't that political argument that you're making? Doesn't that extend to him? Sure. Also, he's a wifi, he's a wifi conspiracy theorist too. He says, wifi makes your brain leaky. And I, I, of all, I had a lot of reasons why I thought my brain was leaky. Yes. This explains a lot, Heilman. That's exactly.
He's right about heroin helping you read better, though. That's all I'll say. Look, John, I have a lot of theories about your brain as well, but that could be an entire other podcast, having been someone covered by you. But what I would say on the Kennedy thing is that there is a whole panoply of concerns about him that I think need to be and will be appropriately raised at his confirmation hearings.
And I do think that, um, again, the argument can be made as to, as the RFK junior, what does he ever run that gives him the capacity to run something? Yeah. I mean, the only department that rivals the Pentagon. Yeah. In terms of its size and complexity is HHS. And so I think there needs to be a competence argument and exploration made as to him, but also, um,
Look, I think the irony of this is this is probably one of the only deals that Donald Trump has ever stuck to. Yeah. My guess is that he promised him HHS secretary in order to get him out of the race. Right. Usually Trump doesn't keep those deals. Oh, circumstances changed or whatever. And he doesn't keep those deals. This one he's kept. Why? I don't know.
Let me advance a theory. They had a conversation that was recorded on the telephone and we didn't hear the whole conversation, but maybe Trump knows that he has a tape of him making that commitment. You know, that's the only thing that, and Trump, and he did deliver something a lot, unlike a lot of these other people, Bobby getting out of the race and doing what he did may have had a, a, a helpful, uh,
effect on him. But the first of those theories makes sense to me. The second does not. I'll tell you how I would defeat that nomination. I would if I wanted to, I would take out ads on Fox News applauding the appointment of a pro abortion environmentalist to run a major agency of government. And I just run the hell out of that.
And maybe that would peel a few Republican votes away. David, here's a here's a here's a headline, John, for you.
David Axelrod agrees with Mike Pence. Yeah, no, I saw the Pence, yeah. Right, because Mike Pence's argument is that this is the most pro-abortion HHS secretary in American history. I don't know if that's accurate or not, but I will tell you, I think, you know, look, I think there's a bunch of different ways that this may go. But I go back to my original premise, which is you only have so many chances and you're going to have to decide among this group.
which ones do you find the least qualified, the most objectionable if you're a United States senator? Now, let's remember, assuming that history will repeat itself and you'll get no Democrats voting for any of these nominees, that means you need four.
You need four United States senators to come over to stop any of these nominations. And, you know, that is a very narrow thing for the White House to have to deal with. David, you were there and had to deal with those kind of things in the White House. And, you know, all of a sudden, when every senator becomes king for or queen for a day, some of the demands get pretty heady in order to get people to support something that even if they...
are not principally against it, they may see an opportunity for leverage. All of those things are going to be in play here, and we're going to see how it plays out at the end of the day. But no one should be surprised about this. No one should be surprised. We warned about this. I mean, I ran an entire campaign warning about what this would be like.
And now I have people acting surprised that I'm like, well, I don't know why you're surprised. What do you think the, for what do you think the first, uh, things coming out of the gate will be in terms of executive orders, uh, from him? I think it'll be surrounding the border.
and an immigration enforcement inside the country. I think that the election showed that that was a top two or three issue. I think it's something that he has the ability to do by executive order most easily as compared to the economic issues, which will probably need congressional help.
So I think that's what he comes out of the box with. What about the Schedule F stuff? Is it Schedule F? Whatever, blowing up the civil service. I don't think he comes out of the box with that, David. I think, look, I don't know, but if I were advising him, I'd say come out of the box on immigration. That's your signature issue. That's the thing that people identify with you the most.
Put some wins on the board early. So if you're going to if you think about that issue, the split in Trump's world is between hardliners and relative pragmatists. The pragmatists would say we got to get the criminal undocumented immigrants, the illegal aliens who are criminals out of the country. That will that's enough.
to, to make good the, the, the deportation, uh, campaign pledge, which is like the billboard campaign pledge of his campaign in 2024. There are others who would say, and are saying, you know, we need to go after anybody who's in the country who's here illegally. And that obviously runs into other issues. Obviously one of them is scale. One of them is practicality. Another is the business community. Another, there are a lot of Hispanic voters who thought fine on the criminals, but not fine on just my, my brother-in-law who's been working here, uh,
in an undocumented way for some period of time. Where do you think he comes down on that? Does he go, does he take the political risk and do the more hardline thing?
Chris, or does he fall back to what would be the more pragmatic political approach? No, because I don't think it's practical in the near term. I think in the near term, it's both more politically palatable and more practical to be going after the folks who have committed crimes in the country and get them removed. And because the scale and scope of what he's talking about otherwise is so large that it would dominate law enforcement's activities and
It's local, state, and federal. For the next four years. And he's not going to want to have to deal with that piece of it. Now, he'll mischaracterize it, that it's bigger than it is. Right. Biggest anybody's ever seen, yeah. Right. Kind of like the wall he built. Right, yeah. I think as a practical matter, though, what he will do is focus on the criminal element. I think that will allow him politically to remain upright politically.
And a lot of people in this country, myself included, support that. And now then after that, I think by the time he gets into that deeply, he's going to be close to the midterms anyway. This is a practical matter. You're talking about, it depends on the estimate you look at, but well over a million people in the country who are here illegally and have been charged for crimes. And this is one of the places where I think, you know, Biden really fell down. You know,
work with local law enforcement to get those people booted out. It was low hanging fruit and he didn't do it. And it, it's one of the things that may have cost the Democrats the election, but we actually took, you know, we, we, uh,
ended up deporting more people than Trump did in his four years in the Obama administration. Took some heat for it, but was focused on people who had broken the law. It's certainly a doable thing. All I would say on this on the way out here, because we got to go, is the other element of this that I think will appeal to Trump is you see mayors in some of these big cities kind of girding for a fight over this. And I think he would welcome that fight.
Politically. It's actually turning out perfectly, David. In the cities where he would welcome the fight, he's going to get it. And in the one city he doesn't want to have the fight, New York, he's not going to get it. Eric Adams sees this as a political lifeline for him. And so he is going to be fully cooperative with Trump.
For two reasons. One, because he's recognizing what it's doing to New York City and he needs to change that if he has any hope for a political future. And secondly, talk about a pardon. This is a guy who very well may be looking for one after whatever happens in the Southern District of New York. Absolutely. Look, let's just let's just note the fact that.
Donald Trump is turning into being kind of, you guys will remember in Ghostbusters, Gozer the Gozerian, the world-destroying ghost who got dogs and cats to start sleeping together. Here we have Donald Trump who's got David Axelrod and Mike Pence in the same boat on political strategy. You've got Barack Obama. But let's be clear. Pence would insist that we make clear that we're not sleeping together. Well, that's right. You're going to have Barack Obama thinking.
thanking Donald Trump for, for alleviating him of the title deporter in chief. That'll be a big, that'd be a Trump Obama, finally grateful to Trump for something. Uh, and Chris Christie gets to relive all this Charlie Kushner stories again, which has got to be unlike for Charlie Kushner from Chris Christie's point of view. This is like, this is a great story. You can dine out on this for, uh, for some more months. John, John, I was just doing my job. Okay. Yeah.
20 years ago, but just doing my job. And if you had told me 20 years ago that I would still be talking about that case 20 years later, I would have never believed it. Yeah. 20 years and still boyish and feisty. Governor Chris Christie. Thank you. Great to have you to our listeners. We skipped the mailbag today. Please send your comments, your questions to Hacks on Tap.
at gmail.com. And here's the number that you can leave on the voicemail. 773-389-4471. I'll repeat it because who can remember that? 773-389-4471. Even when Murphy's not here, we get to hear that. It's always like a reminder of just how special he is. And it's always great to have you, Governor Christie, and hope you'll come back often.
Absolutely, David. Thank you, John. Thank you. Good to see both of you. Good to see you. Take care.