>> Who will lead the Republican rescue?

This week, on "Firing Line."

>> Anytime I objected to the president's conduct, I said it to him.

>> He's the no-nonsense former governor of New Jersey, who ran his own Republican race for president... >> And I am now ready to fight for the people of the United States of America.

>> ...before helping his longtime friend Donald Trump get elected.

>> He's a very talented man, great guy.

>> Chris Christie is calling for a Republican rescue... >> The whole center part of the book is about all these conspiracy theories.

>> ...and says the truth denying and wild conspiracy claims must stop, including Trump's election-fraud lies.

>> We did win this election.

[ Crowd cheers ] We did win this election.

>> There's just no basis to make that argument tonight.

There just isn't.

>> So, is Chris Christie running for president in 2024?

Could he support Donald Trump again?

And what about his serious bout with COVID after prepping Trump for the debate?

With the future of the GOP at issue, what does Governor Chris Christie say now?

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... And by... Corporate funding is provided by... >> Governor Chris Christie, welcome back to "Firing Line."

>> Happy to be back, Margaret.

Thanks.

>> Your new book, "Republican Rescue: Saving the Party from Truth Deniers, Conspiracy Theorists, and the Dangerous Policies of Joe Biden."

First, why does the Republican Party need to be rescued?

>> Because 2018 to 2020 was our worst two years since the early '30s.

We lost the House.

We lost the Senate.

>> I notice you didn't say since Herbert Hoover was president.

>> Well, I'm trying to be respectful, Margaret.

The House, the Senate, and the White House in two years -- it's the only time it's happened in Republican Party history was 1930 to '32 and 2018 to 2020.

>> Why did we lose in 2020?

>> We lost in 2020 because it was a personal rejection of Donald Trump.

But we have spent all the time since the 2020 election as a party, or at least a lot of it, talking about the 2020 election, whether it was stolen or not and a number of other conspiracy theories that surround that.

And I thought it's really important for us to not look backwards.

Every election is about tomorrow, not about yesterday.

And if you run on yesterday, you're gonna lose.

And we're gonna lose if we continue to talk about 2020.

>> There are Republicans right now who will say the party doesn't need to be rescued, if you just look at the momentum that the House has going into the 2022 cycle.

Kevin McCarthy feels that he's all but assured to be the next speaker of the House.

Just had an upset win in Virginia, where the governor, Glenn Youngkin, won quite handily.

There are Republicans who would critique the necessity of rescuing the Republican Party, because they'd say, "Things are looking really good.

The momentum is in the Republican direction right now."

>> Well, I think both things can exist at the same time.

That momentum has been created not by us but by the Democrats.

And when you look at what Glenn Youngkin did, think about Glenn's campaign.

Cut the grocery tax... >> Mm-hmm.

>> ...get parents back into their children's education, and create jobs in Virginia.

None of that has anything to do with the election being stolen in 2020 or any conspiracy theory around it.

It's kitchen-table issues that Virginians cared about.

So, Youngkin, I think, showed again the power of what we talk about in the book, which is talk about what voters care about, lay out a right-of-center vision of that, and you're gonna win back suburban voters.

So, right now we're winning because the other guys are losing.

And isn't it kind of the part of the argument I made to Donald Trump back in 2017?

I said to him, "You didn't win the election.

Hillary Clinton lost it.

Now it's your opportunity to make yourself a winner, because 2020 will be about you."

>> You've been friends with him for 20 years.

>> Correct.

>> So, where's your friendship stand with him right now?

>> Well, he's not talking to me right now.

>> So, that means it's not in a good place?

>> Not in a good place at the moment.

He's unhappy that I am saying in the book that the election wasn't stolen.

But I think I prove in the book by provable facts that it was not stolen.

And he knows that.

He knows those facts, and he just can't accept the fact that he lost.

>> The book, of course, "Saving the Party from Truth Deniers, Conspiracy Theorists, and the Dangerous Policies of Joe Biden" -- who are the truth deniers and the conspiracy theorists that you're concerned about right now?

>> Well, there's a few.

You know, someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene, and I write about her pretty extensively in the book.

Obviously, one of them is the former president because he's the one talking about the election being stolen.

That's a conspiracy theory that is provably wrong.

>> You are a prosecutor.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> And you say there is simply no evidence to support the claims of widespread fraud.

You go through every single claim in detail in the book.

Why are we seeing so many conspiracy theories now?

>> I think for a few reasons.

There's anger and division in the country.

So, people are always looking for an explanation that supports their point of view.

Secondly, I think there's been a vacuum of people pushing back on it that are within our own party.

So, if Democrats say, "Oh, this is untrue," people go, "Well, those are Democrats, and we don't believe them."

That's why I wrote the book.

The book is to provide cover for other Republicans to say, "It's okay.

You can say it.

You know it's true."

And, in fact, you need to say it because our own party needs to hear from people within the party that this stuff is wrong.

>> Let's take a look at some of the things you said on air before and then right after January 6th.

>> There is no evidence yet, and if there is evidence, we need to see it.

>> So, you think it was an impeachable offense.

>> Oh, sure, yeah.

>> You'd vote to impeach?

>> I think that in the -- well, if I think it's an impeachable offense, that's exactly what I would do, George.

If inciting to insurrection isn't, then I don't really know what is.

>> Does rescuing the Republican Party mean severing ties with Donald Trump or cutting out Donald Trump?

>> Only the voters can do that.

I think that what it means is focusing on the things that really matter.

If we spend 2022 and 2024 trying to relitigate the 2020 election, we're gonna lose again, like we lost in 2020.

We lost.

>> You don't spend a lot of time in the book on conspiracy theories on the left.

You sort of spend more time on conspiracy theories on the right.

>> Well, I'm trying to save my party.

>> Yeah.

>> Let someone on the Democratic side write about their conspiracy theories.

Look.

They have things to clean up in their own house, as well.

Not my job at the moment -- I'm worried about my party.

>> Well, what you did in the book is point out that there's a history of people on the right standing up to conspiracy theories on the right, and you point to William F. Buckley Jr. and Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater to a certain extent.

>> Yeah.

>> You get into that history.

Given that this program is a descendant of William F. Buckley Jr.'s "Firing Line," I want to show you a clip of William F. Buckley Jr. talking about extremism, talking about the John Birch Society, and how that group trafficked in anti-communist conspiracy theories.

Take a look at this.

>> What is in my judgment wrong with the John Birch Society is its analysis, its analysis of what it is that has caused the diminution of freedom in our country, is in my judgment profoundly wrong and profoundly misleading.

>> In your book, you describe the Birchers as... And you also give a lot of credit to Buckley for standing up to them.

Why are there so few elected conservatives in Congress who are willing to stand up to conspiracy theorists?

>> They're afraid.

Look.

You know, Margaret, that in today's politics, unfortunately, lots of decisions are made by folks based on fear.

>> What are they afraid of?

>> They're afraid of in a very red district being primaried from the right with opposition to them being supplied by Donald Trump.

So, what you find with most folks in the House is they don't say anything about it.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> They just don't want to talk about it.

>> Yeah.

>> And they ignore it.

Buckley and Reagan, by that clip in 1966, had seen the Republican Party go into the thrall of the John Birch Society, nominate Barry Goldwater in 1964, and they said, "This is a party that needs to change path."

And because of what, I think, in large part what Buckley and Reagan did in redefining conservatism, you had us as Republicans, you know, winning five of the next six presidential elections and redefine conservatism for 50 years.

So, that's the same kind of effort we need now.

There is not a clear definition of what conservatism means anymore in this country, and we need to be talking about it.

>> So, one of the things that's different when Buckley stood up to the Birchers is that there were less media outlets.

And there didn't exist a conservative media ecosystem, and, frankly, there didn't exist a partisan media ecosystem in the same way.

>> I write in the book about this, that media, both traditional media and social media, have changed the way we discuss this and make it harder for us to bring the country together -- harder than it was in Buckley and Reagan's time, in the mid-'60s, for certain.

So, yeah, we face greater challenges, but it also gives us greater opportunities, too, because we do have many more outlets to be able to get to people on than they did, and so, you just have to be persistent.

>> Let me ask you about a recent interview on MSNBC which asked you about your omission of Fox News as a purveyor of conspiracy theories.

>> You really don't take on Fox News.

Why not?

>> During that exchange, you said you didn't watch Tucker Carlson.

>> I don't.

>> So, we put together a few clips.

Let me show you a few clips of what Tucker Carlson's been saying on his show.

>> Okay.

>> Strangely, some of the key people who participated on January 6th have not been charged.

Why is that?

You know why.

They were almost certainly working for the FBI.

So, FBI operatives were organizing the attack on the Capitol on January 6th, according to government documents.

If vaccines work, why are vaccinated people still banned from living normal lives?

So, maybe it doesn't work, and they're simply not telling you that.

Now the committee's decided to shut down one of the most popular journalists on the right, Alex Jones.

Yes, journalist.

Jones is often mocked for his flamboyance, but, the truth is, he has been a far better guide to reality in recent years -- in other words, a far better journalist than, say, NBC News National Security Correspondent Ken Dilanian or Margaret Brennan of CBS.

>> Okay, I have to say the FBI did not organize the attack against the Capitol.

COVID vaccines are highly effective.

Alex Jones, the guy who says Hillary Clinton personally murdered children, is not a better guide to reality or to journalism than NBC or CBS.

So, I guess my question for you, Governor, is given that you wrote in the book... ...should you have taken a closer look at what Tucker was saying?

>> No, that's not what the book was about.

>> Yes!

It was about shutting down the conspiracy theorists on our side.

>> No, look.

The book was not about critiquing each media outlet and what they did.

>> No, no, no, I didn't say media outlet.

I said Tucker.

Right now, he is one of the chief promulgators and conspiracy theorists on our side and probably one of the most effective.

>> Well, then, whoever wants to write a book about Tucker, they can go ahead and write a book about Tucker.

>> But you wrote a book about conspiracy theories!

>> Yeah.

>> On the right!

>> I did.

And, by the way, my view on it is that the people that I wrote about are the people who create those conspiracy theories and the people who expand upon them, if Tucker's one -- >> Who blow them through a bullhorn to 3 million people per night?

>> By the way, if that's what he's doing, then he's gonna ultimately be held accountable for that.

>> But you're not gonna hold him accountable for it?

>> That's not what the book was about.

Tucker Carlson is not, to me, the leading person to be talking about regarding any of the theories that I talked about, whether it was birtherism or the Pizzagate or Q-Anon or the election lies.

I don't understand.

I have to tell you the truth.

I didn't understand this about Nicolle, and, quite frankly, I don't understand this line of questioning from you.

Nicolle tries to make it sound like I can't say anything bad about Fox News, which is ridiculous.

>> The challenge is that by missing something that seems so glaringly obvious, it opens you up to criticism that you left him out for some other reason.

>> I'm gonna be open to criticism no matter what.

I don't really care.

I don't -- I want to tell you, I don't care because it's glaringly obvious -- >> But, then, people think, "What's he up to?

Is it because he wants to be in Tucker's favor, because he wants to be on Fox News?"

>> Let me tell you something.

I don't think being in Tucker's favor is saying publicly you don't watch his show.

That's the first thing.

I think most people who are on TV want to be watched.

Secondly, in all the years Tucker's been on, I've never been a guest on his show.

So, if I'm attempting to curry favor with somebody, you would think that you'd be a guest on their show once.

>> So, did you leave him out because you didn't want to bring attention to him?

>> No!

I left him out because I didn't think it was nearly as important as all the other things I was writing about.

>> Fair.

>> So, to me, you say, "It's glaringly obvious."

I didn't find it to be glaringly obvious, and that's the beauty of this country.

Everybody gets to decide what they think is glaringly obvious or not.

>> Okay.

I want to ask you about COVID.

>> Okay.

>> You spent a week in intensive care, battling COVID, and you wrote in your book that it was touch-and-go for parts.

Could have gone either way.

>> Yep, first couple of days.

>> So, I'm glad you made a full recovery.

>> Me too.

>> You tested positive three days after the presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden.

And you had been with the president for four days prior to the debate, preparing him for the debate, starting on September 26th.

>> Correct.

>> According to Donald Trump's Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, in his new book, Trump tested positive for COVID on September 26th, six days before he revealed that he had been diagnosed with COVID.

You said that your wife, Mary Pat, and you, had an "interesting reaction" when you learned this from Mark Meadows' book.

What was that reaction?

>> I can't believe Mark Meadows didn't tell me.

I mean, you know -- >> You didn't think Trump would have told you?

>> Well, that's obvious, of course.

Trump should have told all of us.

>> But that Mark knew.

>> That Mark knew, too, and Mark should have said to all of us, "Hey, the president tested positive for COVID.

We're having another test."

And then the next test came back negative, from what he reported.

He had an obligation to tell us, to tell us that "Hey, he tested positive."

I would have worn a mask if I knew that.

We knew everybody in that room except for the president was getting tested every day.

We didn't know what the president's testing regimen was.

So, if Mark Meadows knew that somebody that I was sitting across from for four days had popped a positive test, he, as the White House chief of staff -- put aside the president for a second.

Obviously, the president, as my friend, should have looked at me and told me that.

That's obvious.

But I think what's less obvious is that Mark Meadows saved this for his book.

>> Yeah.

>> He saved it for a book.

He didn't tell us.

I went into the hospital in the intensive-care unit.

He didn't call and tell me.

So, I think that's inexcusable.

>> You had always suspected that you got it from the president.

Is that right?

>> Well, the only reason I suspected it was because he was the only person who I didn't know his testing regimen that I was in close contact with.

All the other people we spoke about -- >> So, did this confirm for you that you did in fact get it from the president?

>> Oh, I think it's undeniable.

And, Margaret, I was as close to him as you and I are to each other right now.

I was playing Joe Biden.

I was sitting right across from him.

And we had some very spirited disagreements... >> Which you write about in the book.

>> ...during the debate prep.

So, saliva was flying back and forth.

And, by the say, six of the seven us in that room got it.

>> Yeah.

>> Hope Hicks, Bill Stepien, Kellyanne Conway, me, Stephen Miller, and Donald Trump all wound up with COVID in that room.

>> It just so strikes me, Governor, that this man knowingly exposed you and the others in that room to coronavirus and then went and met with Gold Star families and was exposing them potentially but that you still call him your friend.

>> Look.

That's a historical reference.

We're obviously, as I just told you... >> Yeah, not talking.

>> ...we're not friendly at the moment.

But I'm not trying to evade it.

Like, look.

He had an obligation to tell me and so did Meadows.

And, by the way, so did the White House physician.

>> But it sounds like you actually hold him to a lower standard than you hold Mark Meadows.

>> No, I don't hold.

No, I'm saying there's no debate.

Donald Trump should have told me.

>> You heard from Donald Trump when you were in the hospital.

>> I did.

He called me in the hospital.

He was in Walter Reed at the same time, and it's interesting because part of Meadows' book talks about how sick Donald Trump was.

And I could tell you that that's absolutely accurate.

>> You could tell how sick he was on the phone.

>> He was having trouble breathing.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> And he sounded very -- to use the term he used for Jeb Bush -- he sounded very low energy.

>> Recount the story you tell in the book.

What did he say to you?

>> He started off by talking about "How did two tough guys like us get this?

You know, we're so tough.

We're the toughest guys in America.

How did we get this?"

Said, "I don't know, Mr.

President."

And then he said to me, "You don't think you got it from me, do you?"

So, I said to him, "Look, Mr. President.

I have no idea.

There were seven of us in the room.

So, I don't know who I got it from."

And he kind of paused, and he said, "You're not gonna tell the press that I gave it to you."

And I just stopped, and I said, "Well, I would never do that because I don't know."

He said, "Oh, good.

Okay.

Well, look.

Feel better."

And that was the end of the conversation.

And I didn't hear from him again during my time in the hospital.

>> So, how do you understand his phone call now, knowing what you know now?

>> Well, now I know that he at least feared that he may have given it to me.

>> Because he -- >> He had popped a positive test.

>> Policy -- the third part of your book focuses on policy, winning again.

You lay out your own experiences as a Republican governor, two-term Republican governor in a blue state -- on issues like the economy, education, policing, police reform -- and show how Republicans can be successful with a new Republican agenda.

The "Republican Rescue Agenda" shall we call it?

>> Sure.

>> [ Laughs ] >> Sure.

>> How can you refocus Republican messaging on policy ideas?

>> By doing it.

The only way to do this, Margaret, is to get engaged in it and talk about it.

Let's stop talking about Q-Anon.

Let's stop talking about election stuff.

>> You ran in 2016 partly making the case that we really have to tackle entitlement spending... >> Yeah.

>> ...and Social Security reform.

Do you still believe that?

>> I do.

>> Because Trump decidedly ran against that.

I mean, he was not for that at all.

>> I think we're now seeing the ramifications of that because when we got away from our fiscally conservative message, we gave permission for crazy, out-of-control spending.

And we did that during the Trump era.

Now that the Democrats are in, they're taking it to the next level, and we lack the credibility to be able to say no, because every time they say that, they go, "Well, what about the deficits that you ran up during the Trump years?

You weren't complaining then."

And so, that's the damage that is done by that one.

So, I think that part of what we need to do as we change to the next iteration of what the Republican Party will be -- which has happened all the time since 1860, right?

-- is to be honest about what we did well before and what we did poorly before.

And we did a bad job on fiscal issues from a governmental-spending perspective, and we have to do better, because it will never out-Democrat the Democrats, as they're now showing us.

Whatever we can spend, they can spend more.

So, that's not the way we're gonna win elections.

>> There are some here at home who actually worry that the only way the United States will unravel is if we're the authors of our own demise.

There is a cover story in The Atlantic this week by Bart Gellman in which he writes... Now, Trump is signaling to everyone that he's gonna run again.

He's signaling that to his supporters.

He can't say it because it will trigger campaign-finance laws and election laws, but he's indicating that he's gonna run again.

And I wonder, because you've known him for so long, do you have any reason to doubt him?

>> Oh, I don't think he's made any decision yet at all.

>> But do you have any reason to doubt that when he says, for example, "I've made a decision.

I can't tell you yet.

You're gonna like it"?

>> I have every reason to doubt him.

>> Why?

>> Oh, I don't know.

Because he hasn't always been completely candid with us in the past?

I don't know what he's gonna do.

What I'm confident he will do is what he thinks is in his best interests.

>> You wrote in this book that Trump caused the insurrection, that he bears personal responsibility for what his violent supporters did to the Capitol.

And you also wrote that he behaved in ways that no president should behave.

>> Correct.

>> Do you still believe that?

>> Oh, absolutely, as it applies to everything he did from election night forward.

>> So, does that mean that you won't support him again if he runs?

>> Look.

I'm just not gonna get into this, Margaret.

>> Why?

>> Because this is the trap that everybody -- >> But this is not a trap.

This is a straightforward question.

>> No, it's a game that everybody wants to play about -- elections in this country are about choices, okay?

If Bernie Sanders -- just hear me out -- if Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee for president, if Elizabeth Warren is the Democratic nominee for president, I cannot vote for a socialist for president of the United States.

>> So, you won't eliminate the possibility of supporting Donald Trump in the future.

>> I'm just not gonna make the decision now.

And this is a game that everybody wants to play, and I'm not gonna play it.

What I'm trying to do is help change a party and change a country.

>> Given the quite damning things you've said about the president's behavior in office, my question is, can you have a Republican rescue if Donald Trump is the president again?

>> It depends on whether Donald Trump continues to conduct himself the way he is now or whether he changes.

And you can't tell me whether that's gonna happen or not, and you can't tell me -- >> What's the likelihood that he changes?

>> I don't know, Margaret.

>> No, really?

You've known him for 20 years.

Has he changed in your 20 years?

>> Sure, he has.

Sure, he's changed in my 20 years.

>> So, you think he could change?

>> I think every-- look.

I'm a Catholic who believes in redemption, and I think anybody can change if they decide they want to.

>> You said, in your last interview with me, that you were not finished yet.

>> I am not.

>> If Trump ran, would you be willing to run against him?

>> If I decided to run for president, I wouldn't care who the hell else is in the race, not one bit.

>> Does whether he runs or not influence what you do?

>> Zero.

Zero.

If I decide I think I'm the best person to be president of the United States, and I have the support of my family, and I see a pathway to winning, then I run.

If I don't see all three of those things, then I don't run.

And when politicians say that, most people don't give them much credibility.

But remember -- in 2011, lots of Republicans were begging me to run.

I didn't feel like I was ready to be president, prong one.

>> You ready now?

>> Oh, I'm definitely ready now.

There's no doubt in my mind that I'm in fact even more ready now than I was in 2016.

I'm older, I'm smarter, and I've watched a lot.

>> Yeah.

>> And I can tell you that from watching Donald Trump be president, from the very close range that I watched it from, that I learned a great deal about what I would do if I were ever president and what I would never do if I were president.

So, yeah, I'm ready.

I'm prepared.

Doesn't mean I'm gonna run.

But it means that if I do run, that won't be the thing that will keep me from running.

>> Chris Christie, thank you for returning to "Firing Line."

>> Thanks for having me, Margaret.

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... And by... Corporate funding is provided by... >> You're watching PBS.