总统候选人克里斯·克里斯蒂对话主持团

Jason Calacanis (00:00:00): Alright, everybody. Welcome back to the All-In Podcast. We're very excited today to do our third deep dive long form discussion with presidential candidates for the 2024 election. We started with RFK, and he got a huge boost in the ratings after he was on the pod. We had Vivek, and now Governor Chris Christie is with us. Governor, thanks for coming. Chris Christie (00:00:21): My pleasure. Thanks for having me, guys. Jason Calacanis (00:00:23): Alright. So it's a little bit different here than I think some of the other news hits that you do. This is not short form. It's long form. We like to, you know, have a thoughtful discussion with the candidates, not with talking points, and I know that you're a straight shooter. So I think you'll fit right in here with the other boys. I think you're very unique amongst candidates in that you've actually brought up the deficit. As we know, just two facts here, and then I'll hand it over to Friedberg for his question. The last two administrations have run up the deficit massively. Here's a chart of our debt. Trump added almost $8 trillion. Biden's added $4 trillion. And this is obviously an unpopular issue to bring up. As you've mentioned, bringing this up is unpopular. It doesn't get you votes necessarily to say we have to cut spending. And Friedberg and I are very much, I'll speak for myself, but this is my number one issue in terms of picking a candidate. Friedberg, I think you said it's your number one issue. So Friedberg, handing it over to you in terms of a question for Governor Christie. David Friedberg (00:01:29): Yeah. Governor Christie, nice to see you. You and I sang on a karaoke stage together in Idaho a few years ago. But it's a Chris Christie (00:01:35): I still remember that. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:37): Yeah. Is that a sly way of saying Idaho? I had to put that two and two together there. David Friedberg (00:01:42): Oh, nice. Free Bird. It was a small bar in Idaho. Jason Calacanis (00:01:44): Oh, wow. It was David Friedberg (00:01:45): a small bar in Idaho. Chris Christie (00:01:46): Small bar in Idaho. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:48): Small establishment classes free. Yeah. David Friedberg (00:01:50): They're right with a few folks who happen to be in a bar together. David Sacks (00:01:58): To let your winner, Friedberg. Jason Calacanis (00:02:01): Rainman, David Sacks. David Sacks (00:02:06): it to the fans and they've discovered David Friedberg (00:02:14): We watched the Republican primary debate a few weeks ago, and I think what struck me at least was how little focus and attention is given on the fiscal situation. The U.S. government deficit is in excess of $2 trillion this year, debt to GDP in excess of 130%. Thirty-plus percent of U.S. debt is coming due in the next year, which means it's gonna get advanced at the higher rates of probably 5.5% plus. And then when you look at the demands on Social Security and Medicare, forecasts are that both of those systems necessarily go bankrupt unless there's some extraordinary measures taken. And that seems to be a very kind of hot topic, golden goose that can't be touched or debated. All of this seems to be largely ignored, and so much of the conversation is around social issues in the United States, military issues, war, etc., when fundamentally there's no gas in the tank. I guess the point of view I'd love to hear from you is how do you think about that? Does that matter to you right now, or do we think that this is a can that we kick down the road, and we'll solve this problem later. We'll grow our way out of it. If we cut some spending, it'll fix itself. It seems so core to me that the future of the United States is gonna be dependent on how we're gonna manage this fiscal emergency that we're facing. Chris Christie (00:03:35): Well, look, David, it's core to me too, and I'm, you know, if you've seen any of the excerpts from any of the town hall meetings I've done so far, you know I've been talking about both the issues you just raised. First off, I think on the deficit and debt side, I learned about this after becoming a prosecutor and having to come to New Jersey and inherit two problems immediately. We had a $2 billion short-term deficit for the last five months of the fiscal year that I inherited. And then we had an $11 billion deficit on a $29 billion budget for the fiscal year starting July 1, 2010. And I had to deal with both those things. And as you know, unlike the chart that was just shown, you don't get to run it up. You have to square it. And so, you know, I learned how hard it is and how ugly it's gonna be for your popularity to do these things. So on the first piece, on the $2 billion, we sat down. I refused to raise taxes, and we sat down and we eliminated 683 individual programs. Completely. And then swept every surplus from a school board in the state. And the way we did that was we reduced their state aid by the amount they had in surplus to get the $2 billion in balance. And then extended that into the next budget cycle, kept all those cuts in place, which did some structural, you know, refiguring at the deficit. And then made additional cuts after that. You know, I got elected with 48.5 percent of the vote. And after I did that, my approval ratings went down below 40, in my first six months. But what I knew was it was absolutely necessary because in our state, we were already overtaxed, and the idea of raising taxes again was not an option that was to me viable. So when you learn and you go through that process and then you look at what we're dealing with federally, I think you realize three things right off the bat. One, it is an imperative that we need to reduce spending. What it's doing to inflation, and the long-term ability of the country to grow, it makes it absolutely necessary. Chris Christie (00:06:00): Two, to me kicking the can down the road is not an option because the problem's only gonna get worse. And it's going to begin to impact our ability to be able to do some of the core things that government is supposed to do. And then third, that you've gotta be willing to sacrifice popularity for results. And, you know, I'm not gonna sit here and say it'll be fun to do. It won't be. But I went through it once already on a smaller scale. And quite frankly, you have a much longer runway to do it at the federal level than I did. At the state level. I had, you know, hard deadlines of, you know, June 30, 2010, and July 1, 2010 to accomplish both. On the entitlement side, I think I'm the only person who's been talking about this and saying out loud, we've gotta consider raising the retirement age. And we've gotta consider means testing and eligibility for Social Security. And you know, those two also, you know, I remember watching Biden's State of the Union address. And to me, the most disgusting part of it was when he said, can we all agree we're not gonna touch Social Security, and both sides stood up and cheered. David Friedberg (00:07:16): Yeah. I agree. That was the that was the worst moment for me as well. Chris Christie (00:07:20): Liars and liars and hypocrites. Like, they all know it's going broke in eleven years, Jason Calacanis (00:07:24): and Chris Christie (00:07:24): that's an automatic 24% benefit cut on the Social Security side, an automatic 25% Medicare benefit cut on that side. So you're not gonna be have to you're not gonna be able to let that happen. And so you gotta deal with those issues, and I think you can deal with them. Through both, eligibility issues, regarding means testing, and you could deal with it, by also dealing retirement age retirement HR would do it over the longer term, not for people in their fifties sixties currently, but for people in their, forties and below. David Friedberg (00:07:57): And let me just say one follow-up because, to your point, I think the recent polling showed something like 83% plus of Americans support the benefit they get from these two programs, Social Security and Medicare, that it should not be touched, that that is the popular opinion. That is what the voters are saying. Do you not think that you put yourself at risk in your campaign by making these statements, and how do you get elected and instigate change. Chris Christie (00:08:25): I put myself at risk by running. Yeah. Let alone put myself at risk. Right? I just think you have to be honest with people. It's 11 years. It's not 20 years. It's 11 now. And it means that if the next president doesn't deal with it, then it is going to be in absolute crisis mode when it has to be dealt with. We'll be inside three years. And at that point, the options will be even fewer. So, yeah, of course, it's I and I know someone will run Jason Calacanis (00:08:53): a commercial. David Friedberg (00:08:54): Is that the part? Is that the behind closed door conversation? Is that what's going on? Is the folks that you know that you talk with, everyone behind the closed door, when they're not in front of a camera, are saying we are gonna have to deal with this in the next presidential administration? Chris Christie (00:09:07): Yeah. Yeah. But they all say, I can't believe you're saying it out loud. David Friedberg (00:09:12): Right. Chris Christie (00:09:12): But, you know, to me, we are in such a bad place in politics in this country. If we don't start telling the people the truth about the problems we have, we're never gonna have an opportunity to solve them. And that's risky, but my entire candidacy is risky. So you know, you might as well just go for it and tell people what you really think. And I do think there are a number of people out there who are thinking people, I think most people who answer that 83 percent number, you know, David, are people who don't even know that we're 11 years away from insolvency. Because nobody talks about that part. And if you don't talk about that part, why would any of them want Social Security touched? But I'm finding in my town hall meetings when I tell people it's 11 years from insolvency, how would you deal with a 25 percent cut, 24 percent cut in your Social Security benefit? People, older folks in particular, look horrified. And so, you know, I think it's an educational process. And I've always tried to treat politics at least in part that way that, you know, something I say in New Jersey all the time when press would ask me about a poll that didn't like a position I was taking on an issue. I'd say, you know, a leader's job is not to follow polls. It's to change them. And my job is to change them and to persuade and convince through facts and argument that this is the right way to go. And sometimes you'll win, and sometimes you won't. But if you don't tackle the problems, what the hell are you doing there? You know, the housing behind you is nice, but, you know, frankly, it's not worth it to me. If I'm gonna go there and just be another one to kick this can down the road as, you know, Obama, Trump, and Biden have all done. Bush tried to do something about it. And the Congress rejected it. But Obama, you know, Trump and Biden have done nothing. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:11:15): What are your top two areas where you would cut in order to save entitlements? What are the other areas where you would go to find savings? Chris Christie (00:11:24): Well, look, I think we have to look at social spending in general, that's really drastically increased post-COVID. And those increases have not been taken back. So I think you have to look at all the programs that were ramped up during COVID and say, okay, what's it gonna be to bring it back to pre-COVID spending to start? And then after you do that, a further evaluation of those programs to see if they're effective. And I think that would get you a good part of the way there given how much spending increased during COVID. I think secondly, we need to look at the way we fund education in this country as well. And whether or not when we're spending $800 billion, what do we do at the $80 billion the federal government spends? Another place, an interesting place to look, small in comparison to a $2 trillion debt, I understand. But, that's another place I would look. And the only place I really wouldn't look is on the military side at this point. Because I think you've gotta increase efficiency and effectiveness at the Pentagon. But on the other hand, I don't think that this is the time to be cutting back there when our Navy and Air Force are both in the conditions they're in. Jason Calacanis (00:12:48): It's a good segue, with the military obviously one of the major differences in thinking on this pod and, you know, a big debate inside the Republican Party is around should we defend Ukraine, and then eventually will we defend? You know, Taiwan. And so maybe I'll hand it off to David. Chris Christie (00:13:09): I'm stunned that this is coming up on your pod. Jason Calacanis (00:13:12): Yeah. It's it's it's it's a point of contention. I mean, I I won't speak for Sacks, but David Friedberg (00:13:17): I've heard of the pod before, Governor. Yeah. Chris Christie (00:13:19): Yes, sir. As as does my my oldest son listen to it. So in times when I miss, my son, Andrew, is and and and he wanted to give me a full briefing before I was gonna go on the pod today, and his evaluation of all of you. I told him I was gonna refrain from that because I didn't wanna bring his biases into the interview. But David Friedberg (00:13:41): at least tell us what his evaluations were? Chris Christie (00:13:43): Well, after afterwards, I David Sacks (00:13:45): will. Absolutely. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:13:46): Absolutely. Well, okay. By the way, our David Friedberg (00:13:48): path to presidential candidates is through the sons, it seems. It's kind of a comment. Jason Calacanis (00:13:52): It's actually RFK's sons, very big into the pod. David, of course, is a pacifist. He's a longtime GOP member, but doesn't believe we should be fighting never-ending wars. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:14:02): Let David Sacks (00:14:02): me go back. Yeah. Let me level set here on foreign policy first before we get into Ukraine. I wanna go back to the Bush era forever wars, the Iraq War. One of the reasons why Trump, I think, really took off in 2016 is he was the first Republican to really come out and say that the Iraq War and all these Middle Eastern forever wars we got into was a big mistake. Chris Christie (00:14:24): And yeah. Even though he was even though he was for it when we did it. David Sacks (00:14:27): Okay. Well, fair enough. But he said on the campaign trail. And, hold on, let me finish the question. In 2016, he said that Bush lied us into the war, and he said, no more Bushes. Putting aside Trump for a second. We can get to Trump. What is your view on it? Do you fundamentally agree with that that we were lied into the Iraq War? Do you defend it? Chris Christie (00:14:46): No. I think that I think that most people would admit that we were misled. I wouldn't use the word lied. I would say misled into the Iraq War. Because of the WMD issue. I mean, I supported the Iraq War because of WMD. And I thought if Saddam Hussein had WMD, that that was something that we had to deal with in the context of the post-9/11 world. When it turned out that he didn't have WMD, I don't think there would have been many people who would have been supportive of the Iraq War, absent WMD. So I thought Trump's statements in 2016 were typical for him. He changed his opinion and instead of giving a rational reason for it, he gave a sophomoric one. And so I don't give a whole lot of credit for that. David Sacks (00:15:35): But well, you did at the time in a sense. I mean, when Trump said that Bush lied us into the Iraq War at the South Carolina debate. That was on February 13. You endorsed him on February 26. Chris Christie (00:15:48): Yeah. So what's that mean? David Sacks (00:15:50): Well, I mean, if you thought his answer was sophomoric, why'd you endorse him two weeks later? Chris Christie (00:15:55): I endorsed him because I was convinced he was going to be the Republican nominee for president, and I didn't want Hillary Clinton to be the president. And so having been in that race, competed with him after he won South Carolina, convinced he was going to be the nominee and having at that time had a 15-year relationship with him. My view was I could go in there and try to make him a better candidate. And if you want a better president, and that's why I endorsed him. Absolutely nothing to do. With his sophomoric answer on that. I didn't like his answer, on the wall either saying Mexico is going to pay for it. And I thought that was sophomoric as well. But you know what? In American politics, you don't get to all vote for the candidate you want to vote for. You get to vote for the ones who are left. And if if I had my first choice in '16, it would have been me, but that didn't work out. So I defaulted into Trump because I thought he was a better choice than Hillary Clinton. And by the way, still do think he was a better choice than Hillary Clinton. David Sacks (00:16:52): Okay. Jason Calacanis (00:16:52): But you probably agree with that. Right, Sacks? You thought Trump would be a better choice than Hillary Clinton. David Sacks (00:16:58): I mean, honestly, back in 2016, I wasn't sure what to make of Trump because he was such a, you know, outsider and sort of a wrecking ball. I agree with him about the Iraq war, but I can accept the governor's answer that we were misled on that war. And if we had known the truth about it, we never would have gotten into it. So I think we can all agree on that. Chris Christie (00:17:16): Yep. David Sacks (00:17:17): I wanna get to Ukraine, but just quickly, 2012, do you regret not running in 2012? There's a lot of commentators who say that you kind of were the Trump before Trump. You had this combative style, just kind of a take-no-prisoners sort of attitude. And you kind of had a moment in 2012 where it looked like maybe you could have been the front-runner or the candidate. I guess, why didn't you go for it in 2012, and do you regret that at all? Chris Christie (00:17:44): I don't regret it, and I wasn't ready to be president, and that's why I didn't run. I know it seems quaint now after Barack Obama and Donald Trump have been president, but you know, back in 2012, I really felt like it was necessary to feel in your heart and your mind that you were ready. When people started talking about me running for president, I hadn't even been governor for a year. And before that, I'd been a prosecutor. And in my heart, I just, David, you know, it just didn't feel like I was ready to be president. And if I don't feel something in here, I'm not gonna be very effective at making the argument politically, nor am I gonna be able to convince people to give me their money, which you need to do as well. And so, no, I don't regret it. And by the way, you know, all those commentators who say that never ran for a goddamn thing in their lives. And, you know, they all can think, oh, you would have won. You would have beaten Romney, and you would have beaten Obama. Maybe I would have, maybe I wouldn't have. But that's kinda like the dog catching the garbage truck. If you don't think you're ready and you catch it, the worst moment wouldn't have been losing that election. The worst moment might have been winning it and getting into the Oval Office for the first time and saying, oh my God. Am I really ready to do this? So I don't have any regrets. I really don't. And, everybody who usually, you know, compensates in that way, are people who have never put their name on a ballot for anything. And until you do that, you don't know what it feels like and what it means. To have to offer yourself up to people, for anything. Let alone for president. David Sacks (00:19:24): Yeah. Okay. Fair enough. Going chronologically here, 2014, Biden is now Obama's vice president. He requests the Ukraine portfolio to run it for Obama. There is a famous phone call that gets leaked where our deputy secretary of state, Victoria Nuland, is on tape picking the new government of Ukraine, which takes effect a few weeks later after the violent overthrow of the democratically elected Ukrainian government, the Yanukovych government. Three months after that, Hunter Biden is appointed to the board of Burisma. Do you believe that that appointment was made for any other reason than Joe Biden was the de facto ruler of Ukraine? Chris Christie (00:20:07): I I I don't know about him being the de facto ruler of Ukraine. David Sacks (00:20:11): mean, he was the one. Chris Christie (00:20:12): I don't think she applied to me as a practical ruler of anything, but David Sacks (00:20:15): Well, no. Let me Chris Christie (00:20:15): let me David Sacks (00:20:16): clarify what I mean by that. On the Victoria Nuland phone call, she says she needs to get approval from Biden and Jake Sullivan as national security adviser for this new Ukrainian government that she's picking. So she basically is saying that Biden is the boss. He's gonna sign off on this. They apparently get the approval from Biden. And that government does go into effect after what appears to be a U.S.-backed coup. So Biden clearly has enormous influence over that country. Now okay. It's a little glitch. Chris Christie (00:20:51): Or Jake Sullivan. David Sacks (00:20:52): Or Jake Sullivan. So, look, it's too glib to say he's the ruler of the country, so I don't mean that. I just mean he's the ultimate authority, it seems like, in approving or picking this new government. Three months after he does that, Hunter Biden's appointed to the board of Burisma. So my point to you is what reason could there be for Hunter Biden's appointment other than Joe Biden's influence over that country? Chris Christie (00:21:14): None. David Friedberg (00:21:17): There you have it. Chris Christie (00:21:18): What else you want me to say? David Sacks (00:21:20): So a year later, so 2015. David Friedberg (00:21:23): I don't know why Sacks became a venture capitalist. He should have been a prosecutor. Absolutely. Chris Christie (00:21:27): It's just incredible. I'm overwhelmed at the moment as a former prosecutor. Jason Calacanis (00:21:33): You can see it sweating. Oh my god. Sacks had you on the ropes. David Sacks (00:21:35): Well, no. I'm just I'm trying to get David Friedberg (00:21:37): a great presence. Sacks flip to page 13. Jason Calacanis (00:21:39): Yeah. Come on, Jack. David Sacks (00:21:40): Who did I? No. No. No. I wanna get I wanna get I wanna get Chris Christie (00:21:43): I wanna get this is a four-hour podcast. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:21:47): This is gonna go day by day over the last Jason Calacanis (00:21:49): decade. That way, Hunter by I David Sacks (00:21:51): wanna establish on the ground. David Friedberg (00:21:53): I wanna establish. Fourteen years old on the middle school playground and you push that kid, Bobby, what were you thinking? David Sacks (00:21:59): No. I'm actually establishing common ground with the governor before I get into areas we might disagree. Okay. Okay. Jason Calacanis (00:22:04): Here we go. David Sacks (00:22:05): Excellent. Okay. So 2015, you have this prosecutor named Shokin, this Ukrainian prosecutor who is investigating Burisma. Joe Biden, according to his own acknowledgment on a videotape to I think he was speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations, says that he gets Shokin fired. And then, magically, the investigation into Burisma stops. Do you think that was in furtherance of stopping corruption in Ukraine, or was that an effort by Joe Biden to protect himself or his son from this investigation? Chris Christie (00:22:35): I think we're gonna find out as continued congressional oversight occurs and the special counsel, I hope, investigation broadens. So I'm not ready to say I know that for sure. But I'll tell you this much. There's enough smoke there that we gotta see where the fire is. And I'd also say about Biden, I would never discount not as a substitute motivation, but perhaps as an additional one. The fact that he likes to pretend he's in charge of things. But instead, his staff is really in charge. And that's how you get trained in the United States Senate. Your staff really runs everything, at least with many of the senators. And that's why it's such a bad training ground for the presidency, in my view. But I digress myself. I'd say it is a likely motivation. It may not be the only one, and it's something I'm certainly intrigued to find out about as oversight moves forward. And I hope the special counsel's investigation broadens into the specifics of then-Vice President Biden's involvement with his son's business dealings. David Sacks (00:23:47): Let's talk about that for a second. There was, I guess, the most recent revelation that Joe Biden was communicating with his son under a pseudonym, burner account. Was it Robert Peters? In your experience as a prosecutor, is there any legitimate reason why somebody would want to use a pseudonym for communicating with their son? Chris Christie (00:24:08): Look, burner accounts always raise my eyebrows as a former prosecutor. But what I will say is that I would understand someone in public life if they're communicating with Chamath, wanting to do that in a way where it wouldn't be detected by folks who are prying in one way or the other, whether that might be media, but more particularly hackers and other folks who are able to do things that I really don't have much understanding of, except to be fearful of them. So I don't want to say that is a de facto proof point, David, but again, going back to my seven years as a U.S. attorney, when I saw someone having a burner phone or other types of burner accounts, it definitely made me say let's take a look a little more closely at that and see what we can find. Yeah. Of course. At a minimum, it's suspicious, for sure, and deserves inquiry. David Sacks (00:25:04): Yeah. Especially after Biden said he had no involvement in his son's business dealings. And we found out from Devon Archer's sworn testimony, who is Hunter Biden's partner, that Biden participated in twenty phone calls with clients to be the brand. So it's Chris Christie (00:25:17): sort of Jason Calacanis (00:25:17): too far down the Biden and Trump well, which Okay. David Sacks (00:25:23): So Jason Calacanis (00:25:24): give us tons of, I think, material, maybe we could get David Sacks (00:25:27): to Ukraine. Jason Calacanis (00:25:28): Ukraine war and, you know, who do you think's ultimately responsible for the invasion of Ukraine? I think the United States. David Sacks (00:25:36): Well, like, obviously, the governor has said he supports Ukraine, and Jason Calacanis (00:25:39): they believe that it's responsible. Yeah. So maybe just in terms of governor. Do you think the United States is responsible for the invasion of Ukraine? Cause we didn't do enough in terms of taking NATO off the table like some people think, or do you think? Putin is responsible for invading Ukraine because he invaded Ukraine. I don't wanna lead the witness. Chris Christie (00:26:03): You already did. But my answer is that Putin is responsible. Now I do think, though, that United States inaction, and bad signal sending to Putin. Going all the way back to George W. Bush, who said I looked into his eyes and saw his soul. Then to Barack Obama who was, you know, completely uninterested, in anything and, and when, Putin made moves on Ukraine, under the Obama administration. He did nothing. To Donald Trump, who saw it as an opportunity to extort Volodymyr Zelenskyy. To get dirt on Joe Biden in return for military aid to Joe Biden who I think has been a hand wringer on this issue. And when he said, well, maybe a small invasion wouldn't be so bad. You know, it reminds me of, you know, something I said to folks, when I was U.S. attorney, everybody's definition of the word small is different. And you can't assume what they mean is the same thing you mean. So I do think there were American actions and inaction which contributed to sending signals to Putin that maybe we wouldn't care if he did it. But that's a small sliver in my view of the responsibility. The lion's share of responsibility is in my view on Putin. David Sacks (00:27:30): Fair enough. Would you admit Ukraine into NATO? Chris Christie (00:27:36): Well, I think that in the situation we're in now, David, they're gonna be it's almost at the de facto point at this point. I don't I think that given that we permitted Russia to do what they did, given that we're that that they have now executed what they've executed in terms of their aggression against Ukraine, and the NATO support, from a military hardware and other and intelligence perspective for Ukraine. I think it is now a foregone conclusion that Ukraine will be will be admitted today. No. And frankly, it's gotta be now, I think one of the penalties and one of the prices that Putin pays for his aggression. David Sacks (00:28:16): But when would you do that? I mean, so Jens Stoltenberg at the Vilnius Summit made it explicit that Ukraine's future is in NATO, but it could not happen unless and until they win this war. Would you admit them sooner than that? Chris Christie (00:28:30): No. Okay. No. I would because David Sacks (00:28:32): that would lead to World War III, obviously. Chris Christie (00:28:35): That's what I'm attempting to avoid. David Sacks (00:28:37): Yeah. Okay. Fair enough. Would you have been willing to take NATO expansion off the table in 2021 in order to avoid a war? Chris Christie (00:28:46): No. I think that was too late. If you were gonna take NATO expansion off the table, if you were gonna do it, it would have been done much earlier. Because if you did it then, that would essentially be giving in to Putin's threat. And I think that would have sent an even worse signal than some of the signals that I mentioned before. So, no, I wouldn't have been willing to do it in 2021. In order to avoid it because, quite frankly, I don't believe that it would have avoided it. It just would have forestalled it. David Sacks (00:29:16): Do you believe that we made the correct decision? I mean, I know I'm going way back here, but in 2008 at the Bucharest summit. We declared our intention to bring Ukraine and Georgia for that matter into NATO, but we didn't have a plan to do it. Do you believe that was a mistake? Chris Christie (00:29:30): I think it was a mistake not to, if you're gonna do it, you should have a plan that lays out exactly how and when and why. And I think just expressing aspirational goals in that regard is dangerous in foreign policy. And so I think the mistake was made, not necessarily by ever having Ukraine in NATO, but by doing it the way it was done, again, was, in my view, an unnecessary or at least not well-thought-out provocation. David Sacks (00:30:03): Is there anything about Joe Biden's policy in Ukraine that you would change? Chris Christie (00:30:07): Yeah. I would have been much more aggressive in providing military hardware much sooner than what he did. And I think he's been the hand-wringer on it. Every step has been preceded by fretting and furrowing brows and hand-wringing. And I think if you're gonna be in this, you have to give them the tools they need to win. When I met with Zelensky a month ago, he made it very clear to me. He had no interest in American or allied troops in Ukraine. Now or ever. He felt this was Ukraine's war to win or lose, but that they needed the military hardware necessary to compete in this war against Russia. And that, you know, my view of what their biggest concerns were, which the ones that I agree with are the pace and amount of armaments that have been given, not only by the U.S., but by the rest of the NATO allies as well. I mean, for for David Sacks (00:31:15): a lot of us, but let me just ask a couple of quick follow-ups here and then we can move on. I mean, for a lot of us, Biden has not been half-hearted about this. A $113 billion appropriation. That seems like a ton of money that could have been spent domestically. What little hand-wringing there was was on the giving of F-16s and Abrams tanks. And the reason for that, Biden said, was that it could lead to World War III. I mean, are you not concerned about those kinds of escalations? I mean, isn't that a good thing to be concerned about, not dismissive about? Chris Christie (00:31:45): It's always important to be concerned about it, but you have to be thoughtful about it and look at what the alternatives are. And to me, the alternative of allowing the combination of China and Russia to rout Ukraine is something that's not in the U.S. vital interests and will lead to other problems as well with China going forward. None of these are easy decisions, Dave, but what they are are the ones that you want someone who is thoughtful and has some experience making them as president. And I don't think Biden checks either of those boxes sufficiently. And I think it's competent to show that. And by the way, the same applies to Trump. Jason Calacanis (00:32:34): What do you think the resolution is here? And if in, I don't know, 16 months, you're president or when you're president, how would you deal with this if the war is still Chris Christie (00:32:46): Well, I think it depends on what disposition the war is in at that point. Yeah, Jason, I think you have to evaluate how successful has Ukraine been in pushing back. They've made some success in the past couple of weeks in terms of breaking through some of the Soviet initial defensive lines. I think we have to see exactly how successful they've been. But what I would say is that there's no question that this is a conflict that we need to support and send a clear message, messages that have not been, as I said earlier, sent at all clear to Putin that, you know, this is a guy who has openly discussed the reassembling of the Soviet Union. And I have no illusions about the fact that this former KGB thinks that the Soviet Union were the good old days. And if he thought he could get away with assembling as much of it as he possibly could, he would. And I think that we have to send a very clear message on that to him and a very clear message on that to China regarding authoritarian expansionism. And this is where I think that the Trump, DeSantis, Ramaswamy foreign policies are so hopelessly ill-informed and naive. The idea that we're gonna go to Putin who yesterday was sitting with Kim Jong Un, and persuade him the better place to be is with us. Go away from your communist brothers in China and North Korea and come with us because it'll be a much better deal for you. And that Donald Trump's gonna do that in 24 hours or Vivek Ramaswamy's gonna do it by virtue of his winning personality. I mean, to me, he looks like the guy you wanted to stuff in the locker in the eleventh grade, but I don't think that's the guy who's gonna persuade Vladimir Putin to leave the communist Chinese and to, you know, come to, come to, the America side. David Sacks (00:34:48): But but governor, you have to admit the war is not going well for the Ukrainians. I mean, this counteroffensive, here's what we were promised. Remember, just several months ago before the counteroffensive. You had people like Petraeus and Ben Hodges saying that the counteroffensive would be like a blitz. They would rapidly penetrate the Surovikin lines. They would march across the country to the Sea of Azov. They would cut off the land bridge to Crimea. All this would happen within weeks. And it would be a significant Ukrainian victory. It has been almost a total failure. The Ukrainians have taken even the Washington Post and political publications like that have said their losses have been staggering. The battlefield reports have been sobering. These are our top publications saying this. So we have been unsuccessful. Moreover, you say we should give them more weapons, but we've run out. We've run out of the key type of ammunition in this war, which is artillery shells. That's why we're giving them cluster bombs. The cupboard is bare. So I'm just wondering how exactly would you turn this around given that Ukrainians are losing this war very badly? Chris Christie (00:35:52): Well, first off, there was a lot in there. Alright. Let's go back to the predictions from Petraeus and others. You didn't hear me making those predictions because I think anybody who was briefed on the deficiency of armaments for Ukraine would not have said something like that unless it was wishful thinking. Secondly, I understand the reports regarding our own deficiencies in providing them with more armaments. We have, I think, work to do with the rest of our allies in NATO in terms of their providing more of the artillery and other armaments that are needed by Ukraine. David Sacks (00:36:36): Sense of even less than we do. I mean, you know. Chris Christie (00:36:38): Well, but look, this is gonna have to be something that we're gonna have to cobble together to get it done. And it also shows what I was saying earlier in regards to the budget question that, you know, this massive military buildup that Donald Trump says he did was baloney. David Sacks (00:36:57): I think you have an interesting point there, actually, which is to me, one of the biggest surprises of this war is that we spend $877 billion on the Pentagon and that we could run out of ammo. So, I mean, without blaming Trump per se or Biden, I just think we're getting ripped off. I mean, the military-industrial complex is royally screwing the American taxpayer. How can we spend $877 billion and not have ammo? Can you explain that to me? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:21): Or have food insecurity for a lot of members of the military, not have paid leave, not have health care. The idea that you don't want to look at that budget is enormous. Chris Christie (00:37:33): Is that what I said? Jason Calacanis (00:37:34): That is what you said. Chris Christie (00:37:35): No. It is not. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:36): What did you say? Jason Calacanis (00:37:37): You said you might have said Chris Christie (00:37:38): No. No. I did not say that. What I said was that the Pentagon has to be made more efficient and more effective with what it spends, but not reduce what it spends. And that goes right to the point that David just made. Which is you have to get answers as president to the questions of what are you spending $877 billion on if we're running out of ammo and there's food insecurity and there's not paid leave. Right? So what I what I was saying through the answer I gave you on the budget was I did not see that as a place to cut, but I did say very clearly that it's a place where we have to make the Pentagon more efficient and effective. And we need a secretary of defense and a president who want to demand answers to those questions first. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:38:29): Are you not sympathetic to the idea that efficiency sometimes means spending less? To get the same or more? Chris Christie (00:38:35): If that's the conclusion we come to after examining it, then I'm very sympathetic to that. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:38:40): So then you are open to cutting the defense budget. Chris Christie (00:38:42): I'm open. It is a secondary issue. The primary issue on defense. No. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:38:49): I understand. I just want a clear answer so I understand where you're coming from. You want to look at the defense budget. You have an intuition that there's potentially extreme levels of waste. Right. But if you find that waste, will you just cut it, or will you just reallocate it? Chris Christie (00:39:04): Reallocate. Why? For the very reasons that David's just talking about. If we're running out of ammo, if our submarine capacity is not where it should be, which I believe it is not, if our ship capacity is not where I believe it should be, and it is not in my view. And if our modernization of our Air Force is not where it should be—I believe it is not—then you reallocate that money. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:29): Okay. So there's a principle in capitalism called zero-based budgeting, which I actually like what you're saying, but just to kind of double-click on what that is, zero-based budgeting starts with the principle that you just stated, which is what are our priorities? What do we want to accomplish? And then you go and systematically build up where the budget actually starts at zero. Hey, Pentagon. You get zero, not eight hundred billion. What do we need to accomplish? Oh, we need bullets? Okay. We need armaments? Okay. We need to have food security for all of our armed servicemen and women? Absolutely. And then what happens if that number gets to three hundred fifty billion? Do you just cut half a trillion, or do you find ways to spend the other half a trillion? Chris Christie (00:40:08): Well, I'm glad you brought that up because that's what I did as governor. I was the first governor who did zero-based budgeting, and I did it first governor in New Jersey to do it. And I did it because of the dire straits that we were in. I didn't think we could assume any longer anything in terms of our spending. So I absolutely would want to take that approach. Now I don't think you're gonna go from $877 billion to $350 billion, and say that we've met all of our defense needs and the needs of our fighting men and women with that number. But let's just leave the number blank for a minute. If I concluded that we could do everything we needed to do through the reengineering of how we were spending at the Pentagon, and that ultimately, it would check the boxes I want to check in terms of some of the issues I just talked about, and it turned out to be less than Of course, I would look not to spend $877 billion. But that assumes a lot of things in there as you know, but the principle of zero-based budgeting from my perspective worked when I was governor. Not only in terms of keeping our spending at an increase of 2 percent a year annually for eight years, but it also educated me much more on the intricacies of the budget as the ultimate decision maker. Jason Calacanis (00:41:42): And I Chris Christie (00:41:42): think that was useful. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:41:43): You're a very effective prosecutor, and part of that is having a good intuition. So I'm just gonna ask you, your intuition. How much waste do you think is in the military-industrial complex in that $877 billion? Do you think there's 30 cents of waste? Do you think there's 40 cents of waste? Do you think there's 5 cents of waste, or do you think there's, like, 70 cents of waste? Chris Christie (00:42:03): My intuition tells me that it is significant. I can't put a number on it. It'd be irresponsible for me to put a number on, but there's no doubt that when you see us spend the $877,000,000,000, and we don't have 155-millimeter artillery shells, that there's waste. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:19): Let's talk about governance and just like civil society and government for a second, but let's just finish on this military-industrial complex. Why is it, how does it come to be that so much corruption and graft gets introduced into the military budget? Explain just how, how it happens. How does all of this waste end up happening? Where on the one hand, you ask people, men and women, oftentimes poor, oftentimes minorities, to come and serve and put their lives on the front lines. You don't even give them enough food. Somebody's clearly making money out of the $877,000,000,000. Just explain how that waste comes to be, and the influence peddling and the revolving door, just so that the average person can understand it. Chris Christie (00:43:06): Well, first off, and I'll answer your question specifically, but let me say by answering it this way, I don't want to imply in any way that this waste and corruption happens just in the military budget because it happens, it's been my experience. It happens across budgets. Across disciplines. With that being said, I would say it happens in a number of different ways. First of all, not doing zero-based budgeting contributes to that. Because people no longer have to rationalize or justify the existence of a program. They just need to hire enough lobbyists to keep it getting put in there. So that's one way that it happens. Secondly, incompetence in administration. So people who are either purely incompetent in the job or, alternative to is, are corrupt in the job. And so they look the other way on waste because they want to get a job through the revolving door you talked about on the other side. The third way that I think it happens is extraordinary events that cause political overreaction. So you'll have an extraordinary event that occurs, from a national security perspective. And then politicians want to look like we're responding to it. And the way we're responding to it is we're going to spend tens or hundreds of billions more on this broad category of initiatives without really digging into whether that can be spent effectively that way or not. And then once it gets in there, for the reasons I gave to you in the two examples before, it doesn't get out. So you layer it over and layer it over and layer it over and layer it over. And then that's the way that stuff happens. So I think it's a bit of a nutshell presentation on that for you. But I think those are the three most important elements that I've observed personally. In governing a state with 60,000 employees and a $34 billion budget. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:45:25): You think the antidote to that is to start with zero-based budgeting, or are there other more radical changes you would want to make, whether it's to the CIA or the NSA? How do you think about getting to the root cause of or root answer Jason Calacanis (00:45:38): of the truth? Chris Christie (00:45:39): Look, I think that there's two ways to do it initially, and zero-based budgeting is one of them. And secondly, is to try to select competent people for those positions who understand clearly from the leader what their mission is. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:45:58): Would you, for example, be willing to do an EO that said if you serve in these roles, you're banned from serving any of these folks for twenty years or something like that? Something that just makes it clear that there's no financial motivation for somebody to walk out the door and then go and work for Lockheed Martin or David Sacks (00:46:14): Just to augment that. Let's talk about these former generals, like the ones we are quoting, who predicted the counteroffensive would be this wonderful success. They're all now on the boards of weapons manufacturers. So the people in the Pentagon who make a lot of these procurement decisions about weapon systems, when they retire, they go off to serve on these boards. I mean, the big weapons companies are basically their retirement program. I mean, that seems like a horrible set of incentives. I mean, would you do something like ban the revolving door between people working in the Pentagon and then working for a weapons company? Chris Christie (00:46:49): Well, I certainly would be willing to consider, if they worked with a particular contractor they had supervised, or had decision-making authority over a program run by a particular contractor, not being able to go back out and work for that contractor. David Sacks (00:47:06): When they go back in, the problem is they know in advance that their retirement program is gonna be working on one of these boards. So they're not as tough as they should be when they're actually in the government job. Chris Christie (00:47:15): Tough fraud. So you talk about the revolving door on the way in or the way out on the David Sacks (00:47:18): way out? Like, basically, you work your way up to general and then you retire and then you join the board of these Raytheon and Lockheed and all these guys? Chris Christie (00:47:27): Well, I think that there are appropriate restrictions that can be put on in terms of number of years to make it go past the period when that person could have direct political influence on the administration that's in play. But I also think we need to be careful about the fact that we don't wind up throwing out the baby with the bathwater in the sense that there are some people who are legitimate people who are not looking to do it in a way that is corrupt or unethical but who develop great expertise in certain areas. And that expertise can be very helpful. We're only looking at the negative side of it. So I think there are ways to do what we need to do with the political influence and that it would be to ban it for the rest of that administration. So if you serve in a particular administration, for the rest of the administration, you can't go back out and work on the issues that you were working on when you were there. That to me seems to be reasonable. Yeah. David Sacks (00:48:28): I mean, I I I Chris Christie (00:48:29): don't know whether twenty years makes sense or not. But, you know, we've identified the problem. Now let's figure out how to fix it. Mike, I'm willing and open to do that, but I wanna make sure I do it in a way that is not creating a whole different set of problems that we'll then be talking about. Well, and the analogy I make in part on this is the wall between CIA and FBI. And the problems that that, I think, precipitated, regarding 9/11. So you know, there are fixes to these things. And I'm telling you guys I'm willing to be open about how to do it. I favor the concept I think we're negotiating over length of years and how it applies. David Friedberg (00:49:17): Should that be the case for all government administrative jobs, Governor? Chris Christie (00:49:20): Sure. David Friedberg (00:49:21): So FDA into health care, health care into FDA. Chris Christie (00:49:24): It's the same principle. David Friedberg (00:49:26): Like, should that be the case everywhere? Chris Christie (00:49:28): It's the same principle. Yeah. David Friedberg (00:49:30): How should that then be applied to Congress people? Chris Christie (00:49:34): Well, since the EO won't cover members of Congress, in the same way that that's why they don't have term limits, which I believe they should have, and why none of this stuff will ever apply to Congress. So let's tell the truth. It'll never apply to Congress because they'd have to pass it for it to apply, and it will never happen. But a president could do what he could do about his branch of government and should, and I would. Jason Calacanis (00:50:00): Let's pivot to one of the most controversial topics between the two parties, which is immigration, and I'll pull up two charts here to queue up the discussion. Here's the first chart. Just since 2000, we've been net migration in the United States, just on a steady stream down at around 5 million. Second chart is border crossings, that orange line there that you're seeing. That's COVID, and then the blue line obviously is the return from COVID. The border agency seems to think not much has changed over the last couple of years at the border. However, we have, and that's across obviously multiple administrations. Other countries have point-based systems. They have very logical discussions over immigration. Is this person going to add and be accretive to the society? Is this person going to be a drain on society? And, you know, they just UK, Australia, New Zealand, countless countries now use this point-based system. It's incredibly polarized here, and we have the lowest in we have the lowest unemployment of our lifetime, plenty of jobs. We still have 1.6 jobs per American who is who are looking for jobs I'm curious why you think this immigration discussion is so polarized and not factual and how you as president would, resolve this issue and and maybe make it make more sense to the American public. Chris Christie (00:51:26): Well, look. I think the first thing, the first part of the question is, how has it gotten so polarized? And I think it's because people in political life have used this as a weapon, on both sides of the aisle, to try to promote their own political agendas. Democrats have wanted this perception, on their positive side from their perspective, that they'll let anybody in because they think ultimately those folks who come in will be their voters ultimately over the long haul. And they also wanna raise restrictions. They wanna raise the issue of restrictions that are placed by Republicans on this to make us seem to be heartless, uncaring, unfeeling people. On our side, we wanna make the entire system seem completely flawless because that plays into our view of ourselves as the law and order party and the Democrats as the party who could give a damn about law and order. And we wanna play into the populist side of it, which says that any person who comes over the border is likely to take your job. Not just a job, your job. And then when you present it to people that way, they, of course, are gonna be anti-immigration because they'd like to keep their job and support their family and have a life that they wanna look forward to. And for the kids as well. So that's my explanation on the first part as to how we got here. Jason Calacanis (00:53:06): Seems logical. Yeah. And fair, by the way. Your assessment of both parties, by the way, on these topics, I think, is excellent. Chris Christie (00:53:12): And by the way, completely unfair way to have conducted this stuff. The problem has been that we haven't had presidential leadership on this issue since Reagan. Reagan, ultimately, and I think he learned this as a conservative governor in a blue state. We're here to deal with Jesse Unruh running his legislature. And Reagan, it's all front of mind because I just finished writing a book on Reagan. So it's fresh in mind to me. Reagan learned that it was only he, the governor, who could force people into a room to get issues resolved. In the same way when he was president, he didn't love the deal he made on immigration. Same way he didn't love the deal he made on Social Security, but he liked it more than he liked the alternative of doing nothing. I think the only way we're gonna resolve the immigration issue, Jason, is to have a president, as I said, in response to David Friedberg's earlier question on debt, a president who's willing to sacrifice some popularity to try to force a resolution. And I do think that most Americans would support a merit-based immigration system. Jason Calacanis (00:54:40): Why does it never come up? I mean, if these other countries have had such great success with it, why wouldn't any politician say it? I haven't heard you say it in the debates. I don't know if you have. I haven't heard everything you've said, Chris Christie (00:54:50): even ask us about immigration in debates. They didn't ask if it was an immigration entitlement or the debt. Three things we've already talked about here today. Yeah. But they had time to ask me about UFOs. Jason Calacanis (00:55:02): Yeah. That was pretty bizarre. They're like, hey, let's give you the most meaningless question. You know, if anybody invented it. David Friedberg (00:55:08): That's what the base wants to hear. Come Chris Christie (00:55:10): on. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:55:10): I mean, it's just Chris Christie (00:55:12): raviner. Let's talk about UFOs. Jason Calacanis (00:55:15): I mean, what did you think of the ending of Succession, Governor? Chris Christie (00:55:18): Yeah. I mean, you know, it's like, I am so, so I have talked about my town hall meetings about Republicans should be advocating for a merit-based immigration system, but we need to also recognize, wow, I think both parties should be in favor of a secure southern border, if for no other reason than the fentanyl and drug-related issues that are involved. Why Jason Calacanis (00:55:49): is there such a debate over the numbers? Because, you know, I just pulled up those numbers, and that's the Border Patrol, and that's across multiple administrations. And then people are saying David Sacks (00:55:57): people are simulating, Jason. Did you see the Washington Post just last week? The headline is "Families crossing U.S. border illegally reached all-time high in August." This is the Washington Post. Jason Calacanis (00:56:09): Oh, you trust the Washington Post? David Sacks (00:56:11): I'm saying that if a liberal Democrat publication that serves the D.C. blob, is admitting this problem, why can't you admit it? Jason Calacanis (00:56:20): Oh, oh, I'm not saying that it's not at all-time highs, but it doesn't seem to have gotten much different than over the last two administrations. You wanna act David Sacks (00:56:29): like it's not a serious problem. Jason Calacanis (00:56:31): No. No. I don't. And I David Sacks (00:56:32): promise you I'm not worried about my job. Jason Calacanis (00:56:34): I'm worried about the fact David Sacks (00:56:35): that the United Jason Calacanis (00:56:36): States, the David Sacks (00:56:37): United States can absorb a million migrants a Jason Calacanis (00:56:40): My question. Obviously, I care about it. So don't tell me I don't care about it. David Sacks (00:56:43): I'm just fact-checking that. Yes. Jason Calacanis (00:56:45): It's fine to fact-check, but even though it's at all-time highs, if you look at that chart, it seems like there's a big debate on the numbers that, hey, it may be at all-time highs, but it's been relatively the same. And so that's what I'm trying to get at. Governor, why can't we get good numbers on this? Chris Christie (00:57:01): Well, we do get good numbers on it, but everybody slices the numbers differently. You know, I used to work in a deli when I was in high school for a period of time. And, you know, everybody had the same big chunk of baloney, but depending on how you sliced it, it looked different. And so I agree with David that it is a very serious problem right now. And it's because of Biden's policies and his rhetoric. He sent a very clear signal during the 2020 campaign. If I win, the border's open, let's go. Everybody come on in, and it has caused a crisis on a number of levels. Also, Democratic politicians saying that they were willing to be sanctuary cities and sanctuary states. Well, now I see the front page of the New York Post every day. And here's Eric Adams complaining that Jason Calacanis (00:58:04): he needs help. Chris Christie (00:58:06): He needs help. Well, you should have shut up and not said you were a sanctuary city. And then you wouldn't need the help, but it's easy. David Friedberg (00:58:16): Did you see the video yesterday? He said that all his time in New York, he's always seen an end to every problem. There's always a solution. He says, I have not seen, I cannot see an end to this problem. I don't see a solution. Yeah. Oh, Mike. David Sacks (00:58:29): You just broke Jason's heart. You were a perfect candidate till that answer. You just broke his heart. Jason Calacanis (00:58:34): No. I didn't. I'm in favor of the point that the system has been very consistent about that. I think we should actually have a thoughtful discussion of how many people we can actually bring in and sustain, you know, that's the obvious discussion here. David Sacks (00:58:46): We all agree on merit-based immigration. The thing that I have an issue with, Jason, is just you pretend like the border's not in crisis. It is in crisis. Jason Calacanis (00:58:54): Oh, I think it's it's it's not it hasn't been resolved for decades. Right? I mean, we we have not had a solution there. When when's the last time the border was functioning? David Sacks (00:59:05): Yes. See and then Biden revoked it. And now they're thinking about bringing it back because they have no way to control the huge number of people who are streaming across. Jason Calacanis (00:59:13): Yeah. I'm just trying to advocate for a point Chris Christie (00:59:15): based system. By the way, on the numbers. Yeah. That's what should be part of a negotiation between Republicans and Democrats in Congress and the White House. Yeah. Based upon the current circumstances, we can't deal with all the stuff that's happened before. But what we know now is we have current circumstances now, guys, which are not only impacting quality of life in terms of crime, and quality of life in terms of education because you see what's gonna happen in the New York school system. And, you know, you are gonna have thousands of immigrant children who now are gonna show up at the New York City public schools. To be educated. That's why the uncontrolled part of what, what David Sacks is talking about is is so vital right now. And thirdly, but most importantly to me, is the fentanyl issue. Because when you have 110,000 people dying of overdoses last year in this country and you have overdose being the number one killer of men between 18 and 34, it is a crisis, and it is a crisis which is not created entirely by the border but is contributed to mightily by what's going on at the border. Jason Calacanis (01:00:36): Would you send, there's been talk of this, I think, from certain candidates. Would you send troops into Mexico to take out the cartels, or is that no? Chris Christie (01:00:46): I would not. I would put National Guard at the border to work with Customs and Border Patrol to stop the fentanyl cartels from getting into our country. And I would use our intelligence community to do what we always do with enemies of that nature, which is to target them and to make sure that if they're going to do what they're gonna do that they're dealt with. But in terms of a Ron DeSantis full-scale invasion of Mexico, yeah, I think I'd probably demur on that one. Jason Calacanis (01:01:20): You'd whack these people bringing the fentanyl and you wouldn't do it on the soil in Mexico. Chris Christie (01:01:25): Correct. And also I'd whack them within the laws of the United States. Jason Calacanis (01:01:32): Sure. Chris Christie (01:01:32): It would not be a vigilante system where everybody goes down there and just starts popping somebody they think is a fentanyl dealer. They come over the border. But what I would also say to you is we've got to also make sure we deal with this diplomatically with the Mexicans. And by diplomatically, I mean, not like being nice through very hard negotiations with them to say to the Mexican president, like, you are importing precursor chemicals from China into your country to make fentanyl with the sole purpose of profiting from and killing Americans. That's not something we're gonna tolerate. Jason Calacanis (01:02:14): So you wouldn't send Furo. We got it. You to Chris Christie (01:02:16): do it. Right. I mean, we do it the smart way. Yeah. Not the way that lets you pound your chest and pretend you're, you know, a television tough Jason Calacanis (01:02:24): guy. Let me double-click on that since you brought up fentanyl. We have the prices here in San Francisco, open-air drug market, cheapest fentanyl you can get. Plus, we give subsidies. If you come here and you're a fentanyl addict, we pay for you to come here. Essentially, it's absolute chaos. We keep getting promises in San Francisco that we're gonna turn it around, and we're gonna take it seriously. It never happens. Given that, is there not a case for the feds coming in and cracking down on the fentanyl trade here? And if you were president, would you come in and usurp the local authorities and just take out all these crazy, open-air drug markets in some cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco? Chris Christie (01:03:01): I actually said that in debate. What I would do, would be to instruct the attorney general to instruct the U.S. attorneys in the cities with these kinds of problems that we are taking over the prosecution of violent and drug crime in those cities. If the prosecutors on the state level are unwilling to do it, the U.S. attorneys have the laws on the federal books to do it. We have the rooms of the federal prisons, and we will police these cities until they get their act together. But you Jason Calacanis (01:03:32): just got a couple million votes in point because people here are fed up with the locals. David Friedberg (01:03:36): Governor, can I just push back on that? I recently started reading The Federalist Papers again. Sacks, I don't know when you last reviewed them. And I'm just struck by how so much of our modern political rhetoric is driven by what the federal government will do for you. On a national basis, a state basis, and now even a local basis. Is that really the role of the federal government? Or should each state and each city ultimately decide what the hell kind of city they wanna build, what they wanna live in, and then deal with the consequences, and let the federal government become responsible for the things that were defined in our Constitution and that the constitutional republic was meant to set out to do for the federal government rather than use the federal government as a hammer to smash all nails everywhere. At some point, the hammer's gonna break. Chris Christie (01:04:23): So let me answer the question, which is no. It's not the role of the federal government unless the discord and the inability of the states to deal with an issue begin to affect the entire country. And I believe that this failure, and by the way, it's a planned failure, David. This is the Soros group going around and electing these completely liberal prosecutors who say, I don't — I'm not gonna prosecute these crimes anymore. It begins to affect the very nature of the entire country. If we don't have functional cities, David, we can't have a functional country. And so, no, I would do this only because I think by the time I get there in January '25, we are gonna be at last resort world. Now if in the interim between now and January of '25, the discord in places like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and others got so bad that the citizens there rose up and demanded something different and the states and cities started to respond to it. I have no interest in doing this unless we are the law enforcers of last resort. And so philosophically, I completely agree with you, but we're now in a situation where when I was in New York City all day yesterday, it is the worst I've seen New York City since the late '70s. Jason Calacanis (01:05:58): I agree. Yeah. Chris Christie (01:05:59): And I was old enough then to go in. I was a high school student in the late seventies and go into the city, and my parents used to be petrified if I insisted on going into New York. Go to a basketball game or a hockey game, the walk from the Port Authority Bus Terminal on 41st and 8th to Madison Square Garden on 33rd and 8th was an absolute youthful, youthful education on drugs and porn and violent crime. But so I agree with you philosophically on that, but I think in the instance we're in right now, this is what we'd have to do in order to get it back under control. And so I'm not thrilled about it. But I think it's absolutely necessary. David Friedberg (01:06:43): In the United States, we have somewhere between 2.3 million Americans incarcerated. One of the highest per capita incarceration rates of any country in the world. And a lot of this justice reform movement arose from what are considered to be very deep inequities in the imprisonment of American citizens for various petty crimes, misdemeanors that turn into felonies that turn into three strikes that turn into spending your life in prison, and that obviously there's a big racial divide in how this affects the population. And from that movement arose this effort to try and address the social inequities and how the prison system has become to some an extension or the follow-on to America's tortured history with slavery. What is your point of view then? Do we have inequities in the prison system and how we address crime in this country? And if so, what would the right path have been looking back now at the efforts and the dollars that have gone into trying to solve this problem through decriminalization that has obviously led to massive problems in inner cities? Is it a problem? The criminalization in this country, the incarceration in this country? And if so, what's the right path to addressing it? And, obviously, you have an intimate history here, so you would know this better than most that we would talk to. Chris Christie (01:08:00): Yeah. Look. I think it is a problem, and let me tell you what I did as governor. We did criminal justice reform in New Jersey, and we did it in a bipartisan way. And this is what we did. I thought that the biggest problem we had in New Jersey was our state constitution required it was a shall-issue state on bail. Everyone was entitled to bail under our constitution and the only factor that could be taken into account, constitutionally, David, was risk of flight. So if you had a rap sheet as long as my arm and your arm put together, that could not be considered by a judge in whether or not to grant bail or not, nor could the nature of the violence you committed in those acts. I saw that as the enormous problem. I agreed with Democrats that on a lot of these minor drug crimes, and I don't mean dealing crimes, I mean, possession crimes. With addicts being arrested for small amounts of possession, we had become a debtors' prison in New Jersey. If somebody couldn't afford the 500 bucks for the minimum bail, which was usually $5,000, they spent more time in county and state prison than they ever would have spent if they'd just pled guilty and been allowed to plead guilty and get sentenced. So the deal we made was this: On certain defined nonviolent crimes, I would agree to the state law allowing release on people's own recognizance. In return, the Democrats would amend our constitution to make it a may-issue state on bail. And to add dangerousness to the community as a factor to be considered in granting bail or not. What's happened since then? Crime in New Jersey is down since we did this. We closed two state prisons. And we have not had any spike in violent crime like you've seen in New York since then. Because we did it smartly and in a way that was balanced. And what you've also seen is 98% of the people released on their own recognizance have shown back up for their court hearings. So we're not having some, you know, people running around and jumping the ROR, release that they've gotten. And I took one of the two state prisons we closed, and turned it into a drug treatment prison so that folks who had documented drug and alcohol addictions while in prison were able to go for the concluding parts of their term to this secondary prison to get, which is fully secure, and they were detained, but they also got drug and alcohol treatment. Chris Christie (01:11:04): While they were in there. And what we've seen with that is we've seen recidivism drop among those people who have gone through that program by nearly 40%. There are ways we can do this without having the results New York has had through their ridiculous criminal justice reform. We could do it the right way across the whole country. David Friedberg (01:11:26): Have you seen other states follow New Jersey's lead there or New Jersey's model or Chris Christie (01:11:30): I have seen a couple of other states that have done it. I don't think anybody's done it as well as we did it. And imagine this. You know, a Republican governor got support from the PBA and the FOP for that reform. So from law enforcement professionals and got an A-plus from the ACLU. Now when you can get both of those, it's kinda hard to get that done. And I think we've gotten it done, and we just had at my policy institute. We just had a seminar in this from people from the public defenders to private criminal defense lawyers, prosecutors and cops all on a panel, and not one of them had an objection to criminal justice reform in New Jersey. And this is now nearly 10 years after we did it. So I think there are ways to do this. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't want to have a long-form conversation on criminal justice reform. They wanna have either the Joe Biden approach from when he was in the Senate, mandatory minimums for everybody, for everybody in the can, three strikes you're out, all that stuff, or they wanna have the George Soros conversation, you know, where nobody who commits a crime really meant to do it, and all jail is unfair. Both of those are dead wrong. David Sacks (01:12:58): Governor, you mentioned the FBI briefly before. One of the revelations that came out during the Twitter files is that we had 80 FBI agents monitoring Americans' social media accounts and submitting takedown requests to Twitter. This is, you know, pre-Elon Twitter. And presumably many other Big Tech companies. So I'm sure they weren't just doing this with Twitter. What business is it of the FBI? It's been monitoring and censoring. Do you think there's any justification for that? What is your view of that? Chris Christie (01:13:30): I think the only reason to monitor those kinds of things would be for terrorist information. And I think that would be reasonable to do. But I don't think for any other reason other than terrorist activity, domestic or foreign. I think the FBI has a right to do that, and I think it's the right thing to do. But I don't think under any other circumstances, David, they should be doing that. David Sacks (01:13:57): Are you willing to say to Chris Wray? I understand that you recommended Chris for the position a few years ago. And I think you're a fan of his. Are you willing to say to him, knock this off? You should not be, you know, involved in censoring American social media accounts? Chris Christie (01:14:14): I'm willing to say to Chris exactly what I just said to you. And by the way, I've known Chris long enough. I mean, we were in the Bush Justice Department together starting back at '01, you know, right in the immediate post-9/11 period. So I've known Chris now for 22 years. I will say exactly what I think to Chris and will instruct him appropriately with the attorney general. And let me just make a point, David, since you brought that up. I don't think president should be involved in the criminal investigatory activity of the Department of Justice in any way. And so you should set policies that say like that you know, your work should be restricted on monitoring to just domestic or inter or or or or or international terrorism but you shouldn't be commenting in any way on what they're doing from a criminal investigatory perspective. I think that started in the Obama years. With Eric Holder. When you appoint your wingman attorney general, I guess that's what happens. And the fact is that it's continued through the Trump years and now through the Biden years. And my instruction to my attorney general will be the same as it was because in New Jersey, we don't elect attorneys general. We appoint them, like you do in the federal system. And what I said to each of my attorneys general was I know I was the U.S. attorney for seven years, I got a lot of expertise and opinions on criminal prosecution. I'm never gonna call you ever, and I never did. Because once you decide to be a political figure and not a law enforcement figure, you should stay out of criminal investigations. So I know you didn't ask it, but it struck me when you were talking about that. So Governor, David Friedberg (01:15:56): let me ask you one last question from my end, which is why are you running for president? Recent polling data shows a 52 percent unfavorable rating, 23 percent favorable, and you're at three and a half percent in the average of the national polls. What's the goal here? Help us understand how you think about the campaign and how you think about your future as a political operator and what your goal is with the campaign. Chris Christie (01:16:20): My goal is to be president of the United States. And since I've been doing this for a while, I don't pay attention to national polls. Because we don't have a national primary. And in fact, we don't have a national general election. What we have is 50 individual state elections. That's the way we nominate candidates. And if you look at the most recent poll in New Hampshire, I'm in second place in New Hampshire at 14%, ahead of Ron DeSantis, ahead of Vivek, ahead of Nikki, ahead of Pence, and behind only Trump. And now I'm behind by 20 points. I'll give you that. But I'm behind a guy who's only at 34% in that poll. And so I absolutely believe I can win New Hampshire. And I believe if I win New Hampshire, David, then the whole race changes. David Friedberg (01:17:07): You have a line there. Yeah. Yeah. Chris Christie (01:17:09): Right. So let's start off with I'm running because I want to be president of the United States. David Friedberg (01:17:13): Yep. David Sacks (01:17:13): And Chris Christie (01:17:13): that's the only reason to run. I think I don't need to run to become famous. I'm famous enough. I don't need to run to I don't need to run to get a book deal because you know what? I've already written two books, and my third one's getting ready to come out. I don't need it to get a job on TV. I gave that up to run for president. So I'm running for president to be president, David. And that's why I'm doing it and for no other reason. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:17:40): Should Donald Trump be in jail? Chris Christie (01:17:43): We'll find out when these trials happen. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:17:45): What do you think? Chris Christie (01:17:46): I want to give everybody the presumption of innocence because that's what the Constitution demands that I do. Do I think what's Chamath Palihapitiya (01:17:53): your prosecutorial intuition? Chris Christie (01:17:55): I would have indicted both federal cases. I would not have indicted the New York case or the Atlanta case as to Donald Trump. I think on the New York case, the Manhattan DA has much more important work to be doing than bringing a case on a seven-year-old payment to a porn star that he was having an affair with to keep it from the American people. After the American people already know everything they need to know about it. So I think that was useless and purely political. In the Atlanta case, once Jack Smith indicted Trump on election interference federally. I know that Fani Willis was probably very upset that she had been investigating it for two and a half years, and he beat her to the punch, but he beat her to the punch. And there's no reason to indict somebody for the same acts twice. And so I wouldn't have indicted him in Atlanta. I would have indicted him for sure on the documents case, but I will tell you since you asked, I wouldn't have indicted him on the documents. I would have just indicted him on the obstruction of justice and the lying. I think by indicting on the documents, you just made it a much more complicated case that may not get to trial for a year and a half or two. Because of the classified documents involved. And I would have indicted him on the January 6th case because I believe his activity from election night forward is worthy of the probable cause standard. Now we'll see if the government could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt on both those cases. I will tell you. David Sacks (01:19:30): But on those cases that you would bring, that you would as a prosecutor. What sentence would you seek? Because, you know, these Democrat prosecutors are seeking over 500 years of jail time for Trump. I mean, Chris Christie (01:19:42): Well, then what do you think? That's just the statutory. David, that's just the statutory number. It's not whatever is done. And people do that all the time. They look at statutory maximum. They add up each count in the statutory maximum, and they come up to 500. It never happens. And it's never asked Jason Calacanis (01:19:58): for it. Yeah. Chris Christie (01:19:59): And it's never asked for. What you do is David Sacks (01:20:01): you If you were the prosecutor, what punishment would you be seeking? Chris Christie (01:20:04): I don't think that it makes any sense for Donald Trump to go to jail. And it's not just because he's Donald Trump. It has more to do, quite frankly, with the fact that he'd probably be seventy-nine years old before he'd be ready to go to jail. And when I was prosecuting cases, I really felt like when you get to that age, and you send someone into the atmosphere that federal prison is, even the minimum security federal prison, that you're essentially giving them a death sentence. And unless they've done something with, like, Bernie Madoff, for instance, which is worthy of a death sentence, then I would not think that sending him to jail would be appropriate. Now you know, a judge may feel differently. And in the end, all the prosecutor does is make a recommendation. The judge makes a decision. If I were president of the United States, I would not consider pardoning Donald Trump if he were convicted unless the trial for some reason showed itself to have, you know, unconstitutional, unfair elements that were not corrected by the courts. Other than that, I wouldn't pardon him. But if he were sentenced to jail, I certainly would consider commuting the sentence for the reasons I just said. Jason Calacanis (01:21:22): Let's talk about what happened on January 6 for a second. A lot of folks in the Republican Party are framing it as like, you know, a day out at the park. And we just saw Trump-appointed judges give the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys multi-decade sentences for seditious conspiracy. Do you think these sentences that have been handed down by Trump-appointed judges are part of a deep state conspiracy against the Republicans, or do you think these people are domestic terrorists and that they got appropriate sentences? Chris Christie (01:21:56): You know, I don't wanna, Jason, give an answer on each one of the cases because I quite frankly could tell you that I haven't followed each one of them closely enough. Jason Calacanis (01:22:05): just did on the other four. Chris Christie (01:22:06): Let's give an opinion. Pardon me? Jason Calacanis (01:22:07): Well, you just did on the other four, though. I don't Chris Christie (01:22:10): know. You're asking me about the Trump cases. Jason Calacanis (01:22:16): Yeah. Yeah. So now I'm asking Chris Christie (01:22:17): about that. And I said that because of his age. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:22:21): Okay. Chris Christie (01:22:21): Alright. And so none of these folks are the Proud Boys. I think we're in their seventies. Jason Calacanis (01:22:26): Okay. Chris Christie (01:22:27): So that's the difference between the two, but I'm gonna try to answer your question. I just don't wanna say I'm giving an opinion as to each and every sentence. Okay. What I wanna say about it, though, is that what they did on January 6 was unlawful. It was extremely serious, and it requires imprisonment. Jason Calacanis (01:22:49): Okay. Chris Christie (01:22:50): And so each of these individual cases have nuances and individual facts to them that I'm not I would tell you, I'm not completely conversant in. Jason Calacanis (01:22:58): Okay. Chris Christie (01:22:59): So the difference between a 15-year sentence and an 18-year sentence. There were 22-year sentence. If I sat down and I delved into what was presented at trial and what was presented in the sentencing memorandum, I'd give you an opinion, but I haven't done it. To be honest with you, I haven't done it. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:15): Can I ask one final question? From my perspective, one of the reasons that the polling can sometimes veer this way is that in the Republican polls, a lot of the attacks against you, governor, focus on obviously Bridgegate and Beachgate and then this kind of like theoretical corruption allegations directed at you and your staff. Now, your staff was convicted of wire fraud but then the Supreme Court overturned it 9 to 0. Chris Christie (01:23:46): Right. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:47): And now what they said though was that there was corruption, but there wasn't corruption to try to get money. Which is why the the wire fraud, I think that's what Elena Kagan said in the ruling, the majority ruling. It was and it was 9-0. So it was very, very clear that the DOJ just kind of took, again, to your case talking about Trump, the wrong charges almost. Okay. And what they did was not illegal even if what they did may have been illegal under a different statute. In any event, it would be great for you to set the record on Bridgegate and Beachgate. We're really calling Beachgate. Well, I'm just calling about the press. Like, really? Chris Christie (01:24:22): Well, I Chamath Palihapitiya (01:24:22): think what people got upset was, and I'm just gonna repeat this. I don't have an issue with this, is there was a state beach that was closed and there was pictures of you and your family on that beach when everybody else was told to stay at home. I guess that's what people point to. I'm just giving you the chance to just say, just address it however you want so you can be definitive in your own language. Chris Christie (01:24:40): Alright. So let's deal with, the beach situation. Every beach in New Jersey that day was open except for one. Every beach in New Jersey. So the idea that people across the state of New Jersey were kept off the beach that day. And me and my family were the only people on the beach is completely wrong. So everybody who wanted to go to the beach that day could go to the beach somewhere in New Jersey except for the state park, and the reason the state park was closed was because the legislature did not send me a budget in time. If they had sent me a budget, I would've signed it. In the beach room, they refused to send me a budget. Now having said that, factually, contextually, it was a mistake for me to go on the beach. Now I told everybody when the budget standoff was going on, that my family was gonna be at that house, and they were gonna go on the beach, but we were not gonna use any services. Lifeguards or garbage service or anything else because it wouldn't be open. So I told everybody that up front, I shouldn't have gone out there myself because I was the governor. It was a mistake. I went out there and spent an hour with my family. It was a mistake. I hardly think it merits a gate. Jason Calacanis (01:26:07): That wouldn't give it a gate. Uh-uh. Maybe. Chris Christie (01:26:10): And I would hardly call it corruption. Okay? Jason Calacanis (01:26:13): Yeah. No. It's not corruption. Chris Christie (01:26:14): On Bridgegate. Let's remember. This has been investigated by a Democratic state legislature with subpoena power, by a Democratic U.S. attorney with an axe to grind for me, with subpoena power. And in both of those investigations and also an investigation that we authorized internally. All three of the investigations agreed on one thing. I had no knowledge of what happened, no one told me what was going on, and I didn't find out about it until well after the fact. And nobody's ever disputed that, who's done an investigation. And if they thought I'd done something wrong, given the ridiculous indictments they brought, I'm sure they would have thrown me in there too. If they had anything they could have gone with. These were three employees who did something extraordinarily stupid. And they should have been fired and they were. As soon as I found out about it, they were all fired. They should never work in public office again, but what they did was stupid, not criminal. And if we start criminalizing every time someone does something stupid, we won't have enough jails. And when you get Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas to agree on an overreach by the Department of Justice, it was a politically motivated prosecution because I had just been reelected with 61 percent of the vote in a blue state and was ahead of Hillary Clinton by 8 points in national polls. That's why they did it. They thought they were gonna get me. They cooperated with the guy who admits he was the mastermind of the situation. They cooperated with him to try to get me. And once they realized they couldn't get me, they had to indict somebody. So they indicted the two other people. David Sacks (01:28:14): I believe you. I think the DOJ engages in a lot of political prosecutions. Why isn't Jack Smith's prosecution politically minded? And the point I'll come back to is that Merrick Garland did this analysis when he first came in on whether Trump was guilty of incitement on January 6th, and they had like a memo come back saying sorry. We can't get him for that. There was then a leak in The Washington Post from Biden himself saying that he thought Merrick Garland was being kinda wimpy and that they should go after Trump. And then lo and behold, Merrick Garland appoints Jack Smith to go get Trump. And Jack Smith's case depends on knowing the inner workings of Trump's mind, this fraud on the American people idea that he not only made up this stolen election narrative, but he knew it was false. Which I don't see how they're ever gonna prove beyond a reasonable doubt. So why isn't that a political prosecution? I mean, Biden clearly wanted it. He instigated it through a leak to The Washington Post, or at least that seems to be the chronology, whether it was deliberate or not. And it requires Jack Smith to prove this impossible theory because it requires knowing what Trump was really thinking when he was saying all this stuff. Chris Christie (01:29:22): Right. David Sacks (01:29:22): So how is that not an equally political prosecution? Chris Christie (01:29:25): Alright. So let me separate the two. So you're talking just about Jan. 6, not about the classified documents. David Sacks (01:29:32): Correct. I'm just talking about the Jack Smith theory that Trump perpetrated a fraud because he knew his stolen election narrative was false. Chris Christie (01:29:40): Well, look, I think that there is gonna be a lot of interesting testimony that will be given in that case regarding what Donald Trump really knew and what he really thought, what he was telling people at the time. And I don't think it's as clear cut as you're making it out to be. Now what I said at the time when he brought the Jan. 6 case is it is aggressive. There's no question. It's an aggressive prosecution. Do I believe it's political? I don't know, but I will say it's aggressive. It's much more aggressive than the classified documents case. Because you're exactly right that state of mind, which is a part of every criminal case, will be a part of this one. And trying to get inside Donald Trump's mind is a dangerous thing, because he says so many contradictory things. Right? So you know, he was saying to me during debate prep in 2020 that he was absolutely convinced that he could lose this election. Not that it would be stolen, that he could lose it because of COVID, and COVID ruins his great economy. And now he's gonna lose. So he's said a lot of different things to a lot of different people over time. And all I'd say, David, is that it is going to be an aggressive case to prove. And by the way, if they don't prove it, it will be a stain on the Department of Justice for bringing the case at all. David Sacks (01:31:09): I have to leave. Support it. I mean, look. So let me let me agree with you. That. Chris Christie (01:31:13): Okay. Okay. Jason Calacanis (01:31:14): I know. Chris Christie (01:31:14): what you're gonna say. So I'll finish it. I believe, given what I know, that Donald Trump does not believe that the election was stolen. That's what I believe from knowing him for 22 years and from being with him in much of the pre-election period and him expressing his very genuine concerns about the fact that he was losing to Biden and that he could lose to Biden, not because of mail-in ballots, because of COVID, that I don't believe he really believes the election was stolen. David Sacks (01:31:48): But can you prove that beyond a reasonable doubt? Chris Christie (01:31:50): Well, that's the part that's aggressive, David, and I don't know all the evidence they have. I suspect they've got a number of people who are gonna tell the jury that Trump told them that he thought he lost, but we're gonna see, but we're gonna see. And that's why I call it aggressive. By the David Sacks (01:32:09): way, let me just get on the record here that I agree with you that a lot of the underlying behavior was really bad. And I've said so on the pod before. I'm not defending the underlying behavior. What I question is the wisdom of one president, basically Biden, his Justice Department going after the former president who is currently the leading candidate in the election against him, and doing it within a, what, a year before the election as opposed to three years ago, how is that wise? Chris Christie (01:32:37): David, let let me ask you a question. First off, If they had in Donald if they had indicted Donald Trump 6 months after January 6th, you know, whatever he would have said? Rush to judgment. No good investigation. They had this predetermined. You can't win as a prosecutor on that one. Either you went too quick or you waited too long. So I don't buy that at all. I think it's bull. Now on the question of whether or not a president should allow his Justice Department to charge someone who is his predecessor and potentially an opponent again. But what's the alternative? Let's take it away from the January 6 one and look at the documents one. If he obstructed justice, if he lied and obstructed the grand jury subpoena. If he kept classified documents he was not entitled to keep and then hid them from his own lawyers when they're trying to respond to that. If he instructed people to delete surveillance camera video, which would have shown him having people move those documents. Then all you have to do is declare for president and you don't get prosecuted. I mean, I understand it's a lousy situation, but there are a number of people who believe that the only reason Donald Trump is running for president again is to be able to make that argument. And so I understand he's in office no. No. I think he wants retribution from the seat of power for everybody who's getting me. Okay. Hold on. Jason Calacanis (01:34:16): I wanna ask Chris Christie (01:34:16): you a question. David Sacks (01:34:17): You did four in a row. No. Jason Calacanis (01:34:18): No. No. No. I wanna ask why. You did four in a row. I'll do one. So Governor Christie, let me ask you a question because you know Trump. Do you think he tried to overturn the election? And do you think given the chance to overturn the election and steal the election, Donald Trump, based on your knowledge of his character for multiple decades and working with him, do you think he would have done it? Do you think he's that criminal minded? Chris Christie (01:34:41): I don't think he would have had any problem with the election being overturned. Okay. And I think if it was, he would have been more than happy to have his rear end sleeping in the White House tonight. Now I think he evolved to that position in this respect. I've had the opportunity to meet a number of different presidents. Every president going back to Bush 41. Every one of them, regardless of my disagreements with them on policy, were matured and humbled by the office, except for him. Jason Calacanis (01:35:26): Okay. Awesome. Chris Christie (01:35:26): The office made him worse. It made him a worse person. I've known him for 22 years. The guy I met in 2001 would not have done what 2020 Donald Trump did. And I think he is a perfect example of power having corrupted someone to the point where he was willing to not only engage in that conduct, but to essentially threaten his own vice president to try to get Jason Calacanis (01:35:59): him to do something. David Sacks (01:35:59): Do you think Russia played a role in that? I mean, meaning, here, Donald Trump, you know, he's the ultimate outsider, maybe has a chip on his shoulder about not being accepted in, you know, by certain elements of society. He wins the White House. It's this huge shock. And rather than accepting it, the entire Democratic Party said his election was illegitimate, and they claimed that basically somehow Putin masterminded it. And then they subjected him to two years of this Mueller investigation, which turned up nothing, but they claimed that he was basically an agent. Do you still believe in the Steele? You still believe in the Steele. Jason Calacanis (01:36:31): You still believe in the Steele. David Sacks (01:36:32): You still believe in the Steele dossier. Okay? That's the world. Jason Calacanis (01:36:35): But a lot of people went to jail and David Sacks (01:36:36): he did ask the Russians Chris Christie (01:36:37): of the house. David Sacks (01:36:37): That Steele was completely made Jason Calacanis (01:36:39): I didn't talk about the Philadelphia. I'm talking about their relationship with Russia. David Sacks (01:36:42): That was the basis for the whole Russia hoax. Jason Calacanis (01:36:44): I'm talking about him asking for help from Russia. David Sacks (01:36:46): You're the last person to live in that simulation, Jason. I'm asking the governor a question. Do you think that two years of this Russia data hoax basically drove Trump to this behavior? Or played a role in it. Chris Christie (01:36:59): I'll go with your last piece, not the first one. I had no doubt that it contributed to his feeling that people were after him. No doubt. And I said from the beginning, I thought the Russia thing was complete crap. And the reason I thought it was was because I was there in 2016. That campaign was so bad and so disorganized, they couldn't have arranged a two-car funeral, let alone conspired with the Russian government to interfere with the election. I was there. It was amateurish, and it won because they ran against the worst presidential candidate in my lifetime in Hillary Clinton. So I said from the beginning, I thought the Russia investigation was illegitimate and was wrong. Do I think it contributed to his attitude? I think it did, but I don't think, David, it would be fair to say that that's what made him that way. It contributed. David Sacks (01:37:57): Fair enough. I Chris Christie (01:37:58): But I think there's a lot more that it's a lot more that contributed to it than that. But, yeah, I would certainly could see that because I objected to the Russia investigation at the time in real time. David Sacks (01:38:09): But publicly, kudos to you for that because I think you've been vindicated by what's happened in Chris Christie (01:38:13): two years. David Sacks (01:38:14): Last question for me on documents. Okay. Do you think that there's a selective prosecution issue here because Sandy Berger stuffed documents in his pants from a clean room and was never prosecuted. Petraeus had a huge classified documents problem, slap on the wrist. I mean, it seems like and by the way, Biden had documents by his beloved Corvette and in offices all over the place, going back many years. So, I mean, isn't this documents case? It seems like no one really wanted to prosecute this law until Trump did it. And now it's like, get Trump. Chris Christie (01:38:48): Now look, I think Trump did this one to himself, David. If he had turned over the documents he illegally had, at any point when he was being requested to from February of 2021 through to when the search occurred, there would be no prosecution. David Sacks (01:39:06): Why? I agree with that. And the proof of that is these other guys. Jason Calacanis (01:39:10): Because they gave the documents Chris Christie (01:39:12): back. Biden gave the documents back. I mean, Pence gave the documents back when asked. What this guy did was obstruct it in every way he could. I don't want people looking through my boxes, my boxes. He hated this. This guy is like a freak about these boxes. I'm telling you. I used to campaign with him. He would have a box of documents. Now back then, it was 2016. It was a box of documents from Trump Tower. No one could touch them. No one could look at them. He'd go through them a little bit. But he literally had a seat for his box of documents next to him on his plane. No one could sit next to him. The box of documents went next to him. So there's a psychosis here on the documents, David, that's deep. Alright? David Sacks (01:40:00): Okay. But maybe that's the case. Chris Christie (01:40:02): This is a To himself. He did it to himself. David Sacks (01:40:05): Walked into it. I agree. He totally walked into this. Chris Christie (01:40:08): He sprinted into it with his arms wide open, and he screwed himself. But in the process, he screwed the country. David Sacks (01:40:16): But what you're describing is an idiosyncratic issue. He liked his boxes. He had mementos in them. This was not a national security issue. Chris Christie (01:40:23): Oh, sure. It was. How? It was. How? You cannot permit the president of the United States to be flashing around an Iran war plan on the deck in Mar-a-Lago. Sorry. Not allowed. Especially not after you're president. And you know what? He could have declassified any documents he wanted to when he was president. He didn't. And now he's trying to say he mind-melted them to be declassified. Come on, David. This stuff is such bullshit. It's laughable. David Sacks (01:40:52): But you agree. The president has unlimited authority to declassify documents. Right? So he didn't do it through the process you wanted. But who's to say that he didn't view it? Chris Christie (01:41:02): No. His attorney general said he didn't do it. His White House counsel said he David Sacks (01:41:06): he did it. So who's to say he didn't? Chris Christie (01:41:08): He declassified other documents the appropriate way. These he just thought about declassifying. Therefore, they were declassified. Come on. David Sacks (01:41:17): I agree it's a bad argument. I agree it's a bad argument, but I guess no. Chris Christie (01:41:20): No. It's not a bad argument. Jason Calacanis (01:41:21): Game about making any way. Chris Christie (01:41:22): David, it's not a bad argument. It's not an argument. Jason Calacanis (01:41:26): Come back anytime you want, Chris. Chris Christie (01:41:27): It's not an argument. Sit in. Jason Calacanis (01:41:28): I think you gotta sit in. Chris Christie (01:41:29): I mean, look, I will tell you guys, like, I am very sympathetic to executive authority. I've been a governor of the state that has the strongest constitutional governorship in America. But you gotta follow the law. Jason Calacanis (01:41:46): When the law empowers you Chris Christie (01:41:47): To the extent that the United States president is empowered, that should be enough. You shouldn't have to act outside the law, and here's why he did it. He didn't do it to sell the documents. He didn't do them to give them to some foreign power. He did them to show off. Look what I have. Look, I'm still really the president. This is the real core problem with him, David. David Sacks (01:42:14): But doesn't this pale in comparison to crimes of the Biden family? I mean, Rob and Peter are Chris Christie (01:42:21): Do we have time to talk about the $2,000,000,000 that Jared Kushner has gotten from the Saudis and why he got that money? Is it because he's such an expert investor? The guy who bought 666 Fifth Avenue and nearly bankrupted his entire company? I mean David Sacks (01:42:39): He's actually a pretty smart guy. I mean, oh, Chris Christie (01:42:41): Yeah. Oh, no. He's a genius. He's an absolute genius, David. And that's why the Saudis gave him $2,000,000,000. David Sacks (01:42:48): He was out of office. We're talking about, we're talking about, hold on a second. We're talking about, we're talking about the president, Chamath, Biden, is vice president, and his son scripting on the world collecting money. Chris Christie (01:42:59): David, why would a president of the United States, when he has somebody like Mike Pompeo as his secretary of state, who's been a congressman, a West Point graduate, member of the military, CIA director, secretary of state, why is he sending Jared Kushner over? David Sacks (01:43:19): Drift to negotiate with Saudi? The Abraham accords. Chris Christie (01:43:22): No. No. No. No. Wait. Wait. Wait. No. No. He gets the, oh, so now we're not giving Pompeo the credit. For the Abraham Accords. It's Jared Kushner. Look, in the end, I'll post that deal. David Sacks (01:43:36): Abraham Accords were a good idea or a bad idea? Chris Christie (01:43:38): Great idea. Jason Calacanis (01:43:39): Great. Chris Christie (01:43:39): I want you David Sacks (01:43:40): to give Kushner credit. He was definitely involved. Chris Christie (01:43:42): No. No. No. He's involved. Congratulations. Jason Calacanis (01:43:45): And why Chris Christie (01:43:45): was he even the David Sacks (01:43:46): lead person? Chris Christie (01:43:46): Why was he sent in the first place? Because of his extensive foreign policy experience maybe. David Sacks (01:43:52): Yeah. Managing up managing department buildings Chris Christie (01:43:56): in New Jersey. That's what he was doing. So look. I absolutely believe that as I answered your question very directly before, that the only reason Hunter Biden was hired for these things was to get influence with his father. Absolutely. And I think he should go to jail. But we can't look at Jared and Ivanka making $40 million-plus a year while they were in the White House, getting $2 billion from the Saudis to invest after they leave the White House and say that's not a grift as well, not to mention the fact that he's spending campaign money to pay his legal fees when he's supposed to be a billionaire. How about sell the Trump Tower apartments since you don't live there anymore and pay your legal fees with that. Or how about sell one of your freaking golf courses? To pay your legal fees with that, but instead, at a $100 average donation from Americans who donated to something called Save America, which was supposed to fight the steal of the election, is now being spent to pay his legal fees because he took classified documents illegally out of the White House. And by the way, that same organization paid Kimberly Guilfoyle $60,000 to give a 3-minute speech on January 6 and paid $208,000 to Melania's stylist as political strategy. Jason Calacanis (01:45:21): Looks great. Chris Christie (01:45:21): There's plenty of grift to go around, and I'll tell you this. David Friedberg (01:45:24): The grift is deep. Chris Christie (01:45:25): The Christie administration, no member of my family will make money off of the fact that I'm president. You can't say that about Trump or Biden. Jason Calacanis (01:45:33): Okay. This has been an amazing two hours. Killing me. That was right. Governor Chris Christie. David Sacks (01:45:39): That Jason Calacanis (01:45:39): was well done. So on. David Friedberg (01:45:41): It's a Chris Christie (01:45:41): great debate. I had these lozenges. Right? I have no voice. Jason Calacanis (01:45:45): Final question. When you did this karaoke with David Friedberg. Yes. Did you do Thunder Road, Living on a Prayer, Rosalita, what was the song, or did you guys do Chris Christie (01:45:57): I gotta admit, I don't remember. I don't remember which song David and I did together, but I did do Thunder Road karaoke. Fantastic. In that small bar, in that little town in Idaho. Jason Calacanis (01:46:10): Be present. Yeah. Chris Christie (01:46:11): I think I do also remember there being a karaoke on a Backstreet Boys song? Jason Calacanis (01:46:19): Oh, that's definitely Friedberg. Yeah. That's definitely Friedberg. Chris Christie (01:46:22): And I don't think Friedberg was in that one. I don't think. Do you remember David which song we did? David Friedberg (01:46:27): No. And let's not remember. Chris Christie (01:46:30): No. It definitely was a bad one. There's a group there's David Friedberg (01:46:31): a group Don't Go Breaking Jason Calacanis (01:46:32): My Heart, Katy Dealton job. Yeah. There's gotta be one in there. Listen, Governor. We really appreciate you coming on. We wish you great success. Congratulations on New Hampshire. And, really really, thank you, did a great job today. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:46:46): Thank you for being so forthright. No. Chris Christie (01:46:48): Look, thank you guys for giving me the, I look, I love the opportunity to be able to go into more depth about this in anything other than UFOs. So it's really really good. Jason Calacanis (01:46:59): Oh, wait. We have another hour of UFO questions. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:47:02): I would really encourage you to spread this gospel of the most thoughtful way to beat back corruption is something like zero-based budgeting across the entire government. Jason Calacanis (01:47:12): I like that too. That was great. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:47:14): Nobody says it. People are, I think, RFK and Vivek scratch it, but I think you could nail it if you take it and want to run with it. And there's just a lot of money that's probably sloshing on the sidelines that needs to get reallocated. And you probably David Friedberg (01:47:31): I'm sure you saw how viral Jon Stewart's interview with the undersecretary of defense for budget went. That was an incredible interview, and, obviously, it hits a nerve with a lot of people. So it's a really important point. It speaks a lot to the broader issue. Chris Christie (01:47:44): Well, I'm glad to be here. I'm happy that I did not take my son's briefing. But I can guarantee you that he's gonna be—listen, he's very stressed. He actually works for the New York Mets. He's down in the Dominican Republic today. Jason Calacanis (01:47:59): Poof. And he Chris Christie (01:48:00): called you from the Dominican and he said, Is today the All-In day? And I said, yes. Today's the day. He goes, call me right afterwards. So he's gonna David Friedberg (01:48:08): time. You guys? Chris Christie (01:48:09): I'm gonna tell him it was great. We had a great two hours, and he's gonna enjoy listening to it. Jason Calacanis (01:48:13): And yeah. Now and Chris Christie (01:48:14): he told you guys, well, I'm back. Jason Calacanis (01:48:17): Fix that mess. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:48:18): Thank you, man. Chris Christie (01:48:18): I'm on the board there too. Jason Calacanis (01:48:20): Yeah. Chris Christie (01:48:20): I think that's a better problem. That may be worse than zero-based budgeting. I don't know. Jason Calacanis (01:48:24): At least the Knicks look like they build a nice foundation here. I like where the Knicks are. Chris Christie (01:48:28): Don't give up on the Mets yet. Wait till next year. David Sacks (01:48:30): Oh, I'm Jason Calacanis (01:48:30): not giving up. You know, we we'll get there. Alright. Two hours with the governor going around the horn here, Friedberg, your thoughts after two hours with Governor Christie. Where was he strong? Where do you disagree with him? What do you think of his presidency after two hours of intimate discussion here on David Friedberg (01:48:48): I don't know if I've got a huge shift in opinion. He's a very personable guy. He has a good command of the subjects. He's got good experience running a state. So those are good qualifying criteria. Obviously, this is a very challenging race for him. I'm not sure if he hits any zingers that really help accelerate him past the momentum that Vivek has and obviously the lead that Trump has with the, you know, conservative party support with DeSantis. So it seems like it's gonna be a tough campaign and a tough race for him. I'm not sure he brings anything today that shows how he's gonna kinda get ahead of this problem. Jason Calacanis (01:49:24): So that's the campaign. Let's talk about for you. If you were to contrast him to other Republican candidates, DeSantis, Haley, Vivek, where would he fall for you personally? David Friedberg (01:49:37): Yeah. I remain of the concern that there's a giant meteor hitting, a fiscal meteor hitting the United States. Jason Calacanis (01:49:44): Okay. And David Friedberg (01:49:44): everyone's talking about a lot of other stuff. Jason Calacanis (01:49:46): K. David Friedberg (01:49:47): And it's the Don't Look Up documentary to me. Jason Calacanis (01:49:49): Okay. And he's the most attuned to that in your mind, or Nikki? David Friedberg (01:49:53): He's a good point of view. I think his alignment around keeping military spending and, you know, this discussion around corruption. It's such a micro problem relative to the macro condition. Again, 31 percent of U.S. debt coming up for refinancing this year. It's gonna be, you know, and we're already seeing, by the way, this year interest expense on the debt is greater than the military spending. Jason Calacanis (01:50:19): If you had to pick two candidates on the Republican Party that were most intriguing to you for your vote, which two would they be? David Friedberg (01:50:25): I'm gonna skip that question for now. Jason Calacanis (01:50:27): Okay. Chamath, I'll go to you. Post this to our discussion. I thought he was great. Curious how you thought were the strong points in this discussion, and then I guess we can talk about his campaign as Friedberg just did, but then we could also talk about how he resonates with you. And in terms of getting your vote, maybe where he sits. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:50:47): I don't think my opinion has changed much before or after. I mean, I think that he's a very personable, charming guy. But I'm not sure that he says anything that's different from the establishment wing of the Republican Party. And I think that the winning candidate, whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant at this point, but the formula has been laid bare for everybody to see. And I think that you have to have radical ideas. And so when you think about the people that are getting the most attention on both the Democratic and the Republican side, what they're essentially pushing back on is all of this orthodoxy. And if he really wants to win, he has to embrace being unorthodox and heterodox. And he doesn't have enough heterodoxical policies to cut through. So he just cannot win as a practical matter. So if he embraces those heterodoxies because he believes in them, he has a chance, but Jason Calacanis (01:51:51): if he doesn't, it's going to be Trump versus Vivek. So if it winds up being Biden, Vivek, Trump, Christie, Nikki, and this sort of, like, final, you know, race towards the finish line, which candidates do you find most appealing right now? Not not saying you’d vote for them, but which two are resonating with Chamath Palihapitiya most? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:52:15): I'm still pretty open-minded. I haven't decided. I know who doesn't resonate with me. K. Jason Calacanis (01:52:19): Tell me. Is it DeSantis? Okay. So DeSantis is off the table. Everybody else is still Yeah. I mean, I Chamath Palihapitiya (01:52:24): and I was very clear early on that his campaign was DOA, and I think that that's probably just gonna he's going to have a withering kind of embarrassing end to the campaign, unfortunately, for him. But I think the the the heterodoxical rhetoric is gonna get ramped up both by RFK and by Vivek, and I think it's going to put a lot of pressure and by Trump. Chris Christie (01:52:46): And I Chamath Palihapitiya (01:52:47): think it's going to put a lot of pressure on Biden, and it's going to put a lot of pressure on the other Republican nominees, to capture the noise here. David Friedberg (01:52:53): It's an interesting point, Chamath, because if the chorus becomes this heterodox point of view, it looks really bad. Biden is almost in this truly defensive mode because then you have multiple parties speaking similarly about the establishment. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:53:09): I think there's a very good chance that Biden's son is indicted this week. Yeah. He's in jail by the time the election comes around, which I think also speaks very poorly to the risk that there are some clear links of corruption that come out. And I think that that's going to put the election under severe pressure. And I think you can bet that every single Republican mega donor is gonna come out of the woodwork to fund the super PAC. That's gonna blast the airwaves all across the country with that content. So that's, I think, a foregone conclusion if it looks like there is fire where there looks right now is smoke. And if David Weiss acts this decisively and it moves the trial quickly, which I suspect it will. This is all bad news for Biden. And so you know, you have that on that side. The Republicans have the red meat that they need. The heterodoxy on both sides is what's getting all the attention. So, you know, I think, I think what Donald Trump did in hindsight was really break the glass on being able to say the things you couldn't say. And that will now be the formula for candidates to win. Jason Calacanis (01:54:25): Yeah. And just for folks who haven't been watching the news, the Justice Department is believed to indict Hunter on the gun charges this month, I think they're still investigating the potential corruption where there's smoke. Maybe there's fire. And if it leads to Biden. And so this whole race could be totally flipped upside down at any moment, same with Trump and his indictment. David Sacks (01:54:46): The gun charges are nothing charges. Just so everyone understands what that is, when he applied to get a firearm, you know, you have to check off these check boxes on the form. Yeah. And one of them is, apparently, that you don't have a drug problem. Yeah. And so he lied on that form, I guess. But that's the kind of charge that I personally don't believe they should be going after in four weeks. I don't think they would prosecute an ordinary person for that. Jason Calacanis (01:55:13): Yeah. And in his defense, Hunter said I have no problem scoring drugs, so I don't have a drug problem. I can get them anytime I need them. David Sacks (01:55:19): It's one of these weird kind of almost, again, like, a paperwork charge. And remember that what the DOJ tried to do was a settlement with Hunter Biden where he had plead guilty on that same gun charge because it's kind of a nothing charge. But then buried deep in that settlement was a broad immunity on all the foreign lobbying he was doing, the FARA Act violations. And then they came out and the judge said, wait a second. Like, that's too much. Like, what are you doing? And the judge rejected the settlement. So frankly, I view the charges by the DOJ on the gun charge as a misdirection of what the real issue is with Hunter Biden. He was running around the world, collecting money while being an unregistered foreign agent, foreign lobbyist. Yeah. That's the crux of the issue. That's the corruption. Jason Calacanis (01:56:07): Alexis. The DOJ. But David Sacks (01:56:09): the point is that's what the DOJ should be looking at. Not these, like That's Jason Calacanis (01:56:13): what they are looking at. David Sacks (01:56:14): Yeah. Did Hunter use drugs in David Friedberg (01:56:16): the wrong way? I think Chamath Palihapitiya (01:56:17): I think looking at the tax evasion, tax fraud charges, that is their way of looking at that. I think it's gonna come out. I think at this point, no, Jason Calacanis (01:56:23): They're looking at both. Everybody will have the truth. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:56:27): If the Bidens are truly not guilty, that will be clearly established now in this process. But if he was acting as an unregistered agent of these foreign governments, that is also going to come out. And if there were links between him and his father and communications, that's also gonna come out. I think that but he David Sacks (01:56:44): Hasn't even been indicted on that yet. Right? Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:56:46): I understand, but I think it takes time. I think they will thoughtfully put it together, but David Sacks (01:56:51): I'm not confident about it. Given that they wanted to give him broad immunity on those charges, I think no. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:56:56): But I think David Weiss is under such a microscope right now. The idea that he doesn't act conclusively here, I think would be a huge problem. And then the next president, if it's Republican, will reopen it. So whatever happens here will need to be definitive. And I think the special prosecutor probably understands that at this point. Jason Calacanis (01:57:12): So let's go back to your impressions before we go down the Biden, Biden, Biden rabbit hole here. What are your thoughts after two hours with Christie? Anything changed in your outlook on him? And then I'm curious, are you still team DeSantis all the way? David Sacks (01:57:27): Okay. So on Christie, I like talking to him more than I thought I was going to. I think he was easy to talk to. I think the two hours went by pretty quickly. I think he brought his energy level down to the right place for a podcast. I mean, it was a little different than when he's very pugnacious on the debate stage and kind of grandstands. And he, you know, engaged in a discussion with us. So I thought that was positive. The only time his energy really changed was basically in the last five minutes when he went on to a full-on, like, Trump diatribe. And it was almost like, you know, a little bit of TDS kicked in. That being said, his position on Trump was a little bit more nuanced than I was expecting. First of all, he admitted the whole Russiagate thing was total baloney. Second, he said that with respect to these state charges, the Alvin Bragg in New York and the Fani Willis in Atlanta, those charges should not have been brought. Jason Calacanis (01:58:22): Yeah. I thought that was pretty good. I could totally agree with him on those. I agree with his assessment. I thought that was intellectually honest. Did you feel intellectual honesty from him? David Sacks (01:58:30): Yeah. I think he really believes this. Yeah. Third, it took a couple of tries by Chamath and then me to get him to say this. But he said he would not put Trump in jail. He's too old for that, and I thought that was I wasn't sure where he's gonna come out on that. I didn't know if he was gonna say Trump deserves a life sentence. Yeah. We should Jason Calacanis (01:58:47): ask him if he would pardon him if he was president. David Sacks (01:58:49): He said he said I didn't pardon him, but I commute his sentences. So Jason Calacanis (01:58:53): he didn't David Sacks (01:58:53): have to spend time in jail. So I thought that was new information and, again, a more nuanced view than I was expecting. On the documents case, said that Trump ran into the charges, which frankly I agree with. I think Jason Calacanis (01:59:05): you could David Sacks (01:59:06): avoid that easily. However, Christie said he did it for idiosyncratic reasons. He loves his box of mementos. Yes. You didn't really address. Chris Christie (01:59:14): Same memory. Jason Calacanis (01:59:15): You and I have. Yeah. David Sacks (01:59:16): Yeah. And Chamath Palihapitiya (01:59:17): you know who else loves their mementos? I have I have a handful of kids under the age of five who love blankets and, yes, Monkey, teddy. David Sacks (01:59:27): I would just go a little further and just say, listen, if he did this for idiosyncratic reasons rather than nefarious reasons, like selling state secrets, then I think you applied the same standard of prosecution as they did to Petraeus or to Biden himself Jason Calacanis (01:59:41): or to the thing you keep missing is that those people gave those back. You keep Chamath Palihapitiya (01:59:45): missing the facts. Jason Calacanis (01:59:46): I don't know why you have that blind Chamath Palihapitiya (01:59:47): spot because he basically said that Trump has an anxiety complex and he self-soothes with that box of documents. That's what he said. Jason Calacanis (01:59:55): Goougga. Goougga. Oh, but that's what he, that's Chamath Palihapitiya (01:59:58): what he said. David Sacks (01:59:59): I would treat Trump the same way as Sandy Berger. I mean, come on. Jason Calacanis (02:00:02): Those guys. David Sacks (02:00:03): Nice ball. Let's just moving on. Jason Calacanis (02:00:04): Didn't have a shot justice. Just keep moving. Are you David Sacks (02:00:06): still teaming? He's just moving on. The last point was on the Jack Smith charges where he admitted that Jack Smith has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knew that his election denial argument was false. And I think he pretty much admitted that that would be a very, very hard thing to prove, but he said he wanted to wait to see what evidence they had. To me, that kind of begs the question of why you bring that case in the first place. event, so that's on Trump. I think what I saw, there was a little bit of TDS, but a more nuanced overall perspective when you got into the details. On foreign policy, I think we had a lot of interesting conversation there about the mismanagement of the military-industrial complex. And I think Chamath had some really interesting questions there that I followed up on. And, really, you couldn't get him to say anything other than he wouldn't necessarily increase the size of the defense budget until you did the efficiency survey, but he kind of had to be pushed to even get there. And what I would just say is that on that question, on military spending, combined with the question of Ukraine, he pretty much has the standard established Republican position, which is the only thing Biden has done wrong. Is not move aggressively enough on Ukraine that, you know, giving mixed messages not being hawkish enough. I'm sorry. But Biden has had the most hawkish policy on Ukraine that any president's ever had. And the only reason there's been hand-wringing about giving them F-16s is because it could start World War III. And I personally want Biden thinking about that. You know? So, again, I think this neocon Republican position that involves Chris Christie and Haley and Pence and Mitch McConnell, you know, basically the whole Republican establishment. They basically believe that Biden, who says we need to support Ukraine for as long as it takes, as much as it takes, is still not doing enough. I just don't fundamentally buy that argument. Jason Calacanis (02:02:03): You still team DeSantis? David Sacks (02:02:04): Here's my view on it. So so look. I I would support DeSantis. I also would support Vivek. For for me. Jason Calacanis (02:02:10): Oh, whoa. Whoa. Whoa. This is new information. So you're saying you are now equally open-minded to Vivek. And DeSantis? David Sacks (02:02:17): It's not equally minded, but, look, for me What percent? Most here's the way I divided. I divided candidates at this point into acceptable versus unacceptable. Jason Calacanis (02:02:26): Okay. David Sacks (02:02:26): And for me, the number one issue is whether the president, the next president will seek to deescalate or end the Ukraine war or they will seek to escalate it. Guys, Christie along with all these others by saying that Biden has been too dovish on Ukraine is effectively saying he wants to do even more on Ukraine. Jason Calacanis (02:02:46): So we're not willing David Sacks (02:02:47): to take I'm not willing to to live for the next four years on the knife's edge of World War III. I don't want Jason Calacanis (02:02:53): So that's what you're in. David Sacks (02:02:55): To put why don't I want the sword of war authority Chris Christie (02:02:58): annual pass? Jason Calacanis (02:02:58): You in Vivek's camp? David Sacks (02:03:00): Well, no. I think that the candidates who said that they would either end or deescalate Ukraine are Vivek, DeSantis, and Trump has said it. They're the only three. Oh, and sorry. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Jason Calacanis (02:03:12): Okay. But you're not gonna vote for him. So that puts you in Vivek. David Sacks (02:03:15): Well, I don't know. I mean, he might be my favorite, to be honest. Jason Calacanis (02:03:18): Would you pick him over Trump? Chris Christie (02:03:19): I would. David Sacks (02:03:20): would certainly take Kennedy over Trump. Jason Calacanis (02:03:21): You would. Wow. This is incredible. For sure. Breaking news, folks. This is this is all incredible. Wow. Thanks. David Sacks (02:03:27): Look, for me, this is the litmus test issue: Are you gonna escalate or deescalate the Ukraine war? And I think that these hawkish Republican candidates pose an unacceptable risk or three. Chamath Palihapitiya (02:03:38): What do you think, Jason? Yeah. David Sacks (02:03:40): Jason, what do you think? I thought he broke your heart there in a couple of places. Jason Calacanis (02:03:43): No. Actually, I don't expect all candidates to line up with my belief system perfectly. Obviously, he's well spoken. Obviously, he's qualified. I'm looking for a moderate like Friedberg. I think the existential crisis of the balance sheet is my top issue. I voted Republican about 25% and Democrat 75%. I'm literally a moderate and an independent, and right now, I really don't think Biden can be president or Trump, so that leaves me with RFK on one side. It leaves me with Nikki Haley and Christie on the other side. And Nikki Haley and Christie are really into balancing the budget. And so I'm leaning towards voting Republican if those are the two candidates. Now the thing that I think handicapping this election is not being talked about all that much because we have the Trump-Biden rematch taking what they are at the room is. I don't know if Biden makes it to the starting line, nor do I think Trump makes it to the starting line. And so that changes everything. And who knows what percentage chance that is? I don't think any of us can give it a perfect handicap. But let's say that is the case. Then I think it's, you know, there's a lot of lanes open here, and I think that election will be once again determined by moderates. And I think women who are still very much upset about the Roe v. Wade issue. And I think those two things are gonna play a significant role, and that's where I think Nikki Haley and Chris Christie believe it's a state's issue, and they're not into the national ban for abortion. I think moderates are not into Biden. I think they or I don't think they're gonna be into RFK. Think they're gonna be into Nikki Haley, and I think Nikki Haley could happen. And I think Chris Christie would happen. So I hope we get Nikki Haley on here because I don't know her enough, but I would like to have that two-hour discussion. Jason Calacanis (02:05:24): So I'm leaning towards Haley-Christie if they make it. Alright. This has been an amazing episode of the All-In Podcast. We went for over two hours. Enjoy the one and a half times episode, everybody, because next week is the All-In Summit. And we're not gonna tape next week, so you get a week off from the pod while we bank, I think, like, 20 amazing, amazing guests from Ray Dalio to Elon Musk, to MrBeast. I mean, the list of people, Gwyneth Paltrow, that Friedberg has put together is very sorry. Congratulations to Friedberg on a program even better than last year's program. It is unprecedented success here. So great, great job, Friedberg, and the team over at The Production Board. And the parties might be fun too. I got my tux. I'm ready to go. We will see you All in Los Angeles or some portion of you, about 1% of you, in Los Angeles next week. Sorry for the FOMO, everybody. But Friedberg will be releasing the episodes on Twitter X and YouTube as the exclusive location. So you're not gonna get your podcast feeds flooded with the 20 talks. You gotta go to X, follow All-In Podcast on X, formerly known as Twitter, and search for All-In Podcast on YouTube. You can subscribe and then there's a bell there. You put on the alert. I think you're gonna drop them every day or every two days, Friedberg, something in that sort of pace. So you got 20 days of content coming at you. Coming at you. For the dictator himself Chamath Palihapitiya, the sultan of science David Friedberg, chairperson of All-In Summit 2023. Great job and Rainman, the architect himself with that incredible Gordon Gekko hair. Wow. Looking great, Sacks. I am the undisputed world's greatest moderator according to the YouTube comments, and we'll see you next week. Bye bye. David Sacks (02:07:16): To let your winners ride. Jason Calacanis (02:07:19): Rainman, David Sacks. And I David Sacks (02:07:24): said we open source it to the fans. Uh-huh. Chamath Palihapitiya (02:07:46): We should all just get a room have one big huge order because they're David Sacks (02:07:50): all just useless. It's like Chamath Palihapitiya (02:07:51): this, like, sexual tension, and they just need to release their vows. Jason Calacanis (02:08:00): We need to get murky.