Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Chris Christie says, "I’ll know it when I see it"

Chris Christie says, "I’ll know it when I see it"
Getty images

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Chris Christie’s decision to run for the Republican presidential nomination is of particular interest to me. This is not because he is the only Republican candidate to date who is unapologetic in calling out the former president for unacceptable behavior, nor because I think Christie has a chance of winning. Rather because of the perspective after a one-on-one discussion the two of us had in the summer of 2019.


I attended the Aspen Institute's annual Ideas Festival in June 2019. The festival is a weeklong event where people from all over the world cross-pollinate their fields to discuss their unique accomplishments and dedication to improving their communities while making advances within their field of work.

One of the featured speakers was Chris Christie and I remember the evening well as he was interviewed by Jeff Goldberg, The Atlantic’s Editor in Chief before a packed crowd at the Hotel Jerome in downtown Aspen.

With the upcoming presidential election of 2020 on everyone's mind, plus the added fact that Christie was then a supporter of President Trump, the event was of great interest to everyone. Goldberg started the conversation bluntly inquiring what Christie saw in Trump that other people don’t see.

Christie responded: “I’ve known him for 17 years so my perspective is a bit broader than most. But, let me start off by saying this, elections are not about who you want to vote for. Elections are about who you’re left to vote for. To be clear, Donald Trump was not my first choice for president.” Jokingly, he added, “I was.”

Christie went on to make it clear that, “Trump was not my first choice to be president,” but justified his support by saying, “Here’s our choice- we sit on the sidelines and do nothing or we can try to make him better.”

Goldberg wasn’t satisfied with the answer and continued to probe Christie if his opinion has changed since 2016, given the opportunity to witness Trump's behavior the last three years. Christie responded by saying, “no, he’s no different now, he’s not changing” and then went on to justify his support by detailing the litany of what Christie considered to be good policy that Trump had gotten through Congress or unilaterally mandated through executive action, which warranted his support.

The questioning continued on many subjects related to Trump's questionable character or lack thereof, including his perceived racial slurs and other incendiary remarks since 2016. Christie deflected the questions with the defense of Trump that I have heard so often, outlining that he doesn't necessarily “like some of his antics” nor “condone his character flaws” but he endorses him because he agrees with his policies.

I find this Kabuki dance interesting especially given that Republicans focus on family and religious values. I took exception to much of Christie’s rationale that evening in Aspen for supporting President Trump but wasn’t called upon during the question and answer period.

Fortunately, the very next evening I attended a small dinner event that Christie and his wife attended. The interview of the previous night was still very much on my mind and so after dinner I had a chance to speak to Christie alone as the guests mingled and I brought up the Goldberg interview of the previous night.

I communicated to Christie my inference from the evening that he found many things about President Trump to be abhorrent but nothing at this juncture had risen to the level that he would throw his support to another candidate.

He seemed to agree with my assessment and so I continued:

“So based on what I heard you say last night, am I correct that if Trump's behavior became so bad, and he did something that reached a given threshold in your mind you would not only denounce the action but you would withdraw your support from him.”

Christie thought for a moment and said, “Yes.”

That surprised me so I asked what that threshold would be and, being the adept politician that he is, he had the perfect, crafty politician non-answer:

“David, do you remember the Supreme Court ruling about pornography in 1964 and what Justice Potter Stewart said?”

I am not particularly well versed in the SCOTUS ruling minutia so I admitted that I had no idea what Christie was referring to and asked him to explain.

“Stewart in explaining what pornography is said this: ‘I’ll know it when I see it’ and so David I can’t say now what the line is with Trump, but I’ll know it when I see it.”

I was taken aback by the answer but I let it go. Since that evening, I’ve thought considerably about Christie’s answer in relationship to Trump's comments in Charlottesville about there being good people on both sides, or when he attacked a Gold Star family with unsubstantiated insults about this war hero being a member of the Muslim brotherhood, or the countless other childish insults he used and continues to use against anyone who disagrees with him on policy or anything else.

For the three years since that encounter, I’ve asked myself many times that if Christie and other Republicans haven’t seen it yet, will they ever see it and subsequently call out Trump's behavior? Finally after four years, Christie has finally seen it and knows what that disqualifying behavior is. Seemingly, it is the disregard for the rule of law that leads to insurrection and threatens our national security.

On Fox News Christie depicted Trump as “as a juvenile who should be sent to his room, not White House.”

Well I guess he now knows it because he’s seen it.

In other speeches Christie has stated that January 6th and Trump's total disregard for the rule of law put him over the edge and stated last week that Trump is "A lonely, self-consumed, self-serving mirror hog and is not a leader." At one point last week he delivered a mocking impression of Trump claiming he would build a southern border wall at Mexico's expense and said Trump, more than Biden, was to blame for the country's failed immigration policy.

Trump still has a commanding lead in what has become a crowded pack of more than a half dozen Republican presidential candidates; the question remains whether Republican primary voters, like Christie, will finally know it when they see it.

I have my doubts.


Read More

Post office trucks parked in a lot.

Changes to USPS postmarking, ranked choice voting fights, costly runoffs, and gerrymandering reveal growing cracks in U.S. election systems.

Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash.

2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why

While the media has kept people’s focus on the Epstein files, Venezuela, or a potential invasion of Greenland, the United States Postal Service adopted a new rule that will have a broad impact on Americans – especially in an election year in which millions of people will vote by mail.

The rule went into effect on Christmas Eve and has largely flown under the radar, with the exception of some local coverage, a report from PBS News, and Independent Voter News. It states that items mailed through USPS will no longer be postmarked on the day it is received.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress Must Stop Media Consolidation Before Local Journalism Collapses
black video camera
Photo by Matt C on Unsplash

Congress Must Stop Media Consolidation Before Local Journalism Collapses

This week, I joined a coalition of journalists in Washington, D.C., to speak directly with lawmakers about a crisis unfolding in plain sight: the rapid disappearance of local, community‑rooted journalism. The advocacy day, organized by the Hispanic Technology & Telecommunications Partnership (HTTP), brought together reporters and media leaders who understand that the future of local news is inseparable from the future of American democracy.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Keep ReadingShow less
People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.

The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

A Shutdown Averted, and a Narrow Window Into Congress’s ICE Dilemma

Congress’s latest shutdown scare ended the way these episodes usually do: with a stopgap deal, a sigh of relief, and little sense that the underlying conflict had been resolved. But buried inside the agreement was a revealing maneuver. While most of the federal government received longer-term funding, the Department of Homeland Security, and especially Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was given only a short-term extension. That asymmetry was deliberate. It preserved leverage over one of the most controversial federal agencies without triggering a prolonged shutdown, while also exposing the narrow terrain on which Congress is still willing to confront executive power. As with so many recent budget deals, the decision emerged less from open debate than from late-stage negotiations compressed into the final hours before the deadline.

How the Deal Was Framed

Democrats used the funding deadline to force a conversation about ICE’s enforcement practices, but they were careful about how that conversation was structured. Rather than reopening the far more combustible debate over immigration levels, deportation priorities, or statutory authority, they framed the dispute as one about law-enforcement standards, specifically transparency, accountability, and oversight.

Keep ReadingShow less
ICE Monitors Should Become Election Monitors: And so Must You
A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

ICE Monitors Should Become Election Monitors: And so Must You

The brutality of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the related cohort of federal officers in Minneapolis spurred more than 30,000 stalwart Minnesotans to step forward in January and be trained as monitors. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s demands to Minnesota’s Governor demonstrate that the ICE surge is linked to elections, and other ICE-related threats, including Steve Bannon calling for ICE agents deployment to polling stations, make clear that elections should be on the monitoring agenda in Minnesota and across the nation.

A recent exhortation by the New York Times Editorial Board underscores the need for citizen action to defend elections and outlines some steps. Additional avenues are also available. My three decades of experience with international and citizen election observation in numerous countries demonstrates that monitoring safeguards trustworthy elections and promotes public confidence in them - both of which are needed here and now in the US.

Keep ReadingShow less