It shouldn't be so easy to catch people like Governors and U.S. Attorneys and the like in lies, but here we are. Chris Christie joined Asha Rangappa and Dan Abrams on This Week to discuss Individual 1's legal troubles. The former governor of New Jersey argued that he'd rather not allow a lowly prosecutor (like he used to be) handle indicting the president. He'd rather things be remedied in the House of Representatives with impeachment. (Geez, Individual 1, with friends like these, ya know what I mean?)
Then he got himself into some more hot water, though, talking about women who'd had affairs with Individual 1 not coming forward until the 2016 election, and threatening to go public then. See, now, maybe don't go and lie for your friend on national teevee when smart people are there to fact-check you, Gov. Christie.
CHRISTIE: You have an alternative venue. The alternative venue is the House of Representatives. If the House of Representatives believes this is a high crime and misdemeanor as defined by the Constitution. The House of Representatives can bring articles of impeachment, which are the equivalent of an indictment. I think I would argue that that is a much more appropriate way to do this that to have some prosecutor, some AUSA from the Southern District of New York do this with the president of the United States. One other thing I want to point out about willfulness and intent. You know, I think what you'll hear the president argue is that he -- this is the first time that these women, at this young juncture, threatened to go public about these alleged affairs. And that he wanted to be kept quiet to avoid the embarrassment for himself and his family. There is no evidence at this point, that we know of, that they had threatened to go public before.
RANGAPPA: But they had gone public before. I mean, Stormy Daniels told her story to two different magazines and a blog, and she took a polygraph. So this has been out there, as far back as 2011. So I think that that argument. I agree with the governor that that's the argument that will be made. I think it will be a very hard one to make. I think it will be hard for the president to argue that he was somehow trying to protect his family and business when he's made it part of his brand, really, to be a womanizer who has affairs and leaves previous wives very publicly. This doesn't seem like something he's ever otherwise tried to keep secret.↓ Story continues below ↓
CHRISTIE: I don't think that's part of the brand...