WATCH: Chris Christie and Democratic congressman on White House interim security clearances

WATCH: Chris Christie and Democratic congressman on White House interim security clearances

Transcript for ‘Clearly there was a breakdown in process’: Chris Christie on Porter’s access to classified info

We are back now with Chris Christie and democratic congressman shoean Patrick Maloney. You heard kellyanne Conway saying they were following the regular process. Right. I did that job. You know, when I did that job, the FBI sent agents from the field agents to the small village where I worked with the Jess wits between college and law school. That process is incredibly exacting. These guys knew about the fact pattern that would have permanently disqualified him from doing the job. They never should have been in the chair. There are a stack of red folders marked top secret. Every day our highest secrets are seen by the house secretary. There’s a burn bag under the desk because you burn the materials when you’re done. The idea that someone was allowed to be there in the first place is not the Normal process. When the FBI brings this to don Mcgowan what’s supposed to? They’re supposed to dq him, sideline him. You don’t want him reading material that is so sensitive that only the president can see sometimes. The national security doesn’t give a memo to the president. He gives it to the staff secretary who gives Toyota the president. That means the staff secretary literally sees everything. You’ve know this. Therefore you cannot have someone seeing our nation’s secret who has a secret of their own. They’re so easy to blackmail. Don Mcgowan clearly knew about the it several months ago and John Kelly did. Where’s the break down? In the process. Every assistant in the united States attorney has to go through the same background check. When there’s a problem, they don’t give you progress reports. When there’s an issue it comes to the employing agency to make this decision. It’s not the FBI’s decision. No. The fib is a collector of facts and information. In our case it was to the department of justice. You as U.S. Attorney spoke to people at the department of justice and said here are the facts. Are we comfortable providing clearance? There are standards in the bush administration that would automatically disqualify someone. This was the decision of the white house. Depending when it was presented, whether presented to chief of staff preibus or chief of staff Kelly, they’re the decision making partieshere. Clearly there’s a break down in process. He’s out of the job now. Only after it became public. Listen, what I’m saying — I’m not justifying the break down in the process. I’m saying that’s where it had to have landed. It should have landed there sooner if people had been focusing on it. Should someone else pay the price? That’s up to the president as to whether or not he views this as a failure of competence in the management. From what I understand, John Kelly’s story is he did something in the first 14 minutes after the first 14 months of ignoring. There’s no way he didn’t know about it. He’s up to his neck in it. He chose not to deal with it. We brought this guy in to bring order to the house. We thought Kelly was the guy that was to manage the place. You cannot make a bigger mess than you’re cleaning up. To have a guy in the staff secretary’s job seeing all our nation’s secrets — by the way, can I back up. You also ignored two women who said the guy beat me. What does it say they want that guy so much they’re willing to ignore the allegations? What’s the answer to that? I don’t think there is a good answer to that. The reasons I look at these allegations as credible is because they were done contemporaneously. One of the ways we examine that is were they made contemporaneously or a long time after? Here with both of Mr. Porter’s exwives they did what we instruct them to do. Go to the police. One obtained a restraining order. Document the abuse. One had a photograph taken and be able to put those things in line. Not a word about that from the president. I look at this and can’t help but do it, not as a former governor, but as a prosecutor. When you see allegations like that, you have to take them seriously. Should there be due process for rob porter? Of course. Everyone is entitled to that. As an employer, you have to look at the allegations. There’s no due process as to whether someone gets a high level west wing job. It’s a privilege. My butt would have been kicked down the stairs within five minutes learning something like this. What’s the plan? The guy is never going to get national security clearance, yet he is reading top secret things every day. I think there is some requirement for due process. I don’t think it’s enough to say that any allegation should dismiss it. But what we’re talking about here — In this instance I said my opinion. For the congressman to say there’s no right to due process here, there is. There’s a right to due process for an employing agency to make an evaluation of the allegation. From my perspective give the contemporaneous nature they were credible enough. If I may, you wouldn’t put the guy in the job while you gave him that process. On January 20th everyone can’t have their clearance. That’s right. They learned in January of 2017 of the allegations. You knew the guy was never going to get cleared. It seemed to me the appropriate think would have been to say you get your day in course, but you’ll sit on the sliens. We’re out of time. Does John Kelly have to go? The president has to make that call. We have to hear from John Kelly what he knew. I think the president needs to hear that. This is about competence. As the chief of staff you have to be able to competently run the place. The president has to make that call. Thank you very much.

This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.

Read More


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here