right now on "andrea mitchell reports," breaking news. deal or no deal? hunter biden's plea deal falls apart in court, when the judge raises questions about other ongoing investigations and a separate gun charge. what happens now? donald trump downplaying what could be an indictment on charges he tried to steal the election as jack smith calls more fake electors to testify. >> i'm not concerned. we are legit. we have very corrupt people running our country. the 2024 republican primaries, a race for second

place. donald trump is in full command of first place. my guest today, former new jersey governor and republican challenger chris christie joining me here in studio on donald trump, the state of the republican party, and joe biden. good day, everyone. i'm andrea mitchell in new york. breaking news from delaware, where hunter biden's guilty plea agreement to avoid further penalties on tax evasion and diverting a separate gun offense is now in jeopardy. house republicans had said the president's son was receiving special treatment with a so-called sweetheart deal and have been running their own investigation into his business practices. challenging the way the case was prosecuted. the prosecutors denied it and he was appointed by donald trump, hold over by the white house to avoid any appearance of interference. republicans have also accused the president of being involved in his son's business dealings,

something the white house strongly denies. some republicans are now using that to press for an impeachment inquiry. joining me now is mike memoli, outside the courthouse in delaware, also with us former u.s. attorney paul charlton, and philli rucker. we will lead with what's happening in the courtroom in delaware. first to mike memoli. walk us through the drama. why is the plea deal falling apart? >> reporter: what's happening right now in this courthouse behind me will really at this moment determine whether this deal proceeds as expected or whether this does fall apart. let's walk through what was supposed to happen and what were the complications. hunter biden, the president's son, was agreeing as part of the plea agreement announced last month to plead guilty to two

misdemeanor charges relating to failure to pay taxes. and to go into what's known as a pre-trial diversion program in response to his acknowledging that he purchased a firearm without acknowledging truthfully he was not under the influence of drugs at the moment. what was the first complication as this proceeding went on this morning was whether those two agreements were effectively linked. would hunter biden agree to one without the other? hunter under questioning from the judge said they needed to be linked. there was disagreement about whether that was the proceeding. the more serious complication boils down to whether the case that was being prosecuted, whether the investigation by the u.s. attorney here in delaware had concluded, whether this agreement today represented the closure, the finality of the investigation or whether there could be future charges on separate potentially related issues involving business

dealings down the road. when the team was questioned about the judge about that fact, they indicated, yes, this investigation is ongoing. the judge asked them questions at this point saying, why are we going through this proceed agent the moment if there could be further charges down the road? hunter biden's legal team expressing questions about that at the same time. they were under the impression here that they were agreeing to these terms with the express intent of bringing this to a conclusion. there was a ten-minute recess as we understood it that was underway in which the prosecutors and the defense attorneys were going to try to get back on the same page. if, in fact, they are able to come back, really dot the is and cross the ts, then we can proceed. at the moment, as stated in the courtroom, this plea agreement announced last month is no longer in effect. >> mike, to follow up here, because the white house was hoping to finally get this out of the way, not that it would get it out of the way, because they are now talking about

impeachment on related unspecified issues. even though there was the political shadow over all of this, certainly among house republicans, they thought they would get the legal thing out of the way. now if they can't come to an agreement quickly, this thing is going to be hanging over their heads, mike. >> reporter: yeah. not only is it going to be a significant complication for this president as he runs for a second term and continues about the business of his administration, to have his son's legal woes continuing, but it's going to add more fuel to the political fire that republicans were stoking on capitol hill as they move forward with a potential impeachment charge. they wanted to see the u.s. attorney here in delaware. we should remind everyone, a trump appointee who was agreed by president biden to stay in his post because of his role investigating his son, that they wanted to hear from him about why more serious charges were not being brought. this is only further potentially in the views of republican legitimatizes their

investigation, their contention that this was an indication of interference by the president into the conduct of the justice department. potentially, more significantly, remember, hunter biden was front and center in the 2020 campaign, the impeachment of the former president donald trump began with his efforts and the efforts of his allies to allege that vice president biden had engaged in wrongdoing because of his son's involvement in business dealings. just as in 2020 when hunter was part and parcel of a discussion and potential overhanging then candidate joe biden, this now further complicates that as we head into 2024. >> paul, i have so many questions. mike and i both need a lawyer to understand all of the intricacies of this. all along, not only the prosecutor, the trump prosecutor in delaware had been held over while the other u.s. attorneys had been asked for their resignations, as is traditional when a new president takes over,

as you know, that prosecutor had said, and others have said, other outside attorneys have said, i should say, that hunter biden on the tax penalties was actually facing a tougher legal procedure than another person not named biden would, who had paid the back taxes, plus interest and penalty. this indicates that this deal and this whole issue is a lot more serious, or does it? >> it does, indeed. it represents an extraordinary failing to communicate in some fashion. sometimes plea agreements fall apart. you will be in court, and there's a misunderstanding about exactly what the plea agreement is. there will be a recess. the parties will come back together hopefully after having clarified the misunderstanding. the misunderstanding here seems very fundamental. is this the end of the prosecution, or is there an ongoing prosecution?

remember that in his press release, the u.s. attorney in charge of this matter said that this matter, this case, this investigation is ongoing. for there to be a misunderstanding in court today is an extraordinary development. the judge asked the right questions. is this the end of the investigation? when the parties had a disagreement, mr. biden's lawyers saying, we believe this is the end of the investigation, the prosecutors saying, the investigation is ongoing, there's a failure there, there's a fundamental misunderstanding that is in and of itself extraordinary. whether or not the parties can bridge that disagreement, we will have to see. >> let me follow up on that. i remember when he issued that press release and said there was an ongoing investigation and we were asking questions about it. understandably, the defense felt that this was the end of it. if there was any question, since we were asking the questions,

why weren't they saying, what do you mean, this is not the end? it seems that this is the kind of misunderstanding or lack of communication that would have been cleared up before they arrived in court before a judge today, paul. >> precisely. in plea agreements that have fallen apart in my experience in the part, they don't involve such fundamental issues. am i done with this investigation or is the investigation still ongoing? that kind of failure to communicate or to understand is unusual. where that breakdown in communication took place, we can't say or know exactly, except that in defense of the prosecutors, it was in their very press release. that's unusual. the judge was trying to get to the bottom of why are we entering into a plea agreement today that will resolve the tax and the gun issue if there is an ongoing investigation? the parties apparently hadn't fully discussed or understood the answer to that question. that's an embarrassment.

to whom it is that embarrassment falls, the government, defense attorneys, prosecutors, we don't know. it's extraordinarily unfortunate for everyone involved that on a case with this kind of high profile, this sort of thing would take place. >> phil, you will earn your stripes action the incoming national editor here to make sense of this. politically, this could not be worse for the white house, trying to put this off to the side, say it's the son, he paid his dues, he has gone through rehab, every family has a troubled member, everyone can relate to this, the middle class person that we are appealing to can relate to it, you have heard it, i have heard it. it resonates to all of us. yet, here they are with this overshadowing them in an election year, going into an election year. >> exactly. our team at "the post" is going to try to figure out exactly

what is going on at the justice department in terms of this investigation, which as you noted, was said to have been ongoing a few weeks ago when the plea deal was announced. this is a huge political headache for president biden when the presidential campaign is beginning to intensify. mike alluded to the pressure from house republicans on capitol hill to continue looking into hunter biden, to scrutinize the fbi and justice department for how they have investigated hunter biden the last few weeks in the alleged sweetheart deal, as republicans see it. but this is all going to continue to be pretty murky territory for the president as he really hopes to put this all in his rearview mirror and focus on the re-election campaign. >> there was some speculation -- it was just speculation, that we were waiting for the potential indictment. we will talk about that in a few minutes. the potential indictment on the major case, the federal case of

trying to overturn the election, against donald trump. there was some thought even though he received a target letter last week, they were going to wait until this got cleared away so that they would not have that distraction, at least politically. i guess jack smith doesn't think about politics, but someone does. in any case, that's another issue. mike memoli, let's talk about the white house. for them, this is really a mess, to use a legal term, because they have high priced lawyers, well-known lawyers. we know them. you would think that when the prosecution put out that news release that they got some clarification about what the ongoing investigations were, presumably some business arrangements that did not involve either the taxes or the gun offense. correct? >> reporter: first, we should talk about the white house reaction in terms of the reaction of the president and the first lady as it relates to

their son. it was the beginning of the end of the process of recovery for their son. his admission of his battles with substance abuse and addiction began with the death of his brother in 2015. the tax charges stem from what he acknowledged in court today was an addiction that continued until 2019. this was the hope. in the public statements we received from the white house, an indication of they support their son and they are proud of their son. so they are certainly looking at this first and foremost through that lens. on the part of the white house team more broadly, as they look ahead as well to a re-election campaign, i think it will exacerbate tensions that we at nbc news have been reporting about between the president's own team and hunter biden's legal team. abbey lowell, a high profile lawyer in washington, but there was a sense among some of the president's advisors, he was taking the way he handled this case legally and in terms of

public opinion and trying to shape public opinion in a direction not necessarily aligned with the president's political interests. to the degree that there is a miscommunication, a failure to understand on the part of hunter biden's legal team exactly what they are entering into, the potential of the facts that this might in their view have been the end, in the view of the government was just an interim step, that will only inflame the sense in the white house that hunter biden was not necessarily getting the best legal and political advice here. >> paul, is this potentially the start or the end of hunter biden's legal troubles? >> it certainly is a worse day for mr. biden than for the prosecution. a bad day for everyone in court today, but mr. biden now has a clarification, if ever there was real confusion, that this is an ongoing investigation. whatever deal he hoped to achieve, whatever bargain he hoped to receive from these misdemeanor tax charges and the pre-trial diversion for the gun

case, that has been removed. now there's an ongoing investigation. how broad that one is, the weight of the evidence that that one may reveal at the end of the day, we don't know. whatever resolution hunter biden was hoping to receive today, that's no longer on the table. that's a bad day for him. whoever it is that mis-communicated this idea, that failed to understand when there was so much publicity about that fact, someone is going to have to answer for that eventually, whether that's to hunter biden himself or by the prosecutors who failed to communicate that adequately. >> one follow-up here. would there be an option, if they decide to take this chance, if they realize now that they can't settle everything today, to separate it? which is something they didn't agree to before the break. separate the tax from the gun. is there any option from what you saw from this courtroom toward to settle one of them and

not the other? then also have to deal with the ongoing investigation. >> i suspect the opportunity to resolve the tax and gun charges are not removed. in typical prosecution practice, deals get worse for the defendant as you move forward in time, not better. it wouldn't be unusual for the defense attorneys to go back to the prosecutors and say, can we still achieve what we wanted to achieve in court today? for the prosecutors to say, yes, but there's a greater cost to you. we will have to see now what happens. i suspect there's going to be a fair amount of discussion about how it is a high profile, highly publicized important case like this one fell apart because of a basic misunderstanding of so important an issue as whether or not an investigation was ongoing. >> mike memoli, let's talk again. you and phil rucker -- let me

bring phil in first about the politics of this. related to the possibility of a trump indictment and how they were trying to deal with that as well as put to bed this impeachment inquiry. phil? >> andrea, the first thing to be clear about is the justice department separates these investigations. the hunter biden probe has been taking place under the leadership of the u.s. attorney in delaware. the trump investigation has been a special counsel probe led by jack smith. they have maintained through justice department norms and practices to not let the politics or timing of the two influence one another. that being said, they are playing out in the same political landscape and on the same calendar here. certainly, there could be complicated politics if the biden investigation continues and intensiies in the weeks ahead at the same time that we

widely expect federal charges to come against president trump -- former president trump for his role in trying to overturn the 2020 election. he received that target letter recently. we expect that indictment any day now. that certainly will have an impact on the republican presidential nomination race. insofar as it could solidify support for trump, as we have seen with the past indictments. it's a reminder that the work of federal prosecutors is very much shaping the politics of the moment as the presidential race gets underway. >> absolutely. i think garrett haake, who covers trump as well as capitol hill, and is familiar with what's going on with the speaker and impeachment, is with us as well. garrett, this is an extraordinary development. it's very rare that a plea deal is rejected by a judge. the handwriting was on the wall in the press release, which we were asking about at the time that this was an ongoing

investigation. we were saying what is the ongo ongoing investigation about? the republicans seized on the fact that there are business dealings they want to investigate. they are trying to connect it to the president. >> yeah, that's right. congressional republicans and the republican presidential candidates are going to be tripping over themselves to be talking about this plea deal falling apart and continuing to highlight hunter biden's issues as a way to damage joe biden. there was a lot of frustration in republican circles the initial announcement of the plea deal didn't get much coverage, a deep dive treatment in the fact that it is now falling apart, element certainly will. i expect to hear about this from donald trump on social media. i suspect this will add fuel to that impeachment inquiry push that we are seeing on capitol hill from congressional republicans. it's been interesting to watch this house republican majority approach the hunter biden issue. the investigative companies, the

ones you would expect to be doing most of the digging on this, whether judiciary or oversight or the weaponization subcommittee, have failed to come up with anything compelling as relates to hunter biden. it was the irs whistle-blower that the tax writing committee produced that has gotten a lot of attention, that pushed house republicans to the edge of opening an impeachment inquiry. i think they will be hard pressed to back off from once they get started. a development like what we see now today i think is going to add to that. they want to keep this story in the headlines, even though it's entirely about hunter biden. hope springs eternal among republican lected officials that they will find a nexus to joe biden that they can use against him in 2024. >> brendan buck is with us, garrett. worked with two previous speakers. what do you think about not only

this development but how it fuels what kevin mccarthy has been trying to do to get some momentum behind, under pressure from certainly the right wing members of his caucus, to start an impeachment inquiry, something not very popular with the senate? >> look at the situation in two ways. the house republicans were alleging that hunter biden was let off the hook on his foreign business dealings. i think now we know that's not necessarily the case. you would think that may take wind out of their sails. i imagine they will look at it differently. they will say, hunter biden is still being investigated for these business dealings. as long as this is hanging out there, they will continue banging that drum. even if no further charges are brought, they will return to that allegation that there must be something fishy going on here. the white whale is the idea that hunter biden was involved in some type of illegal business deals on behalf of foreign

governments and joe biden was involved. they will try to make the argument that possibility is still alive, if there's an active investigation. this gets them more spun up. the more hunter biden is in the news for doing potentially illegal acts, the more pressure kevin mccarthy will feel. it adds to a state of confusion in the house, because ultimately if you bring articles of impeachment, there need to be clear evidence to back those up. i think as has been noted, the clear evidence is lacking. it's murky. republicans are using that murkiness to their advantage. today adds to that. i think house republicans will take advantage of this in any way they can. i think the news today is that he is still potentially under investigation for those foreign business deals. >> as you point out, this murkiness adds to that. in the climate of a campaign, they can say a president trying

to overturn an election, which will in some way be one of the charges, it will be fashioned into the legal charges, but it's the issue of a president of the united states refusing to concede an election, and going to great lengths to say nothing of what happened on january 6, with a president's son being involved in some shady business deals, allegedly, and admitting to not paying taxes and having improper gun -- a fraudulent comment on a gun application, not admitting his addictions. in any case, we will take a rest here. we will wait for people to come out of the courtroom. we have got a guest who is perfectly positioned to talk about all of this. a candidate, a former prosecutor, an experienced lawyer, up next, chris christie, the former new jersey governor joining us next. right here on "andrea mitchell reports" only on msnbc.

my frequent heartburn had me taking antacid after antacid all day long but with prilosec otc just one pill a day blocks heartburn for a full 24 hours. for one and done heartburn relief, prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn. age is just a number, and mine's unlisted. try boost® high protein with 20 grams of protein for muscle health versus 16 grams in ensure® high protein. boost® high protein. now available in cinnabon® bakery-inspired flavor. learn more at boost.com/tv introducing the all-new 2024 chevy trax. ♪ ♪ helps you stay connected, ♪ safe ♪ and charged. ♪ the all-new chevy trax starting at $21,495. the possibilities are endless.

bridgett is here. the all-new chevy trax starting at $21,495. she has no clue that i'm here. she has no clue who's in the helmet. are you ready? -i'm ready! alright. xfinity rewards creates experiences big and small, and once-in-a-lifetime.

we are continuing to watch the delaware courthouse where hunter biden's plea deal could be falling apart. in fact, it has. it has to be repaired, if it can be. mark meadows, the former

trump -- he is refusing to say whether he testified before the grand jury. joining me now is former new jersey governor chris christie. welcome. thank you very much for being with us. >> thanks for having me. >> let me ask you first about hunter biden. how rare is it -- you are a former prosecutor -- for a plea deal like this to fall apart? >> it's rare. it is in my experience. i ran the fifth largest office in the country for seven years. it's rare for this to happen. i will tell you that i was talking to members of my team in the last couple weeks and said, i just don't believe the judge is going to approve this plea deal and the way it's been laid out for a few reasons. one, because you get two misdemeanor tax counts after a five-year investigation, secondly, you dismiss a gun charge that has a ten-year mandatory minimum, and three, you say the investigation is still ongoing.

how do you square those things? usually, when someone pleads, it's over. the plea wraps up all parts of any investigation that you have into that particular person. from the beginning, i was concerned about the way they investigated this case, were they being transparent about what else they were looking at, was the u.s. attorney being candid about the authority he had? now it looks like he didn't have the authority. if, in fact, the investigation is still ongoing, is the same day who said he was going to agree to the plea deal also saying it's not all done? did someone above him tell him it wasn't all done? >> that was in his press release. that was his press release that said the investigation is ongoing. >> right. my point is, to say that and to also agree to a deal, was it his -- was he signaling that he wasn't happy about this and that it was being imposed upon him? to put that in the two things

were contradictory in my experience. it's not that it never happens. but it is so rare and not on a high profile case like this. i think it justifies the judge looking at this and saying, i'm not approving this. you guys have to resolve your issues, or not. we're not going to play this kind of game. this puts hunter biden and his lawyers in a bad spot. if i were hunter biden i would look at my lawyers saying, what are you doing? >> is the republican -- the republican house members, are they correct to now say that we want to connect this and any further investigation to the president of the united states on completely unsubstantiated charge he was involved with his son's dealings before he became president? >> look, there are allegations out there from whistle-blowers that are concerning. they are. if they are telling the truth --

>> the irs whistle-blower? >> right. if they are telling the truth, then it undercuts what the u.s. attorney has said about his authority. it undercuts some of the stuff that they are walking away from here in not making hunter biden take a plea to any of the foreign activity. look, i think what i found in these investigations, especially the complex political ones, is that you never know where it's going to lead. i think it's appropriate for the u.s. attorney to say, if you want a plea deal, you have to tell me everything. everything, hunter, that you were involved in and who was involved with you. otherwise, we will indict you and you go to trial and take your chances. that's the way i would be doing this. if he has information that involves anyone connected with this that may have done something wrong up to and including his father, he has to be clean about that. i don't know that he has or hasn't. it doesn't sound like he has.

>> what about the argument that other people who haven't paid their taxes but do pay back taxes, penalty and interest, whose name is not biden, don't get indicted, don't get criminally prosecuted? >> that's not the only part of the investigation. he also lied on a federal gun permit. his father was the sponsor of the bill to make it a ten-year mandatory minimum to lie on a permit. it's hard for me, when i have heard democrats say over and over again, we need more gun laws, well, you can have that argument. you better enforce the one u.s. have. i'm not objecting to the way they resolve the tax case. my concern is, how did it take five years to get there? concern one. it's not a complicated tax scheme. it's money that he got in pretty directly, that he didn't pay taxes on. that doesn't take five years to figure out.

we're not talking about a complicated tax thing where people are trying to avoid taxes in a way that gets them in trouble for tax evasion. secondly, the gun charge -- if you dismiss that gun charge, what are you getting in return for that as the government? i wouldn't just give that away if i were the prosecutor. >> they were deferring and there was still sentencing. >> right. deferring on this in my experience is dismissing. unless the guy gets himself in trouble again with the federal law enforcement, it's going to go away. it's a dismissal. you are not getting anything that i could tell in return for that. it's an open and shut case there. it's not like there's any question. he clearly had a drug problem at the time and he mishandled the gun afterwards. there's video evidence of that. you can trade that away if you want, but you better get something in return. what the judge is looking at, probably, wait a second, if you

are doing this and still investigating other things that may come back to hunter biden and go or places, how am i supposed to approve this plea deal? it wreaks of confusion. they shouldn't be confused here. this is pretty straightforward. if they are, that may mean that there are different people making different decisions. that's opposite of what the attorney general has told us. people better get their stories straight. i think that's what this judge is saying. >> let me move on to donald trump. mark meadows, as you point out -- as we pointed out, is not commenting. to your knowledge, you were still involved in the campaign up through the election night, and then to december, did he encourage the president's extensive efforts to not concede and begin the process of trying to -- >> i don't know the answer to that question. >> overturn the election.

>> i don't know. really, after i denounced donald trump on abc on election night -- >> we saw that. >> after i did that, i was not involved in any of the meetings anymore. i don't have any firsthand knowledge to that. what i will say in watching that video is that looks to me like somebody who is cooperating with the federal government. witnesses -- grand jury is secretive for the government. the government cannot reveal -- >> but not for the witness. >> the witness is told as they leave, you don't have to answer any questions or talk about it. but you are free to do so if you like. the only time you can't do it is when the government has a cooperation agreement with you and they say, no talking about this. the only time we want to hear you talking is when you are on the witness stand. that, to me, mark meadows looks like a federal witness under a cooperation agreement. my guess is that's what we are going to find out he is. >> you said when he refused to concede on election night, that's what crossed the line. what took you so long?

there were plenty of examples of him suggesting prior to election day that the election was going to be a fraud, he didn't believe it, he sowed doubts. >> i think i viewed that as part of him trying to encourage his voters and push his voters to come out in greater numbers. they will play games with it because we did have an unusual election in 2020 with the absentee ballot issue being bigger than normally. the different was, when you stand behind the seal of the president of the united states in the east room of the white house on election night as president, and you say, this election was stolen, when you have absolutely no evidence to support that it was, you are -- the american people are sitting there thinking, he ispresident. he must know something we don't know. it lends credence that it did

not deserve it. that was beneath the office. politics were over. the votes were in. it's not playing a political game anymore, which we see lots of people do different things politically over our lifetimes. this is now, you are the president of the united states in the white house in your official role and you tell people it was stolen and it wasn't. it undercuts their confidence in the election. to me, that was the thing that was so unacceptable, so beneath the office that he was honored to hold, that i could no longer be supportive of him. >> you called him in december of 2020 to part ways. did you tell him, you lost? what did he say to you? >> the intent was not to part ways. he called me because he was upset about something i had said on abc that sunday. we got into the conversation. i said, look, i have known you for a long time. what you need to do is concede the election to joe biden,

invite him to the white house, shake his hand, let the transition move forward, go to the inauguration and then go back to mar-a-lago. i think biden is not going to do well. when he doesn't, if you do all this, you will have a chance to run again if you want to. if you don't do this stuff, your career is over. no one will be able to trust you again for anything. >> what did he say? >> i will never, ever, ever do that. what else you got, chris? >> he said he would never concede? >> correct. >> did he say he knew he lost? >> he did not say that to me in the phone call. what i will say is that i know he was concerned about losing. when we were doing debate prep through the summer and early fall of 2020, any number of times he expressed that he was worried about the shape the race was in, particularly in the context of the debate. he said, we have to work hard on this because i have to do well in the first debate. we need to catch up.

there was no question he knew he was behind. he was concerned about it. we didn't have any conversation post-election about that. >> rudy giuliani is admitting in court he made false statements about two georgia women, two election workers, and that, of course, they were demeaned, vilified by donald trump, the followers, and it changed their lives. let's play what they said to the january 6 committee. >> i've lost my sense of security all because a group of people, starting with number 45 and his ally, rudy giuliani, decided to scapegoat me and my daughter, to push their own lies about how the presidential election was stolen. >> i just don't do nothing anymore. i don't want to go anywhere.

i second guess everything that i do. it's has affected my life in a major way. >> as a former prosecutor and former governor, what was your reaction when you hear the audio of donald trump telling brad raffensperger in georgia, just find me 11,780 votes? >> i thought it was awful. i thought it was beneath the office he was honored to hold. i thought that he was getting himself deeper and deeper into potential trouble. it was because he couldn't -- his own ego couldn't bear the idea that he had lost to joe biden. he was going to do anything he could to convince himself first and then anybody else that he could that he hadn't lost. all the evidence was otherwise. when i heard it -- i have to tell you the truth, i didn't think about it from a criminal perspective. i thought about it from a public perspective and that it was

another awful moment that he was subjecting the american public to, because of his own ego. that's not the kind of person we need behind the desk in the oval office in my view. that's why i think it's one of the issues that disqualifies him. >> donald trump is attacking you on social media for shaking hands with barack obama during the recovery from super storm sandy. what's your reaction to that? >> we actually have responded to that as a campaign already. i have said many times that i do not regret for one minute that handshake or the visit the president made that day. my state had sustained the worst natural disaster in its history and the second worst in american history behind katrina. the president came that day in the midst of the last seven days of re-election campaign to come and see the damage for himself and to console the people of my

state and assure them he was going to be there to help provide the funds necessary to rebuild and to recover. that's what a responsible elected official does. i'm confident donald trump understand that. all he would have been concerned about is the picture. i didn't vote for obama in 2008 or 2012. i didn't support a great deal of his policies. but you have one president at a time. he was good enough to come that day to support our state and to help us begin the rebuilding. i don't regret for one minute welcoming him to my state. what we did today was to send out a picture from donald trump's wedding in 2005 where he is standing next to hillary clinton who he invited to the wedding. i will say this to you, donald, i invited barack obama to help my state after the worst natural disaster. i didn't invite barack obama to my wedding. i don't know who was star struck

more, me or you. given you donated $100,000 to the clinton foundation and repeatedly donated to hillary clinton's campaigns, seems your greed was driving that. you want to send those pictures out, as it fine by me. we are more than happy to respond with pictures of you not serving your people but serving yourself like you always do. >> that seems like a preview of a debate stage, except he will not show up most likely. >> he will be there. >> you think? >> yes. >> back in 2020, there was a briefing at the white house for the president about election security. telling him the voting machines were great. according to reporting, he was ready to brag about that, have a news conference. was he at one point confident that the election could be done with mail-in ballots? >> i have to tell you the truth, from the time i started debate prep with him, in the late summer of 2020, he was

expressing concerns about mail-in ballots from that moment. in fact, folks like myself and his campaign manager were urging him to stop, because so many of we thought his potential voters were seniors who would be concerned about going to a polling place during covid and might not vote if they thought that mail-in ballots weren't secure, that we were urging him to stop saying that stuff because we didn't think it was in his political interest to say so. i do remember from the beginning -- i don't remember hearing about him being proud of the security of the election. he never said that to me. >> let me ask you some campaign questions. in that recent monmouth pole, 69% of republicans said donald trump was the best candidate in a general election against joe biden, but 55% didn't want you. how do you run with that? isn't your message your anti-trump message really

jeopardizing your campaign? >> no. it's the truth. by the way, i'm not surprised to see that. in initial stages of the campaign, you go after the incumbent and the frontrunner, the people inclined to vote for him will think unfavorably to you. that's why campaigns matter. we have seen campaigns change significantly. i believe as we continue to make this argument and more evidence comes forward, which you know it will, over the course of time about donald trump's conduct, and when i examine and let people examine his failures as president, he didn't build the wall, he said he would build 52 miles of wall, if he continues at that pace, he would need 110 more years as president to build the whole wall. we will continue to make that argument, because it's the truth. it's what people deserve. it's the right one.

i'm not worried about polls in july. if be had polls in july in '15, which we did, that matters, jeb bush and scott walker were going to be the republican nominees for president. >> would you take the mitt romney pledge and get out after february 26th if you saw no chance of winning? >> look, when i didn't see any chance of winning eight years ago, after the new hampshire primary, i got out right away. i'm not go -- people are asking us to take enough pledges. i like mitt romney, he is a friend. i don't disagree with what he said. i think that takes care of itself naturally, politically when you can't raise money anymore and you see you are not getting votes. if that happens, i have no reason to continue to stay in a race, nor do i think most other people would. >> what happens if he is the nominee? what do you do? >> i don't think he will win. i don't think he can win against president biden. he has proven he lost to

president biden. i have answered this a dozen times. >> you could change your mind. >> i haven't. at the end of the day, i have made my position on donald trump's performance and his prospects clearer than any republican candidate in this race by a factor of 100. >> let me ask you about some issues. you said you believe that states should have a right on abortion. there's been horrifying testimony in texas recently from women who have carried unviable fetuses, have jeopardized their own life, their ability to conceive in another pregnancy. why give states like texas the right to put such stringent bans on abortion if you ultimately believe that a federal ban should be 20 weeks? >> i haven't taken a position on

a federal ban at all because i don't think it's appropriate. the reason why is because that's what the constitution requires. the constitution is silent as to the issue of abortion. that's why i thought roe was wrongly decided 50 years ago and dobbs was correct. each state will do it. they will decide for themselves. the citizens of the states and their legislators and governor, depending how they decide to do it. there's a lot of difference in our country on this issue. look at oklahoma, they are banning it unless the life of the mother is involved. my home state of new jersey, you can have an abortion up to nine months. nine months. what i would like to see is for the constitution to work. let every state make their judgment. the people of those states make the judgment. then let's see if there's a national consensus at 12 weeks, 15 weeks, 20 weeks, whatever it might be. then and only then should the federal government consider getting in the middle of this. they should not -- they don't have the constitutional authority to supersede the

states. you have covered everything in this business that could be covered. you know, there's not 60 votes in the united states senate for anything. the only way there will be is if we come to a national consensus that's formed by the states. if they do, that's something i'm willing to consider. until then, i want the constitution to work. >> governor chris christie, i want to hear you on the subject of the trump indictment when it comes down. >> invite me back. i will give you my opinion. >> we will leave that there. let's go back to breaking news from wilmington, delaware, where hunter biden has been in court. back with us mike memoli outside the courthouse, garrett haake, brendan buck, and joining us now catherine christian, a former assistant district attorney in the manhattan d.a.'s office. first of all, mike, give us any updates from the courtroom.

are they still arguing over how to proceed? >> reporter: the latest indication we have just gotten in the last few minutes is the proceeding has resumed and that it does appear they are trying to get back on the track the day began with with the agreement. the gun charge will lead to a pre-trial diversion program in which hunter biden agrees to undergo counseling, potentially go through testing as part of that agreement as well. that charge could be thrown out. it appears based on the conversation that's been happening back and forth notice courtroom that they are back somewhat on the same page. what we don't have a resolution of and ultimately which could affect whether this does move forward is what the potential of an ongoing investigation might mean for this. it does appear the parties have agreed to narrow the scope of charging based on these specific cases in a specific time line from 2014 to 2019.

in other words, they can't bring new charges on taxes or gun issues outside of that time line. this is the scope of that agreement. we still need greater clarity and this is still an ongoing proceeding, about what it potentially means about the potentially means about the ongoing investigation. remember, the letter from the u.s. attorney when this plea agreement was announced a month ago indicated that, yes, there was an ongoing investigation. we were getting indications from hunter biden's side that there was potentially a reason that language was included but that it didn't necessarily mean the same thing that we were interpreting it as, that this was indeed winding to a conclusion. that's the point of biggest clarity that we need at this point, andrea. and i also just want to make another clarification importantly about hunter biden and his legal team and who's representing him. christopher clark has been representing him and engaging in these negotiations with the u.s. attorney's office in delaware as it relates to these charges. i mentioned abby lowell who is in the courtroom today, but he

is playing a broader role in coordinating counsel in basically you could consider what comes next inerms of republican investigations on capitol hill. i wanted to make sure we clarified in terms of who is doing what. >> paul charlton, if you could give us your legal read on this. what we're hearing is that there would be no plea deal so far and potentially a more limited one, which would have a scope from 2014 to 2019 on taxes and drug use and firearms, and the government would not be bringing additional charges on those -- >> it's an embarrassment -- it's an embarrassment, andrea, that this discussion, exactly what the agreement means and what the parameters of the agreement will be. it's an embarrassment that that didn't take place months ago, that everyone who walked into that courtroom didn't understand all of the terms and especially a term as fundamental as this one. am i resolving the whole of this

investigation, or is it only a small piece of this investigation. it looks as if, and it sounds as if are from the reporting that you're getting now, that the defense attorneys have come back around and said we will agree on behalf of hunter biden to a limited scope of this plea, that it will reflect a few years within the tax violations. it will reflect the gun charge, but we and hunter biden understand that there is an ongoing investigation and that other charges may be coming forward. but how it is you get into supreme court on a high profile case like this and an important issue like this and don't have that clarity and don't have that understanding when you walk in the courtroom is still beyond understanding. that doesn't make sense, and it ought not to have been proceeding in this way. we'll see if at the end of the day the judge is satisfied that all the parties, the government and very importantly hunter biden understand the exact terms of this plea. >> and katherine, christian, let me bring you into this

conversation. this has been an extraordinary day as this situation evolves. what is your impression based on what we know so far from court? >> i'll add it's shocking, not just an embarrassment. it's shocking. it's clear that the biden attorneys and prosecutors were on a completely different page. these are discussions that you have before you step in a courtroom in a high profile case with the press that they did not work this out before is sloppy on both sides. i'm a former prosecutor, i'll put really a lot of this on the prosecution. there's no reason why this shouldn't be worked out, and also, quite frankly, i don't know how defense attorneys would allow their client to plead guilty with a black cloud still over his head. it was always curious know whens plea deal was announced that mr. biden's attorneys were saying the investigation is over and the u.s. attorney's office was saying no, it's not. and i figured, well, maybe that's semantics.

it will be all worked out by the time they get into the courtroom. clearly it wasn't worked out. it's shocking to me that this happened. again, i don't understand how he will plead guilty. he clearly, obviously, is going to plead guilty, and the judge did her job because she put it out on the record and wanted to make sure that he understands what was going on, that if there's still this black cloud over his head, that's shocking to me too that he would be pleading guilty. >> garrett haake, let's talk about the political ramifications both on capitol hill and with the president's opponents in the republican party. >> i've been refreshing my truth social app here. i'm more than confident that donald trump will be weighing in on this soon. the idea that you can cast hunter biden as the ultimate what about story for any claims of corruption or illegality has always been a tool for the trump campaign, and just listening to the fallout about how this case -- or this deal may be

coming back together. look, this may have been sort of good old fashioned screw up or good old fashioned incompetence that led to the misunderstanding, but this is going to launch a thousand conspiratorial ships where republicans already believe that the u.s. attorney in delaware was basically operating with one arm tied behind his back and there were decisions being made at levels above him. that's what i'm seeing on already on twitter from republican lawmakers and maga world operatives on this. i expect this will create so much more sturm and drang around hunter biden, even if there's nothing to find here. this has lengthened the ability for house republicans in particular to explore this issue at greater depth and with greater spotlight on it going forward. >> and brendan buck, for the speaker of the house, does this strengthen his hand in handling the appeals for impeachment?

>> i'm not exactly sure. let's not give mccarthyism the impeachment. if you're a jim jordan or james comer, they're going to be able to say there's credibility to what we're talking about here. clearly if the department of justice still thinks this is worthy of investigating, that's credibility to what they've been saying that hunter biden was acting potentially illegal as a foreign agent in this country potentially while his father was in positions of authority. that's serious stuff, and apparently we don't know how far along that investigation or what they found or whether they'll ultimately bring anything, but the idea that this is ongoing i think will very much excite a lot of house republicans. and garrett is absolutely right, the messaging you're already starting to see and going to see is that this plea deal was obviously so favorable to hunter biden that the judge basically had to intervene and say, hey, hold on a second. what's going on here. it only reinforces what they -- in their minds what they've been

saying. it will only bring up louder calls for those impeachments. >> well, this has been certainly a big setback for the white house, for the defense team, for the prosecution and the defense team as you both pointed out. this is still going to be hanging over the white house and over hunter biden no matter what happens now, as garrett haake has just said, we're going to have to leave it there and turn it over for continuing coverage right now on msnbc after a very short break. this has been this edition of "andrea mitchell reports" follow us online on facebook and twitter, and chris jansing will pick it up after that short break. t up after that short break. versus 16 grams in ensure® high protein. boost® high protein. now available in cinnabon® bakery-inspired flavor. learn more at boost.com/tv what do we always say, son? liberty mutual customizes your car insurance...

so you only pay for what you need. that's my boy. ♪ stay off the freeways! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ ever notice how stiff clothes only pay for what you need. can feel rough on your skin? for softer clothes that are gentle on your skin, try downy free & gentle downy will soften your clothes without dyes or perfumes. the towel washed with downy is softer, and gentler on your skin. try downy free & gentle. i'm jonathan lawson here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month.

i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information. (bobby) my store and my design business? we're exploding.

but my old internet, was not letting me run the show. so, we switched to verizon business internet. they have business grade internet, nationwide. (vo) make the switch. it's your business. it's your verizon. hey, everything, good to see you. i'm yasmin vossoughian in for chris jansing, live at msnbc headquarters in washington, d.c. the agreement that was supposed to spare the president's son hunter biden from jail time, it's suddenly in jeopardy. we're going to bring you the very latest from that delaware courtroom where they are trying to get back on track. a key issue here whether hunter biden could still get hit with more charges down the line. we're watching the white house briefing as well, everybody, set to begin any minute now to see if we can get any new reaction there as well. this whole thing, by the way,