Did Donald Trump cross the Brandenburg bridge for incitement in the January 6 riot on Capitol Hill? No, former governor and Trump ally told Hugh Hewitt this morning. That might put Trump outside any legal jeopardy for the riot, Christie argues, but his attempt to intimidate Mike Pence into an illegal and unconstitutional act should have political consequences.

Hugh brought this up after Christie praised Pence yesterday on ABC’s This Week for belatedly stating the truth about what happened on that day:

Chris Christie tells Martha Raddatz: "Jan. 6 was a riot that was incited by Donald tRump in an effort to intimidate then-Vice Pres. Pence and Congress.
He wanted the election to be overturned." pic.twitter.com/lPTvxktD5S

— Derek Friday (@DerekFriday) February 7, 2022

CHRISTIE: Well, look, Martha, I think that the actions the vice president took on January 6 spoke loudly. And I’m glad he’s finally put words to it. I don’t know why it took him so long, but I’m glad that he did. And let’s face it, let’s call this what it is, January 6th was a riot that was incited by Donald Trump in an effort to intimidate Mike Pence and the Congress into doing exactly what he said in his own words last week, overturn the election.

Now, he’s tried to do a cleanup on aisle one here in correcting that stuff, but it’s not going to change. He actually told the truth by accident. He wanted the election to be overturned. Donald Trump did respond to what the vice president said. And I think it’s kind of akin to the kid standing in the corner holding his breath. You know, it’s immature and it’s beneath the office that he held.

On Hugh’s show, Christie told Hugh that Trump made this an undeniable point last week after his comments in response to Pence. And that should carry a hefty political price, but the question will be whether it sticks to Trump:

HH: Now Governor, I, the RNC did a lot of things, and we’ll come back to that. I want to focus on the legal issue that maybe Martha didn’t hear you say. Incite is a legal term. Do you think actual and proximate causation of the riot and the people who trespassed into the Congress, does causation flow to the President, former President?

CC: Look, I think due to his conduct, Hugh, not on January 6th, necessarily, but the conduct from Election Night forward, I think when you’re going to hear testimony from many of those folks who were up there, they’re going to tell you they went there because that’s what Donald Trump told them to do. And so I think he’s got an issue in that regard. There’s no doubt. Now is it a slam dunk? It is not, as is always the case, as you know with these types of issues. But to me, it’s less important as a legal issue than it is as a policy and political issue. …

He’s, look, I think that the conduct that happened was foreseeable given that he is, he’s been telling people you’ve got to fight for your country and go up to Capitol Hill and fight for your country. You know, words matter, Hugh. Words matter under the law. Words matter in politics. And words matter when they come out of the mouth of the president of the United States.

Christie tells Hugh that he doesn’t believe that Trump intended for the crowd to break into the Capitol building. Trump’s speech at the rally is protected under Brandenburg, Christie argues, at least from any legal consequences. He did, however, clearly want the crowd to intimidate Pence and Congress with their presence, and to force them into an illegal act:

HH: He’s told me on the air that he didn’t.

CC: Look, I don’t think he intended that, but I think what he intended, and his words this past week support this, that he was attempting to set up a situation to intimidate Mike Pence and intimidate the members of Congress into voting to overturn the election, his words, overturn the election, Hugh.

HH: Okay, what…

CC: And those are the President’s words.

Indeed they were, and impossible to either ignore or justify. And that appears to have touched off a change in the GOP, or at least among some leading Republicans. Christie doesn’t really fit that description any more, nor does he have much credibility with the MAGA crowd or with the conservative wing of the party. Pence does still have some heft with the latter, although his MAGA cred disappeared on January 6 when he refused to play ball with Trump’s demand for an illegal act. Still, Pence sat quietly on that point until Trump made his purpose explicitly clear last week, and then wasted little time blasting that effort as “un-American” — a notably harsh response from someone of Pence’s mien.

Perhaps a better signal of Trump’s standing comes from a more MAGA-friendly figure. Christie said that he believes both Pence and Mike Pompeo will run in the 2024 primary, even if Trump jumps in:

HH: Before I go to the RNC, I, do you expect anyone to run for president not named Christie or Hogan if President Trump gets into the primaries?

CC: Sure. Sure.

HH: Who? Who?

CC: I think Pompeo will run.

HH: Oh.

CC: That’s my guess. I think he would run. I think Pence will run.

HH: That’s going to be an interesting set of debates.

CC: It sure will be, and hopefully we get good questioners like you who are asking questions that allow to follow up so you can test what the candidates really know and what they don’t.

Before last week, I’d have guessed that former Trump officials would likely sit out if Trump ran again. Ron DeSantis will run either way, because he will be in the middle of his second and final term as Florida’s governor and will never have the relevance or platform again for a national campaign. If Pence and Pompeo get in a fight with Trump for the nomination, however, the January 6 riot will be front and center and might take down everyone but DeSantis, who had no connection to the Trump administration. Pence and Pompeo would have to know that up front, which means they would run at least with that issue in hand. Pence made his embrace of that issue, belated or not, abundantly clear last week, in fact.

Trump may well be able to use it to his advantage in a Republican primary. However, two issues will play against that. First, now that the GOP electorate has some distance from the 2020 election, the damage from Trump’s post-election behavior has been made more clear. Second, voters tend to look forward rather than past in elections, and they may resent having to relitigate 2020 for no good purpose other than egos. That would also make DeSantis a good option, especially given Trump’s age and the obvious issue of his electability in a general election — especially after last week’s remarks. If a sea change has taken place, it’s Trump that’s shifted the tide.