August 27, 2025 • 32 mins
Christina Bobb joins Ryan to promote her new book, 'Defiant,' due for release on Tuesday, September 9. In it, she explores the Left's lawfare campaign against then-candidate (and former President) Donald Trump and both the hubris and audacity of the Mar-a-Lago raid.
It seems karma has come full circle, with the Trump Department of Justice executing a search of former national security adviser John Bolton's home as part of a classified documents probe. Christina offers her analysis of this ongoing story as well.
Defiant: Inside the Mar-a-Lago Raid and the Left's Ongoing Lawfare: Bobb, Christina, Trump, Donald J.: 9781510784918: Amazon.com: Books
It seems karma has come full circle, with the Trump Department of Justice executing a search of former national security adviser John Bolton's home as part of a classified documents probe. Christina offers her analysis of this ongoing story as well.
Defiant: Inside the Mar-a-Lago Raid and the Left's Ongoing Lawfare: Bobb, Christina, Trump, Donald J.: 9781510784918: Amazon.com: Books
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It was really disturbing to hear what the man we
heard from from.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
The affiliate said about how.
Speaker 3 (00:06):
Long it went on.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
He said, there were several minutes. Now we don't know
if that was just from the.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Shooter or law enforcement had arrived by then, or the
circumstances around that, but he said it sounded like the
gun was reloaded several times.
Speaker 4 (00:18):
It seemed like a rifle, he said, a semi automatic rifle.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
And it went on for several minutes.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
Right, And that's an uncommon as well.
Speaker 5 (00:26):
These things can shoot dozens of bullets.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
You know, in just one trigger pull right and so wrong.
Speaker 5 (00:33):
What happens in this case is sometimes they have enough
time to reload. It's one of the most horrific things
for students to be sitting there. You saw this in Uvalde,
You see this in new Town repeatedly, where a shooter
has enough time to reload. And the horrific nature of
this is, you know, for little kids to be facing this,
it's just.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
Too much to think about.
Speaker 4 (00:52):
Yeah, absolutely, did he have to reload or Evan Perez,
CNN Senior Justice correspondent, By the way, was this shooter
able to fire off dozens of bullets with one trigger pull.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
Well, that's called an automatic weapon.
Speaker 4 (01:11):
That would be a machine gun, that would be an
AK forty seven, and those are banned.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
You can only lose them.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
Under very special, specific circumstances. A semi automatic weapon is
exactly that. It's not automatic. It's semi automatic, and what
that means. It's very easy to comprehend, even for the
senior Justice correspondent of CNN, Evan Perez.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
One trigger pull, one bullet. That's it.
Speaker 4 (01:39):
No, you don't get dozens of bullets off fired with
one trigger pull. That is false. That is a fake news.
That is exactly wrong. And for CNN to continue to
perpetrate these myths about guns doesn't help the matter. Emotions
should not trump logic should not trump facts. In this case,
(02:03):
and as always with this individual, the suspect who is
now dead from a self inflicted gunshot wound, there were
warning signs.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
There had to have been.
Speaker 4 (02:13):
If we have a mental health crisis in this country,
and it is the mentally disturbed, the mentally.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
Ill who carry out these shootings.
Speaker 4 (02:19):
This is never like a level headed, sane, rational, reasonable individual.
The question then becomes, how do we handle this, how
do we respond to it? How do we react to
it as a society, as a free country that values
our freedoms that are enumerated in our constitution. We'll have
our Remembering Rush segment coming up later this hour, as
(02:40):
we will each and every Wednesday. But if you call
back to last week, what the Constitution does. It's a
brilliant document and perhaps the greatest ever conceived of and
designed by humans on this planet, maybe short of the Bible,
but since then, certainly it is better than the Magna
cart because.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
What does it do.
Speaker 4 (03:00):
It outlines and enumerates rights of the individual, and it
spells out what the government cannot do to us, cannot
do to us, cannot infringe upon. With regard to our rights,
that all men were created equal. Every individual who is
an American citizen holds these rights, and they are viewed
to be self evident. And one of those rights that
(03:22):
they felt was most important, based on the times in
which they lived, the tyranny which they faced and had
to overcome and overthrow through a revolution and armed revolution
a war. The second one on their list of amendments, too,
said Constitution, was the right to keep in bare arms,
and that it shall not be infringed, and that is
(03:43):
an individual right, So under what circumstances? This is the
question that I asked to Alicia Garcia, and I think
it's a difficult one because I can see both sides
of this argument.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
Should there be any circumstance, any bar that.
Speaker 4 (03:56):
Can be raised in a court of law where an
individu has the right the presumption of innocence, that evidence
must be provided proof that such an individual is no
longer mentally fit, stable capable of owning guns in this society.
And it's just it's a difficult road to hoe because
(04:20):
what is that line, what is that standard? We've heard
about stories where and I've heard about many of these
where a disaffected former companion, lover wife girlfriend says this
guy's crazy, he shouldn't have guns. So it's like he
gets hauled into court and then he's like, well, I'm
not crazy. Well how do you prove that? How do
you prove that you're not crazy or you're not mentally insane?
(04:42):
Where's the proof and who has to prove it? So
Alicia just basically give the the argument, and it's a
good one that the red flag laws, even as they
are intended, do not work, are not effective. They were
not effective in the Club Q shooting, in which if
you're going to have a red flag law, by god,
that nutjob should have had his guns revoked under the law.
(05:07):
There was a video of that individual, I think, in
some form of a standoff with police in his home,
barricaded in a room, and yet somehow this individual still
possessed those firearms. So, if you're going to have a
red flag law and it doesn't even work in an
instance like that, and what are you doing here?
Speaker 3 (05:24):
Why even have it? Why have it?
Speaker 4 (05:26):
Why infringe upon the rights of individuals when you can't
target that for those who.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
Would do harm to others.
Speaker 4 (05:34):
Now, the other part of this would be prevention that
this individual who carried out this shooting today in Minneapolis
at a Catholic church last school, killed two children, injured
seventeen others, and killed himself, that there wouldn't have been again,
somebody in his orbit that would have had some level
(05:56):
of concern about this person's mental stability, competency, whether or
not this individual needed true psychiatric care and help, and
whether or not somebody ignored those warning signs. Because there's
always going to be warning signs. This guy constructed if
you look at the video several pages worth of a manifesto,
(06:19):
and it's rambling. He's basically saying he's given up on life.
And I saw this from our friend Jody Calm, my
Facebook friend, and she's been on this program before.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
She's a comedian at least at one time was but
not being comic in this.
Speaker 4 (06:36):
Sense that our problem is these individuals have no sense
of worth, belonging faith, They don't believe in anything. They're nihilists, Nietzschee,
that sort of thing. God is dead, you know, they
have this dead ethos inside that there is no worth,
(06:56):
there's nothing worth living for. And this is kind of
what the shooter carried on with in this manifesto. What
I'll never understand is, Okay, that's sad, and that's that's awful,
but why don't you just take yourself out and then
we'll deal with that aftermath. And that's terrible, that's terrible,
but it's a lot less bad than going to a
church and just inflicting this kind of damage on somebody else.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
We had the story of Mark David Chapman.
Speaker 4 (07:22):
And you know, he's still alive, the assassin of John Lennon,
and they're asking him, you know why would he do this?
Speaker 3 (07:28):
Why did he kill John Lennon?
Speaker 4 (07:30):
He was waiting outside the Dakota where John Lennon lived
a very public life for a very prominent famous figure
like himself. Him and he and Yoko Ono. They'd walk around,
you know, New York City. And he actually signed an
autograph for Mark David Chapman earlier that day, and you
know about Catcher in the Rye in the book that
he had.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
And then he would kill John Lennon later that night.
And when they asked me, why did you do this?
Speaker 4 (07:54):
Like he wanted to do something that would inflict the
most harm, pain and damage to everyone in the world.
And I guess he just thought that by killing John Lennon,
this revered figure who was the antithesis of Mark David Chapman,
that he would accomplish that, and he did. I mean,
the world almost came to a stop. I was a
little boy when that happened. I remember it when it happened.
(08:15):
You're trying to get inside the mind of somebody that
you cannot possibly relate to or understand. How do you
understand that which cannot be understood? It's a difficult task.
I really advocate watching the series mind Hunter on Netflix.
It's a great show and it is based on a
true story in which they developed the FBI this unit
(08:36):
to identify and try to pick up on patterns with
serial killers and what motivates them and what is maybe
a common thread, what is a profile, and just the
name serial killer came out of that series of investigations.
They would sit down and they interviewed David Berkowitz, and
they interviewed Charles Manson, and they interviewed Ted Bundy. You know,
(08:56):
individuals like that to kind of come to these concl illusions.
So I don't think there's an easy answer. I think
the Democrats would have you believe that there's an easy answer.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
And Senator Amy.
Speaker 4 (09:06):
Klobachar here's some more from her in her interview earlier today,
senator from Minnesota on CNN.
Speaker 6 (09:12):
And I think part of what he's getting at here
is that there's thoughts and prayers, and then the law
enforcement does their job well, and they hospitals do their
job well, and they save some lives and people are injured.
Speaker 3 (09:26):
But there's a whole room of.
Speaker 6 (09:28):
Those kids in that church that are going to never
forget what happened. Hopefully they'll be able to get through it.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
In their own lives.
Speaker 6 (09:36):
But you think of that in other mass shootings, it's
the immediate death, it's the immediate family, but then it's
a whole community and ultimately it's an entire nation that
has to grap it with the fact of we have
too many guns out there right now?
Speaker 4 (09:50):
Do we have too many guns out there right now?
There are a lot of guns out there. I know
a lot of people with a lot of guns, and
they don't commit crimes like this, and they own and
operate those guns responsibly. So the answer is, because we
have a minuscule, fractional number of nut jobs that lose
(10:14):
control and use guns in this manner, that we should
take guns away from everybody, or from the law abiding,
or from the very people that one not only don't
commit these crimes, but may serve as a concealed carry holder,
to prevent these types of crimes, to respond in real
time to these types of crimes. Because I'm telling you this,
(10:35):
we live in the real world. We don't live in
fantasy land. We cannot live in a society where there
will be no guns because the bad guys are going
to have guns. So what you want to do then
is make those law abiding citizens like you and me
jump through a bunch of hoops, wait for a bunch
of time, background checks and whatever, because we follow the laws,
(10:55):
so put us at a disadvantage over those that simply
obtain their weapons illegally. Here, Klobachar tries to thread the
needle between respecting two A rights and taking them away.
Speaker 6 (11:08):
There's all kinds of policy things that we could do
that would still preserve people's right to hunt, people's right
to collect guns, peoples that care about guns for sport
and guns for protection.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
But at some.
Speaker 6 (11:22):
Point, when you see these innocent kids praying in a
church and they get gun down by a madman, you
have to step back and think.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
What can we do better the madman?
Speaker 6 (11:33):
Can we do better with background checks or with assault weapons,
which may not have played into this situation. Every situation
is different, and there are a number of things we
can do that would not hurt law abiding gun owners,
of which there are so many in our mid state
and in our country.
Speaker 3 (11:52):
What is the answer for that? We turned to p K.
Stein Mark Stevenson.
Speaker 4 (11:56):
She is the host of the Humanity Against Tyranny podcast
we are recording tonight. Rachel Maynes a local radio host
and a Christian radio station will be our guest. So
pik everything that you've heard about this case today. I
know you do your research in real time. I just
want you to respond to everything you've heard and what
your thoughts are on this matter.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
Well, I think we forget to take out the responsibility
of the government here and some of their projects they
have with this MK Alter and the CIA, these shootings,
it's always an outcast. It's already somebody way out there.
But even in the Columbine and even in the Reagan killing,
Hinkley and those boys in their family, there was a
(12:36):
CIA connection.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
Okay, they would be assassin of Ronald Reagan.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
Yes, Hinkley, he his father had CIA connection. One of
the boys and Columbine had CIA connections. And what I'm
saying is if you listen to there was even a
special on Netflix about this MK Alter and the CIA
connection to all of these shootings and these mass murders.
As you brought up Charles Manson, Okay, those were knives.
(13:03):
Those weren't guns, okay, And it's always the guns. This
whole thing about these mass shootings gets the public on
a movement to say, oh, get rid of the guns
and then nobody.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Will get killed. Wrong.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
If somebody wants to kill somebody, they'll find a way.
What we need to do is respect our constitution and
our right to bear arms with and not have it
be infringed. But to that some of these crazy people
that are out gasts that people and their families know
they have problems, and then follow their history and just
(13:43):
see about all of this new control of the minds
through the government.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
This is big right now, people. And this is not
a conspiracy theory.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
It's like I said, there are no conspiracy theory, that's
for sure.
Speaker 4 (13:58):
And there are a lot of times where an individual
like this law enforcement will say after that, well they
were on our radar, Well they are on your radar,
then what are you doing just waiting for this to happen.
It's frustrating. This text says AK forty seven is not
a band of firearm. I think you're thinking of an
M sixteen, which is basically a fully automatic AR fifteen.
All of that's correct, and you can own a g
(14:19):
AK forty seven. It's very difficult, though. You can't just
walk into a store and say, hey, I want that
AK forty seven Rambo.
Speaker 3 (14:26):
Style can I buy it?
Speaker 4 (14:27):
Well, there are a lot and I understand that that
type of weapon, it requires a little bit more in
the term the permitting process, et cetera.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 4 (14:38):
This is lutchka here, Derek Hai. These people feel that
those who have hope i e. Christians have taken their hope.
Maybe killing them is a revenge of sorts. Derek, You're
right on the money with that, because I think that's
what that was here today.
Speaker 3 (14:51):
This was a targeted killing. This was a hate crime.
Speaker 4 (14:55):
If you're going to define it that way, toward Catholics,
and this individual.
Speaker 3 (14:59):
Had a lot of dark in his heart and his life.
So PK, what would be your solution?
Speaker 1 (15:05):
Well, first of all, the fact about it being Catholic,
why would he choose a Catholic church? Because the Catholic
Church has gone way left and they're supportive of a
lot of these people who have these issues, these woke issues.
And so what I'm thinking is what would we do.
(15:26):
I would make sure that these guns are in the
you have to vet the people period have them. I
had to be vetted. What's wrong with vetting these people?
And these parents need to take more responsibility and you
have to start getting the parents and the households and
the families stronger within themselves so that these children aren't
(15:47):
out there running amuck, or these people grow up with
this attitude that they don't belong, you know. And we
could if the death penalty was there, that might be
a deterrent, they've said it is.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
We had the Aurora shooting victims here.
Speaker 3 (16:03):
Yeah, I did. You interviewed them, huh?
Speaker 1 (16:05):
And one was for the death penalty and one was
not for the death penalty because she wanted to see
him suffer more.
Speaker 3 (16:11):
Right. One thing to build upon the point that you
just made.
Speaker 4 (16:15):
Not far from where I hail, a Oxford High School
shooting in Michigan.
Speaker 3 (16:19):
They actually prosecuted the parents and.
Speaker 4 (16:21):
They were found guilty because of what you're talking about,
the neglect that they should have known that their son
was drawing these very violent images. They gave him a
gun anyway, they were negligent in that way. Should the
parents be held legally responsible?
Speaker 3 (16:34):
Like there? Would you agree with that?
Speaker 1 (16:36):
But I agree, yes, that there should be some type
of responsibility towards the parents who let these kids run
am up, you know, it's for example, and call them
by they were building these bombs.
Speaker 3 (16:47):
They saw him.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
The dad actually went out and got rid of some
of the bombs. He put them, set them off so
that they wouldn't be he couldn't use them. Okay, then
he comes back and uses them, builds.
Speaker 2 (16:59):
More and uses them. There's something wrong. I take it
that they took God out. First of all.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
Without God, you don't have a moral stance or a
moral guidance, or a moral guide for action and thought.
And the first thing the government did to control everybody.
They first take over, you know, they take God out
of everything, and then they take over the schools and
they start preaching their agenda, and one of them is
(17:25):
if they want to take over a country, you get rid.
Speaker 2 (17:27):
Of their guns.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
And these little whim these mushy mouth you know politicians
that they they they're lukewarm, and they ride the fence
and they want to play kid each side.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
They get nothing done for us. Period. They got to go.
Speaker 1 (17:42):
You have to realize that guns are a part of
the rights of a free society, and in that you
have to realize that people that own these guns have
to know how to use them, have to know about them,
and we have to be the people that stand for
laws that protect us to have guns and use them
wiseen because the bad guys are going to get.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
Them and we need them too.
Speaker 4 (18:05):
We are a nation of personal responsibility and individual rights, as.
Speaker 3 (18:08):
PK just enumerated, there a time.
Speaker 4 (18:09):
How we're back with more, including a lot of your
tax at five seven, seven thirty nine on Ryan Schuling Live.
What President Trump elucidates there, along with holding court with
the media, was the raid conducted on John Bolton's home
in search of classified documents.
Speaker 3 (18:32):
And he quickly pivoted.
Speaker 4 (18:33):
Back to the President to the raid on his own
home and mar A Lago for which it seemed CNN
was tipped off in the early morning hours. They were
reporting on it right away. And that's just kind of
scratching the surface, digging down deeper into it with a
book that comes out on September ninth. You can find
it on Amazon entitled Defiant Inside the mar A Lago
(18:54):
Raid and the Less Ongoing Lawfare. Our next guest Christina
Bob and the forward to this book written by Donald J. Trump,
the President himself. Christina, Welcome to Ryan Schuling Live.
Speaker 7 (19:05):
Hey, thanks so much for having me. I'm excited to hear.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
Well.
Speaker 4 (19:07):
Take us through how that happened that the President wrote
the forward for this book.
Speaker 8 (19:12):
Yeah, So I'm so excited to finally be able to
put the information out because, as you know, I was
taking notes and keeping track of everything that was happening,
but we couldn't talk about it because there was the
ongoing criminal case, and there.
Speaker 7 (19:23):
Was pending litigation, and you know, there's just.
Speaker 8 (19:26):
A lot of legal things happening, and so I wasn't
allowed to speak publicly about it.
Speaker 7 (19:30):
I was a staff attorney for President.
Speaker 8 (19:32):
Trump at at the time. I was on site during
the raid, and I was custodian of records for mar
A Lago. Prior to the raid, I met with the
Department of Justice, the FBI, the books, got the text
messages of the emails, everything you want to know about
the sequence of events, how what led up to the raid,
and then of course the rate itself was all in there,
but I wasn't allowed to put it out because of
(19:52):
all the ongoing litigation. And so once he won, I
scheduled a meeting with him and said, sir, you know
you're back in the Oval office, can I finally tell
everybody what actually happened? And she was so gracious and
kind and then agreed to do a forward to let
people know, like this actually is what happened. So yeah,
I'm thrilled. I think the readers are going to love it.
(20:14):
It's kind of mind boggling.
Speaker 4 (20:16):
Now the perspective from which you tell this story, Christina,
you kind of touched on it there, but people want
to know, you know, what happened on that day when
the FBI raided the home mar al Lago, the compound
really of Donald Trump, and what was the predicate for that?
Because we know there had been a disagreement over classified
documents and whether or not the president in this case,
(20:39):
Donald Trump had the ability, the authority of the capability
of declassifying that himself in real time.
Speaker 3 (20:45):
And possessed those documents.
Speaker 4 (20:46):
What we would find out later is that he was
far from the only president to do this.
Speaker 3 (20:50):
In fact, President Biden.
Speaker 4 (20:51):
Had a document scandal of his own, and others Mike
Pence had documents in his possession that were mark classified.
So what was the justification as the FBI described it
for this raid.
Speaker 8 (21:03):
Well, they didn't really have one. And I would offer
to you that that quote unquote disagreement never happened. It
wasn't between us.
Speaker 7 (21:09):
I mean, the Department of Justice and the Trump team
wasn't in you know.
Speaker 8 (21:14):
We weren't disagreeing at all. I mean, everybody was acting
under the assumption that Donald Trump had the lawful authority
to have everything he had. Whether his stuff was the
classified or declassified didn't matter. The Presidential Records Act allowed
the President to take whatever he wants as far as
documents go from the White House to wherever he's going
(21:34):
when he leaves the White House, And there's already been
a quote ruling on it that says it's the president
and only the president, not even the archivist, gets to
tell the president what he has to return. He gets
to keep it, even if it's classified. And so the
whole classification thing was a red herring made up by
the media that didn't exist in real life. So that
whole side of the story was just totally made up
(21:56):
by the last veil they were trying to create. This
is a thing I think people either forget or the
media never really covered it well at the time, was
that this whole thing they were trying to paint Donald
Trump as having a Hillary Clinton email.
Speaker 7 (22:10):
Asque type scandal because she had.
Speaker 8 (22:11):
That private server. Now we know call me. I had
a private server too, but they had a private server,
and they were trying to make it look like Donald Trump.
Speaker 7 (22:19):
Did something like that.
Speaker 8 (22:20):
And we know that that's what they were trying to
do because the original grand jury for the mar A
Lago case within Washington d C. I worked in Florida.
I lived in Florida. I met with friends in Trump
of Florida. I met with DOJ and the FBI in Florida.
I signed for the documents of the Florida I did
everything in Florida. But when I was subpoenad and forced
to testify, I had to go to Washington, d C.
Because they were trying to create some type of scandal
(22:40):
in DC, but they never developed probable cause for it.
They never had enough to even get an indictment of
Donald Trump and Washington DC. That's that's how little they had.
So they had to scramble because now the whole world
was looking at them, going, why the heck did you
raid mar A Lago?
Speaker 7 (22:55):
And so they had to.
Speaker 8 (22:56):
Scramble and shifted to a different grand jury Florida and
created a fake obstruction of justice case that really wasn't
ever going to go anywhere. Nobody expected it to go
anywhere because it I mean, it was a fake case,
but they needed it for the media.
Speaker 7 (23:11):
Coverage and then of course the helf heart.
Speaker 8 (23:14):
So by the time Jack Smith was appointed in November
of twenty twenty two, wills were falling off.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
I mean, I mean, in.
Speaker 8 (23:24):
Hindsight, you know, at the time, you don't know because
you've got the Department of Justice breathing down your back.
I had the FBI showing up with my as you know,
we're all being attacked and we're like, holy cow, what
are like, what is going on here? But looking back
at it now, you know, knowing what we know now,
they never had anything. They never had probable cause, and
I suspect there will be people going to jail for.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
What it is.
Speaker 1 (23:43):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (23:43):
A lot of this is detailed in her new book Defiant,
Inside the mar A Lago Rate and the Left Ongoing Lawfare,
available on September ninth. That's coming up quick, our guest,
Christina Bob the rate itself and how it was conducted. Christina,
this certainly had the appearance in pro wrestling they call
it kve fabe. It's the theater of it all, and
(24:04):
that the Trump team, including yourself, was being cooperative and
was going to allow them into whatever portion of the
compound Mari Lago that they wanted to access, right and
yet they went ahead and went over the top with
how they were accessing rooms. You're saying that they were
breaking locks despite being offered keys to get into more
of those details if you went forest place.
Speaker 7 (24:24):
Yeah, no. So we met with them at lar Alago
two months prior to the raid, and it was.
Speaker 8 (24:29):
Very cordial, very nice. President Trump came by himself and said,
you know, you can see whatever you want. He gave
the defense So I was the custodian of records. I
was not on the defense team.
Speaker 7 (24:39):
I was more of a witness in a witness type capacity.
Speaker 8 (24:43):
And then you had the defense team, and he specifically
gave instructions to the lead defense attorney. He said, make
sure they can see whatever they want. And the defense
attorney said, what do you want to see? And see
whatever you want?
Speaker 7 (24:54):
You know, we gave them the tour.
Speaker 8 (24:56):
And then when it was over, we said, okay, is
there anything else and they said no, you know that
you answered all our questions. Thank you, and okay, well
you need anything else, just let us know and they say, okay,
thank you, and then they raided someplace. We were like,
what on earth is going on?
Speaker 7 (25:09):
How did we go from?
Speaker 8 (25:11):
You know, we don't really know what you're looking for
or what you want or what problem you think exists,
but you can see whatever you want to. They went
to a conflicted judge who, by his own admission, could
not be impartial. Just weeks prior to this, you know,
he accused himself saying he couldn't be impartial in a
Trump case. And then he granted the search warrant that
had an acci day. But where they lied to the court,
(25:33):
they did not bother to tell the court that President
Trump had told them, to their faith, that she would
cooperate and give them access to anything. So they created
a fake scenario. And then I mean, there was nothing
for them to recover there, genuinely, just was nothing at
mar A Lago for them to take. They end up
taking Roger Clemons.
Speaker 7 (25:52):
Not Roger Clemons, Roger Stone's sorry.
Speaker 8 (25:54):
Sorry Roger Roger Stone's clemency packet.
Speaker 7 (25:57):
Then in that place that's an embarrassing tosic.
Speaker 8 (26:00):
But Roger Stone's clements Bay like doesn't even matter, you know,
why why aren't they taking that? They took its passports,
they took his medical records. I mean, they took all
kinds of stuff that really wasn't criminal. They were trying
to create the.
Speaker 7 (26:15):
Appearance of a crime, and they're just there wasn't anything there.
Speaker 4 (26:18):
If I'm not mistaken, Roger Clemens is a Trump supporter,
so that might have slipped. I think.
Speaker 8 (26:22):
So it doesn't need clement.
Speaker 4 (26:25):
No, Christina bob Ourda, author of Defiant, There's just one
more thing I want you to respond to. This is
over this past week, Christina, at this gathering, a summit
of swords in Minnesota, the DNC chair Ken Martin with
this banger.
Speaker 9 (26:38):
Now, look, folks, I'm sick and tired of this Democratic.
Speaker 3 (26:42):
Party bringing a pencil to a knife fight. We cannot
be the only party that plays by the rules anymore.
We've got to stand up and fight. We're not going
to have a hand tied behind our back anymore. Let's
grow a damn spote and get into fight.
Speaker 4 (26:56):
Democrats, Christina is the Democratic Party, the only party that
played by the rules anymore.
Speaker 8 (27:01):
They're all insane. What I can tell you right now
as we're having this conversation, I am still a criminal
defendant in Arizona, they are still prosecuting Trump supporters, Trump associates.
Rudy Giuliani is a co defendant of mine, Mark Meadows,
Mike Roman, Bors Epstein, John Eastman. They're still coming after us. Yes,
Donald Trump has been dropped from the cases because you know,
(27:23):
he's now the president, but they are still trying to
throw us in prison. So this whole idea of oh,
they're weaponizing.
Speaker 7 (27:29):
The justice system, No, we're not.
Speaker 8 (27:31):
We're finally fighting back and we're trying to get you
guys off.
Speaker 7 (27:35):
Our but not you. But like you know, the liberals
were trying to get you off our backs. Give us
the freedom to have our own opinions, and they keep
trying to throw us in prison.
Speaker 8 (27:44):
So whenever these liberals are like, oh, Christina, Donald Trump's
weaponizing the justice system. Hey, you want us to lay
down our arms, you go first? Charges against me?
Speaker 7 (27:53):
You know, you go first.
Speaker 4 (27:55):
Well, she is going first with this book and it's
forward is written by the President himself, Donald J. Trump,
entitled Defiant Inside the mar A Lago Raid and the
Left's Ongoing Law Fair. It is out in hardcover on
September ninth, including on Amazon. She is Christina Bob the
author and in the Trump Orbit. Such a fascinating look inside. Christina.
(28:15):
Thank you so much for joining us here today, and
we appreciate you writing this book and telling the full story.
Speaker 3 (28:20):
Thank you so much for having me take this time out.
Speaker 4 (28:23):
We'll come back remembering Rush to close out today's show.
P K Stein Mark Stevenson still here as well on
Ryan Schuling Live.
Speaker 9 (28:35):
For twenty five years, I've been trying to explain liberalism
to people. I've come up with as many different ways
as to explain it as I've engaged in. Let's put
it this way, and by no means is this the
best of the final I'm going to be struggling with
this for as long as I do this.
Speaker 2 (28:53):
What liberals want.
Speaker 3 (28:56):
Will never happen on its own.
Speaker 9 (29:00):
People will not live the way liberals want if left
to their own devices, because people will not build walls
to keep themselves in places that they don't want to be,
such as the Soviet Union, such as China, such as Cuba.
Those places are all run by liberals, you call them
(29:24):
communists or socialists or whatever. Left to their own devices
in a free country, people will not choose liberalism. They
want to eat salt, They'll eat it if they want
to eat trans fats, they'll eat it.
Speaker 3 (29:40):
If they want to eat beef, they'll eat it.
Speaker 9 (29:43):
The only way liberals can get you to live the
way they want you to is to deny you freedom
to do what you want to do. And they're not
happy with you living and thinking in ways other than
the way they live and think you must conform. If
(30:05):
you dare speak outside the acceptable liberal norms, they're going
to come after you. They're going to do their best
to destroy whoever does that so that that person or
group of people will not persuade others. Liberals cannot survive
in an unrigged contest in the arena of ideas. And
(30:28):
they are not about ideas. Liberals are not about choice.
They are about imposition. The way they live, the way
they believe must be imposed on people, otherwise they won't
do it on their own. It's taken them fifty sixty
(30:50):
years to get to this point of conditioning people of
taking whole the education system, the university, academia system, the media.
It's taken a long time to condition people not to
stand up for themselves, not to exercise freedom, not to
speak outside the acceptable norms.
Speaker 4 (31:11):
After what is political correctness? But speech censorship is all
it is remembering Rush our Wednesday installment, and as always
Rush was right, and some of what he said rings
true today. It is what I was saying to begin
this program that unless you're forced into this crucible of
order and these confines around you that you submit to,
(31:31):
that you surrender your freedoms, your liberties.
Speaker 3 (31:34):
You're never going to choose that.
Speaker 4 (31:35):
But when you're assured that you're going to have some
level of comfort, some level of protection, then you might
be tricked into.
Speaker 3 (31:43):
Agreeing to hand over your rights. When did we do that?
Speaker 4 (31:47):
COVID, the mandates, the masks, the vaccines so called, and
they forced us into submission quickly. Pete k Stein, Mark Stevenson,
She's got a podcast coming up tonight, Humanity Against Tyranny.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
What's coming up? I'm that pk oh.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
Well, we're excited to interview Rachel Mayines.
Speaker 3 (32:04):
Yes, and she's all.
Speaker 1 (32:05):
Things media and communication and she has a Corner Cafe
podcast and she spreads the Gospel of Jesus.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
And I'm so excited interviewer.
Speaker 3 (32:16):
I'm excited to have you interviewed.
Speaker 4 (32:18):
You heard too, because you interviewed Christian Toto last week
on the podcast people can pick that up as well.
And you asked him a question that really made him
think about his faith that he hadn't really thought about.
So you want to have thought provoking conversations. Listen to
PK coming up on Humanity Against Tyranny. We record tonight
and that podcast will be posted this evening. PK, thanks
for being here, Srey, thanks to all of you. Sheriff
(32:39):
Steve Riems Next
It was really disturbing to hear what the man we
heard from from.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
The affiliate said about how.
Speaker 3 (00:06):
Long it went on.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
He said, there were several minutes. Now we don't know
if that was just from the.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Shooter or law enforcement had arrived by then, or the
circumstances around that, but he said it sounded like the
gun was reloaded several times.
Speaker 4 (00:18):
It seemed like a rifle, he said, a semi automatic rifle.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
And it went on for several minutes.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
Right, And that's an uncommon as well.
Speaker 5 (00:26):
These things can shoot dozens of bullets.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
You know, in just one trigger pull right and so wrong.
Speaker 5 (00:33):
What happens in this case is sometimes they have enough
time to reload. It's one of the most horrific things
for students to be sitting there. You saw this in Uvalde,
You see this in new Town repeatedly, where a shooter
has enough time to reload. And the horrific nature of
this is, you know, for little kids to be facing this,
it's just.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
Too much to think about.
Speaker 4 (00:52):
Yeah, absolutely, did he have to reload or Evan Perez,
CNN Senior Justice correspondent, By the way, was this shooter
able to fire off dozens of bullets with one trigger pull.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
Well, that's called an automatic weapon.
Speaker 4 (01:11):
That would be a machine gun, that would be an
AK forty seven, and those are banned.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
You can only lose them.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
Under very special, specific circumstances. A semi automatic weapon is
exactly that. It's not automatic. It's semi automatic, and what
that means. It's very easy to comprehend, even for the
senior Justice correspondent of CNN, Evan Perez.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
One trigger pull, one bullet. That's it.
Speaker 4 (01:39):
No, you don't get dozens of bullets off fired with
one trigger pull. That is false. That is a fake news.
That is exactly wrong. And for CNN to continue to
perpetrate these myths about guns doesn't help the matter. Emotions
should not trump logic should not trump facts. In this case,
(02:03):
and as always with this individual, the suspect who is
now dead from a self inflicted gunshot wound, there were
warning signs.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
There had to have been.
Speaker 4 (02:13):
If we have a mental health crisis in this country,
and it is the mentally disturbed, the mentally.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
Ill who carry out these shootings.
Speaker 4 (02:19):
This is never like a level headed, sane, rational, reasonable individual.
The question then becomes, how do we handle this, how
do we respond to it? How do we react to
it as a society, as a free country that values
our freedoms that are enumerated in our constitution. We'll have
our Remembering Rush segment coming up later this hour, as
(02:40):
we will each and every Wednesday. But if you call
back to last week, what the Constitution does. It's a
brilliant document and perhaps the greatest ever conceived of and
designed by humans on this planet, maybe short of the Bible,
but since then, certainly it is better than the Magna
cart because.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
What does it do.
Speaker 4 (03:00):
It outlines and enumerates rights of the individual, and it
spells out what the government cannot do to us, cannot
do to us, cannot infringe upon. With regard to our rights,
that all men were created equal. Every individual who is
an American citizen holds these rights, and they are viewed
to be self evident. And one of those rights that
(03:22):
they felt was most important, based on the times in
which they lived, the tyranny which they faced and had
to overcome and overthrow through a revolution and armed revolution
a war. The second one on their list of amendments, too,
said Constitution, was the right to keep in bare arms,
and that it shall not be infringed, and that is
(03:43):
an individual right, So under what circumstances? This is the
question that I asked to Alicia Garcia, and I think
it's a difficult one because I can see both sides
of this argument.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
Should there be any circumstance, any bar that.
Speaker 4 (03:56):
Can be raised in a court of law where an
individu has the right the presumption of innocence, that evidence
must be provided proof that such an individual is no
longer mentally fit, stable capable of owning guns in this society.
And it's just it's a difficult road to hoe because
(04:20):
what is that line, what is that standard? We've heard
about stories where and I've heard about many of these
where a disaffected former companion, lover wife girlfriend says this
guy's crazy, he shouldn't have guns. So it's like he
gets hauled into court and then he's like, well, I'm
not crazy. Well how do you prove that? How do
you prove that you're not crazy or you're not mentally insane?
(04:42):
Where's the proof and who has to prove it? So
Alicia just basically give the the argument, and it's a
good one that the red flag laws, even as they
are intended, do not work, are not effective. They were
not effective in the Club Q shooting, in which if
you're going to have a red flag law, by god,
that nutjob should have had his guns revoked under the law.
(05:07):
There was a video of that individual, I think, in
some form of a standoff with police in his home,
barricaded in a room, and yet somehow this individual still
possessed those firearms. So, if you're going to have a
red flag law and it doesn't even work in an
instance like that, and what are you doing here?
Speaker 3 (05:24):
Why even have it? Why have it?
Speaker 4 (05:26):
Why infringe upon the rights of individuals when you can't
target that for those who.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
Would do harm to others.
Speaker 4 (05:34):
Now, the other part of this would be prevention that
this individual who carried out this shooting today in Minneapolis
at a Catholic church last school, killed two children, injured
seventeen others, and killed himself, that there wouldn't have been again,
somebody in his orbit that would have had some level
(05:56):
of concern about this person's mental stability, competency, whether or
not this individual needed true psychiatric care and help, and
whether or not somebody ignored those warning signs. Because there's
always going to be warning signs. This guy constructed if
you look at the video several pages worth of a manifesto,
(06:19):
and it's rambling. He's basically saying he's given up on life.
And I saw this from our friend Jody Calm, my
Facebook friend, and she's been on this program before.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
She's a comedian at least at one time was but
not being comic in this.
Speaker 4 (06:36):
Sense that our problem is these individuals have no sense
of worth, belonging faith, They don't believe in anything. They're nihilists, Nietzschee,
that sort of thing. God is dead, you know, they
have this dead ethos inside that there is no worth,
(06:56):
there's nothing worth living for. And this is kind of
what the shooter carried on with in this manifesto. What
I'll never understand is, Okay, that's sad, and that's that's awful,
but why don't you just take yourself out and then
we'll deal with that aftermath. And that's terrible, that's terrible,
but it's a lot less bad than going to a
church and just inflicting this kind of damage on somebody else.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
We had the story of Mark David Chapman.
Speaker 4 (07:22):
And you know, he's still alive, the assassin of John Lennon,
and they're asking him, you know why would he do this?
Speaker 3 (07:28):
Why did he kill John Lennon?
Speaker 4 (07:30):
He was waiting outside the Dakota where John Lennon lived
a very public life for a very prominent famous figure
like himself. Him and he and Yoko Ono. They'd walk around,
you know, New York City. And he actually signed an
autograph for Mark David Chapman earlier that day, and you
know about Catcher in the Rye in the book that
he had.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
And then he would kill John Lennon later that night.
And when they asked me, why did you do this?
Speaker 4 (07:54):
Like he wanted to do something that would inflict the
most harm, pain and damage to everyone in the world.
And I guess he just thought that by killing John Lennon,
this revered figure who was the antithesis of Mark David Chapman,
that he would accomplish that, and he did. I mean,
the world almost came to a stop. I was a
little boy when that happened. I remember it when it happened.
(08:15):
You're trying to get inside the mind of somebody that
you cannot possibly relate to or understand. How do you
understand that which cannot be understood? It's a difficult task.
I really advocate watching the series mind Hunter on Netflix.
It's a great show and it is based on a
true story in which they developed the FBI this unit
(08:36):
to identify and try to pick up on patterns with
serial killers and what motivates them and what is maybe
a common thread, what is a profile, and just the
name serial killer came out of that series of investigations.
They would sit down and they interviewed David Berkowitz, and
they interviewed Charles Manson, and they interviewed Ted Bundy. You know,
(08:56):
individuals like that to kind of come to these concl illusions.
So I don't think there's an easy answer. I think
the Democrats would have you believe that there's an easy answer.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
And Senator Amy.
Speaker 4 (09:06):
Klobachar here's some more from her in her interview earlier today,
senator from Minnesota on CNN.
Speaker 6 (09:12):
And I think part of what he's getting at here
is that there's thoughts and prayers, and then the law
enforcement does their job well, and they hospitals do their
job well, and they save some lives and people are injured.
Speaker 3 (09:26):
But there's a whole room of.
Speaker 6 (09:28):
Those kids in that church that are going to never
forget what happened. Hopefully they'll be able to get through it.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
In their own lives.
Speaker 6 (09:36):
But you think of that in other mass shootings, it's
the immediate death, it's the immediate family, but then it's
a whole community and ultimately it's an entire nation that
has to grap it with the fact of we have
too many guns out there right now?
Speaker 4 (09:50):
Do we have too many guns out there right now?
There are a lot of guns out there. I know
a lot of people with a lot of guns, and
they don't commit crimes like this, and they own and
operate those guns responsibly. So the answer is, because we
have a minuscule, fractional number of nut jobs that lose
(10:14):
control and use guns in this manner, that we should
take guns away from everybody, or from the law abiding,
or from the very people that one not only don't
commit these crimes, but may serve as a concealed carry holder,
to prevent these types of crimes, to respond in real
time to these types of crimes. Because I'm telling you this,
(10:35):
we live in the real world. We don't live in
fantasy land. We cannot live in a society where there
will be no guns because the bad guys are going
to have guns. So what you want to do then
is make those law abiding citizens like you and me
jump through a bunch of hoops, wait for a bunch
of time, background checks and whatever, because we follow the laws,
(10:55):
so put us at a disadvantage over those that simply
obtain their weapons illegally. Here, Klobachar tries to thread the
needle between respecting two A rights and taking them away.
Speaker 6 (11:08):
There's all kinds of policy things that we could do
that would still preserve people's right to hunt, people's right
to collect guns, peoples that care about guns for sport
and guns for protection.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
But at some.
Speaker 6 (11:22):
Point, when you see these innocent kids praying in a
church and they get gun down by a madman, you
have to step back and think.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
What can we do better the madman?
Speaker 6 (11:33):
Can we do better with background checks or with assault weapons,
which may not have played into this situation. Every situation
is different, and there are a number of things we
can do that would not hurt law abiding gun owners,
of which there are so many in our mid state
and in our country.
Speaker 3 (11:52):
What is the answer for that? We turned to p K.
Stein Mark Stevenson.
Speaker 4 (11:56):
She is the host of the Humanity Against Tyranny podcast
we are recording tonight. Rachel Maynes a local radio host
and a Christian radio station will be our guest. So
pik everything that you've heard about this case today. I
know you do your research in real time. I just
want you to respond to everything you've heard and what
your thoughts are on this matter.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
Well, I think we forget to take out the responsibility
of the government here and some of their projects they
have with this MK Alter and the CIA, these shootings,
it's always an outcast. It's already somebody way out there.
But even in the Columbine and even in the Reagan killing,
Hinkley and those boys in their family, there was a
(12:36):
CIA connection.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
Okay, they would be assassin of Ronald Reagan.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
Yes, Hinkley, he his father had CIA connection. One of
the boys and Columbine had CIA connections. And what I'm
saying is if you listen to there was even a
special on Netflix about this MK Alter and the CIA
connection to all of these shootings and these mass murders.
As you brought up Charles Manson, Okay, those were knives.
(13:03):
Those weren't guns, okay, And it's always the guns. This
whole thing about these mass shootings gets the public on
a movement to say, oh, get rid of the guns
and then nobody.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Will get killed. Wrong.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
If somebody wants to kill somebody, they'll find a way.
What we need to do is respect our constitution and
our right to bear arms with and not have it
be infringed. But to that some of these crazy people
that are out gasts that people and their families know
they have problems, and then follow their history and just
(13:43):
see about all of this new control of the minds
through the government.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
This is big right now, people. And this is not
a conspiracy theory.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
It's like I said, there are no conspiracy theory, that's
for sure.
Speaker 4 (13:58):
And there are a lot of times where an individual
like this law enforcement will say after that, well they
were on our radar, Well they are on your radar,
then what are you doing just waiting for this to happen.
It's frustrating. This text says AK forty seven is not
a band of firearm. I think you're thinking of an
M sixteen, which is basically a fully automatic AR fifteen.
All of that's correct, and you can own a g
(14:19):
AK forty seven. It's very difficult, though. You can't just
walk into a store and say, hey, I want that
AK forty seven Rambo.
Speaker 3 (14:26):
Style can I buy it?
Speaker 4 (14:27):
Well, there are a lot and I understand that that
type of weapon, it requires a little bit more in
the term the permitting process, et cetera.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 4 (14:38):
This is lutchka here, Derek Hai. These people feel that
those who have hope i e. Christians have taken their hope.
Maybe killing them is a revenge of sorts. Derek, You're
right on the money with that, because I think that's
what that was here today.
Speaker 3 (14:51):
This was a targeted killing. This was a hate crime.
Speaker 4 (14:55):
If you're going to define it that way, toward Catholics,
and this individual.
Speaker 3 (14:59):
Had a lot of dark in his heart and his life.
So PK, what would be your solution?
Speaker 1 (15:05):
Well, first of all, the fact about it being Catholic,
why would he choose a Catholic church? Because the Catholic
Church has gone way left and they're supportive of a
lot of these people who have these issues, these woke issues.
And so what I'm thinking is what would we do.
(15:26):
I would make sure that these guns are in the
you have to vet the people period have them. I
had to be vetted. What's wrong with vetting these people?
And these parents need to take more responsibility and you
have to start getting the parents and the households and
the families stronger within themselves so that these children aren't
(15:47):
out there running amuck, or these people grow up with
this attitude that they don't belong, you know. And we
could if the death penalty was there, that might be
a deterrent, they've said it is.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
We had the Aurora shooting victims here.
Speaker 3 (16:03):
Yeah, I did. You interviewed them, huh?
Speaker 1 (16:05):
And one was for the death penalty and one was
not for the death penalty because she wanted to see
him suffer more.
Speaker 3 (16:11):
Right. One thing to build upon the point that you
just made.
Speaker 4 (16:15):
Not far from where I hail, a Oxford High School
shooting in Michigan.
Speaker 3 (16:19):
They actually prosecuted the parents and.
Speaker 4 (16:21):
They were found guilty because of what you're talking about,
the neglect that they should have known that their son
was drawing these very violent images. They gave him a
gun anyway, they were negligent in that way. Should the
parents be held legally responsible?
Speaker 3 (16:34):
Like there? Would you agree with that?
Speaker 1 (16:36):
But I agree, yes, that there should be some type
of responsibility towards the parents who let these kids run
am up, you know, it's for example, and call them
by they were building these bombs.
Speaker 3 (16:47):
They saw him.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
The dad actually went out and got rid of some
of the bombs. He put them, set them off so
that they wouldn't be he couldn't use them. Okay, then
he comes back and uses them, builds.
Speaker 2 (16:59):
More and uses them. There's something wrong. I take it
that they took God out. First of all.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
Without God, you don't have a moral stance or a
moral guidance, or a moral guide for action and thought.
And the first thing the government did to control everybody.
They first take over, you know, they take God out
of everything, and then they take over the schools and
they start preaching their agenda, and one of them is
(17:25):
if they want to take over a country, you get rid.
Speaker 2 (17:27):
Of their guns.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
And these little whim these mushy mouth you know politicians
that they they they're lukewarm, and they ride the fence
and they want to play kid each side.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
They get nothing done for us. Period. They got to go.
Speaker 1 (17:42):
You have to realize that guns are a part of
the rights of a free society, and in that you
have to realize that people that own these guns have
to know how to use them, have to know about them,
and we have to be the people that stand for
laws that protect us to have guns and use them
wiseen because the bad guys are going to get.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
Them and we need them too.
Speaker 4 (18:05):
We are a nation of personal responsibility and individual rights, as.
Speaker 3 (18:08):
PK just enumerated, there a time.
Speaker 4 (18:09):
How we're back with more, including a lot of your
tax at five seven, seven thirty nine on Ryan Schuling Live.
What President Trump elucidates there, along with holding court with
the media, was the raid conducted on John Bolton's home
in search of classified documents.
Speaker 3 (18:32):
And he quickly pivoted.
Speaker 4 (18:33):
Back to the President to the raid on his own
home and mar A Lago for which it seemed CNN
was tipped off in the early morning hours. They were
reporting on it right away. And that's just kind of
scratching the surface, digging down deeper into it with a
book that comes out on September ninth. You can find
it on Amazon entitled Defiant Inside the mar A Lago
(18:54):
Raid and the Less Ongoing Lawfare. Our next guest Christina
Bob and the forward to this book written by Donald J. Trump,
the President himself. Christina, Welcome to Ryan Schuling Live.
Speaker 7 (19:05):
Hey, thanks so much for having me. I'm excited to hear.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
Well.
Speaker 4 (19:07):
Take us through how that happened that the President wrote
the forward for this book.
Speaker 8 (19:12):
Yeah, So I'm so excited to finally be able to
put the information out because, as you know, I was
taking notes and keeping track of everything that was happening,
but we couldn't talk about it because there was the
ongoing criminal case, and there.
Speaker 7 (19:23):
Was pending litigation, and you know, there's just.
Speaker 8 (19:26):
A lot of legal things happening, and so I wasn't
allowed to speak publicly about it.
Speaker 7 (19:30):
I was a staff attorney for President.
Speaker 8 (19:32):
Trump at at the time. I was on site during
the raid, and I was custodian of records for mar
A Lago. Prior to the raid, I met with the
Department of Justice, the FBI, the books, got the text
messages of the emails, everything you want to know about
the sequence of events, how what led up to the raid,
and then of course the rate itself was all in there,
but I wasn't allowed to put it out because of
(19:52):
all the ongoing litigation. And so once he won, I
scheduled a meeting with him and said, sir, you know
you're back in the Oval office, can I finally tell
everybody what actually happened? And she was so gracious and
kind and then agreed to do a forward to let
people know, like this actually is what happened. So yeah,
I'm thrilled. I think the readers are going to love it.
(20:14):
It's kind of mind boggling.
Speaker 4 (20:16):
Now the perspective from which you tell this story, Christina,
you kind of touched on it there, but people want
to know, you know, what happened on that day when
the FBI raided the home mar al Lago, the compound
really of Donald Trump, and what was the predicate for that?
Because we know there had been a disagreement over classified
documents and whether or not the president in this case,
(20:39):
Donald Trump had the ability, the authority of the capability
of declassifying that himself in real time.
Speaker 3 (20:45):
And possessed those documents.
Speaker 4 (20:46):
What we would find out later is that he was
far from the only president to do this.
Speaker 3 (20:50):
In fact, President Biden.
Speaker 4 (20:51):
Had a document scandal of his own, and others Mike
Pence had documents in his possession that were mark classified.
So what was the justification as the FBI described it
for this raid.
Speaker 8 (21:03):
Well, they didn't really have one. And I would offer
to you that that quote unquote disagreement never happened. It
wasn't between us.
Speaker 7 (21:09):
I mean, the Department of Justice and the Trump team
wasn't in you know.
Speaker 8 (21:14):
We weren't disagreeing at all. I mean, everybody was acting
under the assumption that Donald Trump had the lawful authority
to have everything he had. Whether his stuff was the
classified or declassified didn't matter. The Presidential Records Act allowed
the President to take whatever he wants as far as
documents go from the White House to wherever he's going
(21:34):
when he leaves the White House, And there's already been
a quote ruling on it that says it's the president
and only the president, not even the archivist, gets to
tell the president what he has to return. He gets
to keep it, even if it's classified. And so the
whole classification thing was a red herring made up by
the media that didn't exist in real life. So that
whole side of the story was just totally made up
(21:56):
by the last veil they were trying to create. This
is a thing I think people either forget or the
media never really covered it well at the time, was
that this whole thing they were trying to paint Donald
Trump as having a Hillary Clinton email.
Speaker 7 (22:10):
Asque type scandal because she had.
Speaker 8 (22:11):
That private server. Now we know call me. I had
a private server too, but they had a private server,
and they were trying to make it look like Donald Trump.
Speaker 7 (22:19):
Did something like that.
Speaker 8 (22:20):
And we know that that's what they were trying to
do because the original grand jury for the mar A
Lago case within Washington d C. I worked in Florida.
I lived in Florida. I met with friends in Trump
of Florida. I met with DOJ and the FBI in Florida.
I signed for the documents of the Florida I did
everything in Florida. But when I was subpoenad and forced
to testify, I had to go to Washington, d C.
Because they were trying to create some type of scandal
(22:40):
in DC, but they never developed probable cause for it.
They never had enough to even get an indictment of
Donald Trump and Washington DC. That's that's how little they had.
So they had to scramble because now the whole world
was looking at them, going, why the heck did you
raid mar A Lago?
Speaker 7 (22:55):
And so they had to.
Speaker 8 (22:56):
Scramble and shifted to a different grand jury Florida and
created a fake obstruction of justice case that really wasn't
ever going to go anywhere. Nobody expected it to go
anywhere because it I mean, it was a fake case,
but they needed it for the media.
Speaker 7 (23:11):
Coverage and then of course the helf heart.
Speaker 8 (23:14):
So by the time Jack Smith was appointed in November
of twenty twenty two, wills were falling off.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
I mean, I mean, in.
Speaker 8 (23:24):
Hindsight, you know, at the time, you don't know because
you've got the Department of Justice breathing down your back.
I had the FBI showing up with my as you know,
we're all being attacked and we're like, holy cow, what
are like, what is going on here? But looking back
at it now, you know, knowing what we know now,
they never had anything. They never had probable cause, and
I suspect there will be people going to jail for.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
What it is.
Speaker 1 (23:43):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (23:43):
A lot of this is detailed in her new book Defiant,
Inside the mar A Lago Rate and the Left Ongoing Lawfare,
available on September ninth. That's coming up quick, our guest,
Christina Bob the rate itself and how it was conducted. Christina,
this certainly had the appearance in pro wrestling they call
it kve fabe. It's the theater of it all, and
(24:04):
that the Trump team, including yourself, was being cooperative and
was going to allow them into whatever portion of the
compound Mari Lago that they wanted to access, right and
yet they went ahead and went over the top with
how they were accessing rooms. You're saying that they were
breaking locks despite being offered keys to get into more
of those details if you went forest place.
Speaker 7 (24:24):
Yeah, no. So we met with them at lar Alago
two months prior to the raid, and it was.
Speaker 8 (24:29):
Very cordial, very nice. President Trump came by himself and said,
you know, you can see whatever you want. He gave
the defense So I was the custodian of records. I
was not on the defense team.
Speaker 7 (24:39):
I was more of a witness in a witness type capacity.
Speaker 8 (24:43):
And then you had the defense team, and he specifically
gave instructions to the lead defense attorney. He said, make
sure they can see whatever they want. And the defense
attorney said, what do you want to see? And see
whatever you want?
Speaker 7 (24:54):
You know, we gave them the tour.
Speaker 8 (24:56):
And then when it was over, we said, okay, is
there anything else and they said no, you know that
you answered all our questions. Thank you, and okay, well
you need anything else, just let us know and they say, okay,
thank you, and then they raided someplace. We were like,
what on earth is going on?
Speaker 7 (25:09):
How did we go from?
Speaker 8 (25:11):
You know, we don't really know what you're looking for
or what you want or what problem you think exists,
but you can see whatever you want to. They went
to a conflicted judge who, by his own admission, could
not be impartial. Just weeks prior to this, you know,
he accused himself saying he couldn't be impartial in a
Trump case. And then he granted the search warrant that
had an acci day. But where they lied to the court,
(25:33):
they did not bother to tell the court that President
Trump had told them, to their faith, that she would
cooperate and give them access to anything. So they created
a fake scenario. And then I mean, there was nothing
for them to recover there, genuinely, just was nothing at
mar A Lago for them to take. They end up
taking Roger Clemons.
Speaker 7 (25:52):
Not Roger Clemons, Roger Stone's sorry.
Speaker 8 (25:54):
Sorry Roger Roger Stone's clemency packet.
Speaker 7 (25:57):
Then in that place that's an embarrassing tosic.
Speaker 8 (26:00):
But Roger Stone's clements Bay like doesn't even matter, you know,
why why aren't they taking that? They took its passports,
they took his medical records. I mean, they took all
kinds of stuff that really wasn't criminal. They were trying
to create the.
Speaker 7 (26:15):
Appearance of a crime, and they're just there wasn't anything there.
Speaker 4 (26:18):
If I'm not mistaken, Roger Clemens is a Trump supporter,
so that might have slipped. I think.
Speaker 8 (26:22):
So it doesn't need clement.
Speaker 4 (26:25):
No, Christina bob Ourda, author of Defiant, There's just one
more thing I want you to respond to. This is
over this past week, Christina, at this gathering, a summit
of swords in Minnesota, the DNC chair Ken Martin with
this banger.
Speaker 9 (26:38):
Now, look, folks, I'm sick and tired of this Democratic.
Speaker 3 (26:42):
Party bringing a pencil to a knife fight. We cannot
be the only party that plays by the rules anymore.
We've got to stand up and fight. We're not going
to have a hand tied behind our back anymore. Let's
grow a damn spote and get into fight.
Speaker 4 (26:56):
Democrats, Christina is the Democratic Party, the only party that
played by the rules anymore.
Speaker 8 (27:01):
They're all insane. What I can tell you right now
as we're having this conversation, I am still a criminal
defendant in Arizona, they are still prosecuting Trump supporters, Trump associates.
Rudy Giuliani is a co defendant of mine, Mark Meadows,
Mike Roman, Bors Epstein, John Eastman. They're still coming after us. Yes,
Donald Trump has been dropped from the cases because you know,
(27:23):
he's now the president, but they are still trying to
throw us in prison. So this whole idea of oh,
they're weaponizing.
Speaker 7 (27:29):
The justice system, No, we're not.
Speaker 8 (27:31):
We're finally fighting back and we're trying to get you
guys off.
Speaker 7 (27:35):
Our but not you. But like you know, the liberals
were trying to get you off our backs. Give us
the freedom to have our own opinions, and they keep
trying to throw us in prison.
Speaker 8 (27:44):
So whenever these liberals are like, oh, Christina, Donald Trump's
weaponizing the justice system. Hey, you want us to lay
down our arms, you go first? Charges against me?
Speaker 7 (27:53):
You know, you go first.
Speaker 4 (27:55):
Well, she is going first with this book and it's
forward is written by the President himself, Donald J. Trump,
entitled Defiant Inside the mar A Lago Raid and the
Left's Ongoing Law Fair. It is out in hardcover on
September ninth, including on Amazon. She is Christina Bob the
author and in the Trump Orbit. Such a fascinating look inside. Christina.
(28:15):
Thank you so much for joining us here today, and
we appreciate you writing this book and telling the full story.
Speaker 3 (28:20):
Thank you so much for having me take this time out.
Speaker 4 (28:23):
We'll come back remembering Rush to close out today's show.
P K Stein Mark Stevenson still here as well on
Ryan Schuling Live.
Speaker 9 (28:35):
For twenty five years, I've been trying to explain liberalism
to people. I've come up with as many different ways
as to explain it as I've engaged in. Let's put
it this way, and by no means is this the
best of the final I'm going to be struggling with
this for as long as I do this.
Speaker 2 (28:53):
What liberals want.
Speaker 3 (28:56):
Will never happen on its own.
Speaker 9 (29:00):
People will not live the way liberals want if left
to their own devices, because people will not build walls
to keep themselves in places that they don't want to be,
such as the Soviet Union, such as China, such as Cuba.
Those places are all run by liberals, you call them
(29:24):
communists or socialists or whatever. Left to their own devices
in a free country, people will not choose liberalism. They
want to eat salt, They'll eat it if they want
to eat trans fats, they'll eat it.
Speaker 3 (29:40):
If they want to eat beef, they'll eat it.
Speaker 9 (29:43):
The only way liberals can get you to live the
way they want you to is to deny you freedom
to do what you want to do. And they're not
happy with you living and thinking in ways other than
the way they live and think you must conform. If
(30:05):
you dare speak outside the acceptable liberal norms, they're going
to come after you. They're going to do their best
to destroy whoever does that so that that person or
group of people will not persuade others. Liberals cannot survive
in an unrigged contest in the arena of ideas. And
(30:28):
they are not about ideas. Liberals are not about choice.
They are about imposition. The way they live, the way
they believe must be imposed on people, otherwise they won't
do it on their own. It's taken them fifty sixty
(30:50):
years to get to this point of conditioning people of
taking whole the education system, the university, academia system, the media.
It's taken a long time to condition people not to
stand up for themselves, not to exercise freedom, not to
speak outside the acceptable norms.
Speaker 4 (31:11):
After what is political correctness? But speech censorship is all
it is remembering Rush our Wednesday installment, and as always
Rush was right, and some of what he said rings
true today. It is what I was saying to begin
this program that unless you're forced into this crucible of
order and these confines around you that you submit to,
(31:31):
that you surrender your freedoms, your liberties.
Speaker 3 (31:34):
You're never going to choose that.
Speaker 4 (31:35):
But when you're assured that you're going to have some
level of comfort, some level of protection, then you might
be tricked into.
Speaker 3 (31:43):
Agreeing to hand over your rights. When did we do that?
Speaker 4 (31:47):
COVID, the mandates, the masks, the vaccines so called, and
they forced us into submission quickly. Pete k Stein, Mark Stevenson,
She's got a podcast coming up tonight, Humanity Against Tyranny.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
What's coming up? I'm that pk oh.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
Well, we're excited to interview Rachel Mayines.
Speaker 3 (32:04):
Yes, and she's all.
Speaker 1 (32:05):
Things media and communication and she has a Corner Cafe
podcast and she spreads the Gospel of Jesus.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
And I'm so excited interviewer.
Speaker 3 (32:16):
I'm excited to have you interviewed.
Speaker 4 (32:18):
You heard too, because you interviewed Christian Toto last week
on the podcast people can pick that up as well.
And you asked him a question that really made him
think about his faith that he hadn't really thought about.
So you want to have thought provoking conversations. Listen to
PK coming up on Humanity Against Tyranny. We record tonight
and that podcast will be posted this evening. PK, thanks
for being here, Srey, thanks to all of you. Sheriff
(32:39):
Steve Riems Next
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.