September 14, 2023 • 30 mins
Chris Merrill fills in for John & Ken. Ike Ejiochi comes on the show to talk about Kevin McCarthy daring Republican hardliners to try to oust him in a closed-door meeting. Google is being sued for antitrust. Blake Troli joins the show to talk about Gascon’s Chief of Staff not being charged for public intoxication. California looks to conserve water.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Can't. If I am six forty you're listening to the
John and Ken Show on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
There's a drama going on in DC a closed door
meeting with his conference today and Kevin McCarthy, Republican representative California,
also Speaker of the House, basically came out Firron and
(00:23):
he dared some of the Freedom caucussers to come at
me bro try to take him out. Matt Gaetz has said, listen,
we're gonna you know, we can call for your we
can call for your chair, and he said just try
it now. When he was not behind closed doors, he
(00:43):
was a little more diplomatic about how he said that,
but it was still basically what he said.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Try.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
It's don't matter. And sometimes people do those things because
of personal things, and that's all fine, And I don't
walk away from a battle. I knew changing Washington would
not be easy. I knew people would fight or try
to hold leverage for other things. I'm going to continue
to just to focus on what's the right thing to
do for the American people. And you know what, if
it takes a fight, I'll.
Speaker 4 (01:06):
Have a fight.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Our ABC News correspondent in Washington is Ike Jochi and
Ike great to talk with you. The battle here seems
to be about the upcoming budget.
Speaker 4 (01:16):
Showdown, it really is. And you know, tensions between McCarthy
and the House Freedom Caucus, they really haven't been this
high since we saw them take fifteen rounds to vote
in McCarthy as Speaker of the House. Now you say
it right now. The cranks of all this is that
looming government shutdown. House has about until September thirtieth and
(01:40):
midnight to come up with a funding plan that will
fund the government. If not, we run the risk again
of another government shutdown. But this is what we're starting
to see. We will essentially warn this before when McCarthy
took the seat that his ascension to the role of
House Speaker of a House came with some caveats. Those
(02:03):
caveats obviously came from the House Freedom Caucus, and it's
that motion to vacate, which essentially allows anybody to come
out and send out a vote to the whole House
that would allow a single member to essentially vote on
his removal and it only needs to come to a
(02:23):
simple majority for it to pass. And we saw a
reprigen rid of the gate come out and say that
publicly that McCarthy is not doing his job, reminding him
of what his job is essentially but Freedom Caucus's demand,
and that he'd be forced to essentially trigger that motion
to vacate if McCarthy doesn't quickly reverse his ways.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
So there's a difference between getting things done and then
playing politics, and there's sort of this fine line that
everyone walks. I got to believe that the Democrats in
DC right now are sort of loving the infighting. They
they watch all fifteen rounds of the speaker vote go down,
and of course the Democrats didn't cross over and try
to help the Republicans out of that mess. If if
(03:08):
a vote were to come to the floor, I got
to believe the Democrats would say, yeah, well, we'll vote
to remove Kevin McCarthy. We love watching the chaos our
from our partners across the aisle. Is there any word
that there are Republicans that are saying, hang on here, guys,
we're giving the Democrats a gift.
Speaker 4 (03:26):
No. Essentially, what we're seeing right now is the Freedom Caucus,
those thirty five members essentially of those far right Republicans
really take control of this entire caucus, and we're not
really seeing too much essentially of Republicans trying to correct
the ship. We are seeing Democrats, however, point their fingers
(03:46):
with the Keen Jeffries essentially pointing their finger at Republicans
saying they're holding the legislation that was from the government.
But in terms of Republicans right now, we're seeing Kevin
McCarthy try to essentially pump his chest saying he's not
worry about this and try to really pretend as if
there's nothing happening. Then essentially this caucus has until again
(04:10):
September thirty, at the end of the month, to really
figure out some kind of bill to find government.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
Aike Ajachi is my guest ABC News correspondent Washington, DC,
as Kevin McCarthy has basically said to the Freedom Caucus,
you know, I'm ready for your fight, whatever that might be.
The Freedom Caucus does have a list of demands. Are
they likely to compromise on anything. This is a group
that is sort of run on the premise that compromises weakness,
and they don't even want to seem to compromise within
(04:36):
their own party.
Speaker 4 (04:38):
No, they've been very really staunch in what they're looking for.
They're very these concerned hard liners. They really want essentially
to have all their demands met. What is that, Well,
essentially they're looking to attach to that Defense Hunting bill
a measure that won't that will restrict certain kinds of
(04:58):
care for for women in the military. Obviously, there's other
measures they want in terms of weaponizing the DOJ. There's issues,
there's issues they want to take care of along those lines. Obviously,
there are hard right lines they've been saying time and
time again, those same lines McCarthy had to face when
he tried to attain that speakership. They're demanding those again,
(05:21):
and they are threatening that motion to vacate if their
wishes are on them.
Speaker 1 (05:26):
Well, I'd love to be a fly in all kinds
of walls in Washington right now and just see what
the conversations are behind closed doors. Is the Freedom Caucus
really ready to go full scorched Earth or other Republicans
that are willing to come out And you know, we
saw people getting each other's faces during those votes back
in January over who is going to be the speaker.
(05:46):
So I'm really curious just to see how this ends
up playing out. And I like, what's the next step.
I mean, are they are we gonna have are we
gonna have votes, We're gonna have some conferences. Are we
gonna be able to press forward and a more amicable tone,
or are we headed toward a fight in the House
right now?
Speaker 4 (06:07):
One point, we're heading toward a fight. We're seeing a
House Minority leader Hakeem Jefferies essentially call the Republicans bill
that they got forward a non starter, obviously again to
what our referenced to before, saying that it's essentially restricting
reproductive choices from many military women in their families. So
(06:27):
Hakeem Jeffries is calling for a bipartisan approach to this
spending bill. We're hearing no word of any kind of
acquiescence from Republicans to consider some credit measure. Again, they're
going to have us figure out a way to pass
this bill, which means going head to head with that
Freedom Caucus, those thirty five members of the Republican Party
(06:49):
that are again laying out their demands for McCarthy to
act upon.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
Is there room in the middle we have to have
a spending bill. It sounds like you got thirty five
people in the on the hard right that are going
to say, we're not signing anything that doesn't give us
all of our demands. Obviously, that bill is not going
to pass because you've got a Democrat controlled Senate and
a Democrat in the White House, so that's not going
to happen. Is there room for McCarthy to negotiate with
the Republicans who are not in that Freedom Caucus and
(07:16):
maybe some of the Democrats, maybe not the squad, but
some of the more moderate Democrats. Is there room in
the middle, Is there a lane that can be occupied
there in the center?
Speaker 4 (07:27):
Well, there's always room for bipartisanship here in the House.
But that's going that Behoo's McCarthy to either reach across
the aisle to Democrats or try to make sure that
enough Republicans don't flip to offense that remove him from
the post. But that obviously would be very hard due
to the thirty five member Freedom Caucus. That would essentially
(07:50):
kip the scales and force McCarthy to essentially give up
his post. But again, he's going to have to find
a way to talk to the Freedom Focus members to
see if they can either back down from their requests
or somehow McCarthy can move forward with some of their requests,
all while appeasing the rest of this party, but remains
(08:13):
to be seen as right now, we're just seeing McCarthy
still trying to defend himself in what seems like a
possible mutiny and Republican party.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
I just see a lot of people playing with fire
right now, and I think the American people are going
to start getting frustrated as we get closer and closer
to the end of the month. Aikeajashi, it's always great
catching up with you. Thank you for your hard work
on this. I appreciate it. Yeah, we'll we'll talk about
what is being called the biggest antitrust case in the
(08:43):
modern Internet, because somebody's I guess deciding when the modern
Internet began, and that I guess was sometime after y
two k I'll tell you what they're doing with this case,
why it's going to take so dagone long, and why
it could mean that everything you're doing on your phone
is about to change. That's next. I'm Chris Merril. I
(09:04):
am six forty. We're live everywhere in your iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 5 (09:07):
You're listening to John and Ken on demand from KFI
am six forty, so Google.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Be ensued by justice because they're too big. I hate
it when that happens. The one of the shortcomings of
our capitalist society is that we have these checks and
balances and basically say, if you're too good, we're gonna
have to step in. If you are too great at
what you do, we're gonna have to intervene. It's it's
(09:39):
all in an effort to keep things fair, right, But
I don't disagree with it. It's just a strange thing
that we have going on. If we look at our
economic system as a sport, in what sport do we
penalize a team for having a player that's too good? Right?
(09:59):
We don't tell. We didn't tell people playing those incredible
New England Patriots of days past that well, they have
Tom Brady. He's really good. So we're gonna let your
team start thirteen people on defense because he's too He's
the greatest of all time. So we have to try
to even the playing field. We've never done that, but
of course there's reason for it, and that is that
(10:20):
if you become too good and you squeeze out all competition,
then you pretty much have a rule of the way
the business is done, and that's the concern with Google. Now.
The funny thing is with the Google anti trust suit here.
Back in the old days, they never even would have
been allowed to get this big. There would have been
(10:41):
clamps put on sooner. But then back in then, not
as old days, but still longer ago than what we'd
like to admit days, we would have said, well, Google
is too big to fail, and then we would have
propped up their business and we would have given them
bailouts and tax breaks. But now we're saying that they're
too big, but not that big. So why is Google
(11:04):
being sued? It all comes down to Google being too
good and being what the smart people call ubiquitous. It's everywhere.
Speaker 6 (11:14):
Hitting the US government against tech giant Google began today.
It's the Justice Department's biggest anti trust case against the
tech company in more than twenty years. The DOJ in
fourteen states accused the company of illegally monopolizing web searching,
which Google strongly denies.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Right, so when is it illegal. It's illegal when you're
too big. That's basically it.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
Here.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
The deal is that listen, you can develop business partnerships,
and those partnerships can have moneies paid for consideration. That's great,
But if you're really big, then we're going to say
that that's illegal. And that is the case. So the
government's been trying to reign in big tech, right, and
(11:58):
Google is at the forefront of the big tech. And
what they're saying is that that Google basically used all
of their power to get with places like Apple and
some of the others and say, look, we want to
be the default search engine. And so Apple says, oh,
(12:21):
you're going to be default search engine on on what
they're like on everything on your iPhones, on your your
max all that other stuff. And so Apple said, oh,
I mean we could think about it. And Google said, well,
how about if we give you ten billion dollars to
think about it? And Apple went, okay, we thought about it.
So the Justice Department is saying, well, that's not fair
(12:43):
because now for somebody else to get their foot in
the door, they got to come up with eleven billion dollars, right,
That's basically what they're saying here. And they want to
say Google is flexing their muscle in order to keep
others out. Some people are saying, well, Google has got
a superior product. Google's defenses our product is just better.
Part of the reason that these different companies have worked
(13:04):
with us is not just because we're paying them to,
but because our product is good and there isn't a
competitor out there that can hold a candle to it,
and that's why people want us in their devices. So
they had a testimony the Justice Department trying to show
that Google is trying to cut out their competitors by
(13:25):
looking to be the default search engine. So Google is saying,
not only do we want to be the default search engine,
We're giving you money for that special consideration, but in
doing so, we're going to keep any of our rivals
from being able to gain any sort of a foothold
in the door. Funny little side note here. I was
looking at the story and I've been following it for
a few days, and the New York Times had a
(13:47):
headline I want to say it was over the weekend. Yeah,
I guess over the weekend late last week said it's
the first monopoly trial of modern Internet era. US sets
sits on Google. That's the headline. They said. The ten
week trial is set to begin Tuesday, which, of course
it did amps up efforts to rain in big tech
(14:10):
by targeting the core search business that turned Google into
a one point seven trillion dollar behemoth. All right, but
here's what I think is funny. They call it the
first monopoly trial of the modern Internet era, and they're
all comparing it then to the trial that landed Microsoft
in court back in nineteen ninety eight for antitrust because
(14:32):
Microsoft was distributing their Internet Explorer with all of their Windows,
and they basically made it the default search engine for
everything that was Microsoft, and Microsoft was a behemoth. I
would even argue bigger than Google as far as saturation
back in the late nineties. For whatever reason, I guess
the New York Times has decided that that is not
the modern Internet era. That must be antiquity in Internet terms.
(14:58):
I'd just like to know when the modern Internet era began?
Is that post y two K? Was that after the iPhone?
I'm just curious how they just they chose their phrasing. Hey, look,
it is great to be buddies with the DA because oftentimes,
not only do your your you're less than appropriate incidents,
(15:27):
not only are they forgiven, sometimes you even get paid
for it. We'll dive into what's going on from the
DA's office that's next. I'm Chris Merrild' KFI AM six forty.
We're live everywhere on your iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 5 (15:38):
You're listening to John and Ken on demand from KFI
AM sixty.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
Can imagine that you are out with your partner and
you have a few drinks, feeling pretty good. Your partner
decides to drive. You're a passenger and you take off,
but then you get pulled over. You get pulled over,
and you, being smart, you start telling your partner you
don't have to answer their questions, you don't have to
(16:05):
take field sobriety test, you don't have to do anything.
And then, because you're so smart, you get out and
you start arguing with the officers and you start asking
about about their body cams and what they're doing, and
you become somewhat belligerent. Well, the officers they say to you,
you know what, you look like. You are drunk, and
(16:27):
now you're in public and you're arguing with us, So
we're gonna arrest you for public intoxication. But you're smart,
You're so smart, and they release you the next day.
You're not charged, and so what do you do. You decide,
I'm going to sue them and then you get a nice,
big fat settlement. I believe that I got things laid
(16:48):
out in the right order there. Blake Trolly is our
KFI news reporter with the story. And it's not just
a smart listener doing this. This is somebody who's got
a pretty high position in the DA's office.
Speaker 7 (17:02):
Yeah, that's right. Chris La County DA Gascon's chief of
staff has been awarded ten thousand dollars for what he
says is being wrongfully arrested by an Azusa Police officer
back in twenty twenty one. The only part I'd say
you might have gotten wrong is that ten thousand dollars
goes a long way in southern California anymore. Otherwise, you
(17:22):
laid out a decent play by play there.
Speaker 1 (17:24):
So yeah.
Speaker 7 (17:25):
Joseph Nigez says that police's false reports on him have
caused him embarrassment and emotional harm. All of this centers
on a traffic stop on an evening in twenty twenty one.
The officer pulled over his now husband while the two
were traveling home from another prosecutor's wedding. According to Azusa Police,
Joseph and Egas during this stop got out of the car,
told his now husband not to cooperate with the investigation
(17:49):
and that he did not need to comply with a
field sobriety test. And he also apparently told his husband,
according to police, not to believe anything officers were saying.
Officers say, he gets smelled like alcohol, he was slurring
his words, so they arrested him for alleged public intoxication.
Now he was released about three hours later. The case
(18:09):
was referred to the state. You could clearly see how
this one probably shouldn't have gone to the county and
state prosecutors never did pursue any charges against Joseph Anigaz.
His husband's blood alcohol content and I think this is
an important part of this story was actually found to
be below the legal limit, so there were no charges
(18:31):
brought there. Well, today I caught up with the Mayor
of Azusa, Robert Gonzalez, who says, this settlement and we'll
go to this bite is in no way the city
or the police department admitting any wrongdoing.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
So there we go.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
We are to set the example an inclusive of our staff.
You know, the City of Azusa's staff at all times
should act professional. And I think that any elected bodies.
Staff should always act in a professional manner, regardless of
if it's off the clock or on. You should always
conduct yourself as representation of the election official that you
(19:17):
represent or the office that you represent.
Speaker 7 (19:21):
So there he is further saying that he's disappointed in
this conduct, and he said, you know, he saw this
getting very expensive in court, the back and forth, and
he said, the only people that are going to get
rich during all of this are the lawyers. So he
decided that, you know, or at least the city decided
that the best business decision for it, according to the city,
was to pay out this this ten thousand dollars. Now,
(19:43):
Niguez again says he was arrested, he thinks in retaliation
for filming the encounter. He says that he was loosen
in calm. He says that he as you hear their
videotape this encounter, but he has yet to release that video. So,
you know, some questions still remain as to the actual incident.
And I think if everybody was able to get a
good look at it, you know, the court of public
(20:05):
opinion could probably make a you know, a stronger case
for itself on this.
Speaker 1 (20:10):
Yeah, Blake Trolley from the KFI newsroom joining us. We
talk about the chief of staff for Da Gascone's office
who was arrested for public intoxication. No charges were ever
brought about for either him or his partner, who was
pulled over in the first place under suspicion of drinking
and driving, but his blood alcohol level was below the limit,
(20:32):
as Blake just laid out here. But then and then
the lawsuit that followed and he sues the city of Azusa.
What is he suing for for for the police.
Speaker 7 (20:51):
Yeah, he's saying that all of this cause well, really
what the lawsuit centers on is that he was arrested wrongfully.
He alleges for in retal for filming the entire encounter,
and he says all of this has caused him embarrassment
and has caused him emotional distress. So that's really what
the lawsuits centered on. The city says it was prepared
(21:12):
to fight this, but I really think the city, I mean,
as the city's described to me, really just didn't want
to take on this legal battle. I think that that
legal battle in some ways would have been you know,
a lot more would have come forward had it gone there,
you know, to trial. But you know here we are.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
Yeah, So I'm curious as to how that would have
played out with you or I if we were arrested
and then we filed a lawsuit and said that it
was retaliatory. Would the City of Azusa fight with us?
Or I mean, would they write us a ten thousand
dollars settlement, which again would pay you know, a month's rent,
or would it would they have fought if it were
(21:52):
you were I In other words, does this guy get
a pass because of the high profile nature of his position?
Speaker 7 (21:58):
Well, the optics of this are certain questionable, especially I
mean even though yeah, they did send this case up
to the state, as it's been reported, I mean, even then,
you know, there's there's some optics questions there right between
the state prosecutors and the county prosecutors. You've got a
state attorney general and an LA County attorney general who
(22:19):
politically are pretty aligned. So I think the optics of
this one definitely are questionable to the public, and it's
up for people to decide. Again, I think if this
had gone to court, just a little analysis here for
the City of Azusa, you know, the city may have
been able to lay out a case or at least
more evidence as to why he was arrested back in
(22:42):
twenty twenty one. But I think the city really just
wants to put this whole thing behind it, and that's
where we are.
Speaker 1 (22:48):
Yeah, probably because fighting the case would cost him more
than ten thousand dollars in attorney fees and you know,
the time that their officers would have to be there
in the court and everything else. So I get the best.
Speaker 7 (22:59):
One thing and one thing to think about, Chris. This
actually is a case where apparently at some point during
this encounter he had pointed out that the officers were
not wearing body warn cameras. You know, another little piece
of a possible analysis this year. It was that why
the city really didn't want this to go to trial
is that they wouldn't have had any recordings of this.
(23:21):
Maybe they do, maybe they don't, But you know, that
was something I was thinking about as well, is if
they had body warn cameras, you know, maybe the city
would have been more in tune with going to trial
over this one.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
It's funny, this one really comes home hard since bodycams
became popular. I don't know what ten years ago or
something I said at the time, Remember there was controversy
over whether or not officers should wear those things to
begin with, and I said, listen, I love body cams
because they protect good people from bad cops, and they
protect good cops from bad lawyers. And this seems to
be one of those cases that it sure still sure
(23:54):
hits home hard when you've got an attorney who's suing
because there's no body cam, and bodycam could have been
exonerating evidence, I suppose if they had their own set
to that argument, Blake. One other side of this, too,
is that in the lawsuit, it alleges that Amigas suffered
sleeplessness and debilitating anxiety, so he evidently could not have
(24:14):
cut it as a reporter because I know that every
night our reporters face sleeplessness and debilitating anxiety. Oh there's
another there's another natural disaster. I have to go cover
it now in the middle of the night. I mean,
how many nights have you had that. It's like, oh boy,
we got a lot on our plate today.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
You know.
Speaker 7 (24:30):
Yeah, I'm lucky to get, like I swear, good night's
sleep anymore is like six hours. If I get six,
that's like the new eight.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
So yeah, oh, perspective. Is everything all right? Blake, always
good to talk to you. Thank you so much for
your work on this, and thanks for reaching out to
the mayor of Azusa. There's it's good to have the
word on it. Yeah, yeah, you bet. Listen, we're out
of the drought. Good, good, But we know we can't
(24:58):
depend on heavy rain and snowpack every year. For Pete's sake.
We've been fighting droughts on and off for the last
more than a decade, which is why California wants to
take a good hard look at the grass man. It's
next I AM six forty, We're live everywhere and Ryanheart
Radio app. It's Chris Maryland for Johnny Can Today KFI
AM six forty more stimulating talk. Well, we've seen the
(25:21):
drought come and go, which is great. I'm glad that
it's gone right now. Is there any doubt it's coming back? No?
I think that if we are being honest, and unfortunately
some people like to argue that everything's fine, everything's fine,
everything's fine. We can't put our heads in the sand
on this. The water is going away and there may
(25:43):
not be enough water one day to keep everybody showered
in California. That day is not today, thank goodness. So
I'm appreciative when people are looking ahead, and I'm appreciative
that state legislators are saying, why don't we stop wasting water?
I'm so glad that we finally decided to stop wasting water.
(26:07):
Oh good. Now we actually have have implemented some water
conservation policies in the past, and what's happening now is
that the state legislature is taking it upon themselves to
finally codify those rules long term, and that means no
more watering NFTs. Now here to explain what an NFT is, Deborah.
Speaker 8 (26:27):
Mark, don't water your decorative grass?
Speaker 1 (26:32):
Yeah, what are the non functioning turf? They call that
non functioning turf? It's not the non fungible tokens, right,
it's a different NFT. All right, So what they're what
they're gonna do is that land that's between streets. You
know that the city owns that that median area, stop
watering that that land that's next to the sidewalk between
(26:54):
the sidewalk and the road, stop watering.
Speaker 8 (26:56):
So you can just planned look, just planted succulents there,
say that again, just plant succulence. I know you like
that word succulent.
Speaker 1 (27:06):
Put a succulent in there. Yeah, let's make this the
most succulent city this side of Phoenix. Right, and problem solved,
it'll be suculitious. No, I totally agree, I really do.
I think that. Now. Listen, there's gonna be some initial
expense to do that, to hardescape things. But it just
(27:27):
makes an awful lot of sense, doesn't it, Because once
you get through that initial expense, your maintenance is so minimal.
Speaker 8 (27:34):
That is a nimal Hey, Chris, I think in LA
I think homeowners, if you take out your grass and
you plant succulents, you get some kind of credit.
Speaker 1 (27:43):
I think you get love it, Yeah, love it.
Speaker 8 (27:47):
So it shouldn't be that expensive, shouldn't be.
Speaker 4 (27:51):
Now.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
Unfortunately, this band is gonna take a little while to
come into effect. They say the band takes effect in
phases between twenty twenty seven and twenty thirty one. There
are exceptions for grass in sports fields, parks, cemeteries, and
areas used for activities and other community spaces. Also exempt
are areas where grass is irrigated with recycled water. Now,
this is important. Why do we not have more of
(28:14):
the recycled or reclaimed water going toward all those other places.
The cemeteries can be watered with reclaimed water. It's not
like the residents are gonna be upset that it's not
drinking water. They actually don't need drinking water six feet down.
You don't have to use potable water in those places.
Same goes for sports fields. You don't have to have
(28:35):
potable water. And one of the biggest water wasters in
America is golf courses. And I always appreciate when I
hear a golf course that says, listen, we are gonna
go to recycled water. We're watering with reclaimed water. I
love that more of that more. Why why is there
an allotment for these places to use the drinking water.
(28:56):
That's the water that we actually need. That's the most
valuable resource in the world, is the water that we
actually can drink. But we're saying, and that's right, we're
not gonna We're not gonna use it. We're not gonna
use it on those lawns between roads, We're not gonna
use it on those lawns by the by the sidewalks.
But you can still use it on your golf course.
No stop with that The good news is this bill
(29:19):
is supposed to save about ten percent of the drinking water,
and I'm here for it. Save ten percent of the
drinking water outstanding. That ten percent makes a big difference. Now,
let's take a look at some of these other things
like sports fields, golf courses, cemeteries, other community spaces. As
(29:40):
they're saying la times verbiage on this, let's fix this
and say nonpotable water, recycled water. If you have to
have grass, and it's not, there's no reason to use
any potable water on grass ever, ever, done, ever, never,
There's no reason for it. So that needs to be
the next step. Just use that, save all the good
(30:02):
water for us to drink and maybe your four legged
friends and your fish. Otherwise everything else needs to be
recycled and succulents exactly. Just fixed America. Again, you're welcome.
Huge news today, Hunter Biden is indicted on federal firearms charges.
(30:23):
This is a big one. We'll dive into how this
came about, what it means that is next. First to
check on news It's KFI AM six forty. We're live
everywhere on your iHeart radio app.
Speaker 5 (30:34):
Hey, you've been listening to the John and Ken Show.
Speaker 7 (30:35):
You can always hear us live on KFI AM six
forty one pm to four pm every Monday through Friday,
and of course anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app
Can't. If I am six forty you're listening to the
John and Ken Show on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
There's a drama going on in DC a closed door
meeting with his conference today and Kevin McCarthy, Republican representative California,
also Speaker of the House, basically came out Firron and
(00:23):
he dared some of the Freedom caucussers to come at
me bro try to take him out. Matt Gaetz has said, listen,
we're gonna you know, we can call for your we
can call for your chair, and he said just try
it now. When he was not behind closed doors, he
(00:43):
was a little more diplomatic about how he said that,
but it was still basically what he said.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Try.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
It's don't matter. And sometimes people do those things because
of personal things, and that's all fine, And I don't
walk away from a battle. I knew changing Washington would
not be easy. I knew people would fight or try
to hold leverage for other things. I'm going to continue
to just to focus on what's the right thing to
do for the American people. And you know what, if
it takes a fight, I'll.
Speaker 4 (01:06):
Have a fight.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Our ABC News correspondent in Washington is Ike Jochi and
Ike great to talk with you. The battle here seems
to be about the upcoming budget.
Speaker 4 (01:16):
Showdown, it really is. And you know, tensions between McCarthy
and the House Freedom Caucus, they really haven't been this
high since we saw them take fifteen rounds to vote
in McCarthy as Speaker of the House. Now you say
it right now. The cranks of all this is that
looming government shutdown. House has about until September thirtieth and
(01:40):
midnight to come up with a funding plan that will
fund the government. If not, we run the risk again
of another government shutdown. But this is what we're starting
to see. We will essentially warn this before when McCarthy
took the seat that his ascension to the role of
House Speaker of a House came with some caveats. Those
(02:03):
caveats obviously came from the House Freedom Caucus, and it's
that motion to vacate, which essentially allows anybody to come
out and send out a vote to the whole House
that would allow a single member to essentially vote on
his removal and it only needs to come to a
(02:23):
simple majority for it to pass. And we saw a
reprigen rid of the gate come out and say that
publicly that McCarthy is not doing his job, reminding him
of what his job is essentially but Freedom Caucus's demand,
and that he'd be forced to essentially trigger that motion
to vacate if McCarthy doesn't quickly reverse his ways.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
So there's a difference between getting things done and then
playing politics, and there's sort of this fine line that
everyone walks. I got to believe that the Democrats in
DC right now are sort of loving the infighting. They
they watch all fifteen rounds of the speaker vote go down,
and of course the Democrats didn't cross over and try
to help the Republicans out of that mess. If if
(03:08):
a vote were to come to the floor, I got
to believe the Democrats would say, yeah, well, we'll vote
to remove Kevin McCarthy. We love watching the chaos our
from our partners across the aisle. Is there any word
that there are Republicans that are saying, hang on here, guys,
we're giving the Democrats a gift.
Speaker 4 (03:26):
No. Essentially, what we're seeing right now is the Freedom Caucus,
those thirty five members essentially of those far right Republicans
really take control of this entire caucus, and we're not
really seeing too much essentially of Republicans trying to correct
the ship. We are seeing Democrats, however, point their fingers
(03:46):
with the Keen Jeffries essentially pointing their finger at Republicans
saying they're holding the legislation that was from the government.
But in terms of Republicans right now, we're seeing Kevin
McCarthy try to essentially pump his chest saying he's not
worry about this and try to really pretend as if
there's nothing happening. Then essentially this caucus has until again
(04:10):
September thirty, at the end of the month, to really
figure out some kind of bill to find government.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
Aike Ajachi is my guest ABC News correspondent Washington, DC,
as Kevin McCarthy has basically said to the Freedom Caucus,
you know, I'm ready for your fight, whatever that might be.
The Freedom Caucus does have a list of demands. Are
they likely to compromise on anything. This is a group
that is sort of run on the premise that compromises weakness,
and they don't even want to seem to compromise within
(04:36):
their own party.
Speaker 4 (04:38):
No, they've been very really staunch in what they're looking for.
They're very these concerned hard liners. They really want essentially
to have all their demands met. What is that, Well,
essentially they're looking to attach to that Defense Hunting bill
a measure that won't that will restrict certain kinds of
(04:58):
care for for women in the military. Obviously, there's other
measures they want in terms of weaponizing the DOJ. There's issues,
there's issues they want to take care of along those lines. Obviously,
there are hard right lines they've been saying time and
time again, those same lines McCarthy had to face when
he tried to attain that speakership. They're demanding those again,
(05:21):
and they are threatening that motion to vacate if their
wishes are on them.
Speaker 1 (05:26):
Well, I'd love to be a fly in all kinds
of walls in Washington right now and just see what
the conversations are behind closed doors. Is the Freedom Caucus
really ready to go full scorched Earth or other Republicans
that are willing to come out And you know, we
saw people getting each other's faces during those votes back
in January over who is going to be the speaker.
(05:46):
So I'm really curious just to see how this ends
up playing out. And I like, what's the next step.
I mean, are they are we gonna have are we
gonna have votes, We're gonna have some conferences. Are we
gonna be able to press forward and a more amicable tone,
or are we headed toward a fight in the House
right now?
Speaker 4 (06:07):
One point, we're heading toward a fight. We're seeing a
House Minority leader Hakeem Jefferies essentially call the Republicans bill
that they got forward a non starter, obviously again to
what our referenced to before, saying that it's essentially restricting
reproductive choices from many military women in their families. So
(06:27):
Hakeem Jeffries is calling for a bipartisan approach to this
spending bill. We're hearing no word of any kind of
acquiescence from Republicans to consider some credit measure. Again, they're
going to have us figure out a way to pass
this bill, which means going head to head with that
Freedom Caucus, those thirty five members of the Republican Party
(06:49):
that are again laying out their demands for McCarthy to
act upon.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
Is there room in the middle we have to have
a spending bill. It sounds like you got thirty five
people in the on the hard right that are going
to say, we're not signing anything that doesn't give us
all of our demands. Obviously, that bill is not going
to pass because you've got a Democrat controlled Senate and
a Democrat in the White House, so that's not going
to happen. Is there room for McCarthy to negotiate with
the Republicans who are not in that Freedom Caucus and
(07:16):
maybe some of the Democrats, maybe not the squad, but
some of the more moderate Democrats. Is there room in
the middle, Is there a lane that can be occupied
there in the center?
Speaker 4 (07:27):
Well, there's always room for bipartisanship here in the House.
But that's going that Behoo's McCarthy to either reach across
the aisle to Democrats or try to make sure that
enough Republicans don't flip to offense that remove him from
the post. But that obviously would be very hard due
to the thirty five member Freedom Caucus. That would essentially
(07:50):
kip the scales and force McCarthy to essentially give up
his post. But again, he's going to have to find
a way to talk to the Freedom Focus members to
see if they can either back down from their requests
or somehow McCarthy can move forward with some of their requests,
all while appeasing the rest of this party, but remains
(08:13):
to be seen as right now, we're just seeing McCarthy
still trying to defend himself in what seems like a
possible mutiny and Republican party.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
I just see a lot of people playing with fire
right now, and I think the American people are going
to start getting frustrated as we get closer and closer
to the end of the month. Aikeajashi, it's always great
catching up with you. Thank you for your hard work
on this. I appreciate it. Yeah, we'll we'll talk about
what is being called the biggest antitrust case in the
(08:43):
modern Internet, because somebody's I guess deciding when the modern
Internet began, and that I guess was sometime after y
two k I'll tell you what they're doing with this case,
why it's going to take so dagone long, and why
it could mean that everything you're doing on your phone
is about to change. That's next. I'm Chris Merril. I
(09:04):
am six forty. We're live everywhere in your iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 5 (09:07):
You're listening to John and Ken on demand from KFI
am six forty, so Google.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Be ensued by justice because they're too big. I hate
it when that happens. The one of the shortcomings of
our capitalist society is that we have these checks and
balances and basically say, if you're too good, we're gonna
have to step in. If you are too great at
what you do, we're gonna have to intervene. It's it's
(09:39):
all in an effort to keep things fair, right, But
I don't disagree with it. It's just a strange thing
that we have going on. If we look at our
economic system as a sport, in what sport do we
penalize a team for having a player that's too good? Right?
(09:59):
We don't tell. We didn't tell people playing those incredible
New England Patriots of days past that well, they have
Tom Brady. He's really good. So we're gonna let your
team start thirteen people on defense because he's too He's
the greatest of all time. So we have to try
to even the playing field. We've never done that, but
of course there's reason for it, and that is that
(10:20):
if you become too good and you squeeze out all competition,
then you pretty much have a rule of the way
the business is done, and that's the concern with Google. Now.
The funny thing is with the Google anti trust suit here.
Back in the old days, they never even would have
been allowed to get this big. There would have been
(10:41):
clamps put on sooner. But then back in then, not
as old days, but still longer ago than what we'd
like to admit days, we would have said, well, Google
is too big to fail, and then we would have
propped up their business and we would have given them
bailouts and tax breaks. But now we're saying that they're
too big, but not that big. So why is Google
(11:04):
being sued? It all comes down to Google being too
good and being what the smart people call ubiquitous. It's everywhere.
Speaker 6 (11:14):
Hitting the US government against tech giant Google began today.
It's the Justice Department's biggest anti trust case against the
tech company in more than twenty years. The DOJ in
fourteen states accused the company of illegally monopolizing web searching,
which Google strongly denies.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Right, so when is it illegal. It's illegal when you're
too big. That's basically it.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
Here.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
The deal is that listen, you can develop business partnerships,
and those partnerships can have moneies paid for consideration. That's great,
But if you're really big, then we're going to say
that that's illegal. And that is the case. So the
government's been trying to reign in big tech, right, and
(11:58):
Google is at the forefront of the big tech. And
what they're saying is that that Google basically used all
of their power to get with places like Apple and
some of the others and say, look, we want to
be the default search engine. And so Apple says, oh,
(12:21):
you're going to be default search engine on on what
they're like on everything on your iPhones, on your your
max all that other stuff. And so Apple said, oh,
I mean we could think about it. And Google said, well,
how about if we give you ten billion dollars to
think about it? And Apple went, okay, we thought about it.
So the Justice Department is saying, well, that's not fair
(12:43):
because now for somebody else to get their foot in
the door, they got to come up with eleven billion dollars, right,
That's basically what they're saying here. And they want to
say Google is flexing their muscle in order to keep
others out. Some people are saying, well, Google has got
a superior product. Google's defenses our product is just better.
Part of the reason that these different companies have worked
(13:04):
with us is not just because we're paying them to,
but because our product is good and there isn't a
competitor out there that can hold a candle to it,
and that's why people want us in their devices. So
they had a testimony the Justice Department trying to show
that Google is trying to cut out their competitors by
(13:25):
looking to be the default search engine. So Google is saying,
not only do we want to be the default search engine,
We're giving you money for that special consideration, but in
doing so, we're going to keep any of our rivals
from being able to gain any sort of a foothold
in the door. Funny little side note here. I was
looking at the story and I've been following it for
a few days, and the New York Times had a
(13:47):
headline I want to say it was over the weekend. Yeah,
I guess over the weekend late last week said it's
the first monopoly trial of modern Internet era. US sets
sits on Google. That's the headline. They said. The ten
week trial is set to begin Tuesday, which, of course
it did amps up efforts to rain in big tech
(14:10):
by targeting the core search business that turned Google into
a one point seven trillion dollar behemoth. All right, but
here's what I think is funny. They call it the
first monopoly trial of the modern Internet era, and they're
all comparing it then to the trial that landed Microsoft
in court back in nineteen ninety eight for antitrust because
(14:32):
Microsoft was distributing their Internet Explorer with all of their Windows,
and they basically made it the default search engine for
everything that was Microsoft, and Microsoft was a behemoth. I
would even argue bigger than Google as far as saturation
back in the late nineties. For whatever reason, I guess
the New York Times has decided that that is not
the modern Internet era. That must be antiquity in Internet terms.
(14:58):
I'd just like to know when the modern Internet era began?
Is that post y two K? Was that after the iPhone?
I'm just curious how they just they chose their phrasing. Hey, look,
it is great to be buddies with the DA because oftentimes,
not only do your your you're less than appropriate incidents,
(15:27):
not only are they forgiven, sometimes you even get paid
for it. We'll dive into what's going on from the
DA's office that's next. I'm Chris Merrild' KFI AM six forty.
We're live everywhere on your iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 5 (15:38):
You're listening to John and Ken on demand from KFI
AM sixty.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
Can imagine that you are out with your partner and
you have a few drinks, feeling pretty good. Your partner
decides to drive. You're a passenger and you take off,
but then you get pulled over. You get pulled over,
and you, being smart, you start telling your partner you
don't have to answer their questions, you don't have to
(16:05):
take field sobriety test, you don't have to do anything.
And then, because you're so smart, you get out and
you start arguing with the officers and you start asking
about about their body cams and what they're doing, and
you become somewhat belligerent. Well, the officers they say to you,
you know what, you look like. You are drunk, and
(16:27):
now you're in public and you're arguing with us, So
we're gonna arrest you for public intoxication. But you're smart,
You're so smart, and they release you the next day.
You're not charged, and so what do you do. You decide,
I'm going to sue them and then you get a nice,
big fat settlement. I believe that I got things laid
(16:48):
out in the right order there. Blake Trolly is our
KFI news reporter with the story. And it's not just
a smart listener doing this. This is somebody who's got
a pretty high position in the DA's office.
Speaker 7 (17:02):
Yeah, that's right. Chris La County DA Gascon's chief of
staff has been awarded ten thousand dollars for what he
says is being wrongfully arrested by an Azusa Police officer
back in twenty twenty one. The only part I'd say
you might have gotten wrong is that ten thousand dollars
goes a long way in southern California anymore. Otherwise, you
(17:22):
laid out a decent play by play there.
Speaker 1 (17:24):
So yeah.
Speaker 7 (17:25):
Joseph Nigez says that police's false reports on him have
caused him embarrassment and emotional harm. All of this centers
on a traffic stop on an evening in twenty twenty one.
The officer pulled over his now husband while the two
were traveling home from another prosecutor's wedding. According to Azusa Police,
Joseph and Egas during this stop got out of the car,
told his now husband not to cooperate with the investigation
(17:49):
and that he did not need to comply with a
field sobriety test. And he also apparently told his husband,
according to police, not to believe anything officers were saying.
Officers say, he gets smelled like alcohol, he was slurring
his words, so they arrested him for alleged public intoxication.
Now he was released about three hours later. The case
(18:09):
was referred to the state. You could clearly see how
this one probably shouldn't have gone to the county and
state prosecutors never did pursue any charges against Joseph Anigaz.
His husband's blood alcohol content and I think this is
an important part of this story was actually found to
be below the legal limit, so there were no charges
(18:31):
brought there. Well, today I caught up with the Mayor
of Azusa, Robert Gonzalez, who says, this settlement and we'll
go to this bite is in no way the city
or the police department admitting any wrongdoing.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
So there we go.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
We are to set the example an inclusive of our staff.
You know, the City of Azusa's staff at all times
should act professional. And I think that any elected bodies.
Staff should always act in a professional manner, regardless of
if it's off the clock or on. You should always
conduct yourself as representation of the election official that you
(19:17):
represent or the office that you represent.
Speaker 7 (19:21):
So there he is further saying that he's disappointed in
this conduct, and he said, you know, he saw this
getting very expensive in court, the back and forth, and
he said, the only people that are going to get
rich during all of this are the lawyers. So he
decided that, you know, or at least the city decided
that the best business decision for it, according to the city,
was to pay out this this ten thousand dollars. Now,
(19:43):
Niguez again says he was arrested, he thinks in retaliation
for filming the encounter. He says that he was loosen
in calm. He says that he as you hear their
videotape this encounter, but he has yet to release that video. So,
you know, some questions still remain as to the actual incident.
And I think if everybody was able to get a
good look at it, you know, the court of public
(20:05):
opinion could probably make a you know, a stronger case
for itself on this.
Speaker 1 (20:10):
Yeah, Blake Trolley from the KFI newsroom joining us. We
talk about the chief of staff for Da Gascone's office
who was arrested for public intoxication. No charges were ever
brought about for either him or his partner, who was
pulled over in the first place under suspicion of drinking
and driving, but his blood alcohol level was below the limit,
(20:32):
as Blake just laid out here. But then and then
the lawsuit that followed and he sues the city of Azusa.
What is he suing for for for the police.
Speaker 7 (20:51):
Yeah, he's saying that all of this cause well, really
what the lawsuit centers on is that he was arrested wrongfully.
He alleges for in retal for filming the entire encounter,
and he says all of this has caused him embarrassment
and has caused him emotional distress. So that's really what
the lawsuits centered on. The city says it was prepared
(21:12):
to fight this, but I really think the city, I mean,
as the city's described to me, really just didn't want
to take on this legal battle. I think that that
legal battle in some ways would have been you know,
a lot more would have come forward had it gone there,
you know, to trial. But you know here we are.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
Yeah, So I'm curious as to how that would have
played out with you or I if we were arrested
and then we filed a lawsuit and said that it
was retaliatory. Would the City of Azusa fight with us?
Or I mean, would they write us a ten thousand
dollars settlement, which again would pay you know, a month's rent,
or would it would they have fought if it were
(21:52):
you were I In other words, does this guy get
a pass because of the high profile nature of his position?
Speaker 7 (21:58):
Well, the optics of this are certain questionable, especially I
mean even though yeah, they did send this case up
to the state, as it's been reported, I mean, even then,
you know, there's there's some optics questions there right between
the state prosecutors and the county prosecutors. You've got a
state attorney general and an LA County attorney general who
(22:19):
politically are pretty aligned. So I think the optics of
this one definitely are questionable to the public, and it's
up for people to decide. Again, I think if this
had gone to court, just a little analysis here for
the City of Azusa, you know, the city may have
been able to lay out a case or at least
more evidence as to why he was arrested back in
(22:42):
twenty twenty one. But I think the city really just
wants to put this whole thing behind it, and that's
where we are.
Speaker 1 (22:48):
Yeah, probably because fighting the case would cost him more
than ten thousand dollars in attorney fees and you know,
the time that their officers would have to be there
in the court and everything else. So I get the best.
Speaker 7 (22:59):
One thing and one thing to think about, Chris. This
actually is a case where apparently at some point during
this encounter he had pointed out that the officers were
not wearing body warn cameras. You know, another little piece
of a possible analysis this year. It was that why
the city really didn't want this to go to trial
is that they wouldn't have had any recordings of this.
(23:21):
Maybe they do, maybe they don't, But you know, that
was something I was thinking about as well, is if
they had body warn cameras, you know, maybe the city
would have been more in tune with going to trial
over this one.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
It's funny, this one really comes home hard since bodycams
became popular. I don't know what ten years ago or
something I said at the time, Remember there was controversy
over whether or not officers should wear those things to
begin with, and I said, listen, I love body cams
because they protect good people from bad cops, and they
protect good cops from bad lawyers. And this seems to
be one of those cases that it sure still sure
(23:54):
hits home hard when you've got an attorney who's suing
because there's no body cam, and bodycam could have been
exonerating evidence, I suppose if they had their own set
to that argument, Blake. One other side of this, too,
is that in the lawsuit, it alleges that Amigas suffered
sleeplessness and debilitating anxiety, so he evidently could not have
(24:14):
cut it as a reporter because I know that every
night our reporters face sleeplessness and debilitating anxiety. Oh there's
another there's another natural disaster. I have to go cover
it now in the middle of the night. I mean,
how many nights have you had that. It's like, oh boy,
we got a lot on our plate today.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
You know.
Speaker 7 (24:30):
Yeah, I'm lucky to get, like I swear, good night's
sleep anymore is like six hours. If I get six,
that's like the new eight.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
So yeah, oh, perspective. Is everything all right? Blake, always
good to talk to you. Thank you so much for
your work on this, and thanks for reaching out to
the mayor of Azusa. There's it's good to have the
word on it. Yeah, yeah, you bet. Listen, we're out
of the drought. Good, good, But we know we can't
(24:58):
depend on heavy rain and snowpack every year. For Pete's sake.
We've been fighting droughts on and off for the last
more than a decade, which is why California wants to
take a good hard look at the grass man. It's
next I AM six forty, We're live everywhere and Ryanheart
Radio app. It's Chris Maryland for Johnny Can Today KFI
AM six forty more stimulating talk. Well, we've seen the
(25:21):
drought come and go, which is great. I'm glad that
it's gone right now. Is there any doubt it's coming back? No?
I think that if we are being honest, and unfortunately
some people like to argue that everything's fine, everything's fine,
everything's fine. We can't put our heads in the sand
on this. The water is going away and there may
(25:43):
not be enough water one day to keep everybody showered
in California. That day is not today, thank goodness. So
I'm appreciative when people are looking ahead, and I'm appreciative
that state legislators are saying, why don't we stop wasting water?
I'm so glad that we finally decided to stop wasting water.
(26:07):
Oh good. Now we actually have have implemented some water
conservation policies in the past, and what's happening now is
that the state legislature is taking it upon themselves to
finally codify those rules long term, and that means no
more watering NFTs. Now here to explain what an NFT is, Deborah.
Speaker 8 (26:27):
Mark, don't water your decorative grass?
Speaker 1 (26:32):
Yeah, what are the non functioning turf? They call that
non functioning turf? It's not the non fungible tokens, right,
it's a different NFT. All right, So what they're what
they're gonna do is that land that's between streets. You
know that the city owns that that median area, stop
watering that that land that's next to the sidewalk between
(26:54):
the sidewalk and the road, stop watering.
Speaker 8 (26:56):
So you can just planned look, just planted succulents there,
say that again, just plant succulence. I know you like
that word succulent.
Speaker 1 (27:06):
Put a succulent in there. Yeah, let's make this the
most succulent city this side of Phoenix. Right, and problem solved,
it'll be suculitious. No, I totally agree, I really do.
I think that. Now. Listen, there's gonna be some initial
expense to do that, to hardescape things. But it just
(27:27):
makes an awful lot of sense, doesn't it, Because once
you get through that initial expense, your maintenance is so minimal.
Speaker 8 (27:34):
That is a nimal Hey, Chris, I think in LA
I think homeowners, if you take out your grass and
you plant succulents, you get some kind of credit.
Speaker 1 (27:43):
I think you get love it, Yeah, love it.
Speaker 8 (27:47):
So it shouldn't be that expensive, shouldn't be.
Speaker 4 (27:51):
Now.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
Unfortunately, this band is gonna take a little while to
come into effect. They say the band takes effect in
phases between twenty twenty seven and twenty thirty one. There
are exceptions for grass in sports fields, parks, cemeteries, and
areas used for activities and other community spaces. Also exempt
are areas where grass is irrigated with recycled water. Now,
this is important. Why do we not have more of
(28:14):
the recycled or reclaimed water going toward all those other places.
The cemeteries can be watered with reclaimed water. It's not
like the residents are gonna be upset that it's not
drinking water. They actually don't need drinking water six feet down.
You don't have to use potable water in those places.
Same goes for sports fields. You don't have to have
(28:35):
potable water. And one of the biggest water wasters in
America is golf courses. And I always appreciate when I
hear a golf course that says, listen, we are gonna
go to recycled water. We're watering with reclaimed water. I
love that more of that more. Why why is there
an allotment for these places to use the drinking water.
(28:56):
That's the water that we actually need. That's the most
valuable resource in the world, is the water that we
actually can drink. But we're saying, and that's right, we're
not gonna We're not gonna use it. We're not gonna
use it on those lawns between roads, We're not gonna
use it on those lawns by the by the sidewalks.
But you can still use it on your golf course.
No stop with that The good news is this bill
(29:19):
is supposed to save about ten percent of the drinking water,
and I'm here for it. Save ten percent of the
drinking water outstanding. That ten percent makes a big difference. Now,
let's take a look at some of these other things
like sports fields, golf courses, cemeteries, other community spaces. As
(29:40):
they're saying la times verbiage on this, let's fix this
and say nonpotable water, recycled water. If you have to
have grass, and it's not, there's no reason to use
any potable water on grass ever, ever, done, ever, never,
There's no reason for it. So that needs to be
the next step. Just use that, save all the good
(30:02):
water for us to drink and maybe your four legged
friends and your fish. Otherwise everything else needs to be
recycled and succulents exactly. Just fixed America. Again, you're welcome.
Huge news today, Hunter Biden is indicted on federal firearms charges.
(30:23):
This is a big one. We'll dive into how this
came about, what it means that is next. First to
check on news It's KFI AM six forty. We're live
everywhere on your iHeart radio app.
Speaker 5 (30:34):
Hey, you've been listening to the John and Ken Show.
Speaker 7 (30:35):
You can always hear us live on KFI AM six
forty one pm to four pm every Monday through Friday,
and of course anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app
The John Kobylt Show News
Host
John Kobylt
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.