July 28, 2025 • 32 mins
The John Kobylt Show Hour 3 (07/28) - Encino Property Owners Association President Rob Glushon comes on the show to talk about why Encino residents are on high alert after recent crimes in the neighborhood. More details have come out about the co-pilot who was arrested in the cockpit of a flight that landed in San Francisco. Michael Monks comes on the show to talk about the federal immigration appeal hearing that took place today. There are rich progressive that hate Trump so much that don't want the tax break they can get.
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 I am six forty. You're listening to the John
Cobel podcast on the iHeartRadio app. We are on every
day from one until four o'clock and then the podcast
after four o'clock and you can catch up on what
you missed at one o'clock hour. We explained in detail
through some pieces written by Michael Sellenberger and Christopher Rufo.
(00:25):
These are the guys who've been exposing a lot of
the nonsense in California government and why they have failed
at getting rid of the homeless for many, many years now,
and they will continue to fail. It's part of the plan.
And we explain just how much money these homeless operations
(00:45):
are making, these nonprofits, how much money that they contribute
to Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass's campaign. And regardless of
what anybody says out loud, there is no intention to
disrupt the gravy train. Nothing is going to change as
long as you keep voting for the same type of people,
(01:08):
the Karen Bass Gavin Newsom model. And this is why
also you've got mental patients running around even if they
have homes. This is why you have so much crime happening.
What got everybody's attention was when the American Idol music
supervisor rober robin Ka and her husband, they were shot
(01:29):
and killed in Encino two weeks ago, and there have
been more burglaries since. You also had a party at
a home on White Oak Avenue, which the police had
to break up. They thought there was a shooting there.
Not sure what became of that. Rob Glueshawan you just
(01:50):
heard him on the CBS two news story at the
end of last hour. He's a president of the Encino
Property Owners Association and he's coming on here.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Welcome Rob. How are you?
Speaker 3 (02:02):
We've had better weeks, John, Oh my god. Hanging in there.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
It's just one punch after another. But let's let's start
first with this house party. The headline said possible shooting.
Uh did it turn out to be an actual shooting?
Speaker 3 (02:21):
I don't have any information about that. I live right
around the corner. But while the police say there's no
connection with that party house and the tragic murders, robin
K was begging city officials to stop this illegal use
(02:41):
for years, and in fact was at the West Valley
LAPD station the night before she was killed with her husband,
and she was concerned about her Their safety because their
home had been broken into in May. And I believe
(03:02):
she talked about the party house too. So for more
than four years. Uh, this illegal party house has been
cited by l APD numerous times.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
And when a party house is cited, what does that mean?
You get?
Speaker 1 (03:15):
You get a paper citation and then everybody goes on
to the next party.
Speaker 3 (03:20):
Well again that this is our one of our gripes.
What happens in LA is you get a piece of
paper and pay a fine. Well, when you're charging one
hundred dollars per person and you get five hundred people,
you do the math paying a fine of whether it's
(03:41):
a couple of hundred dollars or whatever it is, it
is just a cost of doing business. This party house
would have been shut down in Beverly Hills, it would
have been shut down in Burbank or any other city
in La County. But in La you can break the
law and there really are no consequences.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
LAPD comes over, they hand out the sheet of paper
and then and then that's it. And is this under
Is this under the direction of the mayor or the
city council? Woman Nitthia Rahman, I mean, who who's in
charge in a situation like this.
Speaker 3 (04:16):
Well, if we're talking about the party house. While we
strongly work with and support the LAPD, we honestly feel
they failed us. Saturday. They priority. They told us this
house was priority and that if we saw them setting
(04:38):
up for a party, even in the morning, let them
know and they would take action to stop it before
it came out of control. And we did that. One
o'clock in the afternoon. Neighbors wrote to LAPD's West Valley Division, Oh,
we're going to send our officers there. By three there
(05:00):
were over one hundred people room in the streets, causing
an uproar. But as a sergeant with West Valley made
a decision that it didn't it didn't warrant being shut down.
So they warned the owner one hundred people in.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
The streets at one in the morning. Oh, come on,
any any reasonable person would say.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
This was in the afternoon, John, one in the afternoon.
This started in the afternoon. Yeah, so at one in
the afternoon, three thirty in the afternoon. Even though this
was well underway an a legal party house impacting a neighborhood,
the LAPD made a judgment that they're going to continue
(05:45):
to allow it.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
We have a problem with that that judgment when.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
They made when they shut it down at eight thirty
at night, there were already over five hundred people. Streets
were blocked. It was out of control. And again we
strongly support our officers and work closely with the West
Valley Division. But I told the commanding officer today, we've
(06:13):
got to have a discussion. The neighbors and community leaders
do not feel that this was adequately responded to.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
What do they tell you? So go ahead.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
I'm sorry, no, I mean, but to be fair, you know,
there are more questions than answers about the response to
the nine to one one calls when the murder occurred,
and uh so LAPD came out in response to an
(06:46):
intruder going over the wall a Robin in her husband's home.
But when they got out there, they didn't find any
evidence on the outside of any problem, or did a helicopter,
so they decided judgment no, we're going to leave. It
(07:07):
doesn't seem like it's like the home Alone movie when
the kids, oh, well, it looks fine. But the timeline
shows that Robin and her husband literally came home within
minutes after the police left, and then there was a
nine one one call from the suspect, and the police
(07:28):
came out a second time and again made a judgment, well,
it doesn't look like anything's wrong.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
Wait wait, suspect. Wait, the killer made.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
Made a nine call reporting something. He didn't say, I
just killed two people, but he made a nine to
one one call that the police identified was coming from
that same house, and they sent, they sent, they sent
(08:03):
more patrol units for the second time, which apparently when
they went out was after the murders had occurred. Whether
the suspect was still there or left, nobody will ever know,
but that's the timeline. And so these are questions that
(08:23):
we need answers to and they need to look at
that protocol.
Speaker 1 (08:28):
You know.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
To me, the answers is they don't care.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
Well, again, it's easy to second guess.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
But this is going on all over the city. This
is going on in my neighborhood on the West Side.
Speaker 3 (08:43):
Yeah, but imagine if you have an intruder break into
your home. You call nine one one, or a neighbor
calls nine one one seeing the intruder go over your
fence and the intruder's holding you at gunpoint. The police
come out and everything looked it's okay to them. They
knocked on the door. Nobody is the intruder going to
(09:04):
come to the door, especially with a helicopter overhead. No,
are you going to go to You can't go to
the door. The intruder's not going to go to the door.
So if the police leave, now that crime that maybe
could have been prevented was not. So. I know it
sounds like second guessing, but these are legitimate questions that
(09:25):
we resident.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
You know what, second guessing is important because it's going
on all day, every day, all over the city. It's
a bad system. It's a bad system, and and city
council in the mayor doesn't care.
Speaker 3 (09:39):
And I wouldn't say that, John, I don't think. I. Well, look,
we're having a Zoom community meeting with the mayor. We
invited her, she's showing up. We invited council member Ramen,
she's showing up. We have some very significant philosophical differences
(09:59):
with our council.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
Nay, I've been on these Zoom meetings.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
You have to be very pointed and very persistent because
they have all kinds of canned bs responses to deflect, and.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
We've heard them. We've heard them from our councilwomen before
and we do have very specific yes or no questions
as to action items that the community is asking for.
And our job is to hold our elected officials accountable. Honestly,
(10:34):
we don't view this as red or blue.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
No, everybody wants their normal life back. I appreciate you
coming on and I hope to talk with you again.
Maybe you could tell us the outcome of the ZOOM
meeting and what how you felt. Nathee Rahman and Karen
Bass addressed to your concerns. Rob glueshawan president of the
Ensino Property own Owners Association, thank you for coming on.
Speaker 3 (10:59):
Thank you. Tom.
Speaker 4 (11:00):
All right, you're listening to John Cobelt on demand from
KFI AM six.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Forty earlier in the By the way, no thousand dollars,
we're not doing that for a while, so sit down.
Actually listened to the show. A little while ago. We
gave you the story of the Delta Airlines pilot landed
in San Francisco. He was the co pilot and he
(11:28):
was dragged off the plane by at least ten officers.
Turned out they were federal officers and Channel seven up
the I guess kgo up in San Francisco ran a story,
and the whole story was about one of the female
passengers who was so emotionally distraught and shaken up because
(11:49):
these Homeland Security officers came aboard the plane and dragged
the co pilot out. They never explained why he was
being dragged out and acted like this is another one
of these. The woman in between her her gasping, quavering voice,
acted like, well, these obviously were immigration bullies, and they
(12:14):
must be dragging this guy out on some sort of
bogus immigration charge. She didn't say that, but it was
clear bringing from her from her manner, that she just
thought this was terrible, This was wrong. How could this happen? Well,
they made him disappear. Let's play you a little bit
of her quotes.
Speaker 5 (12:32):
We were all shocked and stunned what was happening. They
barged through and stormed the cockpit, removed the co pilot,
cuffed him, presumably arrested him, you know, brought him back
down the aisle to deplane. I don't know if this
person was disappearing before our eyes, if there had been
(12:56):
a crime committed, or what exactly was happening was scary.
It was traumatic to watch. As soon as my husband
picked me up from Vegas.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Claim.
Speaker 5 (13:09):
I jumped in the car and cried because who knows
what's happening to that poor person? Why that happened? What
did we just see? It's just a huge question mark
and we need to know, like why had this happened?
Speaker 2 (13:24):
That she was crying?
Speaker 1 (13:27):
Who knows what happened to that poor person who was
being picked up. I'll tell you what happened to the
poor person. His name is Rustum Bagwagger, thirty four, co pilot.
He was charged with five counts of oral copulation with
a child under ten years old. You got that, five
(13:53):
counts oral copulation with a child under ten years old?
You play that last part of this dope woman's piece again.
Speaker 5 (14:00):
It's just a huge question mark and we need to know,
like why this happened.
Speaker 1 (14:08):
She thought this was an illegal alien unfairly dragged away,
maybe because of a paperwork error. Sarah, Yeah, San Francisco area.
This is what the progressives think, Like, couldn't you think
if there's ten officers on board a jetplane that's landing,
if they're going to drag away the co pilot, there
must be a really serious reason. Instead, she just assumed
(14:32):
that this this co pilot was being mistreated by bullying,
racist Homeland Security agents.
Speaker 5 (14:39):
Who knows what's happening to that poor person?
Speaker 2 (14:40):
Why that happened? What did we just see.
Speaker 5 (14:43):
It's just a huge question mark, and we need to know,
like why this happened.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Five counts of orl copulation with a child underre ten
years old? What happened to this poor person? What happened
to this poor person? She assumed that the it was
the co pilot getting abused by the federal government over
immigration problems.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
These guy's from Florida.
Speaker 1 (15:05):
He's been under investigation since April, the California Sheriff's office
got a report about child sex crimes.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
Here's another one.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
A group of people with badgers, guns and vests and
marketings were pushing their way through the aisle of the cockpit. God,
this is the progressive mindset, and they're all falling apart.
They're all crying, they're all emotional, they're all weeping that
this man's freedom was unfairly taken away.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
Gee, if you could see videos of what he was
doing to the little kids.
Speaker 5 (15:35):
I don't know if this person was disappearing before our eyes.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
Homeland Security said it was helping local police execute an
arrest warrant. There was an investigation with the Contra Costa
County Sheriff's office, so it wasn't an immigration issue at all.
They just needed some help because they were on a plane. Wow,
(16:03):
that to me encapsulates how completely whacked out progressive people
are complete. She's in tears, this poor person. It never
occurred to her that maybe the co pilot might have
been a very very bad guy. And boy hit the
jackpot on that one. A sex perc performing sex acts
on children under the age of ten. Now Channel seven
(16:27):
and any guts, they go back to this woman and
see what she thinks today. Somebody gonna tell that reporter
what was her name, Francis Wang? I think, yeah, Francis Wang.
It should be a part two on this. Are we
coming back? Michael Monks, he was monitoring the hearing today
because you know, there was a judge who there was
(16:49):
a judge to federal judge in Los Angeles earlier this
month found that Trump's roving immigration patrols might be unconstitutional.
They were being conducted without reasonable suspicion. Well, the Ninth
Circuit Court in San Francisco. Listen to the arguments Michael
(17:10):
Monks watched them. There's no decision, but he would tell
us what he saw.
Speaker 3 (17:13):
Next.
Speaker 4 (17:14):
You're listening to John Cobels on demand from KFI Am sixty.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
Oh you just joining us. Be ashamed of yourself. But
you can listen to the show. Right after four o'clock
we posted online on the iHeart app John cobelts Show
on demand and you could pick up whatever you missed.
All right, Michael Monks is here from KFI News. Today
was appeal day for the Trump administration Ninth Circuit Court
(17:42):
of Appeals. A lower court judge had stopped roving immigration
raids here in California, saying that they were being conducted
without reasonable suspicion, just rounding up people who looked a
certain way, and that's wrong. I'm constantal Michael Munks, What
did you see in the Pallette hearing?
Speaker 6 (18:03):
I saw that argument pretty well emphasized by the attorney
representing the ACOU, one of the groups that filed this lawsuit,
a lawsuit that has been joined by several local governments
here in La County and now Orange County as well,
hoping to put a stop to these suspicionless immigration stops
and What they mean by that is there are agents
who are showing up at places like car washes, They're
(18:25):
showing up in the home depot, parking lots. They're coming
to places where, yes, there may be illegal immigrants, but
what was the suspicion, what was the cause for that?
Speaker 2 (18:36):
Stop.
Speaker 6 (18:36):
If you're just target a car wash and that's not allowed,
that is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Apparently, that's
the argument here, is that it can't just go up
to somebody who's working at a car wash because they're
working at a car wash. You can't just go up
to somebody because he's Latino. You can't just go up
to somebody because she's speaking Spanish. You have to have
(18:57):
reasonable suspicion that this person is here illegally beyond those characteristics.
A federal judge here in Los Angeles said, that's exactly
what these federal agents are doing. They're violating the rights
of these illegal immigrants who are here because they're being
approached without the existence of that suspicion.
Speaker 1 (19:16):
So how did the Trump administration lawyers fight this?
Speaker 6 (19:19):
So they have gone and said, you are doing irreparable
harm to our ability to enforce federal law. We are
enforcing federal law. We are doing exactly what we are
supposed to be doing, which is arresting and eventually deporting
illegal immigrants. So by I guess tying our hands with
this ruling, we are unable to do that. You have noticed,
(19:43):
I'm sure that there are far fewer operations taking place,
at least publicly visible ones, since this ruling came down
at the federal level. So the Trump administration has gone
to the Court of Appeals, and that hearing lasted under
two hours. It started about one o'clock this afternoon finished
before three o'clock. It was virtual hearing, so I was
able to watch it online. And there were three judges
(20:04):
and one attorney for the for the White House and
one attorney for the Aco. You made this argument, and
it seemed that the judges were not entirely sympathetic to
the argument from the Trump administration. I'm going to play
a clip for you, Okay. This is Judge Sung basically
saying what problems may exist for the Trump administration's argument.
Speaker 7 (20:24):
You're actually doing what the district court found you to
be doing then and has enjoined you from doing, then
there should be no harm. There's They're only actually constrained
if you're doing what she found you to be doing
and is telling you to not do, which you were
either it's unclear denying that you're doing it all, or
(20:46):
you're saying it's lawful. So if you know, but if
it seems on the evidentiary issue you have to be
saying we're not doing that, then you'll have the opportunity
to show that. But if you're if you're not doing that,
then you're not actually affecting.
Speaker 6 (21:01):
So what you're saying is, look, if you're not just
going up to folks because of where they work, because
of how they look, or because of how they're speaking,
then there really is no problem affecting you. This ruling
does not apply to you. But if you are doing
those things, you are in violation of the law. And
I thought that was an interesting observation by the judge
and maybe showing the cards a bit about where they
(21:23):
may eventually rule or issue some sort of edict. They
have not done that yet, they say it will be
in due course, but this has obviously had ramifications for
immigration enforcement.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
In southern California.
Speaker 6 (21:36):
We saw the federal agents move up to Sacramento for
a while because they could not do what they wanted
to do here.
Speaker 1 (21:43):
Now, I suppose what they could do, and I think
they've done with other companies, is look into the files
of the people hired and then do a background check
and then determine their immigration status and then arrest them.
That that would take more time and work.
Speaker 6 (21:58):
It does take work, and maybe you could have gone
to law school because that exact argument was brought up
basically today, Like we talked about the car wash. I
can't come to John Cobelt's car wash because I believe
illegal immigrants are working there. But if I know, and
I have evidence that John Coblt's car wash hires illegal
immigrants and has in the past, then that is the
(22:19):
reasonable suspicion.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
Even if the Homeland Security ICE officers they were just
questioning these people and if they got an admission, they'd
be detained. But if they could prove that they're here,
I mean, if they could prove they're here illegally, they're
here legally, they'd be let go. You can't even stop
them and question them and then make the determination.
Speaker 6 (22:41):
I think that's a great question because I have not
read or heard about anybody being released. Because I mean,
if they retroactively enforce this policy. A lot of people
would be released from custody, presumably because of the way
they are salvage.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
Yeah, right, they've been shipped.
Speaker 6 (22:58):
But this could be a serious problem if that's the
route that this goes. I think what has happened in
some cases that we know of because of previous reporting.
Let's say the immigration agents know for sure there's an
illegal immigrant that they're going to go find, and then
there are four or five other ones who may not
have done anything wrong other than crossing the border. They
get rounded up as well. Unclear how this would apply
(23:20):
to that, because that situation is different. They had reasonable
suspicious suspicion to go after one person and found other
people involved. This primarily stops them from going up to
people at the fruit stand, the car washes, the home depot.
Speaker 1 (23:34):
Yeah, because Tom Holmans was saying, is that we're going
after people that we know are here illegally. We got
to already a warrant out for them, they've already been
ordered deported, and if we find others in the vicinity,
then yeah, they're going to.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
And we can do that.
Speaker 6 (23:47):
And one of the arguments you heard from the ACLU
today was we know the Trump administration. We've heard this
number reported from national press. Three thousand a day. We
want three thousand deportations a day, and there's really I mean,
they're just there's no way that you get to that
number just by people who have other criminal warrants outside
of the initial.
Speaker 2 (24:06):
Violation, because it takes a long time to find exactly
so it is.
Speaker 6 (24:09):
That would require gathering up the car washes, gathering up
the home depot, parking lots, the fruit stands and all that.
Speaker 1 (24:15):
They probably knew this would be challenged. But what they
do is they try to make a quick hit, break
a lot of furniture, and then if they get caught,
it's like, oh, oh well, sorry about that. Yeah, that's
that's been their status. They're all the entire time. All right, Michael,
thanks very much, my pleasure, and no decision though not yet.
(24:35):
The due course is what the judge said, course three
Democratic appointees here that hurt this particular case. Yes, to
Clinton appointees and one Biden appointee. Two Clinton appointees. Yeah,
god's taking us back years. Well, they both have senior status.
So this is the kind of take on some cases. Oh,
they're drawn from the nursing home. Yeah, exactly, the overflow room. Okay,
all right, Michael Monks, I find news.
Speaker 4 (24:58):
You're listening to John Bells on demand from KFI A
six forty.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
You could follow us at John Cobelt Radio and social
media at John Cobelt Radio and in a little bit,
if you missed the show today, well we do have
a podcast to save you John Cobelt Show on Demand
and you could follow what you missed on the iHeartRadio app. Tomorrow,
we are going to cover an ordinance that the La
(25:27):
County Board of Supervisors. These adults, Janis Han and hildesalise
are the dumbest members. I mean, they're really really blockheads.
And their idea is to draft an ordinance that bans
law enforcement officers from wearing a mask while on duty.
(25:49):
This is aimed at ice agents over the immigration raids.
They're obsessed with agents wearing masks. They're not going to
win because the federal government gets to decide how their
law enforcement agents are dressed. The state and the city
have no jurisdiction. It's total nonsense.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
And the.
Speaker 1 (26:14):
Rioters and the agitators that Han and Salisee support, they
want to see their faces and want to see their
badges so that they could harass those officers and their families.
They want to terrorize and threaten them. That's the truth.
(26:35):
That's what they're looking for. And han want to enable
the terrorist crowd so that they could terrorize ICE agents
and their families. Genisn Elvisalise. That's what they're fighting for.
This amused me. This is in the National Review. One
(26:55):
of their writers, Dominic Pino, found peace in the Washington Post.
The headline they're rich, They're anti Trump, and they don't
want their big tax cut. Okay, these these are progressives
who hate Trump so much they don't want the tax cut.
(27:16):
These these they're wealthier people. You know, the top tax
rate was going to hit thirty nine point six percent
after this year, and this new big, beautiful bill reduces
it to thirty seven percent, So two point six percentage
points when you're making six and seven figures, that adds
(27:38):
up to a lot of money. Well, they profiled one
rich Democrat named Kimberly Hoover, and the accountant told her
that her family is going to save several millions of
dollars over the next few years because of Trump's new
tax law. Well, Hoover just can't have that, mind you.
(28:01):
She and her family earns the money legally and found
out she's gonna save millions of dollars with this tax cut.
Speaker 2 (28:09):
She's furious.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
According to the writer, while many Americans might rejoice at
that kind of windfall, Hoover worked hard to stop it
from becoming a reality. She was arguing to lawmakers that
she has more money than she needs. She was actually
lobbying lawmakers. Here's a quote. At some point, it starts
to feel wrong, it starts to feel excessive, it starts
(28:35):
to feel somehow inappropriate, and at some point it just
doesn't feel good. Remember it's a law that allows her
to keep her own money imbalanced. It's really not good
for anyone, even if you're on the positive end of
the imbolence, because it's unsustainable. Kimberly Hoover, by the way,
(28:58):
they interviewed her while she was on a break from me,
and I'm not making this up. A lesbian literature conference
that she sponsors in Allbany, New York.
Speaker 2 (29:08):
That sounds like a good time.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
So what to do with the with all this extra
money that Kimberlee Hoover has, I mean, I mean she
earned it, and now the government won't take it anymore,
at least not take as much.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
What is she going to do with it?
Speaker 1 (29:24):
Well, The National Review points out that the Treasury since
eighteen forty three has had a special account that accepts gifts,
and you could send them a gift and it's for
general use by the federal government and they can use
it in their general budget. So if you're upset about
(29:46):
paying thirty seven percent tax instead of thirty nine and
a half, well you could pay that two and a
half percent tax. By the way, our tax rate top
tax rate is pretty low compared to some countries. Sweden
has a top rate of fifth efty six percent, France
fifty percent. So what she can do is, when the
(30:08):
accountant calculates the extra two and a half percent tax
that she now saves, she could write a check. You
you could you could go online at pay dot gov
and put in your bank account number or a credit card,
(30:28):
or you can actually write a check and mail it
to gifts to the United States US Department of the Treasury,
Reporting an Analysis Branch to Post Office Box thirteen twenty eight, Parkersburg,
West Virginia, two sixty one oh six one three two eight.
So wealthy progressives who feel guilty that they're getting too
(30:50):
much of their tax money back in the coming year,
that's what you do.
Speaker 3 (30:56):
Now.
Speaker 1 (30:56):
You may wonder how many how much money is sent
to the government as a donation. Well, so far this year,
remember the government budget I think is near seven trillion dollars. Well,
the public sends four hundred and the public has sent
four hundred and thirty four thousand, five hundred and forty
(31:19):
one dollars and sixty five cents.
Speaker 2 (31:22):
That's all.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
So for all the wealthy left wing progressives who were
incensed about the tax cut, which by the way, benefits
everybody from from the rich down to the poor, they've
only donated four hundred and thirty four thousand dollars. I
think the word is hypocrite. That's right, hypocrite. You don't
(31:48):
want to, you want to pay more tax, you can,
it's legal, they'll take it.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
Go to pay dot gov.
Speaker 1 (32:00):
Follow along, and you could pay all that excess money
that you think you're unfairly keeping. I will never ever
understand human nature. You earned it, you should be able
to keep it as much as possible. But if you
don't want to, you can donate it all right. Conway's
up next, and we have Brigitta Diagostino in for Krozier
(32:23):
live in the CAFI twenty four hour newsroom. Hey, you've
been listening to The John Cobalt Show podcast. You can
always hear the show live on KFI AM six forty
from one to four pm every Monday through Friday, and
of course, anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app
Can't I am six forty. You're listening to the John
Cobel podcast on the iHeartRadio app. We are on every
day from one until four o'clock and then the podcast
after four o'clock and you can catch up on what
you missed at one o'clock hour. We explained in detail
through some pieces written by Michael Sellenberger and Christopher Rufo.
(00:25):
These are the guys who've been exposing a lot of
the nonsense in California government and why they have failed
at getting rid of the homeless for many, many years now,
and they will continue to fail. It's part of the plan.
And we explain just how much money these homeless operations
(00:45):
are making, these nonprofits, how much money that they contribute
to Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass's campaign. And regardless of
what anybody says out loud, there is no intention to
disrupt the gravy train. Nothing is going to change as
long as you keep voting for the same type of people,
(01:08):
the Karen Bass Gavin Newsom model. And this is why
also you've got mental patients running around even if they
have homes. This is why you have so much crime happening.
What got everybody's attention was when the American Idol music
supervisor rober robin Ka and her husband, they were shot
(01:29):
and killed in Encino two weeks ago, and there have
been more burglaries since. You also had a party at
a home on White Oak Avenue, which the police had
to break up. They thought there was a shooting there.
Not sure what became of that. Rob Glueshawan you just
(01:50):
heard him on the CBS two news story at the
end of last hour. He's a president of the Encino
Property Owners Association and he's coming on here.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Welcome Rob. How are you?
Speaker 3 (02:02):
We've had better weeks, John, Oh my god. Hanging in there.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
It's just one punch after another. But let's let's start
first with this house party. The headline said possible shooting.
Uh did it turn out to be an actual shooting?
Speaker 3 (02:21):
I don't have any information about that. I live right
around the corner. But while the police say there's no
connection with that party house and the tragic murders, robin
K was begging city officials to stop this illegal use
(02:41):
for years, and in fact was at the West Valley
LAPD station the night before she was killed with her husband,
and she was concerned about her Their safety because their
home had been broken into in May. And I believe
(03:02):
she talked about the party house too. So for more
than four years. Uh, this illegal party house has been
cited by l APD numerous times.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
And when a party house is cited, what does that mean?
You get?
Speaker 1 (03:15):
You get a paper citation and then everybody goes on
to the next party.
Speaker 3 (03:20):
Well again that this is our one of our gripes.
What happens in LA is you get a piece of
paper and pay a fine. Well, when you're charging one
hundred dollars per person and you get five hundred people,
you do the math paying a fine of whether it's
(03:41):
a couple of hundred dollars or whatever it is, it
is just a cost of doing business. This party house
would have been shut down in Beverly Hills, it would
have been shut down in Burbank or any other city
in La County. But in La you can break the
law and there really are no consequences.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
LAPD comes over, they hand out the sheet of paper
and then and then that's it. And is this under
Is this under the direction of the mayor or the
city council? Woman Nitthia Rahman, I mean, who who's in
charge in a situation like this.
Speaker 3 (04:16):
Well, if we're talking about the party house. While we
strongly work with and support the LAPD, we honestly feel
they failed us. Saturday. They priority. They told us this
house was priority and that if we saw them setting
(04:38):
up for a party, even in the morning, let them
know and they would take action to stop it before
it came out of control. And we did that. One
o'clock in the afternoon. Neighbors wrote to LAPD's West Valley Division, Oh,
we're going to send our officers there. By three there
(05:00):
were over one hundred people room in the streets, causing
an uproar. But as a sergeant with West Valley made
a decision that it didn't it didn't warrant being shut down.
So they warned the owner one hundred people in.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
The streets at one in the morning. Oh, come on,
any any reasonable person would say.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
This was in the afternoon, John, one in the afternoon.
This started in the afternoon. Yeah, so at one in
the afternoon, three thirty in the afternoon. Even though this
was well underway an a legal party house impacting a neighborhood,
the LAPD made a judgment that they're going to continue
(05:45):
to allow it.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
We have a problem with that that judgment when.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
They made when they shut it down at eight thirty
at night, there were already over five hundred people. Streets
were blocked. It was out of control. And again we
strongly support our officers and work closely with the West
Valley Division. But I told the commanding officer today, we've
(06:13):
got to have a discussion. The neighbors and community leaders
do not feel that this was adequately responded to.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
What do they tell you? So go ahead.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
I'm sorry, no, I mean, but to be fair, you know,
there are more questions than answers about the response to
the nine to one one calls when the murder occurred,
and uh so LAPD came out in response to an
(06:46):
intruder going over the wall a Robin in her husband's home.
But when they got out there, they didn't find any
evidence on the outside of any problem, or did a helicopter,
so they decided judgment no, we're going to leave. It
(07:07):
doesn't seem like it's like the home Alone movie when
the kids, oh, well, it looks fine. But the timeline
shows that Robin and her husband literally came home within
minutes after the police left, and then there was a
nine one one call from the suspect, and the police
(07:28):
came out a second time and again made a judgment, well,
it doesn't look like anything's wrong.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
Wait wait, suspect. Wait, the killer made.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
Made a nine call reporting something. He didn't say, I
just killed two people, but he made a nine to
one one call that the police identified was coming from
that same house, and they sent, they sent, they sent
(08:03):
more patrol units for the second time, which apparently when
they went out was after the murders had occurred. Whether
the suspect was still there or left, nobody will ever know,
but that's the timeline. And so these are questions that
(08:23):
we need answers to and they need to look at
that protocol.
Speaker 1 (08:28):
You know.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
To me, the answers is they don't care.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
Well, again, it's easy to second guess.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
But this is going on all over the city. This
is going on in my neighborhood on the West Side.
Speaker 3 (08:43):
Yeah, but imagine if you have an intruder break into
your home. You call nine one one, or a neighbor
calls nine one one seeing the intruder go over your
fence and the intruder's holding you at gunpoint. The police
come out and everything looked it's okay to them. They
knocked on the door. Nobody is the intruder going to
(09:04):
come to the door, especially with a helicopter overhead. No,
are you going to go to You can't go to
the door. The intruder's not going to go to the door.
So if the police leave, now that crime that maybe
could have been prevented was not. So. I know it
sounds like second guessing, but these are legitimate questions that
(09:25):
we resident.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
You know what, second guessing is important because it's going
on all day, every day, all over the city. It's
a bad system. It's a bad system, and and city
council in the mayor doesn't care.
Speaker 3 (09:39):
And I wouldn't say that, John, I don't think. I. Well, look,
we're having a Zoom community meeting with the mayor. We
invited her, she's showing up. We invited council member Ramen,
she's showing up. We have some very significant philosophical differences
(09:59):
with our council.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
Nay, I've been on these Zoom meetings.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
You have to be very pointed and very persistent because
they have all kinds of canned bs responses to deflect, and.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
We've heard them. We've heard them from our councilwomen before
and we do have very specific yes or no questions
as to action items that the community is asking for.
And our job is to hold our elected officials accountable. Honestly,
(10:34):
we don't view this as red or blue.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
No, everybody wants their normal life back. I appreciate you
coming on and I hope to talk with you again.
Maybe you could tell us the outcome of the ZOOM
meeting and what how you felt. Nathee Rahman and Karen
Bass addressed to your concerns. Rob glueshawan president of the
Ensino Property own Owners Association, thank you for coming on.
Speaker 3 (10:59):
Thank you. Tom.
Speaker 4 (11:00):
All right, you're listening to John Cobelt on demand from
KFI AM six.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Forty earlier in the By the way, no thousand dollars,
we're not doing that for a while, so sit down.
Actually listened to the show. A little while ago. We
gave you the story of the Delta Airlines pilot landed
in San Francisco. He was the co pilot and he
(11:28):
was dragged off the plane by at least ten officers.
Turned out they were federal officers and Channel seven up
the I guess kgo up in San Francisco ran a story,
and the whole story was about one of the female
passengers who was so emotionally distraught and shaken up because
(11:49):
these Homeland Security officers came aboard the plane and dragged
the co pilot out. They never explained why he was
being dragged out and acted like this is another one
of these. The woman in between her her gasping, quavering voice,
acted like, well, these obviously were immigration bullies, and they
(12:14):
must be dragging this guy out on some sort of
bogus immigration charge. She didn't say that, but it was
clear bringing from her from her manner, that she just
thought this was terrible, This was wrong. How could this happen? Well,
they made him disappear. Let's play you a little bit
of her quotes.
Speaker 5 (12:32):
We were all shocked and stunned what was happening. They
barged through and stormed the cockpit, removed the co pilot,
cuffed him, presumably arrested him, you know, brought him back
down the aisle to deplane. I don't know if this
person was disappearing before our eyes, if there had been
(12:56):
a crime committed, or what exactly was happening was scary.
It was traumatic to watch. As soon as my husband
picked me up from Vegas.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Claim.
Speaker 5 (13:09):
I jumped in the car and cried because who knows
what's happening to that poor person? Why that happened? What
did we just see? It's just a huge question mark
and we need to know, like why had this happened?
Speaker 2 (13:24):
That she was crying?
Speaker 1 (13:27):
Who knows what happened to that poor person who was
being picked up. I'll tell you what happened to the
poor person. His name is Rustum Bagwagger, thirty four, co pilot.
He was charged with five counts of oral copulation with
a child under ten years old. You got that, five
(13:53):
counts oral copulation with a child under ten years old?
You play that last part of this dope woman's piece again.
Speaker 5 (14:00):
It's just a huge question mark and we need to know,
like why this happened.
Speaker 1 (14:08):
She thought this was an illegal alien unfairly dragged away,
maybe because of a paperwork error. Sarah, Yeah, San Francisco area.
This is what the progressives think, Like, couldn't you think
if there's ten officers on board a jetplane that's landing,
if they're going to drag away the co pilot, there
must be a really serious reason. Instead, she just assumed
(14:32):
that this this co pilot was being mistreated by bullying,
racist Homeland Security agents.
Speaker 5 (14:39):
Who knows what's happening to that poor person?
Speaker 2 (14:40):
Why that happened? What did we just see.
Speaker 5 (14:43):
It's just a huge question mark, and we need to know,
like why this happened.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Five counts of orl copulation with a child underre ten
years old? What happened to this poor person? What happened
to this poor person? She assumed that the it was
the co pilot getting abused by the federal government over
immigration problems.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
These guy's from Florida.
Speaker 1 (15:05):
He's been under investigation since April, the California Sheriff's office
got a report about child sex crimes.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
Here's another one.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
A group of people with badgers, guns and vests and
marketings were pushing their way through the aisle of the cockpit. God,
this is the progressive mindset, and they're all falling apart.
They're all crying, they're all emotional, they're all weeping that
this man's freedom was unfairly taken away.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
Gee, if you could see videos of what he was
doing to the little kids.
Speaker 5 (15:35):
I don't know if this person was disappearing before our eyes.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
Homeland Security said it was helping local police execute an
arrest warrant. There was an investigation with the Contra Costa
County Sheriff's office, so it wasn't an immigration issue at all.
They just needed some help because they were on a plane. Wow,
(16:03):
that to me encapsulates how completely whacked out progressive people
are complete. She's in tears, this poor person. It never
occurred to her that maybe the co pilot might have
been a very very bad guy. And boy hit the
jackpot on that one. A sex perc performing sex acts
on children under the age of ten. Now Channel seven
(16:27):
and any guts, they go back to this woman and
see what she thinks today. Somebody gonna tell that reporter
what was her name, Francis Wang? I think, yeah, Francis Wang.
It should be a part two on this. Are we
coming back? Michael Monks, he was monitoring the hearing today
because you know, there was a judge who there was
(16:49):
a judge to federal judge in Los Angeles earlier this
month found that Trump's roving immigration patrols might be unconstitutional.
They were being conducted without reasonable suspicion. Well, the Ninth
Circuit Court in San Francisco. Listen to the arguments Michael
(17:10):
Monks watched them. There's no decision, but he would tell
us what he saw.
Speaker 3 (17:13):
Next.
Speaker 4 (17:14):
You're listening to John Cobels on demand from KFI Am sixty.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
Oh you just joining us. Be ashamed of yourself. But
you can listen to the show. Right after four o'clock
we posted online on the iHeart app John cobelts Show
on demand and you could pick up whatever you missed.
All right, Michael Monks is here from KFI News. Today
was appeal day for the Trump administration Ninth Circuit Court
(17:42):
of Appeals. A lower court judge had stopped roving immigration
raids here in California, saying that they were being conducted
without reasonable suspicion, just rounding up people who looked a
certain way, and that's wrong. I'm constantal Michael Munks, What
did you see in the Pallette hearing?
Speaker 6 (18:03):
I saw that argument pretty well emphasized by the attorney
representing the ACOU, one of the groups that filed this lawsuit,
a lawsuit that has been joined by several local governments
here in La County and now Orange County as well,
hoping to put a stop to these suspicionless immigration stops
and What they mean by that is there are agents
who are showing up at places like car washes, They're
(18:25):
showing up in the home depot, parking lots. They're coming
to places where, yes, there may be illegal immigrants, but
what was the suspicion, what was the cause for that?
Speaker 2 (18:36):
Stop.
Speaker 6 (18:36):
If you're just target a car wash and that's not allowed,
that is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Apparently, that's
the argument here, is that it can't just go up
to somebody who's working at a car wash because they're
working at a car wash. You can't just go up
to somebody because he's Latino. You can't just go up
to somebody because she's speaking Spanish. You have to have
(18:57):
reasonable suspicion that this person is here illegally beyond those characteristics.
A federal judge here in Los Angeles said, that's exactly
what these federal agents are doing. They're violating the rights
of these illegal immigrants who are here because they're being
approached without the existence of that suspicion.
Speaker 1 (19:16):
So how did the Trump administration lawyers fight this?
Speaker 6 (19:19):
So they have gone and said, you are doing irreparable
harm to our ability to enforce federal law. We are
enforcing federal law. We are doing exactly what we are
supposed to be doing, which is arresting and eventually deporting
illegal immigrants. So by I guess tying our hands with
this ruling, we are unable to do that. You have noticed,
(19:43):
I'm sure that there are far fewer operations taking place,
at least publicly visible ones, since this ruling came down
at the federal level. So the Trump administration has gone
to the Court of Appeals, and that hearing lasted under
two hours. It started about one o'clock this afternoon finished
before three o'clock. It was virtual hearing, so I was
able to watch it online. And there were three judges
(20:04):
and one attorney for the for the White House and
one attorney for the Aco. You made this argument, and
it seemed that the judges were not entirely sympathetic to
the argument from the Trump administration. I'm going to play
a clip for you, Okay. This is Judge Sung basically
saying what problems may exist for the Trump administration's argument.
Speaker 7 (20:24):
You're actually doing what the district court found you to
be doing then and has enjoined you from doing, then
there should be no harm. There's They're only actually constrained
if you're doing what she found you to be doing
and is telling you to not do, which you were
either it's unclear denying that you're doing it all, or
(20:46):
you're saying it's lawful. So if you know, but if
it seems on the evidentiary issue you have to be
saying we're not doing that, then you'll have the opportunity
to show that. But if you're if you're not doing that,
then you're not actually affecting.
Speaker 6 (21:01):
So what you're saying is, look, if you're not just
going up to folks because of where they work, because
of how they look, or because of how they're speaking,
then there really is no problem affecting you. This ruling
does not apply to you. But if you are doing
those things, you are in violation of the law. And
I thought that was an interesting observation by the judge
and maybe showing the cards a bit about where they
(21:23):
may eventually rule or issue some sort of edict. They
have not done that yet, they say it will be
in due course, but this has obviously had ramifications for
immigration enforcement.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
In southern California.
Speaker 6 (21:36):
We saw the federal agents move up to Sacramento for
a while because they could not do what they wanted
to do here.
Speaker 1 (21:43):
Now, I suppose what they could do, and I think
they've done with other companies, is look into the files
of the people hired and then do a background check
and then determine their immigration status and then arrest them.
That that would take more time and work.
Speaker 6 (21:58):
It does take work, and maybe you could have gone
to law school because that exact argument was brought up
basically today, Like we talked about the car wash. I
can't come to John Cobelt's car wash because I believe
illegal immigrants are working there. But if I know, and
I have evidence that John Coblt's car wash hires illegal
immigrants and has in the past, then that is the
(22:19):
reasonable suspicion.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
Even if the Homeland Security ICE officers they were just
questioning these people and if they got an admission, they'd
be detained. But if they could prove that they're here,
I mean, if they could prove they're here illegally, they're
here legally, they'd be let go. You can't even stop
them and question them and then make the determination.
Speaker 6 (22:41):
I think that's a great question because I have not
read or heard about anybody being released. Because I mean,
if they retroactively enforce this policy. A lot of people
would be released from custody, presumably because of the way
they are salvage.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
Yeah, right, they've been shipped.
Speaker 6 (22:58):
But this could be a serious problem if that's the
route that this goes. I think what has happened in
some cases that we know of because of previous reporting.
Let's say the immigration agents know for sure there's an
illegal immigrant that they're going to go find, and then
there are four or five other ones who may not
have done anything wrong other than crossing the border. They
get rounded up as well. Unclear how this would apply
(23:20):
to that, because that situation is different. They had reasonable
suspicious suspicion to go after one person and found other
people involved. This primarily stops them from going up to
people at the fruit stand, the car washes, the home depot.
Speaker 1 (23:34):
Yeah, because Tom Holmans was saying, is that we're going
after people that we know are here illegally. We got
to already a warrant out for them, they've already been
ordered deported, and if we find others in the vicinity,
then yeah, they're going to.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
And we can do that.
Speaker 6 (23:47):
And one of the arguments you heard from the ACLU
today was we know the Trump administration. We've heard this
number reported from national press. Three thousand a day. We
want three thousand deportations a day, and there's really I mean,
they're just there's no way that you get to that
number just by people who have other criminal warrants outside
of the initial.
Speaker 2 (24:06):
Violation, because it takes a long time to find exactly
so it is.
Speaker 6 (24:09):
That would require gathering up the car washes, gathering up
the home depot, parking lots, the fruit stands and all that.
Speaker 1 (24:15):
They probably knew this would be challenged. But what they
do is they try to make a quick hit, break
a lot of furniture, and then if they get caught,
it's like, oh, oh well, sorry about that. Yeah, that's
that's been their status. They're all the entire time. All right, Michael,
thanks very much, my pleasure, and no decision though not yet.
(24:35):
The due course is what the judge said, course three
Democratic appointees here that hurt this particular case. Yes, to
Clinton appointees and one Biden appointee. Two Clinton appointees. Yeah,
god's taking us back years. Well, they both have senior status.
So this is the kind of take on some cases. Oh,
they're drawn from the nursing home. Yeah, exactly, the overflow room. Okay,
all right, Michael Monks, I find news.
Speaker 4 (24:58):
You're listening to John Bells on demand from KFI A
six forty.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
You could follow us at John Cobelt Radio and social
media at John Cobelt Radio and in a little bit,
if you missed the show today, well we do have
a podcast to save you John Cobelt Show on Demand
and you could follow what you missed on the iHeartRadio app. Tomorrow,
we are going to cover an ordinance that the La
(25:27):
County Board of Supervisors. These adults, Janis Han and hildesalise
are the dumbest members. I mean, they're really really blockheads.
And their idea is to draft an ordinance that bans
law enforcement officers from wearing a mask while on duty.
(25:49):
This is aimed at ice agents over the immigration raids.
They're obsessed with agents wearing masks. They're not going to
win because the federal government gets to decide how their
law enforcement agents are dressed. The state and the city
have no jurisdiction. It's total nonsense.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
And the.
Speaker 1 (26:14):
Rioters and the agitators that Han and Salisee support, they
want to see their faces and want to see their
badges so that they could harass those officers and their families.
They want to terrorize and threaten them. That's the truth.
(26:35):
That's what they're looking for. And han want to enable
the terrorist crowd so that they could terrorize ICE agents
and their families. Genisn Elvisalise. That's what they're fighting for.
This amused me. This is in the National Review. One
(26:55):
of their writers, Dominic Pino, found peace in the Washington Post.
The headline they're rich, They're anti Trump, and they don't
want their big tax cut. Okay, these these are progressives
who hate Trump so much they don't want the tax cut.
(27:16):
These these they're wealthier people. You know, the top tax
rate was going to hit thirty nine point six percent
after this year, and this new big, beautiful bill reduces
it to thirty seven percent, So two point six percentage
points when you're making six and seven figures, that adds
(27:38):
up to a lot of money. Well, they profiled one
rich Democrat named Kimberly Hoover, and the accountant told her
that her family is going to save several millions of
dollars over the next few years because of Trump's new
tax law. Well, Hoover just can't have that, mind you.
(28:01):
She and her family earns the money legally and found
out she's gonna save millions of dollars with this tax cut.
Speaker 2 (28:09):
She's furious.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
According to the writer, while many Americans might rejoice at
that kind of windfall, Hoover worked hard to stop it
from becoming a reality. She was arguing to lawmakers that
she has more money than she needs. She was actually
lobbying lawmakers. Here's a quote. At some point, it starts
to feel wrong, it starts to feel excessive, it starts
(28:35):
to feel somehow inappropriate, and at some point it just
doesn't feel good. Remember it's a law that allows her
to keep her own money imbalanced. It's really not good
for anyone, even if you're on the positive end of
the imbolence, because it's unsustainable. Kimberly Hoover, by the way,
(28:58):
they interviewed her while she was on a break from me,
and I'm not making this up. A lesbian literature conference
that she sponsors in Allbany, New York.
Speaker 2 (29:08):
That sounds like a good time.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
So what to do with the with all this extra
money that Kimberlee Hoover has, I mean, I mean she
earned it, and now the government won't take it anymore,
at least not take as much.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
What is she going to do with it?
Speaker 1 (29:24):
Well, The National Review points out that the Treasury since
eighteen forty three has had a special account that accepts gifts,
and you could send them a gift and it's for
general use by the federal government and they can use
it in their general budget. So if you're upset about
(29:46):
paying thirty seven percent tax instead of thirty nine and
a half, well you could pay that two and a
half percent tax. By the way, our tax rate top
tax rate is pretty low compared to some countries. Sweden
has a top rate of fifth efty six percent, France
fifty percent. So what she can do is, when the
(30:08):
accountant calculates the extra two and a half percent tax
that she now saves, she could write a check. You
you could you could go online at pay dot gov
and put in your bank account number or a credit card,
(30:28):
or you can actually write a check and mail it
to gifts to the United States US Department of the Treasury,
Reporting an Analysis Branch to Post Office Box thirteen twenty eight, Parkersburg,
West Virginia, two sixty one oh six one three two eight.
So wealthy progressives who feel guilty that they're getting too
(30:50):
much of their tax money back in the coming year,
that's what you do.
Speaker 3 (30:56):
Now.
Speaker 1 (30:56):
You may wonder how many how much money is sent
to the government as a donation. Well, so far this year,
remember the government budget I think is near seven trillion dollars. Well,
the public sends four hundred and the public has sent
four hundred and thirty four thousand, five hundred and forty
(31:19):
one dollars and sixty five cents.
Speaker 2 (31:22):
That's all.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
So for all the wealthy left wing progressives who were
incensed about the tax cut, which by the way, benefits
everybody from from the rich down to the poor, they've
only donated four hundred and thirty four thousand dollars. I
think the word is hypocrite. That's right, hypocrite. You don't
(31:48):
want to, you want to pay more tax, you can,
it's legal, they'll take it.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
Go to pay dot gov.
Speaker 1 (32:00):
Follow along, and you could pay all that excess money
that you think you're unfairly keeping. I will never ever
understand human nature. You earned it, you should be able
to keep it as much as possible. But if you
don't want to, you can donate it all right. Conway's
up next, and we have Brigitta Diagostino in for Krozier
(32:23):
live in the CAFI twenty four hour newsroom. Hey, you've
been listening to The John Cobalt Show podcast. You can
always hear the show live on KFI AM six forty
from one 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. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.