July 10, 2025 • 34 mins
The John Kobylt Show Hour 1 (07/10) - Director of the National Institutes of Health Dr. Jay Bhattacharia comes on the show to talk about the COVID-19 and vaccine coverups that took place under the former Director of the NIH Dr. Anthony Fauci. Michael Monks comes on the show to talk about a federal agent operation in Ventura County. More on Gov. Newsom being in South Carolina.
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.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
You're listening to the John Cobelt Podcast on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
It's the John Cobelt Show.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We're on every day from one until four o'clock and
every day after four o'clock. Whatever you miss you can
get on the podcast John Cobelt's Show on demand that's
on the iHeart app. We have a tremendous amount to
do and I want to get right into it because
we've got a special guest today. Jay Baticharia is the
new director of the National Institutes of Health, replacing Anthony Fauci.
(00:32):
We had him on the show you back in the
twenty twenty era when COVID broke, because Babicharia was one
of the few prominent voices at the time who said, wait, wait,
we don't have to lock all society down here. It's
going to damage people's mental health, physical health, children's educations,
not to mention what it did to the economy. And
(00:55):
he was vilified, criticized, centered online, I mean, you name it.
He had to deal with it. Turned out he was right,
the rest of them are wrong, and now he's running
the National Institutes of Health. Let's get doctor Jay about
a charry on right now, doctor, how are you?
Speaker 3 (01:13):
I'm doing well. Thank you for having me on. Absolutely
throw this talk with you.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Oh it's great to have you on. And I mean
I followed you every day, what you were saying, what
you were talking about, the conferences you were chairing and
contributing to publicly, and I couldn't believe the amount of abuse
you had to take. You're you're pretty tough, You're very strong.
Most people would have folded up, and you turned out
to be right at the end. How do you feel
(01:37):
about all that now? You know five years later? Uh?
What's your your like? Your emotions? A sense of vidication,
A sense of sorrow that it had to.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
Come to that.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
It's more sorrow than vindication, honestly, John, because I think, Uh,
I mean, the reason I spoke up is because I
was a kind of an unique position. I was a
tenured professor at a major university, and I I sort
of saw what was coming on the arms to when
the schools closed. I knew that our kids were going
to be years behind. There was gonna be depressed, and
they're going to be anxious. I knew that when when
(02:10):
the economy shut down, that there'd be vast numbers of
working class people that would be would be harmed. When
I when they hid did those vaccine mandates, I knew.
I knew it was going to really damage our ability
to actually get people confident about other vaccines that do
work so much better. And I knew a lot of
people are going to lose their jobs for nothing. And
(02:32):
I really wish that we've been able to be more
successful and actually getting people to change their minds about
this earlier. I mean, it is nice to be I'm hoping.
That's the nice thing about being the head of the
NIH now is that I'm hoping that we can move
things in a better direction because there's so much good
that science can do, has done and will do for
the health and well being of so many people. But
(02:54):
I really wish that we had had taken a different
tack during the pandemic in terms of the policy, because
what we did definitely didn't work, and it's really crushed
the confidence that people have in science to do good
for people.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
I guess what really surprised disappointed me was these are
the smart people. These were the smart men and women
who I thought would have a tempered, wiser approach, and
it seemed they were as hysterical as anybody else at
that time and engaged in a lot of group think,
whereas your profession normally runs on somebody discovers something and
(03:30):
everybody goes, Okay, that's interesting. Now let's replicate it, and
let's replicate it again, and let's discuss this and debate this.
And that was a great function that the science community,
the medical community provided, and suddenly it was just wild
eye hysteria and people getting shouted down and shut down
and called names, and it's like, oh my god, if
this crowd has lost it, we're doomed here.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
Yeah, I mean there's something to that, Sean. I mean,
the thing is science, if it's done right, it relies
on debate, It relies on free speech, It relies on
people disagreeing with each other. You know, like if you
have an idea and I have a different idea, we
we both together design and experiment, and the experiment goes
(04:14):
your way, then we you know, we like shake hands,
you buy you dinner, and then like we move on
to the next debate. That's science supposed to work. What
I learned during the pandemic was it, I guess, is
that maybe this shouldn't have surprised me. Scientists are human too.
There are a lot of a lot of motivations. There's fear,
of course, of of of of of of dying that
I think played a role. There were like, you know,
(04:36):
people wanted to they were like people that made a
lot of money. They were like just human motivations. That
drove a lot of the discussion UH in science, and
it the structures of science which normally rewards UH replication
of ideas, replication of of of results independent UH, independent
(04:58):
arrival of the same the same results from different points
of view debate. All that went by the wayside, and
it really revealed the sort of an ugly, ugly side
of science that that I think, if it's were to continue,
would be really bad for society. I think for me
that's one of the most fun things about being the
Anite structor is I get to help fix that. I
(05:19):
get to help bring in bring back maybe the kind
of kind of approach to science that emphasizes exactly what
you just said, John, like rational debate, a real focus
on on rigor, you know, sort of elevating people who
who are checking each other's work and elevating ideas rather
(05:42):
than having authority rule what's true and false. Instead it's
scientific reality ruling what's true and false.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
Yeah, it was public ostracization that was ruling things. You know,
I imagine it was really scary for a lot of
people to speak yet, And I tell you, you know,
because I have I do the show every day, a
lot of articles about science and studies and I want
to talk about them. And now since COVID and the
politicization of a lot of the research, I look at
(06:11):
the studies and I think, well, all right, what am
I looking at? How do I trust this? How are
you going to bring back the trust that people used
to have? Uh in in in medicine and in science
in general.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
The key, the key thing is just because it's published
doesn't mean it's true, even if it's published in a
fancy places. I mean, you know, that was known actually
long before COVID. Like, just just because you have a
scientific idea published by a very prominent person in a
in a very you know, sort of high place, that
doesn't mean it's true. Truth in science is determined by
(06:45):
independent replication. Other people check your idea, and they do
they find the same thing using different methods? Do they
does the idea generalized beyond the narrow population that you were.
The original paper looked at. It's repeated examination, tests experiment
(07:06):
of the same kinds of idea, the same idea, finding
the same answer. That's how we determine whether things are
true or false in science. So that's what I'm trying
to do through the NIH is have that kind of
attitude of repeated examination of the same idea replication be
the basis for truth in science. And if we get
(07:28):
to that, people will trust science because it's not you know,
I'm a fancy ani extractor. I say it's true, therefore
it's true. No one should think that way. Instead, it's well,
I have this idea, and other people when they look
at the same try to test the same idea, they
tend to find the same thing as me. Even though
they may disagree with me about a million other things,
(07:49):
they find the same thing as me. That's how we
get back to public trust and science. The other thing
is we have to make sure that science actually focuses
on things that manner that really matter for people's lives.
A lot of times science has gone off in directions
where you know, it's frankly ideological or as you said,
like you sort of sort of group think and instead
(08:12):
what if And this is what I'm trying to do
with the nih IS. We have to focus the efforts
of the nih on the problems that people actually have
and help them solve them. Right, That's really what the
Moham movement is about, Right, make America healthy again, because
Americans aren't healthy. Science has failed. The US life expectancy
has not increased since twenty twelve. They have to figure
(08:33):
out ways to translate that translate the real scientific dances
that have been made into things that matter for people's lives,
so they can address the you know, the obesity problem,
can address the hypertension, heart disease, all these problems in childhood, childhood, crime, diseases.
You know, it's like, you know, huge levels of depression
(08:56):
and anxiety, and then of course childhood obesity in a
whole host of the problems, high rates of autism. We
have to be able to address all of these problems
and makes science really work for people. But that's how
we get trusted back.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
All right, hold on, We're going to talk to doctor j.
Batticheria for another segment here. He is the new director
of the National Institutes of Health replacing Anthony Fauci. More
coming up with doctor Badicheria coming up next.
Speaker 4 (09:24):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
We continue our conversation with doctor j Baticharia. He is
the new National Institute of Health director, replacing Anthony Fauci,
a former Stanford professor who was very outspoken, saying that
many of the policies that was instituted at the state
and national level regarding COVID restrictions were unnecessary, to say
(09:53):
the least, and actually, as we know now, quite damaging.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
Doctor. Let me ask you this.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
I mean, we all know about all the sins that
have been committed in the damage that was done. Here's
what I recall from that time is everybody felt powerless.
We all felt bullied and ganged up on. And to
find out that many of the things we were bullied
about they were wrong, is really kind of scary, you know.
(10:21):
I mean, we had we have a La County Public
Health director here who just you know, laterally shut down
all the outdoor restaurants.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
I remember for a time, and.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
Now here in Los Angeles there are so many restaurants
still out of business. Somebody storefronts empty. Every time I
read about a business closing, first thing they say is
we never recovered from COVID, And I felt like we were.
I like like some somebody had invaded us and taken
(10:51):
away a lot of our freedoms and we were powerless
to stop them. And now we're looking, almost in some
neighborhoods literally at the ruins, like what what can be
donevent this and have a more open discussion and more
rational set of policies next time there's an emergency.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
Well, yeah, I think that. Let's just think about the
root of the problem. The root was that people were
very scared about the virus, right and because you know,
a lot of the media would often focus on really
really negative stories. This is actually it was very different
than in Europe, where you get a little more emphasis
on the positive stories in the media. And that fear
(11:30):
then led people to say, who can save me? And
you know, you have a new virus. People naturally went
looked at scientists, and so you ended up having an
elevation in power of a very small number of scientists
who then essentially promised a way out of not dying
from this new new disease. All you have to do
(11:52):
is just obey, shut your store down, don't send your
kids to school, mask up, take the take you know,
vaccines fifteen of one, two, three, four or five, six,
seven eight times for for COVID. Uh, and then that's
that will save you and protect you, even when the
evidence didn't actually say that. The only way out, it's
not because you know, whatever the next threat will be,
(12:12):
it won't be exactly the same thing. The only way
out is to elevate scientific debate as the and replication
and other things as the source of truth. We're not.
We shouldn't be looking to a small number of people,
no matter how smart they are, to save us. We
have to be talking to each other, learning from each other,
(12:32):
embracing uncertainty and then UH. And then you know, address
fear with real facts by not not by aiming at
like suppressing disinformation, but by embracing debate and UH and
free speech.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
Is there is there any hope on dealing with the
media because that kind of big audiences. I mean, when
CNN was running the death Counter on screen. I know
of one woman, a friend of ours, who says, I'm
watching CNN twelve hours a day and she was fixated
on the death counter and she became completely destabilized emotionally.
(13:08):
I mean, I witnessed this and it's like, well, what
do you what do you do you know about an
international network that has a death counter without any context
that was.
Speaker 3 (13:19):
They did the they did the world and the United
States are huge to service. I'll tell you it's a
funny story. Like my mom at the beginning of the
pandemic was listening to CNN. She was like, really scared too.
At one point she heard one of the hosts on
CNN one of the shows attack me kind of viciously actually,
and that she's turned it off immediately because she was
(13:39):
quite angry about that. And she after that she told
me that she was feeling much less scared, so.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
Because she knows you're right. So I wonder how how
people can can get through the thicket of a situation where,
you know, most of us are not trained and educated
in medical science like this, and we have we have
(14:08):
a society that always looked up to experts and always
looked up to people with the degrees, people like you,
and you know, the sense of betrayal among those that
I talk to about this, and I talk to a
lot of friends that we talk a lot on the
air is pretty deep.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
You know.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
It's like everybody's lost their innocence, and you know they're
not looking at the professors and the universities and the
doctors and the you know, the experts on TV who
are supposed to give us the straight deal. And now
they people feel adrift, you know, and and they don't
know what to do. They don't know who to believe,
what to trust anymore. I meant, you've got a big
job here to try to help rebuild this.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
Yeah, I mean, I think I think the key thing, John,
I want to make a distinction between don't trust scientists,
but do trust science right, like actual true science like,
and that the hallmarks of that are an open basically
a humility. Right if someone's telling you, you know, I
think the scientific idea is right, and here's the here's
the evidence that I see, and here's some kind of evidence.
(15:07):
And I think that the counter evidence isn't is probably
not as important, but here's why I think it's right.
I trust that person a lot more than someone that
says I am the science. Here's what here's here's what
you must do with your life or else that that
that sort of humility, this like willingness to talk to
other people, that scientific process is powerful, John, And that's
(15:27):
why I was so happy to take, uh, take this
this job as director. I want to bring back that
kind of deep humility because ironically that when you're humble
about science, that's when you are most able to get
to the true things that actually can help your you
and your life, you know, address your your real needs,
your health needs, your material needs. Whereas, like you know,
(15:49):
science as a uh this sort of like hierarchy where
where you have some guy sitting atop saying do this,
or because I'm smarter than you that you just know
it's got to be bunked, Like there's no such thing.
There's no one human being that represents all of the science,
and you have to like say, you know, I mean
usually Americans are much more sensible than that. When someone says,
(16:12):
you know, come, I'm the king, follow me, we say no, right,
I mean, that's that's the basis of America, that that
we just extend that spirit to science. Right, So no
to imperious scientists, Yes to honest science, humble science that
addresses your needs.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
How much of the humility you think your colleagues who
were critics are feeling now five years later, versus how
much defensiveness and stubbornness.
Speaker 3 (16:44):
I mean, I alas I have to say, as now
they've been in this job for about three months, I'm
still seeing quite a bit of stubbornness. Although I have
to say, I mean, just to be in fairness, I
have seen and have met a lot of great scientists
here who are who understand the something went deeply wrong
here at the NIH of the Nationalists of Health and
(17:04):
and and are trying to find ways back. You know,
people when no one, no one likes to admit they're wrong,
so that there's there's setling some some of that going on.
But I think, uh so, I think we're still moving
in that direction where people are are finally going are
starting to say, well, yeah, maybe maybe we weren't right.
There's a saying actually in Science by there's a famous
(17:24):
physicist masquonk who is saying was that that science advances
one obituary at a time because he was in the
world of physics, and like it was kind of a
crazy idea, but like basically the old physicists had to
die out before the young physicists were the real right
ideas could could have their say, I don't. I'm really
hoping that that's not the case here. I think that
the problems during COVID with the way that science was applied,
(17:48):
and that's just fundamentally wrong. Things like the vaccine stopped
you from getting and spreading COVID. That is a cause
for scientists to be humble, like, we got this wrong,
let's admit it, let's move on.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
We ask one quick thing before we got to do
the news early on, from what I saw, scientists researchers
seemed to know that most of the deaths were coming
from the elderly and those with pre existing conditions, and
yet we still had a long period of total lockdown
and everybody's lives getting disrupted. Why didn't they embrace the
(18:22):
idea It's like, Okay, we know exactly who's who's being targeted.
In fact, that was that was the thrust of one
of your first great public statements, is we don't have
to lock everybody down. We know exactly who's most at risk.
Why didn't they embrace what you were saying?
Speaker 3 (18:40):
You know, I think the example of the Chinese in
January twenty twenty played a big role in people's minds.
The Chinese they locked this, led the locktown Muhan and
the Jube province around it, and they told the who
that it worked, and unfortunately a lot of public help people,
public health and science thought that that was actually accurate.
(19:03):
It didn't work, and they brought over authoritarian methods that
have no hope of working in any society like the
United States. And it really because if you look before
the pandemic, none of the pandemic plans and public health
actually called for lockdowns. That was a unique, crazy thing
(19:23):
that was added on top by the Chinese. Example, for
the first time in history, large cities lockdown for extended
periods of time, a large society is lockdown for extended
periods of time. And it was a massive experiment, if
you will, one that should never have been undertaken, and
now we know what was a failed one.
Speaker 2 (19:41):
Thank you doctor j Beaticharia. He is the head of
the National Institute's Institutes of Hell, replacing Anthony Fauci, longtime
Stanford professor. I hope we could do this again sometime.
Thank you for coming on.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
Thank you, John. Wonderful talk with you, all.
Speaker 4 (19:56):
Right, you're listening to John Cobels on demand from KFI
A six forty.
Speaker 1 (20:03):
And you're just joining us.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
You missed an interview we did with the doctor j Baticharia,
the new head of the National Institutes of Health, that
was Anthony Fauci's old job, and he was on with
us for half an hour, and the interview will be
on the podcast. So after four o'clock John Cobolt Show
on demand on the iHeart app and you could listen
to that interview and we talked about all the aftermath
(20:27):
in the last five and a half years since the
COVID lockdowns began. Right now, everybody here noticed that Channel
five is running continuous coverage of some kind of federal
agent operation at a farm in Ventura County. And if
you just are looking at the picture, you don't know
what's going on. So Michael Monks here has gotten some information.
Speaker 5 (20:50):
Sure, it's a pre dramatic scene, So I can imagine
if we had a helicopter and a visual that you
want to milk it. Yeah, you want to be up
there because the scene is dramatic. But we have radio,
so we have to use our words. And you're in
the helicopter you're the visual here we are picture it.
Six hundred block or so of Laguna Road near came
Rio in Ventura County. There is a massive cannabis farm there.
(21:13):
The road completely shut down right now because a large
federal immigration agent presence showed up, militarized a lot of
military vehicles. Their helicopters are also above. What are they
doing that we don't know yet. We don't know who
they were targeting, what they wanted to do there. But
protesters got wind of it and they showed up on
the scene too. And this has been active now for
about two hours. This crowd of about one hundred people
(21:36):
in what we've learned is unincorporated Ventura County near cam Rio.
Speaker 1 (21:41):
They showed up, they didn't want to leave.
Speaker 5 (21:43):
They've been gassed several times by the federal agents, and
that works, that disperses them.
Speaker 1 (21:49):
But you, I've tasted it. It will make you run away.
Speaker 5 (21:53):
If you were there to protest or just to cover it,
you're gonna run. Yeah, you need to take a bath.
Problem year is I was gassed in downtown Los Angeles. One,
you already have immunity to the worst smells in the world. Yeah,
And two it's an urbanized environment. You're out in the
field somewhere, so you have more places to run to
and hide or to get your bearings and then come back.
(22:14):
It's not like downtown LA, where they can corral you
into a couple of blocks and push the protesters off.
So this is the first large protest we've seen in
a rural an agriculture area, and that's why I think
this scene is rather interesting because one hundred people's a
good sized protest against this number of agents, and they're
not violent or anything yet. They're just shouting. But the
(22:36):
agents obviously want them gone, and they've tried to trust.
With the shootings and Texas the other day, you don't
know what's look, it's only amplifying the tensions. Whether you're
in support of the immigration enforcement efforts or in opposition
of them, it is very clear that tensions are are
really boiling, more than they were even in early June
when it really got going.
Speaker 3 (22:54):
Here.
Speaker 2 (22:54):
You no hint of what they're investigating here, because you know,
everybody's first reaction is are they chasing a bunch of
tomato pickers?
Speaker 5 (23:01):
Well, there's something interesting to note here. Coastalview dot com
a website that covers Ventura County noted that the farm
where this scene is unfolding near Cameria is owned by
Glasshouse Farms, and they are a producer and distributor of
cannabis and cannabis products legal I would imagine, So yeah, ok, yeah, yeah,
(23:22):
they have a name and they have their name on
the on the on the deal.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
You know what, because it's legal in California, but federally no,
that's true, area is not legal. I wondered, are they
going after it and using the cover of federal uh
law that says marijuana.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
It's possible. I hope we find out soon.
Speaker 5 (23:42):
It's been difficult to get details from the Department of
Homeland Security about what draws them to a certain area.
They will often talk about specific cases when those who
have been apprehended fit the criminal profile that they say
they've been targeting, but you don't get a lot of
details about everybody else they picked up at the car
washes and so forth, or what they might be doing
in farm country right now. But there was a reportedly
(24:04):
according to coastalview dot Com, about an hour before this
thing started near Camerillo in Carpenteria.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
Is that what he's saying that carpenteria.
Speaker 5 (24:14):
Yeah, yeah, this same company has another farm that was
also hit by immigration agents in that area. So from that,
what are you to do, perhaps that they are being
suspected of hiring illegal immigrants at their locations. We know
that the Trump administration wants to target more workplaces that
are hiring.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
That's when where it started, the whole riot in downtown La. Right,
they were going as a fashion district, a fashion district
company that had some they said, some funny business with
its tax records and it's hiring policies, and that blew up.
Oh my god, they're doing a raid on workers. Well,
the original target was to go after the employers. Maybe
that's the original target here.
Speaker 5 (24:51):
It could be, But we've also seen some waffling from
President Trump himself on how hard he wants to go
after the illegal immigrants who were working the agriculture industry.
Speaker 1 (25:01):
Yeah, first he.
Speaker 5 (25:02):
Says, maybe we need to be a little easier on
the farmers. Are great farmers. And then you hear from
the administration officials who must have pushed back a little
bit and say no, no, it's full speed ahead. And
then again this week we're hearing a.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
Little bit not everybody in the administration agrees on the approach.
Speaker 5 (25:16):
We clearly do not have a directive that is clear
for everybody to understand.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
He changes his mind every week, Yes he does.
Speaker 5 (25:25):
And he happens to be the President of the United
States who sets the tone and the policy for his administration.
And so it's been really difficult to figure out whether
they're they're going to take a softer approach at some
point to hospitality, to agriculture. But if we if this
scene is any and he excuse me, any indication that
hasn't taken place yet.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
All right, well, run in and tell us when you
find out something else. Yeah, you know, all we have
is the helicopter shot at Channel five, which isn't really
telling us anything.
Speaker 5 (25:55):
I notice I never get sent to the scene when
weed is available.
Speaker 2 (25:59):
Well, little upsetting, we've heard.
Speaker 6 (26:04):
Bring him an edible if you want.
Speaker 2 (26:06):
Oh, yeah, there's a there's a supplier there in the newsroom. Dever,
she's got an edible for you and I took one
of those, so be real careful. And it also explains
what's going on with her. All right, Debora Mark is
live in the KFI twenty four our newsroom.
Speaker 4 (26:23):
You're listening to John Cobels on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (26:29):
We're on every day from one until four. Moistline is
eight seven seven moist eighty six. That's tomorrow, eight seven
seven moist eighty six, eight seven seven sixty six four
seven eight eight six h two o'clock, We're going to
have the attorney, Roger baileyon to talk about lawsuits that
have been filed by Palisades residents against the City of
(26:52):
Los Angeles and what these investigators, these and these attorneys
are finding out about what went on. There are a
number of news stories of morning and on the preparation
and the response to the winds that led to the fires.
We're going to delve into that with Roger Bailey, the attorney,
(27:12):
coming up after two o'clock, and then we've got a
lot of Karen Bass clips to play. I thought that
would be a great segue. She did an interview with
a Telemundo reporter, Enrique A Chiabra, where she announced that
she's definitely running for reelection. Boy, isn't that heartwarming news? Hi,
Karen Bass actually wants to be mayor another four years
(27:34):
after this term is over. Now disturbing article in the
La Times today, they said, for all the things the
Times doesn't cover, they had a reporter, Jenny Jarvey, go
all the way to Florence, South Carolina, to cover Newsom's
campaign launch there, and he was speaking to democratic organizations.
(27:54):
Long article, but I wanted to focus for now on this.
She describes the crowd. You all ready for this. Many
in the crowd were clearly awed by Newsom. Some swooned
over his quote beautiful hair.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
He does have nice there, They swooned.
Speaker 2 (28:16):
Now, when a woman is in a swoon, what does
that look like? Swoon for me? That was holding her
hands together and swaying from side to side, cocking her head.
Speaker 1 (28:31):
Yeah, I don't swoon for Newsome. I'm just gonna say
I don't.
Speaker 6 (28:35):
I don't swoon for any politician.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
That's a good bumper sticker. I don't swoon for Newsom.
She forgot to flip her hair. Oh yeah, you gotta
flip your hair back. They were swooned it by over
his beautiful hair and his charisma.
Speaker 1 (28:49):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
One woman informed Newsom that her friend was in love
with you, by the way. Another told friend that she
blacked out when she met Newsom.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
Really she blacked out.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
I mean, he's not a beetle, but he provokes the
same reaction like a beatle. Did tiffity too, tivity too?
Speaker 1 (29:19):
She has a vote. This woman blacked out. She's over overcome.
Speaker 6 (29:26):
You know, in life, the really good looking people, you know,
they they have it much easier than others.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
She was so starstruck that she could not come up
with words. Here's a quard from Carol Abraham, the wife
of the mayor of Bennettsville, after Newsom spoke he's a
cool dude.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
He has swag. What's that? I thought swag was free gifts.
You can't the way he moves, the way he moves, man,
we are doomed, yeh.
Speaker 2 (30:05):
I If this spreads, if this catches on, this would
be like the COVID virus. I don't know if there's
a vaccine for this though. And they were also happy
that he's standing up to Trump.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
Oh my god. They have no idea. They have no
idea what we're dealing with here.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
They don't care, and they don't care. It's actually that hair,
even after turned all. He used to be greasy black.
Now it's greasy gray.
Speaker 6 (30:38):
You know what, It's a double standard for women. Gray
hair is ugly and not acceptable for men.
Speaker 1 (30:45):
How much do you spend a year?
Speaker 6 (30:49):
I'm never going gray. I'm just going to put it
out there.
Speaker 4 (30:53):
I'm too vain.
Speaker 1 (30:55):
You didn't have to announce that.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
Well, I mean, I know anybody who spends ten or
fifteen minutes.
Speaker 1 (31:04):
Going boy, she is vain, I admitted, though.
Speaker 2 (31:07):
Yeah, no, you are here. You are you have self awareness.
I do have selfnes a certain extent. So I have
to talk to you about self awareness at another time.
About something things that happened last night, Okay, on the air,
Off the air, I can tell you both. Okay, Oh,
speaking of last night. Yes, you were not in a
dream last night that I had.
Speaker 1 (31:30):
But you should have been.
Speaker 2 (31:31):
I was driving a car on a two lane road,
hugging the coast, flat road, not up off a cliff, right,
but I'm driving right along the edge of the Pacific Ocean,
and you were supposed to be in the car with
me in the front seat. And I don't know what
the circumstances were, but I remember thinking you were supposed
to be there. And I went around a curve and
(31:54):
I did not negotiate the curve and I went off
the road into the rocks, headed for the ocean and
dream ends.
Speaker 6 (32:04):
Okay, I'm going to analyze this for you really quickly. Yeah,
you need me to keep you on the straightened era.
I'm a very important part of keeping you on track.
That's with that dream or nightmare me.
Speaker 1 (32:22):
Well, you weren't there.
Speaker 4 (32:23):
I wasn't there.
Speaker 1 (32:24):
I am now.
Speaker 2 (32:25):
I sunk to the bottom of the ocean last night.
I mean I blacked out before I before I hit
the water.
Speaker 6 (32:31):
Because I wasn't there.
Speaker 1 (32:33):
A tragedy.
Speaker 2 (32:34):
Well, when I was neat, when you were needed. You're
looking at it from a right because I'm the one
who experienced this. I blacked out the way that poor
woman blacked out approaching Newsom. Can you imagine if we
had him on the show and I blacked out just
(32:55):
because I'm so overwhelmed by by his charisma and his
beauty and his jawl.
Speaker 1 (33:01):
Ever, Yeah, I was gonna say, from him pissing you
off so much.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
Yeah, there's a good shot of that happening. We come
back Roger Bailey, they have He's an attorney. He's representing
a lot of Pacific Palisades residents over the fire, and
his team has been doing a lot of investigations and
they have found more disturbing things about the city's preparation
(33:27):
and response to the fire, including the lad WP had
a worker who took five hours to respond to an
order to de energize the electrical circuits during the fire,
and of course that may have started further fires, and
then he doctored the records to try to cover it up.
(33:51):
Roger Bailey's gonna explain this and a lot of other
things coming up Deborah Mark Live the KFI twenty four
hour Newsroom.
Speaker 1 (33:58):
Hey, you've been listening to the John Cobalt Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (34:01):
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.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
You're listening to the John Cobelt Podcast on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
It's the John Cobelt Show.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We're on every day from one until four o'clock and
every day after four o'clock. Whatever you miss you can
get on the podcast John Cobelt's Show on demand that's
on the iHeart app. We have a tremendous amount to
do and I want to get right into it because
we've got a special guest today. Jay Baticharia is the
new director of the National Institutes of Health, replacing Anthony Fauci.
(00:32):
We had him on the show you back in the
twenty twenty era when COVID broke, because Babicharia was one
of the few prominent voices at the time who said, wait, wait,
we don't have to lock all society down here. It's
going to damage people's mental health, physical health, children's educations,
not to mention what it did to the economy. And
(00:55):
he was vilified, criticized, centered online, I mean, you name it.
He had to deal with it. Turned out he was right,
the rest of them are wrong, and now he's running
the National Institutes of Health. Let's get doctor Jay about
a charry on right now, doctor, how are you?
Speaker 3 (01:13):
I'm doing well. Thank you for having me on. Absolutely
throw this talk with you.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Oh it's great to have you on. And I mean
I followed you every day, what you were saying, what
you were talking about, the conferences you were chairing and
contributing to publicly, and I couldn't believe the amount of abuse
you had to take. You're you're pretty tough, You're very strong.
Most people would have folded up, and you turned out
to be right at the end. How do you feel
(01:37):
about all that now? You know five years later? Uh?
What's your your like? Your emotions? A sense of vidication,
A sense of sorrow that it had to.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
Come to that.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
It's more sorrow than vindication, honestly, John, because I think, Uh,
I mean, the reason I spoke up is because I
was a kind of an unique position. I was a
tenured professor at a major university, and I I sort
of saw what was coming on the arms to when
the schools closed. I knew that our kids were going
to be years behind. There was gonna be depressed, and
they're going to be anxious. I knew that when when
(02:10):
the economy shut down, that there'd be vast numbers of
working class people that would be would be harmed. When
I when they hid did those vaccine mandates, I knew.
I knew it was going to really damage our ability
to actually get people confident about other vaccines that do
work so much better. And I knew a lot of
people are going to lose their jobs for nothing. And
(02:32):
I really wish that we've been able to be more
successful and actually getting people to change their minds about
this earlier. I mean, it is nice to be I'm hoping.
That's the nice thing about being the head of the
NIH now is that I'm hoping that we can move
things in a better direction because there's so much good
that science can do, has done and will do for
the health and well being of so many people. But
(02:54):
I really wish that we had had taken a different
tack during the pandemic in terms of the policy, because
what we did definitely didn't work, and it's really crushed
the confidence that people have in science to do good
for people.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
I guess what really surprised disappointed me was these are
the smart people. These were the smart men and women
who I thought would have a tempered, wiser approach, and
it seemed they were as hysterical as anybody else at
that time and engaged in a lot of group think,
whereas your profession normally runs on somebody discovers something and
(03:30):
everybody goes, Okay, that's interesting. Now let's replicate it, and
let's replicate it again, and let's discuss this and debate this.
And that was a great function that the science community,
the medical community provided, and suddenly it was just wild
eye hysteria and people getting shouted down and shut down
and called names, and it's like, oh my god, if
this crowd has lost it, we're doomed here.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
Yeah, I mean there's something to that, Sean. I mean,
the thing is science, if it's done right, it relies
on debate, It relies on free speech, It relies on
people disagreeing with each other. You know, like if you
have an idea and I have a different idea, we
we both together design and experiment, and the experiment goes
(04:14):
your way, then we you know, we like shake hands,
you buy you dinner, and then like we move on
to the next debate. That's science supposed to work. What
I learned during the pandemic was it, I guess, is
that maybe this shouldn't have surprised me. Scientists are human too.
There are a lot of a lot of motivations. There's fear,
of course, of of of of of of dying that
I think played a role. There were like, you know,
(04:36):
people wanted to they were like people that made a
lot of money. They were like just human motivations. That
drove a lot of the discussion UH in science, and
it the structures of science which normally rewards UH replication
of ideas, replication of of of results independent UH, independent
(04:58):
arrival of the same the same results from different points
of view debate. All that went by the wayside, and
it really revealed the sort of an ugly, ugly side
of science that that I think, if it's were to continue,
would be really bad for society. I think for me
that's one of the most fun things about being the
Anite structor is I get to help fix that. I
(05:19):
get to help bring in bring back maybe the kind
of kind of approach to science that emphasizes exactly what
you just said, John, like rational debate, a real focus
on on rigor, you know, sort of elevating people who
who are checking each other's work and elevating ideas rather
(05:42):
than having authority rule what's true and false. Instead it's
scientific reality ruling what's true and false.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
Yeah, it was public ostracization that was ruling things. You know,
I imagine it was really scary for a lot of
people to speak yet, And I tell you, you know,
because I have I do the show every day, a
lot of articles about science and studies and I want
to talk about them. And now since COVID and the
politicization of a lot of the research, I look at
(06:11):
the studies and I think, well, all right, what am
I looking at? How do I trust this? How are
you going to bring back the trust that people used
to have? Uh in in in medicine and in science
in general.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
The key, the key thing is just because it's published
doesn't mean it's true, even if it's published in a
fancy places. I mean, you know, that was known actually
long before COVID. Like, just just because you have a
scientific idea published by a very prominent person in a
in a very you know, sort of high place, that
doesn't mean it's true. Truth in science is determined by
(06:45):
independent replication. Other people check your idea, and they do
they find the same thing using different methods? Do they
does the idea generalized beyond the narrow population that you were.
The original paper looked at. It's repeated examination, tests experiment
(07:06):
of the same kinds of idea, the same idea, finding
the same answer. That's how we determine whether things are
true or false in science. So that's what I'm trying
to do through the NIH is have that kind of
attitude of repeated examination of the same idea replication be
the basis for truth in science. And if we get
(07:28):
to that, people will trust science because it's not you know,
I'm a fancy ani extractor. I say it's true, therefore
it's true. No one should think that way. Instead, it's well,
I have this idea, and other people when they look
at the same try to test the same idea, they
tend to find the same thing as me. Even though
they may disagree with me about a million other things,
(07:49):
they find the same thing as me. That's how we
get back to public trust and science. The other thing
is we have to make sure that science actually focuses
on things that manner that really matter for people's lives.
A lot of times science has gone off in directions
where you know, it's frankly ideological or as you said,
like you sort of sort of group think and instead
(08:12):
what if And this is what I'm trying to do
with the nih IS. We have to focus the efforts
of the nih on the problems that people actually have
and help them solve them. Right, That's really what the
Moham movement is about, Right, make America healthy again, because
Americans aren't healthy. Science has failed. The US life expectancy
has not increased since twenty twelve. They have to figure
(08:33):
out ways to translate that translate the real scientific dances
that have been made into things that matter for people's lives,
so they can address the you know, the obesity problem,
can address the hypertension, heart disease, all these problems in childhood, childhood, crime, diseases.
You know, it's like, you know, huge levels of depression
(08:56):
and anxiety, and then of course childhood obesity in a
whole host of the problems, high rates of autism. We
have to be able to address all of these problems
and makes science really work for people. But that's how
we get trusted back.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
All right, hold on, We're going to talk to doctor j.
Batticheria for another segment here. He is the new director
of the National Institutes of Health replacing Anthony Fauci. More
coming up with doctor Badicheria coming up next.
Speaker 4 (09:24):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
We continue our conversation with doctor j Baticharia. He is
the new National Institute of Health director, replacing Anthony Fauci,
a former Stanford professor who was very outspoken, saying that
many of the policies that was instituted at the state
and national level regarding COVID restrictions were unnecessary, to say
(09:53):
the least, and actually, as we know now, quite damaging.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
Doctor. Let me ask you this.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
I mean, we all know about all the sins that
have been committed in the damage that was done. Here's
what I recall from that time is everybody felt powerless.
We all felt bullied and ganged up on. And to
find out that many of the things we were bullied
about they were wrong, is really kind of scary, you know.
(10:21):
I mean, we had we have a La County Public
Health director here who just you know, laterally shut down
all the outdoor restaurants.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
I remember for a time, and.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
Now here in Los Angeles there are so many restaurants
still out of business. Somebody storefronts empty. Every time I
read about a business closing, first thing they say is
we never recovered from COVID, And I felt like we were.
I like like some somebody had invaded us and taken
(10:51):
away a lot of our freedoms and we were powerless
to stop them. And now we're looking, almost in some
neighborhoods literally at the ruins, like what what can be
donevent this and have a more open discussion and more
rational set of policies next time there's an emergency.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
Well, yeah, I think that. Let's just think about the
root of the problem. The root was that people were
very scared about the virus, right and because you know,
a lot of the media would often focus on really
really negative stories. This is actually it was very different
than in Europe, where you get a little more emphasis
on the positive stories in the media. And that fear
(11:30):
then led people to say, who can save me? And
you know, you have a new virus. People naturally went
looked at scientists, and so you ended up having an
elevation in power of a very small number of scientists
who then essentially promised a way out of not dying
from this new new disease. All you have to do
(11:52):
is just obey, shut your store down, don't send your
kids to school, mask up, take the take you know,
vaccines fifteen of one, two, three, four or five, six,
seven eight times for for COVID. Uh, and then that's
that will save you and protect you, even when the
evidence didn't actually say that. The only way out, it's
not because you know, whatever the next threat will be,
(12:12):
it won't be exactly the same thing. The only way
out is to elevate scientific debate as the and replication
and other things as the source of truth. We're not.
We shouldn't be looking to a small number of people,
no matter how smart they are, to save us. We
have to be talking to each other, learning from each other,
(12:32):
embracing uncertainty and then UH. And then you know, address
fear with real facts by not not by aiming at
like suppressing disinformation, but by embracing debate and UH and
free speech.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
Is there is there any hope on dealing with the
media because that kind of big audiences. I mean, when
CNN was running the death Counter on screen. I know
of one woman, a friend of ours, who says, I'm
watching CNN twelve hours a day and she was fixated
on the death counter and she became completely destabilized emotionally.
(13:08):
I mean, I witnessed this and it's like, well, what
do you what do you do you know about an
international network that has a death counter without any context
that was.
Speaker 3 (13:19):
They did the they did the world and the United
States are huge to service. I'll tell you it's a
funny story. Like my mom at the beginning of the
pandemic was listening to CNN. She was like, really scared too.
At one point she heard one of the hosts on
CNN one of the shows attack me kind of viciously actually,
and that she's turned it off immediately because she was
(13:39):
quite angry about that. And she after that she told
me that she was feeling much less scared, so.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
Because she knows you're right. So I wonder how how
people can can get through the thicket of a situation where,
you know, most of us are not trained and educated
in medical science like this, and we have we have
(14:08):
a society that always looked up to experts and always
looked up to people with the degrees, people like you,
and you know, the sense of betrayal among those that
I talk to about this, and I talk to a
lot of friends that we talk a lot on the
air is pretty deep.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
You know.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
It's like everybody's lost their innocence, and you know they're
not looking at the professors and the universities and the
doctors and the you know, the experts on TV who
are supposed to give us the straight deal. And now
they people feel adrift, you know, and and they don't
know what to do. They don't know who to believe,
what to trust anymore. I meant, you've got a big
job here to try to help rebuild this.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
Yeah, I mean, I think I think the key thing, John,
I want to make a distinction between don't trust scientists,
but do trust science right, like actual true science like,
and that the hallmarks of that are an open basically
a humility. Right if someone's telling you, you know, I
think the scientific idea is right, and here's the here's
the evidence that I see, and here's some kind of evidence.
(15:07):
And I think that the counter evidence isn't is probably
not as important, but here's why I think it's right.
I trust that person a lot more than someone that
says I am the science. Here's what here's here's what
you must do with your life or else that that
that sort of humility, this like willingness to talk to
other people, that scientific process is powerful, John, And that's
(15:27):
why I was so happy to take, uh, take this
this job as director. I want to bring back that
kind of deep humility because ironically that when you're humble
about science, that's when you are most able to get
to the true things that actually can help your you
and your life, you know, address your your real needs,
your health needs, your material needs. Whereas, like you know,
(15:49):
science as a uh this sort of like hierarchy where
where you have some guy sitting atop saying do this,
or because I'm smarter than you that you just know
it's got to be bunked, Like there's no such thing.
There's no one human being that represents all of the science,
and you have to like say, you know, I mean
usually Americans are much more sensible than that. When someone says,
(16:12):
you know, come, I'm the king, follow me, we say no, right,
I mean, that's that's the basis of America, that that
we just extend that spirit to science. Right, So no
to imperious scientists, Yes to honest science, humble science that
addresses your needs.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
How much of the humility you think your colleagues who
were critics are feeling now five years later, versus how
much defensiveness and stubbornness.
Speaker 3 (16:44):
I mean, I alas I have to say, as now
they've been in this job for about three months, I'm
still seeing quite a bit of stubbornness. Although I have
to say, I mean, just to be in fairness, I
have seen and have met a lot of great scientists
here who are who understand the something went deeply wrong
here at the NIH of the Nationalists of Health and
(17:04):
and and are trying to find ways back. You know,
people when no one, no one likes to admit they're wrong,
so that there's there's setling some some of that going on.
But I think, uh so, I think we're still moving
in that direction where people are are finally going are
starting to say, well, yeah, maybe maybe we weren't right.
There's a saying actually in Science by there's a famous
(17:24):
physicist masquonk who is saying was that that science advances
one obituary at a time because he was in the
world of physics, and like it was kind of a
crazy idea, but like basically the old physicists had to
die out before the young physicists were the real right
ideas could could have their say, I don't. I'm really
hoping that that's not the case here. I think that
the problems during COVID with the way that science was applied,
(17:48):
and that's just fundamentally wrong. Things like the vaccine stopped
you from getting and spreading COVID. That is a cause
for scientists to be humble, like, we got this wrong,
let's admit it, let's move on.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
We ask one quick thing before we got to do
the news early on, from what I saw, scientists researchers
seemed to know that most of the deaths were coming
from the elderly and those with pre existing conditions, and
yet we still had a long period of total lockdown
and everybody's lives getting disrupted. Why didn't they embrace the
(18:22):
idea It's like, Okay, we know exactly who's who's being targeted.
In fact, that was that was the thrust of one
of your first great public statements, is we don't have
to lock everybody down. We know exactly who's most at risk.
Why didn't they embrace what you were saying?
Speaker 3 (18:40):
You know, I think the example of the Chinese in
January twenty twenty played a big role in people's minds.
The Chinese they locked this, led the locktown Muhan and
the Jube province around it, and they told the who
that it worked, and unfortunately a lot of public help people,
public health and science thought that that was actually accurate.
(19:03):
It didn't work, and they brought over authoritarian methods that
have no hope of working in any society like the
United States. And it really because if you look before
the pandemic, none of the pandemic plans and public health
actually called for lockdowns. That was a unique, crazy thing
(19:23):
that was added on top by the Chinese. Example, for
the first time in history, large cities lockdown for extended
periods of time, a large society is lockdown for extended
periods of time. And it was a massive experiment, if
you will, one that should never have been undertaken, and
now we know what was a failed one.
Speaker 2 (19:41):
Thank you doctor j Beaticharia. He is the head of
the National Institute's Institutes of Hell, replacing Anthony Fauci, longtime
Stanford professor. I hope we could do this again sometime.
Thank you for coming on.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
Thank you, John. Wonderful talk with you, all.
Speaker 4 (19:56):
Right, you're listening to John Cobels on demand from KFI
A six forty.
Speaker 1 (20:03):
And you're just joining us.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
You missed an interview we did with the doctor j Baticharia,
the new head of the National Institutes of Health, that
was Anthony Fauci's old job, and he was on with
us for half an hour, and the interview will be
on the podcast. So after four o'clock John Cobolt Show
on demand on the iHeart app and you could listen
to that interview and we talked about all the aftermath
(20:27):
in the last five and a half years since the
COVID lockdowns began. Right now, everybody here noticed that Channel
five is running continuous coverage of some kind of federal
agent operation at a farm in Ventura County. And if
you just are looking at the picture, you don't know
what's going on. So Michael Monks here has gotten some information.
Speaker 5 (20:50):
Sure, it's a pre dramatic scene, So I can imagine
if we had a helicopter and a visual that you
want to milk it. Yeah, you want to be up
there because the scene is dramatic. But we have radio,
so we have to use our words. And you're in
the helicopter you're the visual here we are picture it.
Six hundred block or so of Laguna Road near came
Rio in Ventura County. There is a massive cannabis farm there.
(21:13):
The road completely shut down right now because a large
federal immigration agent presence showed up, militarized a lot of
military vehicles. Their helicopters are also above. What are they
doing that we don't know yet. We don't know who
they were targeting, what they wanted to do there. But
protesters got wind of it and they showed up on
the scene too. And this has been active now for
about two hours. This crowd of about one hundred people
(21:36):
in what we've learned is unincorporated Ventura County near cam Rio.
Speaker 1 (21:41):
They showed up, they didn't want to leave.
Speaker 5 (21:43):
They've been gassed several times by the federal agents, and
that works, that disperses them.
Speaker 1 (21:49):
But you, I've tasted it. It will make you run away.
Speaker 5 (21:53):
If you were there to protest or just to cover it,
you're gonna run. Yeah, you need to take a bath.
Problem year is I was gassed in downtown Los Angeles. One,
you already have immunity to the worst smells in the world. Yeah,
And two it's an urbanized environment. You're out in the
field somewhere, so you have more places to run to
and hide or to get your bearings and then come back.
(22:14):
It's not like downtown LA, where they can corral you
into a couple of blocks and push the protesters off.
So this is the first large protest we've seen in
a rural an agriculture area, and that's why I think
this scene is rather interesting because one hundred people's a
good sized protest against this number of agents, and they're
not violent or anything yet. They're just shouting. But the
(22:36):
agents obviously want them gone, and they've tried to trust.
With the shootings and Texas the other day, you don't
know what's look, it's only amplifying the tensions. Whether you're
in support of the immigration enforcement efforts or in opposition
of them, it is very clear that tensions are are
really boiling, more than they were even in early June
when it really got going.
Speaker 3 (22:54):
Here.
Speaker 2 (22:54):
You no hint of what they're investigating here, because you know,
everybody's first reaction is are they chasing a bunch of
tomato pickers?
Speaker 5 (23:01):
Well, there's something interesting to note here. Coastalview dot com
a website that covers Ventura County noted that the farm
where this scene is unfolding near Cameria is owned by
Glasshouse Farms, and they are a producer and distributor of
cannabis and cannabis products legal I would imagine, So yeah, ok, yeah, yeah,
(23:22):
they have a name and they have their name on
the on the on the deal.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
You know what, because it's legal in California, but federally no,
that's true, area is not legal. I wondered, are they
going after it and using the cover of federal uh
law that says marijuana.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
It's possible. I hope we find out soon.
Speaker 5 (23:42):
It's been difficult to get details from the Department of
Homeland Security about what draws them to a certain area.
They will often talk about specific cases when those who
have been apprehended fit the criminal profile that they say
they've been targeting, but you don't get a lot of
details about everybody else they picked up at the car
washes and so forth, or what they might be doing
in farm country right now. But there was a reportedly
(24:04):
according to coastalview dot Com, about an hour before this
thing started near Camerillo in Carpenteria.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
Is that what he's saying that carpenteria.
Speaker 5 (24:14):
Yeah, yeah, this same company has another farm that was
also hit by immigration agents in that area. So from that,
what are you to do, perhaps that they are being
suspected of hiring illegal immigrants at their locations. We know
that the Trump administration wants to target more workplaces that
are hiring.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
That's when where it started, the whole riot in downtown La. Right,
they were going as a fashion district, a fashion district
company that had some they said, some funny business with
its tax records and it's hiring policies, and that blew up.
Oh my god, they're doing a raid on workers. Well,
the original target was to go after the employers. Maybe
that's the original target here.
Speaker 5 (24:51):
It could be, But we've also seen some waffling from
President Trump himself on how hard he wants to go
after the illegal immigrants who were working the agriculture industry.
Speaker 1 (25:01):
Yeah, first he.
Speaker 5 (25:02):
Says, maybe we need to be a little easier on
the farmers. Are great farmers. And then you hear from
the administration officials who must have pushed back a little
bit and say no, no, it's full speed ahead. And
then again this week we're hearing a.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
Little bit not everybody in the administration agrees on the approach.
Speaker 5 (25:16):
We clearly do not have a directive that is clear
for everybody to understand.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
He changes his mind every week, Yes he does.
Speaker 5 (25:25):
And he happens to be the President of the United
States who sets the tone and the policy for his administration.
And so it's been really difficult to figure out whether
they're they're going to take a softer approach at some
point to hospitality, to agriculture. But if we if this
scene is any and he excuse me, any indication that
hasn't taken place yet.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
All right, well, run in and tell us when you
find out something else. Yeah, you know, all we have
is the helicopter shot at Channel five, which isn't really
telling us anything.
Speaker 5 (25:55):
I notice I never get sent to the scene when
weed is available.
Speaker 2 (25:59):
Well, little upsetting, we've heard.
Speaker 6 (26:04):
Bring him an edible if you want.
Speaker 2 (26:06):
Oh, yeah, there's a there's a supplier there in the newsroom. Dever,
she's got an edible for you and I took one
of those, so be real careful. And it also explains
what's going on with her. All right, Debora Mark is
live in the KFI twenty four our newsroom.
Speaker 4 (26:23):
You're listening to John Cobels on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (26:29):
We're on every day from one until four. Moistline is
eight seven seven moist eighty six. That's tomorrow, eight seven
seven moist eighty six, eight seven seven sixty six four
seven eight eight six h two o'clock, We're going to
have the attorney, Roger baileyon to talk about lawsuits that
have been filed by Palisades residents against the City of
(26:52):
Los Angeles and what these investigators, these and these attorneys
are finding out about what went on. There are a
number of news stories of morning and on the preparation
and the response to the winds that led to the fires.
We're going to delve into that with Roger Bailey, the attorney,
(27:12):
coming up after two o'clock, and then we've got a
lot of Karen Bass clips to play. I thought that
would be a great segue. She did an interview with
a Telemundo reporter, Enrique A Chiabra, where she announced that
she's definitely running for reelection. Boy, isn't that heartwarming news? Hi,
Karen Bass actually wants to be mayor another four years
(27:34):
after this term is over. Now disturbing article in the
La Times today, they said, for all the things the
Times doesn't cover, they had a reporter, Jenny Jarvey, go
all the way to Florence, South Carolina, to cover Newsom's
campaign launch there, and he was speaking to democratic organizations.
(27:54):
Long article, but I wanted to focus for now on this.
She describes the crowd. You all ready for this. Many
in the crowd were clearly awed by Newsom. Some swooned
over his quote beautiful hair.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
He does have nice there, They swooned.
Speaker 2 (28:16):
Now, when a woman is in a swoon, what does
that look like? Swoon for me? That was holding her
hands together and swaying from side to side, cocking her head.
Speaker 1 (28:31):
Yeah, I don't swoon for Newsome. I'm just gonna say
I don't.
Speaker 6 (28:35):
I don't swoon for any politician.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
That's a good bumper sticker. I don't swoon for Newsom.
She forgot to flip her hair. Oh yeah, you gotta
flip your hair back. They were swooned it by over
his beautiful hair and his charisma.
Speaker 1 (28:49):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
One woman informed Newsom that her friend was in love
with you, by the way. Another told friend that she
blacked out when she met Newsom.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
Really she blacked out.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
I mean, he's not a beetle, but he provokes the
same reaction like a beatle. Did tiffity too, tivity too?
Speaker 1 (29:19):
She has a vote. This woman blacked out. She's over overcome.
Speaker 6 (29:26):
You know, in life, the really good looking people, you know,
they they have it much easier than others.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
She was so starstruck that she could not come up
with words. Here's a quard from Carol Abraham, the wife
of the mayor of Bennettsville, after Newsom spoke he's a
cool dude.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
He has swag. What's that? I thought swag was free gifts.
You can't the way he moves, the way he moves, man,
we are doomed, yeh.
Speaker 2 (30:05):
I If this spreads, if this catches on, this would
be like the COVID virus. I don't know if there's
a vaccine for this though. And they were also happy
that he's standing up to Trump.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
Oh my god. They have no idea. They have no
idea what we're dealing with here.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
They don't care, and they don't care. It's actually that hair,
even after turned all. He used to be greasy black.
Now it's greasy gray.
Speaker 6 (30:38):
You know what, It's a double standard for women. Gray
hair is ugly and not acceptable for men.
Speaker 1 (30:45):
How much do you spend a year?
Speaker 6 (30:49):
I'm never going gray. I'm just going to put it
out there.
Speaker 4 (30:53):
I'm too vain.
Speaker 1 (30:55):
You didn't have to announce that.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
Well, I mean, I know anybody who spends ten or
fifteen minutes.
Speaker 1 (31:04):
Going boy, she is vain, I admitted, though.
Speaker 2 (31:07):
Yeah, no, you are here. You are you have self awareness.
I do have selfnes a certain extent. So I have
to talk to you about self awareness at another time.
About something things that happened last night, Okay, on the air,
Off the air, I can tell you both. Okay, Oh,
speaking of last night. Yes, you were not in a
dream last night that I had.
Speaker 1 (31:30):
But you should have been.
Speaker 2 (31:31):
I was driving a car on a two lane road,
hugging the coast, flat road, not up off a cliff, right,
but I'm driving right along the edge of the Pacific Ocean,
and you were supposed to be in the car with
me in the front seat. And I don't know what
the circumstances were, but I remember thinking you were supposed
to be there. And I went around a curve and
(31:54):
I did not negotiate the curve and I went off
the road into the rocks, headed for the ocean and
dream ends.
Speaker 6 (32:04):
Okay, I'm going to analyze this for you really quickly. Yeah,
you need me to keep you on the straightened era.
I'm a very important part of keeping you on track.
That's with that dream or nightmare me.
Speaker 1 (32:22):
Well, you weren't there.
Speaker 4 (32:23):
I wasn't there.
Speaker 1 (32:24):
I am now.
Speaker 2 (32:25):
I sunk to the bottom of the ocean last night.
I mean I blacked out before I before I hit
the water.
Speaker 6 (32:31):
Because I wasn't there.
Speaker 1 (32:33):
A tragedy.
Speaker 2 (32:34):
Well, when I was neat, when you were needed. You're
looking at it from a right because I'm the one
who experienced this. I blacked out the way that poor
woman blacked out approaching Newsom. Can you imagine if we
had him on the show and I blacked out just
(32:55):
because I'm so overwhelmed by by his charisma and his
beauty and his jawl.
Speaker 1 (33:01):
Ever, Yeah, I was gonna say, from him pissing you
off so much.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
Yeah, there's a good shot of that happening. We come
back Roger Bailey, they have He's an attorney. He's representing
a lot of Pacific Palisades residents over the fire, and
his team has been doing a lot of investigations and
they have found more disturbing things about the city's preparation
(33:27):
and response to the fire, including the lad WP had
a worker who took five hours to respond to an
order to de energize the electrical circuits during the fire,
and of course that may have started further fires, and
then he doctored the records to try to cover it up.
(33:51):
Roger Bailey's gonna explain this and a lot of other
things coming up Deborah Mark Live the KFI twenty four
hour Newsroom.
Speaker 1 (33:58):
Hey, you've been listening to the John Cobalt Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (34:01):
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
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.