October 6, 2025 • 33 mins
The John Kobylt Show Hour 1 (10/06) - Peter Charalambous comes on the show to talk about a judge blocking the deployment of the Oregon National Guard. The mayor of Chicago signed an order creating "ICE-Free Zones". More on how bad the insurance industry is in California. Debra ran into professional agitators.
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
Cobelt Podcast on the iHeartRadio app. We are on every
day from one until four o'clock. Welcome, and we're on
after four o'clock two on the iHeart app John Cobelt
Show on demand. The podcast same as the radio show,
so you can We're always available. We're always available to
inform and entertain you. And there's a once again a
(00:25):
lot of news going on at once today. And the
first thing that we're going to address is the Trump
administration wanted to send or wanted to use, Oregon National
Guard troops against the protesters in Portland who are angry
(00:45):
with ICE doing its duties. And when a judge brought
blocked that use of the Oregon National Guard, Trump tried
to take members of the California National Guard and send
them to Portland. Well, the same judge blocked that as well.
Let's go to Pierre Charambus from ABC News investigative reporter
(01:08):
to explain all this. Peter, how are you, I'm well,
thanks much for having me. What's the judge done in
these two rulings.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
Yeah, so this was really a flurry of activity over
the weekend to break it down. First, the judge on
Saturday issued in order that blocked the Trump administration from
deploying the organ National Guard into Portland. This is actually
a Trump appointed judge. She basically said, the Trump administration
failed to justify federalizing the National Guard, which is normally
only done during an insurrection and invasion or rebellion. The
(01:41):
Trump administration, as you mentioned, tried to work around that
by sending troops from California into Portland instead of using
the Oregon National Guard, something they said would still comply
with that judge's court order, but she very quickly shot
down that idea. She indeed in fact called an eight
pm hearing on Sunday night, something you very rarely see
when it comes to federal courts, and question DOJ lawyers
(02:05):
about why in any world would they consider this to
be the appropriate action, considering the fact that the same
justification applies here in terms of the National Guard not
being justified. When they failed to offer a good explanation
they respond, the judge responded by issuing a much broader
order that prohibits any troops from any state from going
into the city.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
And because they wanted Trump administration wanted to use Texas
National Guard troops. I know in Chicago, was he threatening
to bring Texas troops into Oregon as well?
Speaker 2 (02:38):
That's right. So there was this concern from the judge
in real time that you know, maybe the troops could
come from California, maybe they could come from Texas based
on what we were hearing from Governor Abbott. So that really
prompted the judge at this point to say, you know,
I'm just going to offer a very encompassing order to
prevent that in any way. Separately from that in Chicago,
(02:58):
we're kind of seeing the same litigation playing out. In
this case, Chicago is dealing with troops potentially from both
Illinois and Texas going into the city. They've asked the
judge to lock that from taking effect, but for now
the judge is still mulling that order.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
This judge Karen or Carin, I'm not sure how to
pronounce you.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Yes, Karen, she's k He's actually put on the bench. Yeah.
During his first term, he was asked about it on
Sunday by members of the press and he basically said
he regretted that decision and that that he was being
advised by the wrong people. During his first term about
who to put on the bench.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Her contention here is whatever's going on in Portland with ice,
the demonstrations are not that bad, and they don't meet
the level of insurrection. They don't meet the level of
out of control violence that would allow the National Guard
to come in and provide protection. Is that the gist
of her reasoning exactly.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
I mean, she's saying that, and it was interesting to
see her get so, you know, he did. When it
came to Trump's claims, she basically said that Trump's allegations
about the city being war ravaged, about cast in the streets,
about utter danger are just untethered from reality. That's her words.
And she acknowledged that there have been some incidents like
confrontations between protesters and federal agents, but nothing, she said,
(04:24):
that rises to the level of federalizing a national Guard.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
So our claim is that they're exaggerating the threat basically, if.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
Not lying about the threat. She says that this is
kind of a manufactured crisis because you know, in a
way the unrest is being driven by increased immigration action.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
And this only applies to the West coast here this
particular ruling, like in Illinois, they're going to have to
have a separate judge issue a ruling.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
That's exactly right. So the order from over the weekend
that is strictly for the state of Oregon, specifically, for
Portland specifically, So any other state that potentially sees that
the plumbth of the National Guard would have to go
through the same process. So Illinois will file its own lawsuit,
and when it comes to other states, you know, the
only area in which this lawsuit might actually be helpful
(05:20):
is that it might provide a precedent for how to
challenge this from taking place. I'll also note that, you know,
when the Trump administration tried to send troops into California
and to Los Angeles, you know, a judge also issued
a similar order blocking these troops from being deployed, but
an appeals court ultimately lifted that. So it's a pretty
high bar because the president is afforded a lot of
difference when it comes to deploying the National Guard.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
I heard Stephen Miller on a cable interview driving in
and he was claiming that this Oregon situation is exactly
the same as the California situation that led to the
appeals court ruling in Trump's favor. Is this an exact
of an issue here and it's going to be overruled?
(06:05):
It is?
Speaker 2 (06:05):
I guess it's remarkably similar because you know, it's a
similar temporary restraining order, and it's also the same appeals courts,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals who handled both those cases.
But the situation is ever so slightly different in that
the situations vary in terms of the levels of unrest.
I think if you look at the situations, what happened
was what happened in Los Angeles is severely worse than
(06:26):
what's happening in Portland, at least based on the way
the judge is looking at this. So I think, you know,
while it's helpful context to know that the Ninth Circuit
overturned a similar order in the past, I don't think
it's a sure thing because the circumstances differ.
Speaker 1 (06:39):
Also, these tend to be three judge panels, and since
the Ninth Circuit has twenty nine judges, you can get
an entirely different mix.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
Exactly, and it's actually a really you know, ideologically diverse court. Historically,
you know, the Ninth Circuit has lean a bit more liberal,
but Trump significantly changed the composition of the court during
his first term. He was able to put on a
number of judges that lean much more conservative, and it's
kind of worked against the reputation of the court is
kind of this bastion of liberal jurisprudence. Increasingly, we're actually
(07:11):
seeing a decision favorable to the Trump administration coming out
of the Ninth Circuit, despite its reputation for being a
bit liberal.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
Peter Harlambus, thank you for coming on.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
ABC News investigative reporter on the double decision from a
federal judge. Karen Immigrants a Trump to playte said twice
that Trump cannot bring the National Guard into Portland, can't
use the Oregon troops, can't use the California troops, can't
use any troops from any other state to send him
(07:42):
to Oregon. He was turning to Texas. Now there's a
separate battle going on in Eloi, where the governor there
refuses to use the Illinois troops to help but quell
any disturbances against ice in Chicago. And then Trump was
going to bring in Texas National Guard troops because the
Texas governors is all on board with this, with this fight,
(08:06):
and we'll see if what kind of judge. It often
depends on what judge you get. All right, well, we've
got a lot more on all this coming up. And
I've got to tell you about this interview I heard
driving in it. It was very, very long, and if
you know Steven Miller, he's basically in charge of a
(08:28):
lot of policy with the White House, and he's one
of their top spokesman, and he's extremely loud and extremely energetic,
and he must have gone on for like about twenty minutes,
it seemed, with a CNN anchor just yelling and yelling,
and it's a fascinating debate is how much resistance is
too much resistance and how much should the federal government
(08:51):
put up with trying to enforce immigration law. We will
talk about it when we come back.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
You're listening to John Cobelts on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
All right, I'm just looking ray, maybe you want to
get a full story on this. There's a breaking news
graphic on CNN saying the Chicago Mayor has just signed
an order creating ice free zones. Ice free I get
zones where ice cannot go and do their job. Now
that to me, is like Newsome with his no mask rule.
(09:26):
You can't do that. You can't tell federal law enforcement
where they can and cannot patrol within your city or state.
That that's nonsense. The only thing that a mayor or
governor can do is say we are not going to
let our law enforcement or any of our government employees
(09:48):
help you. That's really all a century city can pull
off in that regard. But the idea that you could
tell federallaw enforcement agents how to dress or where they
can enforce federal law is just so nuts. I mean,
(10:09):
this is to use the phrase that the judge used
is this is untethered from reality. That's just crazy. And
what's funny is is that you know, Gavin knews from
Karen Bass had been carrying on like this for several months.
And now you've got the governor of Illinois J. B.
Pritzker and the idiot mayor that they have, Brandon Johnson.
(10:30):
You now have the governor of Oregon the mayor of Portland,
and they've been doing this and repeating this stuff for
several months. And after a while it's like, oh, yes,
so that's the way it is. Well, no, it's not.
I told you. I heard Stephen Miller on CNN as
(10:50):
I was driving in and he is one of Trump's
top advisors, and he's been behind a lot of the
policy over over immigration. And first of all, the case
he laid out was this, and you can argue with
this at home with yourself. But number one, he says,
the top two of the top issues that Trump was
(11:11):
elected on and was a major part of the campaign
was closing the border and deportations. And the Trump campaign
was very upfront about what they were going to do there,
shut the border and deport everyone. Okay, if you were
paying even a slightest bit of attention, you knew that
Trump stood for and you knew a vote would be
(11:33):
endorsing those particular policies. And now that they're doing it,
there's so many democratic politicians and these activist groups having
a heart attack. It is federal law there. I really
don't understand what they're what I don't understand knew some
(11:55):
bass Pritzker John said, what is what is their stake
in supporting illegal activity so passionately, so aggressively. What is
it to you? Why are you so emotionally politically invested
in illegal aliens? Like where did this come from? And
(12:18):
this is what happens. They we've allowed illegal alien access,
you know, for several decades, and now people have forgot
what the law is and what the federal government's allowed
to do. And now when you see it, everybody's freaking out,
(12:39):
or maybe they're pretending to freak out because they think
it's politically, uh, politically advantageous. I am just totally flummoxed
by this. And Miller was talking about all the violence.
There's been lots of violent asst ICE officials. There are
(13:02):
lots of docsing where you have the families and the
children of ICE agents. Their photos and names are on websites,
and then the families get death threats. That's for real.
And we've seen the protests here in LA and the
protests in Portland. And what I remember the first thing
(13:23):
that Karen Bass said, Oh well, it's not that bad.
There's no need Newsom saying well, it's not that bad.
And it's the same line used. I guess you know
they all got one playbook. You had Pritzkert saying the
same thing, and the mayor and the governor in Oregon,
(13:43):
oh well it's not that bad. There's this whole idea
of like, oh, it's exaggerated, it's not that bad, and
what is the tolerable level of resistance to federal law enforcement. Remember,
it's not just we're not going to help you. It's
like we're going to allow violent resistance and we're going
(14:08):
to try to impede the daily work life of ICE agents.
You got to wear masks. You can't go into the
these habrids, but f you, yes, yes they can. And
I guess they're posturing for their for all the crazy
people on the fringe of their party, whatever value that
(14:31):
is to them. But because this has been going on
so long, and you have so many major Democratic officials
repeating out of the same hymnal, it's like you gotta
like sit down for a second and remember, no, I
don't care. Maybe you think we should have wide open borders,
and maybe you think we should have no deportations. That's fine.
(14:52):
But to pretend that there isn't a law that allows
the president to close the borders and that all allows
the president to use ICE to deport everybody if they choose.
You can't pretend the law doesn't exist. It does, and
it's just as legitimate as any other law on the books,
(15:17):
like Tom Homan says over and over again, if you
don't like it, you can have Congress. You can lobby
Congress to change the law. They could completely rewrite the
immigration handbook. You also might need to rewrite some of
the Constitution. But have at it, go for it. That's
your right. But to carry on that ice can't go
(15:42):
to certain sections of Chicago or that, or that they
have to wear a mask because you say so, that
is so great. And again, look how they're willing to
indulge the violence, and like Newsom, beyond indulge, actually cheat
are on the violence. Remember remember he was on Stephen
(16:06):
Colbert talking about Trump has a standing army that has pledged,
pledged loyalty not to the country but to him. Well,
that's a complete lie. There is no such oath to Trump.
Uh and and and and then the next day there
was the that sniper was firing bullets and killed two
(16:28):
illegal aliens in Dallas. I don't think Newsom has been
quite as vociferous ever since, but that the resistance is
it's just crazy land. I've never seen a federal law
being enforced that had this kind of violent anger coming
(16:51):
from elected officials over people who are not American citizens,
not Green card holders. They're just outright, flat out illegal,
and many of them are criminals. I'm sorry. To me,
that's insurrection. To me, that's Trump's got every right to
(17:14):
go in there with the National Guard. How's that not insurrection.
You've got this organized resistance led by elected officials to
deny agents from carrying out federal law right up to
protecting murderers and gang member type criminals. Just crazy. I
(17:39):
got more coming up.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
You're listening to John Cobels on demand from KFI AM.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
Six forty coming up after two o'clock. This doesn't happen often.
You have a bill that passed unanimously in the state
Senate and in the Assembly thirty nine to nothing and
seventy nine to nothing, thirty nine nothing in the Senate
and in the Assembly seventy nine to nothing. And it
(18:07):
was written by a Democrat out of San Francisco, Matt Haini.
It was to create more drug free housing options for
drug addicts. In other words, you're a drug addict, you're homeless.
Here's a housing system where you can't use drugs, makes
it easier. Newso vetoed it. He did because he doesn't
(18:33):
want any money diverted from his philosophy of housing first.
In other words, you give them housing whether they're off
the drugs or not, which has been a disaster because
there's no incentive to get off the drugs. So there
you go, a unanimous vote in both houses written by
(18:56):
a Democrat out of San Francisco. No less newsom vetos it,
and this would create drug free housing. So we are
going to talk to a doctor on human David Hamadi,
and get his analysis of this absurd situation. Now I
(19:19):
think it was last Thursday. Last Thursday, we told you
about Cayle Fart Lara, the insurance commissioner, Ricardo Lara, who
had gone on forty eight trips, most of them nothing
to do with insurance. He's the insurance commissioner and he's
gone on all these trips and we financed them with
(19:41):
our taxes. And he went to all these exotic places
like Bogota, Colombia and South Africa to go on a safari,
and to New York City for Gay Pride Week to
go dancing. And he carries around significant security entourage that
(20:01):
we pay for. Right, so he's blown hundreds of thousands
of dollars. By the way, there's still has been no blowback.
This was like, what was that story? Was that like
a ten minute story? Yes, that in depth and ABC
you couldn't you didn't need any more information. What they
did up in San Francisco at ABC seven was about
as thorough an investigative piece that as you'll ever hear
(20:23):
in your life, certainly these days. Well, California Fair Plan,
I think we all know what that is. That's the
insurer of last resort for home insurance. When you have
been denied coverage or you've been kicked off your coverage,
(20:43):
you go to the state and there's a fair Plan
and this is operated and backed by the state's home insurers,
and they're in a lot of trouble. They've lost billions
of dollars. See the insurance companies, but we'll use Palisades
(21:05):
because it's really the most egregious example. The insurance companies
systematically pulled out of the Palisades in the months before
the fire. The story is that they knew the risk
was very high, that the state and the city were
not clearing out the vegetation, that the fire department was
way underfunded, and that the reservoir. The big reservoir was empty,
(21:31):
so they flew drones and they could see how dry
everything was, how overgrown it was, how the reservoir is empty,
and they started pulling policies like crazy. So people, hopefully
people opened the mail and saw that hey, no more insurance.
Some people missed it, and the only thing you can
(21:54):
do if you can't find a replacement is to go
to the State Fair Plan. Now, the State Fair Plan
has a cat and I've heard it described as somewhere
between two and three million dollars, which is a lot
of money in a lot of neighborhoods, but not nearly
enough in the Palisades, So people have been screwed over badly.
(22:14):
On top of that, the Fair Plan has been very
bad at reimbursing people for smoke damage, and a just
Superior Court Judge Astra actually in June declared the planned
smoke damage policy to being violation of state law. They
(22:40):
just weren't paying for smoke damage whether they were supposed to,
and they didn't want to pay for the testing and
the remediation for the smoke damaged homes. On top of
not just in general being extremely difficult and it's going bankrupt.
And this is all under Ricard Lara. This is under
(23:02):
Ricardo Lara over the last year, while he's been going
on dozens of these trips during his term. It's completely mismanaged, corrupt, ridiculous.
It's left these homeowners out to dry and now here
we go. The Fair Plan wants to raise its rates
(23:26):
about thirty six percent. Thirty six percent. Why because they're broke.
They say that they have losses of four billion dollars
from the January fires, and so now they have to
assess all the insurance companies that are part of the
(23:48):
plan a billion dollars extra to pay all the claims
and eventually, you know that has to be made up
by higher premiums.
Speaker 4 (23:55):
No one's ever going to be able to afford insurance,
no ever again.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
And this is because number one Karen Bass and Gavin
Newsom didn't have the brush cleared. Number two Genie Kenoniez,
head of the DWP, didn't have the reservoir filled and
she should have been overruled or fired by Bass or Newsom.
(24:20):
Number three Karen Bass defunded the fire department, so they're
only at fifty percent, and they didn't have mechanics and
then they didn't have the fire trucks fixed, and they
didn't have a squadron of fire trucks up in the
hills that morning, especially around the place where the New
Year's Day fire had erupted a week earlier. Massive, massive
(24:44):
irresponsibility and incompetence. Oh and remember Karen Bass was in
Africa anyway, So it's all consequences from Karen Bass being
grossly irresponsible failing the city. Two basic things. We want,
(25:04):
police coverage and fire coverage. That's the top of the
list here. Police is way underfunded, understaffed, fire way underfunded, understaffed.
But boys their money for illegal aliens, right, we're paying
for illegal aliens legal fees. Good lord. The insurance commission
(25:26):
The insurance commissioner is run by a guy who's like
some kind of crazy person. He's flying all around the
world with his security entourage and charging us for it. Meantime,
his little fiefdom there is completely collapsed. It is sinking
in red ink. So there you go, thirty six percent
(25:47):
rate hike. People can't live here. How the hell are you?
Speaker 3 (25:53):
How you?
Speaker 1 (25:54):
I guess you know what, And we'll get to this
part later on. I guess really, this is what they
want to do is drive a lot of the successful
people out of the state and then set up low
income housing that the state and the city could run,
and they can have all the poor people, the drug addicts,
(26:16):
the mental patients of the illegal aliens live in the housing,
and bass and News them and their successors will rule.
That's the kingdom they want. All right, coming up? Oh,
you want to tell your story next? Sure? All right, Deborah,
I ran into something that she'd never seen before. And
I was dimly aware of this going on, but it's
(26:38):
it's professional agitators and they tried to agitate Deborah, which
is normally a very bad idea. I mean, that's not
something i'd recommend. Yeah, if one of these agitators came
up to me, Yeah, should we agitate that woman?
Speaker 3 (26:53):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (26:53):
No, no, no, no, don't do that.
Speaker 5 (26:55):
That's that's solid, solid advice.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
Yeah, all right, So we'll get to that next.
Speaker 3 (27:00):
You're listening to John Cobels on Demand from KFI.
Speaker 1 (27:04):
A six. Coming up right after Deborah's news, We're going
to talk with doctor human David Hamadi about about Gavin
Newsom vetoing a bill that passed unanimously in both houses
written by a Democrat to create drug free housing for
drug addicts, right, so as they're recovering, they can live
(27:25):
in a place where there are no drugs. And Newsom
said no, he believes in housing first, no drug rules.
Oh my god, all right, so we'll do that now.
So Deborah's where'd you go? Where'd you witness this?
Speaker 5 (27:41):
Trader Joe's in Woodland Hills Trader.
Speaker 1 (27:43):
Joe's and you come across the just kind of the
oddest situation. Why don't you describe it?
Speaker 4 (27:49):
So last night I needed to go to Trader Joe's
and I see a huge police presence out there, so
I thought, uh, oh, you know what's going on? And
I mean, there were a lot of police officers out there.
And then I see these guys with their cell phone
cameras out and they're recording everything. And they almost have
like these little selfie sticks that the cameras are mounted onto,
(28:11):
and they're they're sitting there there, they're recording everybody. So
I thought that was what is going on here? I'm
trying to figure out, you know, are they vegans protesting
people not to go in and buy me?
Speaker 5 (28:23):
I mean, seriously, I had no idea those some meat eaters,
you know, crazy group.
Speaker 4 (28:29):
Yeah, not necessarily vegans, but anyway, so I talked to
somebody at Woodland Hills and she said, ignore these people.
What they're doing. They're they're agitators. They're paid to agitate people.
They're trying to get reactions from people so that they
can post your reaction online. So I'm looking and they
see me looking and then their camera zooms because they
want my reaction. So I just I had to ignore.
(28:51):
But I noticed, you know, people are looking at them,
and and they are training their camera on the people
that are looking at them because they just they're waiting
for somebody to say, Hey, get that out.
Speaker 5 (29:01):
Of my face. What are you doing? What are you
recording me?
Speaker 4 (29:03):
And yes, they are paid people to agitate you, so.
Speaker 1 (29:08):
They would post the videos online.
Speaker 5 (29:10):
Yes, of people being pissed off.
Speaker 1 (29:12):
And I guess get hits and make money, right, So
there's no issue here. They're not protesting the police, no
political cause, nothing, nothing, just putting cameras in people's faces to.
Speaker 5 (29:24):
Try and piss people off.
Speaker 4 (29:25):
And we did ask also a trader, Joe's, well, what's
the police doing. Apparently the police it's not against the law.
What these guys are doing. They were really outside, they
weren't inside the Trader Joe's, but they're you know, they're
really right on the peripheral of the parking lot, and
so there was nothing that could be done.
Speaker 5 (29:46):
What losers?
Speaker 1 (29:47):
Yeah, it's all guys, right, Yes, I.
Speaker 5 (29:49):
Didn't see any women.
Speaker 1 (29:51):
Yeah, yeah, it's probably it's what we're talking about.
Speaker 4 (29:55):
Well, this Trader Joe's lady that I was talking to,
she says, I just blow them kisses when their cameras,
I just blow them kisses.
Speaker 1 (30:01):
She said.
Speaker 4 (30:02):
Just don't give them what they want, which is they
don't they want you to be pissed off.
Speaker 5 (30:06):
They want to record you.
Speaker 4 (30:07):
They want they're hoping that somebody is going to come
beat them up so that they can.
Speaker 5 (30:10):
Post the fights.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
So what did? What did you do?
Speaker 5 (30:13):
I did nothing. I ignored them.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
You controlled yourself.
Speaker 5 (30:16):
I did.
Speaker 4 (30:17):
I did in this case because I was not going
to give them what they wanted.
Speaker 1 (30:22):
But you didn't know that when they first came up
to you.
Speaker 4 (30:24):
Well, I was too busy trying to figure out what
was going on, So I had my kind of reporter
hat on. Once I was told what was going on,
and I'm looking at them and I'm seeing that they
see me looking at them, and they're putting their their
camera right. They didn't get too right up to my
face because I wasn't that close, but they knew what.
Speaker 5 (30:43):
They were doing. They were they were trying to get
a rise out of me and other people, and I'm.
Speaker 1 (30:50):
Really bizarre way to spend the day for them.
Speaker 5 (30:53):
I have no idea. I've never heard of this before.
Speaker 4 (30:55):
I get we always talk about people, you know, paid protesters.
Speaker 5 (30:59):
I get that. I don't get it, but I get
it right.
Speaker 4 (31:01):
Yeah, I've never heard of people going to places and
trying to piss people off by recording them and getting
paid for those hits.
Speaker 1 (31:10):
In my town, something that's slightly similar. There were two
guys and they would hang out at the post office,
in front of the post office, and they would look
real suspicious. They'd be all dressed in black, and they
looked like there were two guys who wanted to steal
mail and break into mailboxes. And it got everybody in
(31:30):
the neighborhood posting on the next door app and any
other social media channel. It's like, these two guys seem
to be up to no good, what's going on here?
It turned out it was the same thing. Somebody else said, no,
those guys are always around and they try to take
video of people freaking out so they can post it online.
Speaker 5 (31:51):
Oh my god.
Speaker 1 (31:52):
Yeah, because it looked plausible because we had a rash
of thefts at the post office, but it turned out
to be mostly the postal workers.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
It was the.
Speaker 1 (32:02):
Employees who were stealing things. So everybody in the neighborhood's
on edge. Right, So when you see these two guys
with they had like uh, like black hoodies on. You know,
they just look like suspicious characters, right, Yeah, so they thought, well,
that's what it is, and it's like, no, they were
they were just trying to see what kind of rise
they can get.
Speaker 5 (32:20):
What a lovely way to make money people.
Speaker 1 (32:22):
Isn't it stupid? And these are young guys?
Speaker 4 (32:25):
Uh no, they weren't really young, uh, middle age at
least the ones that.
Speaker 3 (32:32):
I know.
Speaker 5 (32:32):
Total losers.
Speaker 4 (32:35):
I mean, this is next level paparazzi, but none of
us are famous.
Speaker 1 (32:39):
Right. They look like those greasy paparazzi guys.
Speaker 4 (32:42):
I mean just the way they were huddled and trying
to just trying to antagonize people. I mean paparazzi, they're
not antagonizing they're obviously trying to get pictures so they
can sell the pictures. I get that this is just
a next level of just I don't understand it.
Speaker 5 (32:58):
John, I'm old, because this was just what the hell right?
Speaker 1 (33:07):
It's stupid.
Speaker 4 (33:08):
I wanted to go and punch somebody in the nose,
but I did not want to give them what they wanted,
and I didn't want to end up online.
Speaker 5 (33:14):
No one's going to make money off of me being
agitated myself.
Speaker 1 (33:19):
They were playing with dynamite and they didn't know it.
All right, more coming up, will we come back? Doctor
Human David HAMAI. He is gonna talk about Gavin Newsom
vetoing a bill that passed unanimously that would created drug
free housing for drug addicts. Deborah Mark Live the CANFI
(33:41):
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
Cobelt Podcast on the iHeartRadio app. We are on every
day from one until four o'clock. Welcome, and we're on
after four o'clock two on the iHeart app John Cobelt
Show on demand. The podcast same as the radio show,
so you can We're always available. We're always available to
inform and entertain you. And there's a once again a
(00:25):
lot of news going on at once today. And the
first thing that we're going to address is the Trump
administration wanted to send or wanted to use, Oregon National
Guard troops against the protesters in Portland who are angry
(00:45):
with ICE doing its duties. And when a judge brought
blocked that use of the Oregon National Guard, Trump tried
to take members of the California National Guard and send
them to Portland. Well, the same judge blocked that as well.
Let's go to Pierre Charambus from ABC News investigative reporter
(01:08):
to explain all this. Peter, how are you, I'm well,
thanks much for having me. What's the judge done in
these two rulings.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
Yeah, so this was really a flurry of activity over
the weekend to break it down. First, the judge on
Saturday issued in order that blocked the Trump administration from
deploying the organ National Guard into Portland. This is actually
a Trump appointed judge. She basically said, the Trump administration
failed to justify federalizing the National Guard, which is normally
only done during an insurrection and invasion or rebellion. The
(01:41):
Trump administration, as you mentioned, tried to work around that
by sending troops from California into Portland instead of using
the Oregon National Guard, something they said would still comply
with that judge's court order, but she very quickly shot
down that idea. She indeed in fact called an eight
pm hearing on Sunday night, something you very rarely see
when it comes to federal courts, and question DOJ lawyers
(02:05):
about why in any world would they consider this to
be the appropriate action, considering the fact that the same
justification applies here in terms of the National Guard not
being justified. When they failed to offer a good explanation
they respond, the judge responded by issuing a much broader
order that prohibits any troops from any state from going
into the city.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
And because they wanted Trump administration wanted to use Texas
National Guard troops. I know in Chicago, was he threatening
to bring Texas troops into Oregon as well?
Speaker 2 (02:38):
That's right. So there was this concern from the judge
in real time that you know, maybe the troops could
come from California, maybe they could come from Texas based
on what we were hearing from Governor Abbott. So that really
prompted the judge at this point to say, you know,
I'm just going to offer a very encompassing order to
prevent that in any way. Separately from that in Chicago,
(02:58):
we're kind of seeing the same litigation playing out. In
this case, Chicago is dealing with troops potentially from both
Illinois and Texas going into the city. They've asked the
judge to lock that from taking effect, but for now
the judge is still mulling that order.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
This judge Karen or Carin, I'm not sure how to
pronounce you.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Yes, Karen, she's k He's actually put on the bench. Yeah.
During his first term, he was asked about it on
Sunday by members of the press and he basically said
he regretted that decision and that that he was being
advised by the wrong people. During his first term about
who to put on the bench.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Her contention here is whatever's going on in Portland with ice,
the demonstrations are not that bad, and they don't meet
the level of insurrection. They don't meet the level of
out of control violence that would allow the National Guard
to come in and provide protection. Is that the gist
of her reasoning exactly.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
I mean, she's saying that, and it was interesting to
see her get so, you know, he did. When it
came to Trump's claims, she basically said that Trump's allegations
about the city being war ravaged, about cast in the streets,
about utter danger are just untethered from reality. That's her words.
And she acknowledged that there have been some incidents like
confrontations between protesters and federal agents, but nothing, she said,
(04:24):
that rises to the level of federalizing a national Guard.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
So our claim is that they're exaggerating the threat basically, if.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
Not lying about the threat. She says that this is
kind of a manufactured crisis because you know, in a
way the unrest is being driven by increased immigration action.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
And this only applies to the West coast here this
particular ruling, like in Illinois, they're going to have to
have a separate judge issue a ruling.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
That's exactly right. So the order from over the weekend
that is strictly for the state of Oregon, specifically, for
Portland specifically, So any other state that potentially sees that
the plumbth of the National Guard would have to go
through the same process. So Illinois will file its own lawsuit,
and when it comes to other states, you know, the
only area in which this lawsuit might actually be helpful
(05:20):
is that it might provide a precedent for how to
challenge this from taking place. I'll also note that, you know,
when the Trump administration tried to send troops into California
and to Los Angeles, you know, a judge also issued
a similar order blocking these troops from being deployed, but
an appeals court ultimately lifted that. So it's a pretty
high bar because the president is afforded a lot of
difference when it comes to deploying the National Guard.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
I heard Stephen Miller on a cable interview driving in
and he was claiming that this Oregon situation is exactly
the same as the California situation that led to the
appeals court ruling in Trump's favor. Is this an exact
of an issue here and it's going to be overruled?
(06:05):
It is?
Speaker 2 (06:05):
I guess it's remarkably similar because you know, it's a
similar temporary restraining order, and it's also the same appeals courts,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals who handled both those cases.
But the situation is ever so slightly different in that
the situations vary in terms of the levels of unrest.
I think if you look at the situations, what happened
was what happened in Los Angeles is severely worse than
(06:26):
what's happening in Portland, at least based on the way
the judge is looking at this. So I think, you know,
while it's helpful context to know that the Ninth Circuit
overturned a similar order in the past, I don't think
it's a sure thing because the circumstances differ.
Speaker 1 (06:39):
Also, these tend to be three judge panels, and since
the Ninth Circuit has twenty nine judges, you can get
an entirely different mix.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
Exactly, and it's actually a really you know, ideologically diverse court. Historically,
you know, the Ninth Circuit has lean a bit more liberal,
but Trump significantly changed the composition of the court during
his first term. He was able to put on a
number of judges that lean much more conservative, and it's
kind of worked against the reputation of the court is
kind of this bastion of liberal jurisprudence. Increasingly, we're actually
(07:11):
seeing a decision favorable to the Trump administration coming out
of the Ninth Circuit, despite its reputation for being a
bit liberal.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
Peter Harlambus, thank you for coming on.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
ABC News investigative reporter on the double decision from a
federal judge. Karen Immigrants a Trump to playte said twice
that Trump cannot bring the National Guard into Portland, can't
use the Oregon troops, can't use the California troops, can't
use any troops from any other state to send him
(07:42):
to Oregon. He was turning to Texas. Now there's a
separate battle going on in Eloi, where the governor there
refuses to use the Illinois troops to help but quell
any disturbances against ice in Chicago. And then Trump was
going to bring in Texas National Guard troops because the
Texas governors is all on board with this, with this fight,
(08:06):
and we'll see if what kind of judge. It often
depends on what judge you get. All right, well, we've
got a lot more on all this coming up. And
I've got to tell you about this interview I heard
driving in it. It was very, very long, and if
you know Steven Miller, he's basically in charge of a
(08:28):
lot of policy with the White House, and he's one
of their top spokesman, and he's extremely loud and extremely energetic,
and he must have gone on for like about twenty minutes,
it seemed, with a CNN anchor just yelling and yelling,
and it's a fascinating debate is how much resistance is
too much resistance and how much should the federal government
(08:51):
put up with trying to enforce immigration law. We will
talk about it when we come back.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
You're listening to John Cobelts on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
All right, I'm just looking ray, maybe you want to
get a full story on this. There's a breaking news
graphic on CNN saying the Chicago Mayor has just signed
an order creating ice free zones. Ice free I get
zones where ice cannot go and do their job. Now
that to me, is like Newsome with his no mask rule.
(09:26):
You can't do that. You can't tell federal law enforcement
where they can and cannot patrol within your city or state.
That that's nonsense. The only thing that a mayor or
governor can do is say we are not going to
let our law enforcement or any of our government employees
(09:48):
help you. That's really all a century city can pull
off in that regard. But the idea that you could
tell federallaw enforcement agents how to dress or where they
can enforce federal law is just so nuts. I mean,
(10:09):
this is to use the phrase that the judge used
is this is untethered from reality. That's just crazy. And
what's funny is is that you know, Gavin knews from
Karen Bass had been carrying on like this for several months.
And now you've got the governor of Illinois J. B.
Pritzker and the idiot mayor that they have, Brandon Johnson.
(10:30):
You now have the governor of Oregon the mayor of Portland,
and they've been doing this and repeating this stuff for
several months. And after a while it's like, oh, yes,
so that's the way it is. Well, no, it's not.
I told you. I heard Stephen Miller on CNN as
(10:50):
I was driving in and he is one of Trump's
top advisors, and he's been behind a lot of the
policy over over immigration. And first of all, the case
he laid out was this, and you can argue with
this at home with yourself. But number one, he says,
the top two of the top issues that Trump was
(11:11):
elected on and was a major part of the campaign
was closing the border and deportations. And the Trump campaign
was very upfront about what they were going to do there,
shut the border and deport everyone. Okay, if you were
paying even a slightest bit of attention, you knew that
Trump stood for and you knew a vote would be
(11:33):
endorsing those particular policies. And now that they're doing it,
there's so many democratic politicians and these activist groups having
a heart attack. It is federal law there. I really
don't understand what they're what I don't understand knew some
(11:55):
bass Pritzker John said, what is what is their stake
in supporting illegal activity so passionately, so aggressively. What is
it to you? Why are you so emotionally politically invested
in illegal aliens? Like where did this come from? And
(12:18):
this is what happens. They we've allowed illegal alien access,
you know, for several decades, and now people have forgot
what the law is and what the federal government's allowed
to do. And now when you see it, everybody's freaking out,
(12:39):
or maybe they're pretending to freak out because they think
it's politically, uh, politically advantageous. I am just totally flummoxed
by this. And Miller was talking about all the violence.
There's been lots of violent asst ICE officials. There are
(13:02):
lots of docsing where you have the families and the
children of ICE agents. Their photos and names are on websites,
and then the families get death threats. That's for real.
And we've seen the protests here in LA and the
protests in Portland. And what I remember the first thing
(13:23):
that Karen Bass said, Oh well, it's not that bad.
There's no need Newsom saying well, it's not that bad.
And it's the same line used. I guess you know
they all got one playbook. You had Pritzkert saying the
same thing, and the mayor and the governor in Oregon,
(13:43):
oh well it's not that bad. There's this whole idea
of like, oh, it's exaggerated, it's not that bad, and
what is the tolerable level of resistance to federal law enforcement. Remember,
it's not just we're not going to help you. It's
like we're going to allow violent resistance and we're going
(14:08):
to try to impede the daily work life of ICE agents.
You got to wear masks. You can't go into the
these habrids, but f you, yes, yes they can. And
I guess they're posturing for their for all the crazy
people on the fringe of their party, whatever value that
(14:31):
is to them. But because this has been going on
so long, and you have so many major Democratic officials
repeating out of the same hymnal, it's like you gotta
like sit down for a second and remember, no, I
don't care. Maybe you think we should have wide open borders,
and maybe you think we should have no deportations. That's fine.
(14:52):
But to pretend that there isn't a law that allows
the president to close the borders and that all allows
the president to use ICE to deport everybody if they choose.
You can't pretend the law doesn't exist. It does, and
it's just as legitimate as any other law on the books,
(15:17):
like Tom Homan says over and over again, if you
don't like it, you can have Congress. You can lobby
Congress to change the law. They could completely rewrite the
immigration handbook. You also might need to rewrite some of
the Constitution. But have at it, go for it. That's
your right. But to carry on that ice can't go
(15:42):
to certain sections of Chicago or that, or that they
have to wear a mask because you say so, that
is so great. And again, look how they're willing to
indulge the violence, and like Newsom, beyond indulge, actually cheat
are on the violence. Remember remember he was on Stephen
(16:06):
Colbert talking about Trump has a standing army that has pledged,
pledged loyalty not to the country but to him. Well,
that's a complete lie. There is no such oath to Trump.
Uh and and and and then the next day there
was the that sniper was firing bullets and killed two
(16:28):
illegal aliens in Dallas. I don't think Newsom has been
quite as vociferous ever since, but that the resistance is
it's just crazy land. I've never seen a federal law
being enforced that had this kind of violent anger coming
(16:51):
from elected officials over people who are not American citizens,
not Green card holders. They're just outright, flat out illegal,
and many of them are criminals. I'm sorry. To me,
that's insurrection. To me, that's Trump's got every right to
(17:14):
go in there with the National Guard. How's that not insurrection.
You've got this organized resistance led by elected officials to
deny agents from carrying out federal law right up to
protecting murderers and gang member type criminals. Just crazy. I
(17:39):
got more coming up.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
You're listening to John Cobels on demand from KFI AM.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
Six forty coming up after two o'clock. This doesn't happen often.
You have a bill that passed unanimously in the state
Senate and in the Assembly thirty nine to nothing and
seventy nine to nothing, thirty nine nothing in the Senate
and in the Assembly seventy nine to nothing. And it
(18:07):
was written by a Democrat out of San Francisco, Matt Haini.
It was to create more drug free housing options for
drug addicts. In other words, you're a drug addict, you're homeless.
Here's a housing system where you can't use drugs, makes
it easier. Newso vetoed it. He did because he doesn't
(18:33):
want any money diverted from his philosophy of housing first.
In other words, you give them housing whether they're off
the drugs or not, which has been a disaster because
there's no incentive to get off the drugs. So there
you go, a unanimous vote in both houses written by
(18:56):
a Democrat out of San Francisco. No less newsom vetos it,
and this would create drug free housing. So we are
going to talk to a doctor on human David Hamadi,
and get his analysis of this absurd situation. Now I
(19:19):
think it was last Thursday. Last Thursday, we told you
about Cayle Fart Lara, the insurance commissioner, Ricardo Lara, who
had gone on forty eight trips, most of them nothing
to do with insurance. He's the insurance commissioner and he's
gone on all these trips and we financed them with
(19:41):
our taxes. And he went to all these exotic places
like Bogota, Colombia and South Africa to go on a safari,
and to New York City for Gay Pride Week to
go dancing. And he carries around significant security entourage that
(20:01):
we pay for. Right, so he's blown hundreds of thousands
of dollars. By the way, there's still has been no blowback.
This was like, what was that story? Was that like
a ten minute story? Yes, that in depth and ABC
you couldn't you didn't need any more information. What they
did up in San Francisco at ABC seven was about
as thorough an investigative piece that as you'll ever hear
(20:23):
in your life, certainly these days. Well, California Fair Plan,
I think we all know what that is. That's the
insurer of last resort for home insurance. When you have
been denied coverage or you've been kicked off your coverage,
(20:43):
you go to the state and there's a fair Plan
and this is operated and backed by the state's home insurers,
and they're in a lot of trouble. They've lost billions
of dollars. See the insurance companies, but we'll use Palisades
(21:05):
because it's really the most egregious example. The insurance companies
systematically pulled out of the Palisades in the months before
the fire. The story is that they knew the risk
was very high, that the state and the city were
not clearing out the vegetation, that the fire department was
way underfunded, and that the reservoir. The big reservoir was empty,
(21:31):
so they flew drones and they could see how dry
everything was, how overgrown it was, how the reservoir is empty,
and they started pulling policies like crazy. So people, hopefully
people opened the mail and saw that hey, no more insurance.
Some people missed it, and the only thing you can
(21:54):
do if you can't find a replacement is to go
to the State Fair Plan. Now, the State Fair Plan
has a cat and I've heard it described as somewhere
between two and three million dollars, which is a lot
of money in a lot of neighborhoods, but not nearly
enough in the Palisades, So people have been screwed over badly.
(22:14):
On top of that, the Fair Plan has been very
bad at reimbursing people for smoke damage, and a just
Superior Court Judge Astra actually in June declared the planned
smoke damage policy to being violation of state law. They
(22:40):
just weren't paying for smoke damage whether they were supposed to,
and they didn't want to pay for the testing and
the remediation for the smoke damaged homes. On top of
not just in general being extremely difficult and it's going bankrupt.
And this is all under Ricard Lara. This is under
(23:02):
Ricardo Lara over the last year, while he's been going
on dozens of these trips during his term. It's completely mismanaged, corrupt, ridiculous.
It's left these homeowners out to dry and now here
we go. The Fair Plan wants to raise its rates
(23:26):
about thirty six percent. Thirty six percent. Why because they're broke.
They say that they have losses of four billion dollars
from the January fires, and so now they have to
assess all the insurance companies that are part of the
(23:48):
plan a billion dollars extra to pay all the claims
and eventually, you know that has to be made up
by higher premiums.
Speaker 4 (23:55):
No one's ever going to be able to afford insurance,
no ever again.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
And this is because number one Karen Bass and Gavin
Newsom didn't have the brush cleared. Number two Genie Kenoniez,
head of the DWP, didn't have the reservoir filled and
she should have been overruled or fired by Bass or Newsom.
(24:20):
Number three Karen Bass defunded the fire department, so they're
only at fifty percent, and they didn't have mechanics and
then they didn't have the fire trucks fixed, and they
didn't have a squadron of fire trucks up in the
hills that morning, especially around the place where the New
Year's Day fire had erupted a week earlier. Massive, massive
(24:44):
irresponsibility and incompetence. Oh and remember Karen Bass was in
Africa anyway, So it's all consequences from Karen Bass being
grossly irresponsible failing the city. Two basic things. We want,
(25:04):
police coverage and fire coverage. That's the top of the
list here. Police is way underfunded, understaffed, fire way underfunded, understaffed.
But boys their money for illegal aliens, right, we're paying
for illegal aliens legal fees. Good lord. The insurance commission
(25:26):
The insurance commissioner is run by a guy who's like
some kind of crazy person. He's flying all around the
world with his security entourage and charging us for it. Meantime,
his little fiefdom there is completely collapsed. It is sinking
in red ink. So there you go, thirty six percent
(25:47):
rate hike. People can't live here. How the hell are you?
Speaker 3 (25:53):
How you?
Speaker 1 (25:54):
I guess you know what, And we'll get to this
part later on. I guess really, this is what they
want to do is drive a lot of the successful
people out of the state and then set up low
income housing that the state and the city could run,
and they can have all the poor people, the drug addicts,
(26:16):
the mental patients of the illegal aliens live in the housing,
and bass and News them and their successors will rule.
That's the kingdom they want. All right, coming up? Oh,
you want to tell your story next? Sure? All right, Deborah,
I ran into something that she'd never seen before. And
I was dimly aware of this going on, but it's
(26:38):
it's professional agitators and they tried to agitate Deborah, which
is normally a very bad idea. I mean, that's not
something i'd recommend. Yeah, if one of these agitators came
up to me, Yeah, should we agitate that woman?
Speaker 3 (26:53):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (26:53):
No, no, no, no, don't do that.
Speaker 5 (26:55):
That's that's solid, solid advice.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
Yeah, all right, So we'll get to that next.
Speaker 3 (27:00):
You're listening to John Cobels on Demand from KFI.
Speaker 1 (27:04):
A six. Coming up right after Deborah's news, We're going
to talk with doctor human David Hamadi about about Gavin
Newsom vetoing a bill that passed unanimously in both houses
written by a Democrat to create drug free housing for
drug addicts, right, so as they're recovering, they can live
(27:25):
in a place where there are no drugs. And Newsom
said no, he believes in housing first, no drug rules.
Oh my god, all right, so we'll do that now.
So Deborah's where'd you go? Where'd you witness this?
Speaker 5 (27:41):
Trader Joe's in Woodland Hills Trader.
Speaker 1 (27:43):
Joe's and you come across the just kind of the
oddest situation. Why don't you describe it?
Speaker 4 (27:49):
So last night I needed to go to Trader Joe's
and I see a huge police presence out there, so
I thought, uh, oh, you know what's going on? And
I mean, there were a lot of police officers out there.
And then I see these guys with their cell phone
cameras out and they're recording everything. And they almost have
like these little selfie sticks that the cameras are mounted onto,
(28:11):
and they're they're sitting there there, they're recording everybody. So
I thought that was what is going on here? I'm
trying to figure out, you know, are they vegans protesting
people not to go in and buy me?
Speaker 5 (28:23):
I mean, seriously, I had no idea those some meat eaters,
you know, crazy group.
Speaker 4 (28:29):
Yeah, not necessarily vegans, but anyway, so I talked to
somebody at Woodland Hills and she said, ignore these people.
What they're doing. They're they're agitators. They're paid to agitate people.
They're trying to get reactions from people so that they
can post your reaction online. So I'm looking and they
see me looking and then their camera zooms because they
want my reaction. So I just I had to ignore.
(28:51):
But I noticed, you know, people are looking at them,
and and they are training their camera on the people
that are looking at them because they just they're waiting
for somebody to say, Hey, get that out.
Speaker 5 (29:01):
Of my face. What are you doing? What are you
recording me?
Speaker 4 (29:03):
And yes, they are paid people to agitate you, so.
Speaker 1 (29:08):
They would post the videos online.
Speaker 5 (29:10):
Yes, of people being pissed off.
Speaker 1 (29:12):
And I guess get hits and make money, right, So
there's no issue here. They're not protesting the police, no
political cause, nothing, nothing, just putting cameras in people's faces to.
Speaker 5 (29:24):
Try and piss people off.
Speaker 4 (29:25):
And we did ask also a trader, Joe's, well, what's
the police doing. Apparently the police it's not against the law.
What these guys are doing. They were really outside, they
weren't inside the Trader Joe's, but they're you know, they're
really right on the peripheral of the parking lot, and
so there was nothing that could be done.
Speaker 5 (29:46):
What losers?
Speaker 1 (29:47):
Yeah, it's all guys, right, Yes, I.
Speaker 5 (29:49):
Didn't see any women.
Speaker 1 (29:51):
Yeah, yeah, it's probably it's what we're talking about.
Speaker 4 (29:55):
Well, this Trader Joe's lady that I was talking to,
she says, I just blow them kisses when their cameras,
I just blow them kisses.
Speaker 1 (30:01):
She said.
Speaker 4 (30:02):
Just don't give them what they want, which is they
don't they want you to be pissed off.
Speaker 5 (30:06):
They want to record you.
Speaker 4 (30:07):
They want they're hoping that somebody is going to come
beat them up so that they can.
Speaker 5 (30:10):
Post the fights.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
So what did? What did you do?
Speaker 5 (30:13):
I did nothing. I ignored them.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
You controlled yourself.
Speaker 5 (30:16):
I did.
Speaker 4 (30:17):
I did in this case because I was not going
to give them what they wanted.
Speaker 1 (30:22):
But you didn't know that when they first came up
to you.
Speaker 4 (30:24):
Well, I was too busy trying to figure out what
was going on, So I had my kind of reporter
hat on. Once I was told what was going on,
and I'm looking at them and I'm seeing that they
see me looking at them, and they're putting their their
camera right. They didn't get too right up to my
face because I wasn't that close, but they knew what.
Speaker 5 (30:43):
They were doing. They were they were trying to get
a rise out of me and other people, and I'm.
Speaker 1 (30:50):
Really bizarre way to spend the day for them.
Speaker 5 (30:53):
I have no idea. I've never heard of this before.
Speaker 4 (30:55):
I get we always talk about people, you know, paid protesters.
Speaker 5 (30:59):
I get that. I don't get it, but I get
it right.
Speaker 4 (31:01):
Yeah, I've never heard of people going to places and
trying to piss people off by recording them and getting
paid for those hits.
Speaker 1 (31:10):
In my town, something that's slightly similar. There were two
guys and they would hang out at the post office,
in front of the post office, and they would look
real suspicious. They'd be all dressed in black, and they
looked like there were two guys who wanted to steal
mail and break into mailboxes. And it got everybody in
(31:30):
the neighborhood posting on the next door app and any
other social media channel. It's like, these two guys seem
to be up to no good, what's going on here?
It turned out it was the same thing. Somebody else said, no,
those guys are always around and they try to take
video of people freaking out so they can post it online.
Speaker 5 (31:51):
Oh my god.
Speaker 1 (31:52):
Yeah, because it looked plausible because we had a rash
of thefts at the post office, but it turned out
to be mostly the postal workers.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
It was the.
Speaker 1 (32:02):
Employees who were stealing things. So everybody in the neighborhood's
on edge. Right, So when you see these two guys
with they had like uh, like black hoodies on. You know,
they just look like suspicious characters, right, Yeah, so they thought, well,
that's what it is, and it's like, no, they were
they were just trying to see what kind of rise
they can get.
Speaker 5 (32:20):
What a lovely way to make money people.
Speaker 1 (32:22):
Isn't it stupid? And these are young guys?
Speaker 4 (32:25):
Uh no, they weren't really young, uh, middle age at
least the ones that.
Speaker 3 (32:32):
I know.
Speaker 5 (32:32):
Total losers.
Speaker 4 (32:35):
I mean, this is next level paparazzi, but none of
us are famous.
Speaker 1 (32:39):
Right. They look like those greasy paparazzi guys.
Speaker 4 (32:42):
I mean just the way they were huddled and trying
to just trying to antagonize people. I mean paparazzi, they're
not antagonizing they're obviously trying to get pictures so they
can sell the pictures. I get that this is just
a next level of just I don't understand it.
Speaker 5 (32:58):
John, I'm old, because this was just what the hell right?
Speaker 1 (33:07):
It's stupid.
Speaker 4 (33:08):
I wanted to go and punch somebody in the nose,
but I did not want to give them what they wanted,
and I didn't want to end up online.
Speaker 5 (33:14):
No one's going to make money off of me being
agitated myself.
Speaker 1 (33:19):
They were playing with dynamite and they didn't know it.
All right, more coming up, will we come back? Doctor
Human David HAMAI. He is gonna talk about Gavin Newsom
vetoing a bill that passed unanimously that would created drug
free housing for drug addicts. Deborah Mark Live the CANFI
(33:41):
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
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com