June 30, 2025 • 30 mins
The John Kobylt Show Hour 2 (06/30) - Mark Thompson fills in for John. Jim Ryan comes on the show to talk about the firefighters in Idaho being ambushed as the shooter has been identified. Jury deliberations began in the Diddy trial. Steve Roberts comes on the show to talk about the "Vote-arama" going on in Washington DC. The SCOTUS has effectively ended the federal eviction moratorium related to the COVID19 pandemic.
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.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
I am six forty.
Speaker 3 (00:02):
You're listening to the John Cobelt podcast on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 4 (00:06):
Mark Thompson here for John Cobelt, who vacations this fourth
of July week. This is a shocking story out of Idaho.
Didn't you think? Two Idaho firefighters ambushed by this gunman
who lay in wait for them as he had set
this fire to bring them into this scene. Jim Ryan
(00:28):
from ABC News joins us with the very latest. I
guess they've identified this guy, hun.
Speaker 5 (00:32):
Jim, Well, he have.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
He's a twenty year old.
Speaker 5 (00:37):
He lived most recently in Arizona, then moved up to
Idaho near the Idaho Panhandle where this all happened.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Wes Rowley is his name. Again.
Speaker 5 (00:47):
He's only twenty years old. And now it's a matter
of trying to figure out why he did this, why
police believe he took these lives, set this fire at
Canfield Mountain there in the Idaho Panhandle, lured in these firefighters,
then opened fire on them with a rifle from some
distance away, hiding in the trees, shot three of them,
killing two. The third was critically wounded but has undergone
(01:11):
surgery in Cortlaine Idaho and apparently is going to be Okay, Mark.
Speaker 4 (01:16):
Does this guy leave any kind of trail as to
you know, what his thinking was, Political philosophy, I mean,
all that stuff that you know usually goes into making
up the profile of someone like this.
Speaker 5 (01:30):
Yeah, Well, if he did. The police are still trying
to track it down and trying to piece it all together.
But investigators are involved in this. The FBI is helping
out with this. We do know that he apparently shot himself.
That's the information I just learned here a couple of
minutes ago from the Kotney County Sheriff's office out there
that this person, you know, he wasn't He was involved
(01:53):
in a gunfight essentially with the law enforcers who were
closing in on him yesterday, and it appears to his
own life with the rifle that he also used to
shoot those firefighters. Now, in terms of searching for any
connections he has with some organization or some thought that
yet has not happened, they haven't found any direct connection
(02:15):
to international terrorism or anything like that. So it's really
a mystery at this point, Mark, what might have driven
him to do this.
Speaker 4 (02:21):
I mean, they talked to family members Jim Ryan, and
it was kind of wild because the members of his
family were saying, he actually has a lot of respect
generally for firefighters and for law enforcement. Lssip what they
were saying, you know, And in fact, one I think
it was his father perhaps or maybe it was his grandfather,
(02:42):
sorry said quote he loved firefighters. It didn't make sense
that he was shooting fire fighters. Maybe he got rejected
or something, said the grandfather.
Speaker 5 (02:50):
Yep, that's one theory. He apparently wanted to be a firefighter,
and we don't know how far he was into the
process of applying or becoming a firefighter, but yeah, that's
certainly one theory that's floating around out there. There are
all sorts of theories right now. It may take days
before anything firm is really nailed down.
Speaker 4 (03:11):
It's just so weird because you know, Jimy he again
reading about him and hearing a lot from his family.
As you say, he grew up in the Phoenix area.
He had his own tree trimming company, and you know,
had tree climbing skills. He was very comfortable in that blaze.
And so when you say that you and who's picking
(03:31):
these guys off from the trees? I guess that's consistent
with that profile. But I guess Ryan mentioning is that
at twenty years old, he had already kind of set
up a business, he seemed to have goals, and then
he becomes, you know, just completely unhinged like this.
Speaker 5 (03:45):
Yeah, and whether he had some ideology or with some
mental illness just isn't clear.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
At this point.
Speaker 5 (03:52):
The whole case is only twenty four hours old, and
it's going to take a lot of investigating on the
part of the FBI and local police to determine that.
And I mean the terrifying part now, Mark, is that
firefighters getting a call to anything, are you going to
be looking over their shoulder? What's going to happen? This
is an urban issue, you have that this happened sometimes
(04:12):
in cities. You know that firefighters, first responders in general,
might come under fire or be attacked as they're out
responding to two different situations. Some are lured there, others
are just they're doing their jobs when somebody gets mad
or does something to commit some active violence on them.
This is this is different. This is in the wilderness
(04:32):
of the Idaho Panhandle.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
Yeah, great point.
Speaker 4 (04:35):
I mean it's something that I guess we in the
big cities always feel as the law enforcement has to
contend with law enforcement or any you know, special services
like first responders, firefighters. But this is this is a
much different setup. Thank you, Jim, appreciate you so much
giving us an update. And I guess, as you say,
it's early on in the investigation. Jim Ryan, ABC News
correspondent joining us live here on KFI. As the suspect
(04:58):
has been identified, and again there's a bit of a
profile being built around him, but it is unclear as
to a motive, you know, there is just speculation in
that area. The other thing I was looking in on
is this Sean Combs trial, you know, the Diddy trial,
(05:19):
And they really didn't even get it off the launch pad.
The deliberations, I mean again, deliberations beginning today and I
guess they were an hour in debor Mark right, they
didn't even Yeah.
Speaker 6 (05:31):
It was an hour They started the deliberations this morning
and then the four person an hour in sent a
note to the judge saying that one of the members
of the jury had some trouble understanding something that the judge.
One of the judge's instructions, well, I mean the judge
said Okay, yeah, you need to follow my instructions and
(05:54):
you got to get back there and continue deliberating.
Speaker 4 (05:58):
Oh that was so that simple. There was that straightforward. Look,
I instructed you. If you're having trouble with my instructions,
that's your problem. I get back in there and give
me a verdict.
Speaker 6 (06:07):
There might be other details, but basically the judge was,
you know, he was not going to have this ending.
You know, this was you guys got to go back there.
So maybe he gave them some you know, maybe he
explained things better for them to understand. I don't know,
but the deliberations continued.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
Okay.
Speaker 4 (06:24):
I will remind everyone that they've already replaced the juror
in this trial. Okay, early on in this trial, there
was a juror replaced over concerns that the juror was
unclear about his place of residence. All Right, he had
said that he resided in the Bronx, but later made
remarks that he lived in New Jersey, which is outside
(06:46):
of the Southern District of New York's jurisdiction. So it's like, uh,
maybe you shouldn't even be on this jury. And so
they've already bounced that juror so anyway, as deliberations continue,
the Diddy trial off to a hiccup. It would appear
with the very latest AI. If you're looking for a job,
(07:10):
you'll be dealing likely with AI. We'll talk about it next.
It's the John Coblt Show. Mark Thompson sitting in for
John on KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 7 (07:20):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 4 (07:27):
Just looking at the consistency of the Sean Comb's jury.
The jury comprised of eight men, four women, ages thirty
to seventy four, all of whom have a college or
advanced degree. They heard more than six weeks of graphic,
harrowing testimony about physical violence, degrading sex, and psychological trauma.
(07:54):
The US attorney Maureen Coomy, in her closing argument, really
lays it out some in the courage, she said, and
for twenty years the defendant got away with his crimes.
That ends in this courtroom, she said. The uh freak offs,
(08:20):
the sexual encounters that were detailed by his former girlfriend
Cassie Ventura, pretty crazy stuff. I have to say that
I haven't followed it closely, but everything that I've seen
everything that I've heard is pretty gross and pretty intense.
(08:45):
Guys facing two counts of sex trafficking, two counts of
transportation to engage in prostitution, one count of racketeering. This
guy had it all. He was a music mogul, Sean Combs.
That's the only reason that we're constantly having to refer
to him by a different nickname. You know, he was
p Diddy, he was then Diddy, and he started as
(09:09):
Shawn Combs. But these freak offs and these drug fueled
sexual encounters with hired escorts, sometimes lasting nine days at
a time, these are all things that were detailed in
the trial thirty four witnesses testifying against Shawn Combs. By
the way, once you are on trial for this kind
(09:33):
of thing, the nickname thing, I think kind of leaves
the building.
Speaker 8 (09:38):
You know.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
I just feel like, you know, you're not entitled to.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
The nickname anymore once you've been involved in these kinds
of violent confrontations. So anyway, the intense testimony I mean
from this CASTI Ventura, she was in a relationship with
Shawn Combs for eleven years, so she participated in this stuff.
(10:04):
She said, it was, you know, okay with me, at
first to try to make him happy, but then she
said she felt dependent on drugs to disassociate from it all.
And then, as you know, there was the assault that
was captured on video, and then he tried to buy
out the only copy of the video to suppress the story.
(10:25):
He supposedly paid one hundred thousand dollars to three hotel
employees for that video. He knew that that video would
ruin his career. And now, of course it's not only
his career, but his life and the domestic violence that
informed his life. I in addition to all of these
free coughs absolute insanity. And again, the jury has just
(10:46):
started deliberation and after an hour, Deborah was saying that,
you know, one juror had a problem, so they came
out to the judge. The judge basically said, hey, I
get it. Get back in there and give me a verdict.
You've heard enough. If you're applying for a job, the
presence of AI is insanely prominent. You're likely talking to
(11:10):
AI agents if you're involved in first round interviews. And
I've got a hack for this sort of I think,
but maybe some of you who are involved in this,
you know this hack or maybe this hack doesn't work.
But the stories of people who are involved in setting
(11:31):
on a social network like LinkedIn to show your work
history and to basically reach out to recruiters, you know,
to try to get work the application for jobs, and
this first round is almost completely distinct from human recruiters.
Human recruiters don't get back to you. You get emails, calls, texts.
(11:55):
These are artificial intelligence agents. They're called virtual recruiters. They're
the ones who you are likely dealing with, and by
the way, they're the ones who are also reaching out
to you. So when you get an email from a recruiter,
that's not a recruiter, if you will a human recruiter
that saw your stuff on LinkedIn, it's an AI recruiter
(12:16):
that saw your stuff and said, wow, given the way
that we have parameters set down these parameters for the
next hire, this person on LinkedIn might be someone we
want to talk to. And job candidates are running into
virtual recruiters for everything, even conversations that are associated with
(12:37):
what you might consider like an online interview. They have
these large language models, and now AI is to the
point where you can't tell that you're talking to an
AI agent I mean again, now, I'd say it's baked in.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
So you know, if.
Speaker 4 (12:56):
You're in the world of job hunting, that you're likely
dealing with an AI agent, at least initially through that
increasingly large talent pool of people looking for work.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
But my hack is.
Speaker 4 (13:14):
That when assessing various situations that are potential job opportunities,
that you use AI to figure out the best way
to approach AI. If you are going to be dealing
with AI or a human candidate for this matter, a
human contact. It could work for human contact as well.
(13:37):
But you can ask AI, what's the best way to
shape this solicitation for a job given this? That and
the next thing that is to say you put in
the specifics for that job, and you say it is
likely that this solicitation will be reviewed by artificial intelligence.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
Tell your artificial intelli legends.
Speaker 4 (14:00):
That that AI will help you shape some paragraphs and
that solicitation will be better. I know you're thinking, oh,
I've already got a good solicitation. I've already put together
a good thing. At least give it a pass through AI,
I would say, because you can't tell when you're dealing
with AI. There are virtual recruiters who are used during
(14:25):
this application process, very early in that process, you owe
it to yourself to kind of get AI help on
your own. So that's the situation. Though AI powered virtual
recruiters are doing the interviewing for so many jobs, and
(14:47):
so many candidates never get passed the AI part to
get to a human. I'd say use AI in your
corner too. That would be at least I think a
workable hack. When we come back, a path ahead for
the Republican spending Bill, we'll talk to Steve Roberts, ABC
(15:09):
News is political analyst in Washington. As we continue, Mark
Thompson here for John Coblt. We're KFI AM six forty
live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 7 (15:21):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 4 (15:26):
It is the John Cobelt Show. Mark Thompson sitting in
for John. You know, we talked about it in the
first hour going through vote rama. What it is, how
it works with this big, beautiful bill. What is the
path ahead? Let's talk to Steve Roberts with ABC. He's
the ABC News political analyst in Washington. I guess it's
been a it's been a pretty busy weekend in Washington
(15:47):
around this bill.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
Oh, Steve, well, it is, and that's a busy day
on Capitol Hill that had fourteen votes so far. And
they don't have any science flowing down here because Democrats.
Speaker 8 (15:59):
Are staging performances. They know that these amendments that they're
sending in are not going to pass. But that's not
the point. The point is to set up votes that
they can be used against Republicans down the line in
political campaigns, trying to make them take embarrassing votes that
can be used against them. But you know, the Republicans
(16:21):
have a very narrow room for operating here. They only
have a three vote marchin in the Senate, only one
or two more votes in that in the House. But
the two basic facts of life in Washington relate to
Donald Trump. On one hand, Republicans of no matter if
they disagree with a lot of the elements in this villain.
Speaker 1 (16:43):
A lot of them are do disagree. The Senator Tom tillis,
a Republican from North Carolina, set over six hundred thousand
people alone in his state of North Carolina to lose
Medicaid benefits over the next few years. And there are
a lot of Republicans is concerned about this, and there
are other Republicans who are concerned that the bill adds
(17:04):
too much to the deficit. They ad three point three trillion.
That's a t trillion dollars to the deficit because of
all the tax cuts that are in there. The two
facts remain true. One is Republicans almost everyone still remains
loyal to Donald Trump, and even more importantly, they fear
Donald Trump. When Senator till Us announced over the weekend
(17:28):
he would vote against this bill, immediately within minutes, Trump
is on social media attacking him, threatening to run our
an opponent against him in the primaries. Till Us spotted
by saying, well, I'm not going to run again, and
so you can't pressure me. But everybody else is both
fer They're fervently in favor of Trump and they fear
(17:49):
Trump at the same time. And that's why, with all
is said and done, by the end of this week,
I think this bill is going to pass.
Speaker 4 (17:57):
That's such a great summary of where we are, and
I love the use the Tillis example because it really
does point out the tremendous power in Washington right now
that Donald Trump has and the idea somehow that Tillis
would just tap out rather than deal with the political
headwinds that would then come with having gone against the president.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Again.
Speaker 4 (18:18):
It just speaks volumes. So, you know, the one thing
that's talked about. I mean, there are a lot of
things that are talked about around this bill, but one
of the things is the fact that there was a
Medicaid promise that Trump made sort of. I wouldn't call
it the third rail the way social security is the
third rail of politics, but you know, the defunding of
Medicaid in large measure could be a It's a remarkable
(18:42):
thing that it won't be a political liability for those
involved in this bill.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
Well, a number of Republicans have warned that it will
be a political liability. Senator Josh Holly of Missouri is
going to vote for this bill because he wants to
run for president and he doesn't want to anger Trump supporters.
You got an outbed page piece of New York Times
a few weeks ago. Very interesting. He pointed out. You know,
back in the eighties I covered the Congress of the
(19:08):
New York Times and Reagan was president, and Ronald Reagan
would rail against welfare queans and it was a very
effective argument, and basically you could say, you know, all
those people who get all of that government money, they're
not good Republicans, they're not hard work and tax paying Republicans.
They're shiftless Democrats, and he could attack them with impunity.
(19:28):
But as Holly pointed out in this outbed, the basic
structure of the two parties has really changed. One of
the reasons why Trump won twice was because he made
significant inroads with the kind of voters who were traditionally
voted Democratic, working class voters, including the number of Hispanics
and blacks. And when you talk about folks who are
(19:51):
lower on the economic scale, that means they depend more
heavily on government programs, whether it's food stamps or Medicaid
or other forms of public with assistance. And Holly pointed out,
he said, today we start cutting Medicaid, we're hurting our voters.
We're hurting Republican voters. We're hurting people who voted for
Donald Trump. And that could be a political problem. So
(20:14):
in the short run, Trump's power is going to push
this bill across the finish line as best I can
tell today, But longer term, the warnings of a number
of Republicans could come back to haunt these Republicans if
you look at the speech that pillis, the senator from
North Carolina, made yesterday on the Senate floor in which
(20:36):
he accused Donald Trump of breaking a promise to his voters.
There are Democratic strategists who are already making TV ads
and scripting ads using that clip to run against Republicans
in the next election. So short term win for Trump
is likely, I think, almost certain, but there are political
(21:00):
liabilities and vulnerabilities that it could come back to haunt
Republicans in the election next year.
Speaker 4 (21:07):
It seems as though, Steve Roberts, the political game is
a short term game most of the time, and the
Trump game, no question about it, is a short term gain.
I think they're playing for the news cycle, and so
by the time you know, these political landmines begin to
become more evident in the Red States, as you have articulated,
(21:28):
it may it may not matter to certainly to Trump
and to a lot of the.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
People who are associated with pushing this through.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
Don't you think, well, that's certainly a fair analysis, you know,
But let's remember, as I say, Democrats have all this
videotape that they're going to remind voters in those campaign
ads of what Trump had done. And look, Trump has
a vested interest, strong vested interest in maintaining Republican majorities
(21:56):
in the Congress, particularly in the House, because if you
lose one House of Congress, his presidency is basically over. Uh,
He's already a lame duck. He's already serving his second term.
And so he understands, he's a shrewd political analyst, and
he understands that if you were to lose either House,
(22:17):
or the Republicans would lose either House, you know, he
would just be playing out the string for the second
half of his second term. So he has a he
has a deep vested interest in the welfare and the
success of other Republicans. But you know, he's caught in
a bind here because you know, the Republican Party today
is a much bigger party and a much more national
(22:40):
party than it used to be in the In the
in the earlier year of the New Deal era and
the aftermath, Democrats were so powerful because they were a
national party. But that meant you had a balance northern
liberals with Southern Conservatives. It was always a balancing act.
Republicans were a smaller, more regional party, and he didn't
have that problem. Today there are much more powerful for
(23:01):
us in American politics, and that means they have to
balance a much broader coalition. And you've got, you know,
deficit hawks who are against this bill because they say
it doesn't cut enough. And then you get the Tillis's
and Hawley's and others say, wait, our constituents are the
ones who are going to be hurt by this bill.
(23:22):
So in some ways, the Republicans are victims of their
own success. Now that they're a national party with a
much broader basis support, they've got to do a lot
more juggling.
Speaker 4 (23:34):
That's fascinating, good stuff. Steve Roberts, ABC News political analyst
in Washington. Really great summary of where we are and
where we may be in the future.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
I appreciate you joining us today.
Speaker 1 (23:42):
Thanks happy to help out anytime.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
Thank you, Steve Roberts.
Speaker 4 (23:47):
It's the John cole Belt Show, Mark Thompson sitting in
KFI AM six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 7 (23:53):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 4 (23:59):
The Supreme Court turned down that claim from La landlords
it was related to the COVID nineteen eviction ban landlords
are suing the city. They wanted twenty million in damages
because tenants didn't pay their rent during the COVID nineteen pandemic.
(24:20):
And they say, look, Fifth Amendment says that private property
shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
In a sense, my property was taken when this whole
moratorium went in. So apparently the Supreme Court, two conservatives dissenting,
(24:42):
turned down the property rights claim from the landlords, saying
that they lost the millions in unpaid rent during the
COVID nineteen pandemic, and they did it without comment. They
said they would not hear an appeal from a coalition
to apartment owners who say that they rent for forty
eight hundred units in quote luxury apartment communities to quote
(25:05):
predominantly high income tenants. Again, they wanted twenty million in damages,
did the landlords, And they said that the cities strict
limits on evictions during that time basically had the effect
of taking their private property. So again they viewed it
as a constitutional right that they be reimbursed. The Court
(25:29):
has repeatedly turned down claims about rent control laws being unconstitutional,
and LA landlords say that their claim was different, that
the city had effectively taken use of their property at
least for a time. But once again the Supreme Court
passed on it, and so LA landlords won't get that
(25:54):
Supreme Court consideration. Did you see the lawsuit that's merged
from this detention of the Honduran woman with her she
had two kids. One was six or one is six
years old, I think the other's nine. But they sought
asylum in the US and the son, the six year old,
(26:21):
and the nine year old and the woman have been
in custody at a Texas detention facility for several weeks
after their arrest. The government has them in an expedited
removal so they're gonna fashtrack their deportation. But the lawyers,
and this is the interesting part, just on the heels
of mentioning that landlord suit, this is another suit. This
(26:45):
is a suit against the US government, lawyers for the
family says. The lawyer for the family says they were
detained as part of the administration's quote nationwide campaign to
summarily arrest law abiding non citizens when they attend their
immigration court hearings. Such arrests are occurring quote at rates
(27:06):
never before seen in the United States. Now, this is
the point they were at court. Therefore, the immigration court hearings.
They were seeking asylum, you know, in the asylum laws
in America.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
I would argue you could take a meeting on those.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
They should be tightened, they should be chained, they should
be part of a lot of reforms when it comes
to immigration.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
But they are what they are.
Speaker 4 (27:29):
And they were fleeing their home country of Honduras, where
they quote faced imminent menacing death threats. Now that does
qualify them for asylum consideration in this country. And they
were going through the lawful process. So there they were
apparently met by federal agents who arrested them. And now
(27:54):
they are, as I say, in this Texas detention center.
Now the boy, and this is the part that I
think really complicates things, and it's kind of a bad look.
The boy had been diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. He
got that diagnosis when he was three, now he's six.
(28:15):
He underwent two years of treatment. Apparently no more leukemia
cells are found in his blood, but he requires regular
monitoring and medical care. And he actually was being taken
of multiple appointments and has missed a couple of appointments
now as a result of his detention. After attending a
(28:37):
court hearing in La. It was just last month where
the case was dismissed. Federal agents dressed as civilians arrested
the family quote without any prior notice or warning, and
it happened as they left the courtroom. They were not
permitted to leave or make calls. According to the lawsuit.
The six year old, after seeing an agent's gun, urinated
(29:01):
on himself in fear and was left in the wet
clothing for hours. According to the lawsuit, and again, the
family has been at this detention center in Dilly, Texas
since their arrest, and the six year old has missed
these medical appointments because of the family's incarceration. So you
can go on. The six year old has lost his appetite,
(29:23):
experienced easy bruising, occasional bone pain. This is all from
the complaint, looks pale, all of which are recognized as
symptoms of leukemia. Both children cry every night. They talk
about the psychological impact, the trauma, etc. But it is
an ongoing lawsuit. Lawyers are requesting the family's immediate release
(29:46):
for medical treatment. They say they are not a flight risk.
They've done everything the government asked of them, and the
family is suing the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and
custom Enfortman So, DHS, and ICE, and the DOJ, three
government agencies with initials that are pretty powerful these days, DHS, ICE,
(30:07):
and DOJ. Also the warden of the detention center is
being sued. We'll see how this all plays out, but
definitely among the higher profile detention cases. Speaking of lawsuits,
the Trump administration is suing Mayor Bass. I'll tell you
(30:30):
about that when we come back. It's the John Cobalt Show.
Mark Thompson sitting in for John KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 2 (30:37):
We're live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 3 (30:39):
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.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
I am six forty.
Speaker 3 (00:02):
You're listening to the John Cobelt podcast on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 4 (00:06):
Mark Thompson here for John Cobelt, who vacations this fourth
of July week. This is a shocking story out of Idaho.
Didn't you think? Two Idaho firefighters ambushed by this gunman
who lay in wait for them as he had set
this fire to bring them into this scene. Jim Ryan
(00:28):
from ABC News joins us with the very latest. I
guess they've identified this guy, hun.
Speaker 5 (00:32):
Jim, Well, he have.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
He's a twenty year old.
Speaker 5 (00:37):
He lived most recently in Arizona, then moved up to
Idaho near the Idaho Panhandle where this all happened.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Wes Rowley is his name. Again.
Speaker 5 (00:47):
He's only twenty years old. And now it's a matter
of trying to figure out why he did this, why
police believe he took these lives, set this fire at
Canfield Mountain there in the Idaho Panhandle, lured in these firefighters,
then opened fire on them with a rifle from some
distance away, hiding in the trees, shot three of them,
killing two. The third was critically wounded but has undergone
(01:11):
surgery in Cortlaine Idaho and apparently is going to be Okay, Mark.
Speaker 4 (01:16):
Does this guy leave any kind of trail as to
you know, what his thinking was, Political philosophy, I mean,
all that stuff that you know usually goes into making
up the profile of someone like this.
Speaker 5 (01:30):
Yeah, Well, if he did. The police are still trying
to track it down and trying to piece it all together.
But investigators are involved in this. The FBI is helping
out with this. We do know that he apparently shot himself.
That's the information I just learned here a couple of
minutes ago from the Kotney County Sheriff's office out there
that this person, you know, he wasn't He was involved
(01:53):
in a gunfight essentially with the law enforcers who were
closing in on him yesterday, and it appears to his
own life with the rifle that he also used to
shoot those firefighters. Now, in terms of searching for any
connections he has with some organization or some thought that
yet has not happened, they haven't found any direct connection
(02:15):
to international terrorism or anything like that. So it's really
a mystery at this point, Mark, what might have driven
him to do this.
Speaker 4 (02:21):
I mean, they talked to family members Jim Ryan, and
it was kind of wild because the members of his
family were saying, he actually has a lot of respect
generally for firefighters and for law enforcement. Lssip what they
were saying, you know, And in fact, one I think
it was his father perhaps or maybe it was his grandfather,
(02:42):
sorry said quote he loved firefighters. It didn't make sense
that he was shooting fire fighters. Maybe he got rejected
or something, said the grandfather.
Speaker 5 (02:50):
Yep, that's one theory. He apparently wanted to be a firefighter,
and we don't know how far he was into the
process of applying or becoming a firefighter, but yeah, that's
certainly one theory that's floating around out there. There are
all sorts of theories right now. It may take days
before anything firm is really nailed down.
Speaker 4 (03:11):
It's just so weird because you know, Jimy he again
reading about him and hearing a lot from his family.
As you say, he grew up in the Phoenix area.
He had his own tree trimming company, and you know,
had tree climbing skills. He was very comfortable in that blaze.
And so when you say that you and who's picking
(03:31):
these guys off from the trees? I guess that's consistent
with that profile. But I guess Ryan mentioning is that
at twenty years old, he had already kind of set
up a business, he seemed to have goals, and then
he becomes, you know, just completely unhinged like this.
Speaker 5 (03:45):
Yeah, and whether he had some ideology or with some
mental illness just isn't clear.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
At this point.
Speaker 5 (03:52):
The whole case is only twenty four hours old, and
it's going to take a lot of investigating on the
part of the FBI and local police to determine that.
And I mean the terrifying part now, Mark, is that
firefighters getting a call to anything, are you going to
be looking over their shoulder? What's going to happen? This
is an urban issue, you have that this happened sometimes
(04:12):
in cities. You know that firefighters, first responders in general,
might come under fire or be attacked as they're out
responding to two different situations. Some are lured there, others
are just they're doing their jobs when somebody gets mad
or does something to commit some active violence on them.
This is this is different. This is in the wilderness
(04:32):
of the Idaho Panhandle.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
Yeah, great point.
Speaker 4 (04:35):
I mean it's something that I guess we in the
big cities always feel as the law enforcement has to
contend with law enforcement or any you know, special services
like first responders, firefighters. But this is this is a
much different setup. Thank you, Jim, appreciate you so much
giving us an update. And I guess, as you say,
it's early on in the investigation. Jim Ryan, ABC News
correspondent joining us live here on KFI. As the suspect
(04:58):
has been identified, and again there's a bit of a
profile being built around him, but it is unclear as
to a motive, you know, there is just speculation in
that area. The other thing I was looking in on
is this Sean Combs trial, you know, the Diddy trial,
(05:19):
And they really didn't even get it off the launch pad.
The deliberations, I mean again, deliberations beginning today and I
guess they were an hour in debor Mark right, they
didn't even Yeah.
Speaker 6 (05:31):
It was an hour They started the deliberations this morning
and then the four person an hour in sent a
note to the judge saying that one of the members
of the jury had some trouble understanding something that the judge.
One of the judge's instructions, well, I mean the judge
said Okay, yeah, you need to follow my instructions and
(05:54):
you got to get back there and continue deliberating.
Speaker 4 (05:58):
Oh that was so that simple. There was that straightforward. Look,
I instructed you. If you're having trouble with my instructions,
that's your problem. I get back in there and give
me a verdict.
Speaker 6 (06:07):
There might be other details, but basically the judge was,
you know, he was not going to have this ending.
You know, this was you guys got to go back there.
So maybe he gave them some you know, maybe he
explained things better for them to understand. I don't know,
but the deliberations continued.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
Okay.
Speaker 4 (06:24):
I will remind everyone that they've already replaced the juror
in this trial. Okay, early on in this trial, there
was a juror replaced over concerns that the juror was
unclear about his place of residence. All Right, he had
said that he resided in the Bronx, but later made
remarks that he lived in New Jersey, which is outside
(06:46):
of the Southern District of New York's jurisdiction. So it's like, uh,
maybe you shouldn't even be on this jury. And so
they've already bounced that juror so anyway, as deliberations continue,
the Diddy trial off to a hiccup. It would appear
with the very latest AI. If you're looking for a job,
(07:10):
you'll be dealing likely with AI. We'll talk about it next.
It's the John Coblt Show. Mark Thompson sitting in for
John on KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 7 (07:20):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 4 (07:27):
Just looking at the consistency of the Sean Comb's jury.
The jury comprised of eight men, four women, ages thirty
to seventy four, all of whom have a college or
advanced degree. They heard more than six weeks of graphic,
harrowing testimony about physical violence, degrading sex, and psychological trauma.
(07:54):
The US attorney Maureen Coomy, in her closing argument, really
lays it out some in the courage, she said, and
for twenty years the defendant got away with his crimes.
That ends in this courtroom, she said. The uh freak offs,
(08:20):
the sexual encounters that were detailed by his former girlfriend
Cassie Ventura, pretty crazy stuff. I have to say that
I haven't followed it closely, but everything that I've seen
everything that I've heard is pretty gross and pretty intense.
(08:45):
Guys facing two counts of sex trafficking, two counts of
transportation to engage in prostitution, one count of racketeering. This
guy had it all. He was a music mogul, Sean Combs.
That's the only reason that we're constantly having to refer
to him by a different nickname. You know, he was
p Diddy, he was then Diddy, and he started as
(09:09):
Shawn Combs. But these freak offs and these drug fueled
sexual encounters with hired escorts, sometimes lasting nine days at
a time, these are all things that were detailed in
the trial thirty four witnesses testifying against Shawn Combs. By
the way, once you are on trial for this kind
(09:33):
of thing, the nickname thing, I think kind of leaves
the building.
Speaker 8 (09:38):
You know.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
I just feel like, you know, you're not entitled to.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
The nickname anymore once you've been involved in these kinds
of violent confrontations. So anyway, the intense testimony I mean
from this CASTI Ventura, she was in a relationship with
Shawn Combs for eleven years, so she participated in this stuff.
(10:04):
She said, it was, you know, okay with me, at
first to try to make him happy, but then she
said she felt dependent on drugs to disassociate from it all.
And then, as you know, there was the assault that
was captured on video, and then he tried to buy
out the only copy of the video to suppress the story.
(10:25):
He supposedly paid one hundred thousand dollars to three hotel
employees for that video. He knew that that video would
ruin his career. And now, of course it's not only
his career, but his life and the domestic violence that
informed his life. I in addition to all of these
free coughs absolute insanity. And again, the jury has just
(10:46):
started deliberation and after an hour, Deborah was saying that,
you know, one juror had a problem, so they came
out to the judge. The judge basically said, hey, I
get it. Get back in there and give me a verdict.
You've heard enough. If you're applying for a job, the
presence of AI is insanely prominent. You're likely talking to
(11:10):
AI agents if you're involved in first round interviews. And
I've got a hack for this sort of I think,
but maybe some of you who are involved in this,
you know this hack or maybe this hack doesn't work.
But the stories of people who are involved in setting
(11:31):
on a social network like LinkedIn to show your work
history and to basically reach out to recruiters, you know,
to try to get work the application for jobs, and
this first round is almost completely distinct from human recruiters.
Human recruiters don't get back to you. You get emails, calls, texts.
(11:55):
These are artificial intelligence agents. They're called virtual recruiters. They're
the ones who you are likely dealing with, and by
the way, they're the ones who are also reaching out
to you. So when you get an email from a recruiter,
that's not a recruiter, if you will a human recruiter
that saw your stuff on LinkedIn, it's an AI recruiter
(12:16):
that saw your stuff and said, wow, given the way
that we have parameters set down these parameters for the
next hire, this person on LinkedIn might be someone we
want to talk to. And job candidates are running into
virtual recruiters for everything, even conversations that are associated with
(12:37):
what you might consider like an online interview. They have
these large language models, and now AI is to the
point where you can't tell that you're talking to an
AI agent I mean again, now, I'd say it's baked in.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
So you know, if.
Speaker 4 (12:56):
You're in the world of job hunting, that you're likely
dealing with an AI agent, at least initially through that
increasingly large talent pool of people looking for work.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
But my hack is.
Speaker 4 (13:14):
That when assessing various situations that are potential job opportunities,
that you use AI to figure out the best way
to approach AI. If you are going to be dealing
with AI or a human candidate for this matter, a
human contact. It could work for human contact as well.
(13:37):
But you can ask AI, what's the best way to
shape this solicitation for a job given this? That and
the next thing that is to say you put in
the specifics for that job, and you say it is
likely that this solicitation will be reviewed by artificial intelligence.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
Tell your artificial intelli legends.
Speaker 4 (14:00):
That that AI will help you shape some paragraphs and
that solicitation will be better. I know you're thinking, oh,
I've already got a good solicitation. I've already put together
a good thing. At least give it a pass through AI,
I would say, because you can't tell when you're dealing
with AI. There are virtual recruiters who are used during
(14:25):
this application process, very early in that process, you owe
it to yourself to kind of get AI help on
your own. So that's the situation. Though AI powered virtual
recruiters are doing the interviewing for so many jobs, and
(14:47):
so many candidates never get passed the AI part to
get to a human. I'd say use AI in your
corner too. That would be at least I think a
workable hack. When we come back, a path ahead for
the Republican spending Bill, we'll talk to Steve Roberts, ABC
(15:09):
News is political analyst in Washington. As we continue, Mark
Thompson here for John Coblt. We're KFI AM six forty
live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 7 (15:21):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 4 (15:26):
It is the John Cobelt Show. Mark Thompson sitting in
for John. You know, we talked about it in the
first hour going through vote rama. What it is, how
it works with this big, beautiful bill. What is the
path ahead? Let's talk to Steve Roberts with ABC. He's
the ABC News political analyst in Washington. I guess it's
been a it's been a pretty busy weekend in Washington
(15:47):
around this bill.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
Oh, Steve, well, it is, and that's a busy day
on Capitol Hill that had fourteen votes so far. And
they don't have any science flowing down here because Democrats.
Speaker 8 (15:59):
Are staging performances. They know that these amendments that they're
sending in are not going to pass. But that's not
the point. The point is to set up votes that
they can be used against Republicans down the line in
political campaigns, trying to make them take embarrassing votes that
can be used against them. But you know, the Republicans
(16:21):
have a very narrow room for operating here. They only
have a three vote marchin in the Senate, only one
or two more votes in that in the House. But
the two basic facts of life in Washington relate to
Donald Trump. On one hand, Republicans of no matter if
they disagree with a lot of the elements in this villain.
Speaker 1 (16:43):
A lot of them are do disagree. The Senator Tom tillis,
a Republican from North Carolina, set over six hundred thousand
people alone in his state of North Carolina to lose
Medicaid benefits over the next few years. And there are
a lot of Republicans is concerned about this, and there
are other Republicans who are concerned that the bill adds
(17:04):
too much to the deficit. They ad three point three trillion.
That's a t trillion dollars to the deficit because of
all the tax cuts that are in there. The two
facts remain true. One is Republicans almost everyone still remains
loyal to Donald Trump, and even more importantly, they fear
Donald Trump. When Senator till Us announced over the weekend
(17:28):
he would vote against this bill, immediately within minutes, Trump
is on social media attacking him, threatening to run our
an opponent against him in the primaries. Till Us spotted
by saying, well, I'm not going to run again, and
so you can't pressure me. But everybody else is both
fer They're fervently in favor of Trump and they fear
(17:49):
Trump at the same time. And that's why, with all
is said and done, by the end of this week,
I think this bill is going to pass.
Speaker 4 (17:57):
That's such a great summary of where we are, and
I love the use the Tillis example because it really
does point out the tremendous power in Washington right now
that Donald Trump has and the idea somehow that Tillis
would just tap out rather than deal with the political
headwinds that would then come with having gone against the president.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Again.
Speaker 4 (18:18):
It just speaks volumes. So, you know, the one thing
that's talked about. I mean, there are a lot of
things that are talked about around this bill, but one
of the things is the fact that there was a
Medicaid promise that Trump made sort of. I wouldn't call
it the third rail the way social security is the
third rail of politics, but you know, the defunding of
Medicaid in large measure could be a It's a remarkable
(18:42):
thing that it won't be a political liability for those
involved in this bill.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
Well, a number of Republicans have warned that it will
be a political liability. Senator Josh Holly of Missouri is
going to vote for this bill because he wants to
run for president and he doesn't want to anger Trump supporters.
You got an outbed page piece of New York Times
a few weeks ago. Very interesting. He pointed out. You know,
back in the eighties I covered the Congress of the
(19:08):
New York Times and Reagan was president, and Ronald Reagan
would rail against welfare queans and it was a very
effective argument, and basically you could say, you know, all
those people who get all of that government money, they're
not good Republicans, they're not hard work and tax paying Republicans.
They're shiftless Democrats, and he could attack them with impunity.
(19:28):
But as Holly pointed out in this outbed, the basic
structure of the two parties has really changed. One of
the reasons why Trump won twice was because he made
significant inroads with the kind of voters who were traditionally
voted Democratic, working class voters, including the number of Hispanics
and blacks. And when you talk about folks who are
(19:51):
lower on the economic scale, that means they depend more
heavily on government programs, whether it's food stamps or Medicaid
or other forms of public with assistance. And Holly pointed out,
he said, today we start cutting Medicaid, we're hurting our voters.
We're hurting Republican voters. We're hurting people who voted for
Donald Trump. And that could be a political problem. So
(20:14):
in the short run, Trump's power is going to push
this bill across the finish line as best I can
tell today, But longer term, the warnings of a number
of Republicans could come back to haunt these Republicans if
you look at the speech that pillis, the senator from
North Carolina, made yesterday on the Senate floor in which
(20:36):
he accused Donald Trump of breaking a promise to his voters.
There are Democratic strategists who are already making TV ads
and scripting ads using that clip to run against Republicans
in the next election. So short term win for Trump
is likely, I think, almost certain, but there are political
(21:00):
liabilities and vulnerabilities that it could come back to haunt
Republicans in the election next year.
Speaker 4 (21:07):
It seems as though, Steve Roberts, the political game is
a short term game most of the time, and the
Trump game, no question about it, is a short term gain.
I think they're playing for the news cycle, and so
by the time you know, these political landmines begin to
become more evident in the Red States, as you have articulated,
(21:28):
it may it may not matter to certainly to Trump
and to a lot of the.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
People who are associated with pushing this through.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
Don't you think, well, that's certainly a fair analysis, you know,
But let's remember, as I say, Democrats have all this
videotape that they're going to remind voters in those campaign
ads of what Trump had done. And look, Trump has
a vested interest, strong vested interest in maintaining Republican majorities
(21:56):
in the Congress, particularly in the House, because if you
lose one House of Congress, his presidency is basically over. Uh,
He's already a lame duck. He's already serving his second term.
And so he understands, he's a shrewd political analyst, and
he understands that if you were to lose either House,
(22:17):
or the Republicans would lose either House, you know, he
would just be playing out the string for the second
half of his second term. So he has a he
has a deep vested interest in the welfare and the
success of other Republicans. But you know, he's caught in
a bind here because you know, the Republican Party today
is a much bigger party and a much more national
(22:40):
party than it used to be in the In the
in the earlier year of the New Deal era and
the aftermath, Democrats were so powerful because they were a
national party. But that meant you had a balance northern
liberals with Southern Conservatives. It was always a balancing act.
Republicans were a smaller, more regional party, and he didn't
have that problem. Today there are much more powerful for
(23:01):
us in American politics, and that means they have to
balance a much broader coalition. And you've got, you know,
deficit hawks who are against this bill because they say
it doesn't cut enough. And then you get the Tillis's
and Hawley's and others say, wait, our constituents are the
ones who are going to be hurt by this bill.
(23:22):
So in some ways, the Republicans are victims of their
own success. Now that they're a national party with a
much broader basis support, they've got to do a lot
more juggling.
Speaker 4 (23:34):
That's fascinating, good stuff. Steve Roberts, ABC News political analyst
in Washington. Really great summary of where we are and
where we may be in the future.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
I appreciate you joining us today.
Speaker 1 (23:42):
Thanks happy to help out anytime.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
Thank you, Steve Roberts.
Speaker 4 (23:47):
It's the John cole Belt Show, Mark Thompson sitting in
KFI AM six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 7 (23:53):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 4 (23:59):
The Supreme Court turned down that claim from La landlords
it was related to the COVID nineteen eviction ban landlords
are suing the city. They wanted twenty million in damages
because tenants didn't pay their rent during the COVID nineteen pandemic.
(24:20):
And they say, look, Fifth Amendment says that private property
shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
In a sense, my property was taken when this whole
moratorium went in. So apparently the Supreme Court, two conservatives dissenting,
(24:42):
turned down the property rights claim from the landlords, saying
that they lost the millions in unpaid rent during the
COVID nineteen pandemic, and they did it without comment. They
said they would not hear an appeal from a coalition
to apartment owners who say that they rent for forty
eight hundred units in quote luxury apartment communities to quote
(25:05):
predominantly high income tenants. Again, they wanted twenty million in damages,
did the landlords, And they said that the cities strict
limits on evictions during that time basically had the effect
of taking their private property. So again they viewed it
as a constitutional right that they be reimbursed. The Court
(25:29):
has repeatedly turned down claims about rent control laws being unconstitutional,
and LA landlords say that their claim was different, that
the city had effectively taken use of their property at
least for a time. But once again the Supreme Court
passed on it, and so LA landlords won't get that
(25:54):
Supreme Court consideration. Did you see the lawsuit that's merged
from this detention of the Honduran woman with her she
had two kids. One was six or one is six
years old, I think the other's nine. But they sought
asylum in the US and the son, the six year old,
(26:21):
and the nine year old and the woman have been
in custody at a Texas detention facility for several weeks
after their arrest. The government has them in an expedited
removal so they're gonna fashtrack their deportation. But the lawyers,
and this is the interesting part, just on the heels
of mentioning that landlord suit, this is another suit. This
(26:45):
is a suit against the US government, lawyers for the
family says. The lawyer for the family says they were
detained as part of the administration's quote nationwide campaign to
summarily arrest law abiding non citizens when they attend their
immigration court hearings. Such arrests are occurring quote at rates
(27:06):
never before seen in the United States. Now, this is
the point they were at court. Therefore, the immigration court hearings.
They were seeking asylum, you know, in the asylum laws
in America.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
I would argue you could take a meeting on those.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
They should be tightened, they should be chained, they should
be part of a lot of reforms when it comes
to immigration.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
But they are what they are.
Speaker 4 (27:29):
And they were fleeing their home country of Honduras, where
they quote faced imminent menacing death threats. Now that does
qualify them for asylum consideration in this country. And they
were going through the lawful process. So there they were
apparently met by federal agents who arrested them. And now
(27:54):
they are, as I say, in this Texas detention center.
Now the boy, and this is the part that I
think really complicates things, and it's kind of a bad look.
The boy had been diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. He
got that diagnosis when he was three, now he's six.
(28:15):
He underwent two years of treatment. Apparently no more leukemia
cells are found in his blood, but he requires regular
monitoring and medical care. And he actually was being taken
of multiple appointments and has missed a couple of appointments
now as a result of his detention. After attending a
(28:37):
court hearing in La. It was just last month where
the case was dismissed. Federal agents dressed as civilians arrested
the family quote without any prior notice or warning, and
it happened as they left the courtroom. They were not
permitted to leave or make calls. According to the lawsuit.
The six year old, after seeing an agent's gun, urinated
(29:01):
on himself in fear and was left in the wet
clothing for hours. According to the lawsuit, and again, the
family has been at this detention center in Dilly, Texas
since their arrest, and the six year old has missed
these medical appointments because of the family's incarceration. So you
can go on. The six year old has lost his appetite,
(29:23):
experienced easy bruising, occasional bone pain. This is all from
the complaint, looks pale, all of which are recognized as
symptoms of leukemia. Both children cry every night. They talk
about the psychological impact, the trauma, etc. But it is
an ongoing lawsuit. Lawyers are requesting the family's immediate release
(29:46):
for medical treatment. They say they are not a flight risk.
They've done everything the government asked of them, and the
family is suing the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and
custom Enfortman So, DHS, and ICE, and the DOJ, three
government agencies with initials that are pretty powerful these days, DHS, ICE,
(30:07):
and DOJ. Also the warden of the detention center is
being sued. We'll see how this all plays out, but
definitely among the higher profile detention cases. Speaking of lawsuits,
the Trump administration is suing Mayor Bass. I'll tell you
(30:30):
about that when we come back. It's the John Cobalt Show.
Mark Thompson sitting in for John KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 2 (30:37):
We're live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 3 (30:39):
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
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.