October 8, 2025 • 30 mins
The John Kobylt Show Hour 3 (10/08) - Saied Kashani comes on the show to talk about the arrest of a suspect in connection to the start of the Palisades Fire. More on the arrest of a suspect in connection to the start of the Palisades Fire. A State Assemblyman Carl DeMaio comes on the show to talk about the Voter ID and No on Prop 50 events going on today. Katie Porter got upset with a CBS Sacramento reporter over follow up questions and tried to end an interview. Why does John keep calling Katie Porter, "Mrs. Potato Head".
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 I am six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
You're listening to the John Cobel podcast on the iHeartRadio app.
We are on every day from one to four o'clock.
Listen to the podcast. It's posted after four o'clock. Much
of the time. We've been covering the fire because they
named the suspect this morning thing, Jonathan rinderknocked. He has
been apprehended. They caught him in Florida. He was a
(00:25):
Palisades resident, an uber driver, and on New Year's Eve night,
just past midnight, so it was officially New Year's Day.
He started the fire with a lighter. The LA Fire
Department put it out on New Year's Day after a
few hours, but it was still smoldering in the vegetation
(00:49):
and in the root structure underground. So when the winds
hit on January seventh, it whipped it up into a
second fire. Fire was not set on the seventh. It
was set on the first, but Kristin Crowley, the fire chief,
neglected to have a crew there, which should be standard
operating pat practice. I mean, there's an assistant former assistant
(01:13):
fire chief for LA speaking in the New York Times
that this is what you do.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
You have a crew and.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
You monitor it to put it out completely, even if
you have to dig up the ground and get at
the roots. But nobody did it, so it blew up.
And remember we had nobody running the city because Karen
Bass went to Africa. The deputy mayor in charge of
police and fire, he was in his house on leave
(01:40):
because he called it a bomb threat.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
And there was nobody in charge.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
And the fire department is only half funded, and they
didn't have a crew there at the side of the
original fire. So this is what happened, complete failure. Names
have to be named, and I just gave two of
them to you. Bass Crowley and Genie Kiz who'd ever
filled up the reservoir? Hydrants were dry, reservoir was dry,
(02:09):
no fire crew to monitor the hot spot, which should
be standard. It seems right. There was nobody holding meetings,
nobody was on alert. Let's talk now with Sayed Kashani.
He's an attorney who has to keep track of all
(02:30):
this because his house burned too in the Palisades, and
he's in the past has shown up at public meetings.
He's come on our show and told us about what
he's experienced at these meetings and his own investigations. He's done, sayid, welcome,
how are.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
You hello, John, Good to be on your show again.
Speaker 1 (02:47):
Well, what's what's your reaction to this?
Speaker 3 (02:51):
Well, well, number one, this goes back to something we
talked about three months ago when we said that the
only independent investigation of this fire is going to be
a federal investigation by the federal government because the state,
the county, the city, all their hands are unclean and
they're not going to do an independent investigation. And we've
(03:11):
seen that the city investigation is stalled, not released, the
county isn't doing anything. The state promised an investigation but nothing.
Only the federal government has gone forward and done this
independent investigation and gotten down to the cause of the fire.
So my hat's off to them. That's really good investigative
work that they did. And by the way, give a
(03:33):
shout out to the local US attorney. He's a young man,
but he's obviously doing an excellent job and he's going
up against a real power structure.
Speaker 1 (03:42):
Great.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
Yes, he's been on our show many times back when
he was in the legislature. Yeah, he's terrific. If everybody
did their job like a sale does his job, we'd
be in a far, far better place in this state.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
Absolutely now number two. As many people believed this was,
and they complained. The federal complaint calls it a holdover fire,
meaning that this is a reignition of the same fire
that was started on New Year's Eve. And that goes
to the second point, which is the land that this
fire reignited on. The land owner is responsible. Now I've
(04:18):
looked at the maps. I've looked at the assessor's maps.
It's not clear if that land is owned by the
state or the county, whoever owns it, but the landowner
is responsible. Let me give you an example.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
Well, I'll tell you Roger Bailey, the attorney representing a
lot of homeowners. He says, it's state land.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
That appears to be the case. It's hard a pinpoint.
There's a pinpoint reignition point on the federal complaint. Assuming
that is the reignition point, it's a little hard to
tell who owns that, but it's definitely some government entity.
Here's my point. If there's a fire on my land
and I didn't even cause the fire, If I don't
put that fire out and it reignites and spreads, so
(05:00):
we adjoining landowners I'm responsible, even though I didn't start
the fire, because I'm responsible as a landowner to control
threats on my property and not allow them to spread.
Another thing that this federal complaint said is that this
fire reignited in quote dense vegetation unquote. Why is there
dense vegetation on government owned land within one hundred yards
(05:24):
of homes? Now, you know, if you own property anywhere
in the city, you get a notice every year, several
notices and fines and penalties from the fire department saying
you better clear your brush. I personally, as a landowner,
spent thousands and thousands of dollars just last year clearing
the brush on our land. But it looks like the
(05:44):
government whoever owned this property, wasn't doing anything to clear anything.
And we're not talking about land in the middle of
nowhere or ten miles from habitation. The mission point of
the fire, according to the map, was within one hundred
yards of homes. So why is it their dense vegetation
in this area? And three, just like you said, there
(06:06):
should have been a firewatch. This land should have been
completely cleared and dug up, and there should have been
no chance for the fire to reignite. I grew up
in Lacannata. I don't know if people remember, but in
the seventies in the eighties used to see running up
the hills, wide, kind of white. They looked like roads.
These were completely cleared fireblocks. Anytime there was a fire,
(06:30):
they would clear a swath of land thirty forty fifty
feet wide whatever it was, going all the way up
the hill to prevent the fire from spreading. Nothing like
that was done here. It was just okay, we put
the fire out. Obviously it wasn't put out, and then
it reignited on government land. Well, it seems to me
that a lot of people have to answer for that.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Yeah, I want to start. There's way to get names.
Who at the state. Let's assume for now that it
is state land where this vegetation was very thick, and
that's where the fire originally started and was never put
out entirely. Who is the person who should have sent
the crew in to get rid of the vegetation? You know,
(07:15):
who is in charge of not having a state fire
crew monitor the smoldering ruins?
Speaker 3 (07:22):
Well, the specific department, Assuming that this is the state
land as opposed to the county or another entity called
the San Monica Conservancy Mountain Conservancy. But assuming this is
a state land, the specific agency is the Department of Parks,
the state Department of Parks, and you'll see that entity
(07:43):
named in a number of the losses that was filed
because they are the ones who are responsible for fire control.
They are the ones who are responsible, like any landowner
is responsible to prevent fires, to bring the vegetation down,
and more importantly, to prevent fires from reignite.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
Right, and remember we had two very wet years that
preceded a drier year last year, so obviously there was
a lot of thick vegetation that had grown and there
should have been crews working all summer and fall, you know,
once the rainy season ended in it would have been
twenty twenty four, then they should have spent months and
(08:22):
months clearing out the vegetation. Never did well. Who decided
not to do that?
Speaker 3 (08:30):
Well, I don't know. I mean we again, it needs
more investigation trying to see who made those decisions. It's
not quite forestry management, so it's not that that part
of the department, but this is land that's administered by
the Department of Parks and their trails hiking trails that
run through that. It's under their jurisdiction, and they have
(08:51):
Here's something interesting, the California Department of Parks has very
stringent fire regulations in terms of what's allowed, what's not allowed,
how to deal with camp, how they're supposed to be
put out. And one thing we have to look at
is where these regulations followed. Did they even followed regulations?
Did they even have a person on site on their
land to determine if there was a fire or a
(09:13):
fire danger on their land. I think the answer is
to all those questions are no.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
All right said, keep investigating. When you find out stuff,
let us know. We'll put you on again.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
All right, all right, well, thank you very much, John,
appreciate the opportunity.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
Si Ed Kashani, attorney from the Palisade who lost his
home as well. Still to come, we're gonna have Carl Demayo.
He's got many locations all over southern California up and
running today where you can go and sign a petition
to get the Voter ID Act on the ballots so
that we all have to show ID before we vote.
(09:48):
And also you can collect materials to campaign for no
on Prop fifty, which is that stupid redistricting idea for
Congress that Newsome has been sponsoring and spending hundreds of
millions of dollars on. Boy, they got money for that,
No money for vegetation. That was state land. And where's
(10:09):
Gavin Newsom?
Speaker 1 (10:09):
Now?
Speaker 2 (10:10):
How come he's not preening about the vegetation not being
cleared and not having a state fire force in addition
to an LA fire force monitoring the original fire site. Huh,
he's not preening over that terrible job which led to
all this destruction.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
We just have a couple of minutes when we come
back after three point thirty, though, it's going to be
it's going to be Carl Demyo because he's got many
locations in southern California where you could sign a petition
to get California voter ID on the ballot. So we
have to show ID before we vote and also collect No.
One Prop fifty campaign materials to derail this stupid redistricting
(11:00):
idea from Gavin Newsom. I do want to play a
clip from Bill A Sale this morning, the US Attorney
because I want to focus on the guy who started
the fire. Jonathan rinderknocked and what he was doing on
New Year's Eve into New Year's morning driving an Uber
(11:20):
before he had a lighter that started the fire and
it was partially put out and then revived itself. Anyway,
Cut three if you could play cut three, this is
bill a sale.
Speaker 5 (11:30):
Late last New Year's Eve, Rinderneck returned to Pacific Palisades
after working the evening shift as an Uber driver. Two
of his passengers told law enforcement that he appeared agitated
and angry that night. After dropping off at Passenger in
Pacific Palisades, Rinderneck parked his car and tried and failed
(11:53):
to contact a former friend. He exited the car, walked
up a nearby trail, took iPhone videos at a nearby hilltop,
and listened to a rap song whose music video including
objects being lit on fire. The defendant had listened to
this song and watched its music video repeatedly in the
(12:13):
days leading up to the Lochman fire. Twelve minutes into
the New Year, environmental sensing platforms indicated that.
Speaker 1 (12:20):
A fire had started.
Speaker 5 (12:24):
It took the defendant several tries to contact nine to
one one to report the fire. He fled the scene
in his car, but turned around after passing fire engines
driving in the opposite direction to fight the fire. While
the Lochman fire burned, the defendant walked up the same
trail from earlier that night to watch the fire and firefighters,
(12:45):
using his iPhone to take short videos of the scene.
Although firefighters suppressed the blaze, the fire continued to smolder
and burn underground within the root structure of the dense vegetation.
So that fire started on January first, and it smoldered
underground for about a week until on January seventh, heavy
(13:10):
winds caused this underground fire to surface and spread above ground,
causing what became known as the Palisades fired.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
That is a great summary of what happened from beginning
to end. Now, is there a mister and missus render knocked?
Because this sleeves ball was only twenty nine years old
and he was a local guy. A bunch of stupid,
lazy headline riders around the country are saying Florida man,
which I know is the funny cliche Florida man. Again,
it's not a Florida man. He escaped to Florida after
(13:44):
the FEDS showed up at his home here in the
Palisades to let him know they were on to him.
Asked him a number of questions and he lied with
his answers, which led to extra charges. So he was
in the Palisades before and after he was riding the
(14:05):
uber locally, he was dropping people off New Year's Eve
night in the Palisades. I don't know what he lived
in an apartment of house? Is there a render knocked family?
Who raised this psycho?
Speaker 1 (14:17):
Why did he call nine to one one numerous times?
I know he was never able to get through, but
why did he? Why was he calling nine to one one?
Speaker 2 (14:24):
They do that occasionally, and it's a weird psychosis, but
they really are proud of their work, and they sometimes
want to see the fire department work. Investigators in an
arson case will look at bystanders to see who's watching,
because they want to see their fire burning and they
want to watch it being put out by the fire department.
(14:47):
And they often go and watch television coverage at home.
And I know this is going to grocy out, but
it's true. They also get sexual gratifications sometimes, so they
go home and they indulge. While true they do, how
do you know, well, because it's you could you could
look up. It's a scientific phenomenon. I don't know. I
(15:07):
don't I've never been in the home with a pyromaniac
and watched them go at it, but they do so.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
I mean, it's a real sickness.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
But somebody raised this guy, and I don't think he was,
you know, the normal guy in high school from the
looks of him. I was fascinated by the family lives
of these characters. And did the parents know that they,
you know, had a bad seed? All right, we come back.
We do talk with Carl Demayo, uh for a couple
(15:37):
of minutes about his rallies all over the southern California,
and then we're gonna play Katie Porter. I have been
waiting for this all day. Katie Porter, who gave an
interview to a local CBS reporter up in northern California.
And it was a simple list of questions that the reporter,
Julie Watts, was asking all the gubernatorial candidates. Porter is
(16:01):
the number one candidate in the polls, but she's well
known to be nuts and she proved it here in
this interview. We'll play it for you. That's next.
Speaker 4 (16:12):
You're listening to John Cobels on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
We're going to play Katie Porter, the leading candidate for
governor here in California, having a big meltdown on TV.
We'll play the audio of that coming up. But first
Carl Demile, Republican Assemblymen. He runs Reform California and he
has rallies all over the state, and he'll tell you
(16:38):
why why are people lighting up at these sites all
over southern California.
Speaker 6 (16:42):
Now, It's because we're fighting to defend fair elections. And
that means there's two things we need to do. Number One,
we've got to turn out the vote for no on
Prop fifty Gaven Newsom's corruptory districting scheme. And the second
thing we need to do is we need to really
improve our elections by getting the California Voter ID Initiative
(17:06):
on the ballot. This, you know, through a signature drive
a million signatures is what we need to do. California
Voter ID, make it the law of the land, and
to really improve the integrity of our elections. So at
rallies this afternoon and all the way through the remainder
of October, we are doing seventy two rallies and events
(17:26):
up and down the state of California at lots in
southern California. And I'm going to be in the Inland
Empire tonight in Rancho Cucamonga at six o'clock for a
massive rally, and people can sign up to come to
that rally or any of the ones nearest them by
going to the website voter id Initiative dot com voter
(17:49):
id Initiative dot com. If you can't make it to
one of our rallies, please at least sign the petition
up there at that website voter id Initiative dot com.
And also if you can collect signatures from your friends,
I will mail you a volunteer petition pack or I'll
give it to you at one of these events, including
tonight at Voteridinitiative dot com. All the informations up there.
(18:12):
We need everyone involved in this john because the politicians
like to manipulate the elections through things like Prop fifty
and not having an adequate review of identities of people voting.
We want trust and confidence in our elections. No matter
who wins, people should know that it was fair and
(18:33):
can be trusted and in order to do that, we've
got to get this campaign and be successful.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
All right, Carl, I'll talk with you again soon. Thank you,
thank you. All right, it's Carl Demayel. Now Katie Porter.
She's inexplicably at the top of the field. When you
look at Paul's for California governor, Missus potato Head is
number one. Former congresswoman, she ran for Senate, lost to
(18:59):
add and Steve Garvey, and now she's running for governor.
And you know, there's about I don't know eight candidates
and she's got the most name recognition and she's on top.
She's historically is known as being a very bad tempered person.
So she's doing an interview. It's a sit down interview
with CBS News correspondent Julie Watts, who's based in California,
(19:23):
and Julie Watts is interviewing all the main candidates for
governor and asking him the same set of questions. And
you'll hear that we're going to play a three minute clip,
which is certainly crazy on the internet.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
She's asking.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
She's asking Katie Porter if she supports Newsom's Prop fifty,
which of course will leave almost the entire state without
a Republican congressman. Ninety three percent of the congress people
from California are going to be Democrats if this new
something passes, And she says, well, do you support that?
(20:00):
I mean, because you know forty percent of the state
are Trump voters, and you understand the context here in
the primary, Republicans and Democrats are all running together. It's
called the jungle primary, so you can end up with
two Democrats in the top two positions, or two Republicans
or a Democrat Republican, and the top two go on
to November. So when you're running in a field of
(20:23):
eight or ten people, you might need Republican votes because
you could have a candidate who's even farther left than
Katie Porter. And Katie's got to look around if she
doesn't have enough votes to maybe getting some moderate votes,
some Trump voters. And the reporter was wondering, hey, aren't
you really writing off all the Trump supporters by going
(20:45):
with Newsom's prop fifty. Well, things devolved because Julie Watts
did what reporters are supposed to do, follow up questions.
So let's let's play this clip. It's about three minutes.
Listen to this because I haven't seen anybody running for
major office do this.
Speaker 7 (21:01):
In an interview redistricting? What do you think of the
governor's plan?
Speaker 8 (21:04):
I support the governor's plan.
Speaker 7 (21:06):
What do you say to the forty percent of California
voters who you'll need in order to win, who voted
for Trump?
Speaker 8 (21:13):
How would I need them in order to win?
Speaker 3 (21:15):
So?
Speaker 7 (21:16):
Well, unless you think you're going to get sixty percent
of the vote with all, everybody who did not vote
for Trump will vote for you, that's what you're in.
Speaker 8 (21:24):
A general election.
Speaker 9 (21:25):
Yes, if it is me versus a Republican, I think
that I will win the people who did not.
Speaker 10 (21:30):
Vote for What if it's you versus another Democrat?
Speaker 8 (21:33):
I don't intend that to be the case.
Speaker 10 (21:35):
So how do you not intend that to be the case?
Speaker 4 (21:37):
You do?
Speaker 5 (21:38):
You?
Speaker 10 (21:38):
Are you going to ask them not to run?
Speaker 7 (21:40):
No?
Speaker 9 (21:40):
No, I'm saying I'm going to build the support. I
have the support already in terms of name recognition, and
so I'm going to do the very best I can
to make sure that we get through this primary in
a really strong position. But let me be clear with you.
I represented Orange County. I represented a purple area. I
have stood on my own two feet and.
Speaker 8 (21:55):
One Republican votes before. That's not something every candidate and
this race can say.
Speaker 9 (21:59):
If you're from a deep blue area, if you're from
LA or you're from Oakland, you don't have an.
Speaker 10 (22:04):
Experience, then you don't need those Trump voters.
Speaker 8 (22:06):
So you asked me if I need them to win?
So you don't think like this is unnecessarily argumentative. What
is your question?
Speaker 7 (22:12):
The question is the same thing I asked everybody that
this is being called the empowering voters.
Speaker 10 (22:19):
To stop Trump's power grap Every other candidate has answered
this question. This is not argument I support it. So
and the question is what do you say to.
Speaker 7 (22:27):
The forty percent of voters who voted for Trump?
Speaker 9 (22:30):
Oh, I'm happy to say that. It's the do you
need them to win part that I don't understand.
Speaker 8 (22:34):
I'm happy to answer the ques answer. The question is
you haven't written in all answer.
Speaker 10 (22:37):
And we've also asked.
Speaker 7 (22:38):
The other candidates do you think you need any of
those forty percent of California voters to win?
Speaker 10 (22:42):
And you're saying no, you don't.
Speaker 9 (22:43):
No, I'm saying I'm going to try to win every
vote I can. And what I'm saying to you is
that well to those voters. Okay, so you I don't want.
Speaker 8 (22:51):
To keep doing this, I'm going to call it.
Speaker 1 (22:53):
Thank you.
Speaker 10 (22:56):
You're not going to do the interview with us.
Speaker 8 (22:58):
No, it's not like this. I'm not not with sevenfold
to every single.
Speaker 7 (23:00):
Question you ask, every other candidate has answered, Caralis.
Speaker 8 (23:04):
I don't care.
Speaker 9 (23:05):
I want to have a pleasant, positive conversation, which you
asked me about every issue on this list. And if
every question you're going to make up a follow up question,
then we're never going to get there.
Speaker 8 (23:15):
We're just going to circle around. I am an investigative,
had to do this before ever.
Speaker 7 (23:20):
You've never had to have a conversation in order.
Speaker 10 (23:24):
Okay, but every other candidate has done this.
Speaker 9 (23:27):
What part of I'm me? I'm running for governor because
I'm a leader, So I am going to make so.
Speaker 7 (23:33):
You're not going to answer questions from reporters.
Speaker 10 (23:35):
Okay, why don't we go through?
Speaker 7 (23:36):
I will continue to ask follow up questions because that's
my job as a journalist. But I will go through
and ask these and if you don't want to answer,
you don't want to answer.
Speaker 10 (23:44):
So nearly every legislative.
Speaker 8 (23:46):
I don't want to have an unhappy experience for you.
I don't want this on one camera.
Speaker 7 (23:51):
I don't want to have an unhappy experience with you either.
I would love to continue to ask these questions so
that we can show our viewers what every candidate feels
about everyone these issues that they care.
Speaker 10 (24:00):
About and readistorting. It's a massive issue.
Speaker 7 (24:03):
We're going to do an entire story just on the
responses to that question and have asked everybody the same
follow up questions.
Speaker 2 (24:11):
I've never heard anything like that. She supports Prop fifty,
which is a big FU to anybody who votes Republican,
anybody who votes for Trump. It is I mean, you know,
News has been clear about that this is an FU if.
This is the big middle finger. And so the reporter
Julie Watts is saying, well, what if you need Republican votes?
Speaker 1 (24:31):
Well, I'm not going to need them, are you sure?
Speaker 2 (24:34):
Because it could be two Democrats in November and maybe
the other Democrat is farther to the left and more
popular than Katie, And then what do you do? Oh,
I'm going to make sure that doesn't happen. How are
you going to make sure that the number two slot
isn't a Democrat?
Speaker 1 (24:52):
How are you going to do that.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
It may not be it maybe, but why would you
start off by giving the middle thing to over forty percent?
And by the way, does that forty percent have any
rights at all? Or if you vote for Trump, you've
lost all your rights. In California, you can't have a
Republican congressman. It'll be ninety three percent Democratic congressman. If
Prop fifty passes. That's obviously not fair if forty percent
(25:19):
of the state votes for Republicans. But she either didn't
understand how the primary election and the general election works.
She doesn't understand that she very well could need Republican votes.
And you have to see her facial expressions. I want
to have a positive experience. She's crazy. We call her
(25:43):
missus potato Head. When we come back, we'll explain why,
and she will be Missus potato Head every time she's
in the news from now till Election Day.
Speaker 4 (25:52):
You're listening to John Cobels on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (25:58):
After four o'clock, we'll have the podcast John Show on demand.
Quite a bit on the fire suspect and cooling. Interviews
with two attorneys, one who's leading a big lawsuit representing
many Pacific Palisades residents and another attorney who suffered his
own loss, and he's been investigating as well. You gotta
(26:19):
hear all the coverage show that we did. Now before
we go, we just played Katie Porter, and we'll return
to this tomorrow as well, because it's pretty rich. Katie
Porter is inexplicably the top candidate for governor. As soon
as another empty, empty headed idiot Knla Harris dropped out,
Katie Porter made her way to the top, and she
(26:42):
got into a dispute with a CBS reporter in Northern
California because the reporter kept pressing, aren't you worried that
you're going to be writing off all of the Trump voters,
all the Republican voters when you run for governor because
you're coming out in favor of Newsom's Prop fifty, which
gets rid of nearly all the Republican congress people. And
(27:07):
Porter was talking like she she's need Republican voters, and
the reporter said, well, you might eat depending on how
the primary goes.
Speaker 1 (27:16):
Katie Porter's got a bad temper. She's a crazy person.
Speaker 2 (27:21):
She's known as missus potato Head because in her divorce
documents she was married to a guy named Matthew Hoffman
who filed for divorce from Porter in twenty thirteen, and
he had to get a restraining order against her, dated
April thirtieth of that year, claiming he was routinely called
(27:42):
an effing idiot and an effing incompetent by Katie Porter.
She also shattered a glass coffee pot on their kitchen
counter when she felt their house wasn't clean enough March
of twenty twelve. She threw toys, books, and other objects
at him during their marriage, and Katie Porter poured scalding
(28:05):
hot mashed potatoes on his head during a fight. This
was all in the public court records for the divorce.
She poured scalding hot mashed potatoes on his head at
the dinner table in front of their kids or kid
I don't know how many they had. She actually did this.
(28:27):
So her staff is always leaking stories about how impossible
and angry she is.
Speaker 1 (28:36):
They're going to elect her. These were the choices.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
We go from Jerry Brown to Newsom to Kamala Harris
was leading in the polls to now Katie Porter, missus
potato head government her potato head.
Speaker 1 (28:51):
You heard she can't take any follow up questions. I
want to have a positive experience.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
You're running for governor. You can't take follow up questions.
They are so coddled. Newsom's like this too, he can't
take follow up questions. He starts stammering and stuttering and
thumpering because they have no immune system. They've never been criticized,
they've never been challenged. And Julie Wats from CBS challenged her,
and not even all that severely. There's a legitimate question.
(29:21):
You're writing off all the Republican voters. You sure you
want to do that? By the way, do any of
these people want to be the governor for the forty
percent that doesn't vote for Democrats? No, you have no
rights anymore. You can't have any Congress people. So we'll
talk more about this tomorrow. We're going to be back.
(29:45):
Oh we got Bill o'relly on tomorrow too. Bill o'relly
be Bill o'relli because he's got a book out and
he's appearing on a news nation town hall and Conway's
up next. And who's doing the news and where are
they doing the news? Because I see the news booth
is unmas It looks like an air traffic controller office.
All right, now Mike has sat down in the chair.
(30:09):
I think we want to land a plane here. He's
certainly enjoying himself. He's laughing with someone in the hallway,
and now he's looking into the camera, and now he's
looking back out into the hallway. And all right, we'll
see you tomorrow live in the KFI twenty four our newsroom.
Michael Crozer, Hey, you've been listening to the John Cobalt
(30:29):
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 I am six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
You're listening to the John Cobel podcast on the iHeartRadio app.
We are on every day from one to four o'clock.
Listen to the podcast. It's posted after four o'clock. Much
of the time. We've been covering the fire because they
named the suspect this morning thing, Jonathan rinderknocked. He has
been apprehended. They caught him in Florida. He was a
(00:25):
Palisades resident, an uber driver, and on New Year's Eve night,
just past midnight, so it was officially New Year's Day.
He started the fire with a lighter. The LA Fire
Department put it out on New Year's Day after a
few hours, but it was still smoldering in the vegetation
(00:49):
and in the root structure underground. So when the winds
hit on January seventh, it whipped it up into a
second fire. Fire was not set on the seventh. It
was set on the first, but Kristin Crowley, the fire chief,
neglected to have a crew there, which should be standard
operating pat practice. I mean, there's an assistant former assistant
(01:13):
fire chief for LA speaking in the New York Times
that this is what you do.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
You have a crew and.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
You monitor it to put it out completely, even if
you have to dig up the ground and get at
the roots. But nobody did it, so it blew up.
And remember we had nobody running the city because Karen
Bass went to Africa. The deputy mayor in charge of
police and fire, he was in his house on leave
(01:40):
because he called it a bomb threat.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
And there was nobody in charge.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
And the fire department is only half funded, and they
didn't have a crew there at the side of the
original fire. So this is what happened, complete failure. Names
have to be named, and I just gave two of
them to you. Bass Crowley and Genie Kiz who'd ever
filled up the reservoir? Hydrants were dry, reservoir was dry,
(02:09):
no fire crew to monitor the hot spot, which should
be standard. It seems right. There was nobody holding meetings,
nobody was on alert. Let's talk now with Sayed Kashani.
He's an attorney who has to keep track of all
(02:30):
this because his house burned too in the Palisades, and
he's in the past has shown up at public meetings.
He's come on our show and told us about what
he's experienced at these meetings and his own investigations. He's done, sayid, welcome,
how are.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
You hello, John, Good to be on your show again.
Speaker 1 (02:47):
Well, what's what's your reaction to this?
Speaker 3 (02:51):
Well, well, number one, this goes back to something we
talked about three months ago when we said that the
only independent investigation of this fire is going to be
a federal investigation by the federal government because the state,
the county, the city, all their hands are unclean and
they're not going to do an independent investigation. And we've
(03:11):
seen that the city investigation is stalled, not released, the
county isn't doing anything. The state promised an investigation but nothing.
Only the federal government has gone forward and done this
independent investigation and gotten down to the cause of the fire.
So my hat's off to them. That's really good investigative
work that they did. And by the way, give a
(03:33):
shout out to the local US attorney. He's a young man,
but he's obviously doing an excellent job and he's going
up against a real power structure.
Speaker 1 (03:42):
Great.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
Yes, he's been on our show many times back when
he was in the legislature. Yeah, he's terrific. If everybody
did their job like a sale does his job, we'd
be in a far, far better place in this state.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
Absolutely now number two. As many people believed this was,
and they complained. The federal complaint calls it a holdover fire,
meaning that this is a reignition of the same fire
that was started on New Year's Eve. And that goes
to the second point, which is the land that this
fire reignited on. The land owner is responsible. Now I've
(04:18):
looked at the maps. I've looked at the assessor's maps.
It's not clear if that land is owned by the
state or the county, whoever owns it, but the landowner
is responsible. Let me give you an example.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
Well, I'll tell you Roger Bailey, the attorney representing a
lot of homeowners. He says, it's state land.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
That appears to be the case. It's hard a pinpoint.
There's a pinpoint reignition point on the federal complaint. Assuming
that is the reignition point, it's a little hard to
tell who owns that, but it's definitely some government entity.
Here's my point. If there's a fire on my land
and I didn't even cause the fire, If I don't
put that fire out and it reignites and spreads, so
(05:00):
we adjoining landowners I'm responsible, even though I didn't start
the fire, because I'm responsible as a landowner to control
threats on my property and not allow them to spread.
Another thing that this federal complaint said is that this
fire reignited in quote dense vegetation unquote. Why is there
dense vegetation on government owned land within one hundred yards
(05:24):
of homes? Now, you know, if you own property anywhere
in the city, you get a notice every year, several
notices and fines and penalties from the fire department saying
you better clear your brush. I personally, as a landowner,
spent thousands and thousands of dollars just last year clearing
the brush on our land. But it looks like the
(05:44):
government whoever owned this property, wasn't doing anything to clear anything.
And we're not talking about land in the middle of
nowhere or ten miles from habitation. The mission point of
the fire, according to the map, was within one hundred
yards of homes. So why is it their dense vegetation
in this area? And three, just like you said, there
(06:06):
should have been a firewatch. This land should have been
completely cleared and dug up, and there should have been
no chance for the fire to reignite. I grew up
in Lacannata. I don't know if people remember, but in
the seventies in the eighties used to see running up
the hills, wide, kind of white. They looked like roads.
These were completely cleared fireblocks. Anytime there was a fire,
(06:30):
they would clear a swath of land thirty forty fifty
feet wide whatever it was, going all the way up
the hill to prevent the fire from spreading. Nothing like
that was done here. It was just okay, we put
the fire out. Obviously it wasn't put out, and then
it reignited on government land. Well, it seems to me
that a lot of people have to answer for that.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Yeah, I want to start. There's way to get names.
Who at the state. Let's assume for now that it
is state land where this vegetation was very thick, and
that's where the fire originally started and was never put
out entirely. Who is the person who should have sent
the crew in to get rid of the vegetation? You know,
(07:15):
who is in charge of not having a state fire
crew monitor the smoldering ruins?
Speaker 3 (07:22):
Well, the specific department, Assuming that this is the state
land as opposed to the county or another entity called
the San Monica Conservancy Mountain Conservancy. But assuming this is
a state land, the specific agency is the Department of Parks,
the state Department of Parks, and you'll see that entity
(07:43):
named in a number of the losses that was filed
because they are the ones who are responsible for fire control.
They are the ones who are responsible, like any landowner
is responsible to prevent fires, to bring the vegetation down,
and more importantly, to prevent fires from reignite.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
Right, and remember we had two very wet years that
preceded a drier year last year, so obviously there was
a lot of thick vegetation that had grown and there
should have been crews working all summer and fall, you know,
once the rainy season ended in it would have been
twenty twenty four, then they should have spent months and
(08:22):
months clearing out the vegetation. Never did well. Who decided
not to do that?
Speaker 3 (08:30):
Well, I don't know. I mean we again, it needs
more investigation trying to see who made those decisions. It's
not quite forestry management, so it's not that that part
of the department, but this is land that's administered by
the Department of Parks and their trails hiking trails that
run through that. It's under their jurisdiction, and they have
(08:51):
Here's something interesting, the California Department of Parks has very
stringent fire regulations in terms of what's allowed, what's not allowed,
how to deal with camp, how they're supposed to be
put out. And one thing we have to look at
is where these regulations followed. Did they even followed regulations?
Did they even have a person on site on their
land to determine if there was a fire or a
(09:13):
fire danger on their land. I think the answer is
to all those questions are no.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
All right said, keep investigating. When you find out stuff,
let us know. We'll put you on again.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
All right, all right, well, thank you very much, John,
appreciate the opportunity.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
Si Ed Kashani, attorney from the Palisade who lost his
home as well. Still to come, we're gonna have Carl Demayo.
He's got many locations all over southern California up and
running today where you can go and sign a petition
to get the Voter ID Act on the ballots so
that we all have to show ID before we vote.
(09:48):
And also you can collect materials to campaign for no
on Prop fifty, which is that stupid redistricting idea for
Congress that Newsome has been sponsoring and spending hundreds of
millions of dollars on. Boy, they got money for that,
No money for vegetation. That was state land. And where's
(10:09):
Gavin Newsom?
Speaker 1 (10:09):
Now?
Speaker 2 (10:10):
How come he's not preening about the vegetation not being
cleared and not having a state fire force in addition
to an LA fire force monitoring the original fire site. Huh,
he's not preening over that terrible job which led to
all this destruction.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
We just have a couple of minutes when we come
back after three point thirty, though, it's going to be
it's going to be Carl Demyo because he's got many
locations in southern California where you could sign a petition
to get California voter ID on the ballot. So we
have to show ID before we vote and also collect No.
One Prop fifty campaign materials to derail this stupid redistricting
(11:00):
idea from Gavin Newsom. I do want to play a
clip from Bill A Sale this morning, the US Attorney
because I want to focus on the guy who started
the fire. Jonathan rinderknocked and what he was doing on
New Year's Eve into New Year's morning driving an Uber
(11:20):
before he had a lighter that started the fire and
it was partially put out and then revived itself. Anyway,
Cut three if you could play cut three, this is
bill a sale.
Speaker 5 (11:30):
Late last New Year's Eve, Rinderneck returned to Pacific Palisades
after working the evening shift as an Uber driver. Two
of his passengers told law enforcement that he appeared agitated
and angry that night. After dropping off at Passenger in
Pacific Palisades, Rinderneck parked his car and tried and failed
(11:53):
to contact a former friend. He exited the car, walked
up a nearby trail, took iPhone videos at a nearby hilltop,
and listened to a rap song whose music video including
objects being lit on fire. The defendant had listened to
this song and watched its music video repeatedly in the
(12:13):
days leading up to the Lochman fire. Twelve minutes into
the New Year, environmental sensing platforms indicated that.
Speaker 1 (12:20):
A fire had started.
Speaker 5 (12:24):
It took the defendant several tries to contact nine to
one one to report the fire. He fled the scene
in his car, but turned around after passing fire engines
driving in the opposite direction to fight the fire. While
the Lochman fire burned, the defendant walked up the same
trail from earlier that night to watch the fire and firefighters,
(12:45):
using his iPhone to take short videos of the scene.
Although firefighters suppressed the blaze, the fire continued to smolder
and burn underground within the root structure of the dense vegetation.
So that fire started on January first, and it smoldered
underground for about a week until on January seventh, heavy
(13:10):
winds caused this underground fire to surface and spread above ground,
causing what became known as the Palisades fired.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
That is a great summary of what happened from beginning
to end. Now, is there a mister and missus render knocked?
Because this sleeves ball was only twenty nine years old
and he was a local guy. A bunch of stupid,
lazy headline riders around the country are saying Florida man,
which I know is the funny cliche Florida man. Again,
it's not a Florida man. He escaped to Florida after
(13:44):
the FEDS showed up at his home here in the
Palisades to let him know they were on to him.
Asked him a number of questions and he lied with
his answers, which led to extra charges. So he was
in the Palisades before and after he was riding the
(14:05):
uber locally, he was dropping people off New Year's Eve
night in the Palisades. I don't know what he lived
in an apartment of house? Is there a render knocked family?
Who raised this psycho?
Speaker 1 (14:17):
Why did he call nine to one one numerous times?
I know he was never able to get through, but
why did he? Why was he calling nine to one one?
Speaker 2 (14:24):
They do that occasionally, and it's a weird psychosis, but
they really are proud of their work, and they sometimes
want to see the fire department work. Investigators in an
arson case will look at bystanders to see who's watching,
because they want to see their fire burning and they
want to watch it being put out by the fire department.
(14:47):
And they often go and watch television coverage at home.
And I know this is going to grocy out, but
it's true. They also get sexual gratifications sometimes, so they
go home and they indulge. While true they do, how
do you know, well, because it's you could you could
look up. It's a scientific phenomenon. I don't know. I
(15:07):
don't I've never been in the home with a pyromaniac
and watched them go at it, but they do so.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
I mean, it's a real sickness.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
But somebody raised this guy, and I don't think he was,
you know, the normal guy in high school from the
looks of him. I was fascinated by the family lives
of these characters. And did the parents know that they,
you know, had a bad seed? All right, we come back.
We do talk with Carl Demayo, uh for a couple
(15:37):
of minutes about his rallies all over the southern California,
and then we're gonna play Katie Porter. I have been
waiting for this all day. Katie Porter, who gave an
interview to a local CBS reporter up in northern California.
And it was a simple list of questions that the reporter,
Julie Watts, was asking all the gubernatorial candidates. Porter is
(16:01):
the number one candidate in the polls, but she's well
known to be nuts and she proved it here in
this interview. We'll play it for you. That's next.
Speaker 4 (16:12):
You're listening to John Cobels on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
We're going to play Katie Porter, the leading candidate for
governor here in California, having a big meltdown on TV.
We'll play the audio of that coming up. But first
Carl Demile, Republican Assemblymen. He runs Reform California and he
has rallies all over the state, and he'll tell you
(16:38):
why why are people lighting up at these sites all
over southern California.
Speaker 6 (16:42):
Now, It's because we're fighting to defend fair elections. And
that means there's two things we need to do. Number One,
we've got to turn out the vote for no on
Prop fifty Gaven Newsom's corruptory districting scheme. And the second
thing we need to do is we need to really
improve our elections by getting the California Voter ID Initiative
(17:06):
on the ballot. This, you know, through a signature drive
a million signatures is what we need to do. California
Voter ID, make it the law of the land, and
to really improve the integrity of our elections. So at
rallies this afternoon and all the way through the remainder
of October, we are doing seventy two rallies and events
(17:26):
up and down the state of California at lots in
southern California. And I'm going to be in the Inland
Empire tonight in Rancho Cucamonga at six o'clock for a
massive rally, and people can sign up to come to
that rally or any of the ones nearest them by
going to the website voter id Initiative dot com voter
(17:49):
id Initiative dot com. If you can't make it to
one of our rallies, please at least sign the petition
up there at that website voter id Initiative dot com.
And also if you can collect signatures from your friends,
I will mail you a volunteer petition pack or I'll
give it to you at one of these events, including
tonight at Voteridinitiative dot com. All the informations up there.
(18:12):
We need everyone involved in this john because the politicians
like to manipulate the elections through things like Prop fifty
and not having an adequate review of identities of people voting.
We want trust and confidence in our elections. No matter
who wins, people should know that it was fair and
(18:33):
can be trusted and in order to do that, we've
got to get this campaign and be successful.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
All right, Carl, I'll talk with you again soon. Thank you,
thank you. All right, it's Carl Demayel. Now Katie Porter.
She's inexplicably at the top of the field. When you
look at Paul's for California governor, Missus potato Head is
number one. Former congresswoman, she ran for Senate, lost to
(18:59):
add and Steve Garvey, and now she's running for governor.
And you know, there's about I don't know eight candidates
and she's got the most name recognition and she's on top.
She's historically is known as being a very bad tempered person.
So she's doing an interview. It's a sit down interview
with CBS News correspondent Julie Watts, who's based in California,
(19:23):
and Julie Watts is interviewing all the main candidates for
governor and asking him the same set of questions. And
you'll hear that we're going to play a three minute clip,
which is certainly crazy on the internet.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
She's asking.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
She's asking Katie Porter if she supports Newsom's Prop fifty,
which of course will leave almost the entire state without
a Republican congressman. Ninety three percent of the congress people
from California are going to be Democrats if this new
something passes, And she says, well, do you support that?
(20:00):
I mean, because you know forty percent of the state
are Trump voters, and you understand the context here in
the primary, Republicans and Democrats are all running together. It's
called the jungle primary, so you can end up with
two Democrats in the top two positions, or two Republicans
or a Democrat Republican, and the top two go on
to November. So when you're running in a field of
(20:23):
eight or ten people, you might need Republican votes because
you could have a candidate who's even farther left than
Katie Porter. And Katie's got to look around if she
doesn't have enough votes to maybe getting some moderate votes,
some Trump voters. And the reporter was wondering, hey, aren't
you really writing off all the Trump supporters by going
(20:45):
with Newsom's prop fifty. Well, things devolved because Julie Watts
did what reporters are supposed to do, follow up questions.
So let's let's play this clip. It's about three minutes.
Listen to this because I haven't seen anybody running for
major office do this.
Speaker 7 (21:01):
In an interview redistricting? What do you think of the
governor's plan?
Speaker 8 (21:04):
I support the governor's plan.
Speaker 7 (21:06):
What do you say to the forty percent of California
voters who you'll need in order to win, who voted
for Trump?
Speaker 8 (21:13):
How would I need them in order to win?
Speaker 3 (21:15):
So?
Speaker 7 (21:16):
Well, unless you think you're going to get sixty percent
of the vote with all, everybody who did not vote
for Trump will vote for you, that's what you're in.
Speaker 8 (21:24):
A general election.
Speaker 9 (21:25):
Yes, if it is me versus a Republican, I think
that I will win the people who did not.
Speaker 10 (21:30):
Vote for What if it's you versus another Democrat?
Speaker 8 (21:33):
I don't intend that to be the case.
Speaker 10 (21:35):
So how do you not intend that to be the case?
Speaker 4 (21:37):
You do?
Speaker 5 (21:38):
You?
Speaker 10 (21:38):
Are you going to ask them not to run?
Speaker 7 (21:40):
No?
Speaker 9 (21:40):
No, I'm saying I'm going to build the support. I
have the support already in terms of name recognition, and
so I'm going to do the very best I can
to make sure that we get through this primary in
a really strong position. But let me be clear with you.
I represented Orange County. I represented a purple area. I
have stood on my own two feet and.
Speaker 8 (21:55):
One Republican votes before. That's not something every candidate and
this race can say.
Speaker 9 (21:59):
If you're from a deep blue area, if you're from
LA or you're from Oakland, you don't have an.
Speaker 10 (22:04):
Experience, then you don't need those Trump voters.
Speaker 8 (22:06):
So you asked me if I need them to win?
So you don't think like this is unnecessarily argumentative. What
is your question?
Speaker 7 (22:12):
The question is the same thing I asked everybody that
this is being called the empowering voters.
Speaker 10 (22:19):
To stop Trump's power grap Every other candidate has answered
this question. This is not argument I support it. So
and the question is what do you say to.
Speaker 7 (22:27):
The forty percent of voters who voted for Trump?
Speaker 9 (22:30):
Oh, I'm happy to say that. It's the do you
need them to win part that I don't understand.
Speaker 8 (22:34):
I'm happy to answer the ques answer. The question is
you haven't written in all answer.
Speaker 10 (22:37):
And we've also asked.
Speaker 7 (22:38):
The other candidates do you think you need any of
those forty percent of California voters to win?
Speaker 10 (22:42):
And you're saying no, you don't.
Speaker 9 (22:43):
No, I'm saying I'm going to try to win every
vote I can. And what I'm saying to you is
that well to those voters. Okay, so you I don't want.
Speaker 8 (22:51):
To keep doing this, I'm going to call it.
Speaker 1 (22:53):
Thank you.
Speaker 10 (22:56):
You're not going to do the interview with us.
Speaker 8 (22:58):
No, it's not like this. I'm not not with sevenfold
to every single.
Speaker 7 (23:00):
Question you ask, every other candidate has answered, Caralis.
Speaker 8 (23:04):
I don't care.
Speaker 9 (23:05):
I want to have a pleasant, positive conversation, which you
asked me about every issue on this list. And if
every question you're going to make up a follow up question,
then we're never going to get there.
Speaker 8 (23:15):
We're just going to circle around. I am an investigative,
had to do this before ever.
Speaker 7 (23:20):
You've never had to have a conversation in order.
Speaker 10 (23:24):
Okay, but every other candidate has done this.
Speaker 9 (23:27):
What part of I'm me? I'm running for governor because
I'm a leader, So I am going to make so.
Speaker 7 (23:33):
You're not going to answer questions from reporters.
Speaker 10 (23:35):
Okay, why don't we go through?
Speaker 7 (23:36):
I will continue to ask follow up questions because that's
my job as a journalist. But I will go through
and ask these and if you don't want to answer,
you don't want to answer.
Speaker 10 (23:44):
So nearly every legislative.
Speaker 8 (23:46):
I don't want to have an unhappy experience for you.
I don't want this on one camera.
Speaker 7 (23:51):
I don't want to have an unhappy experience with you either.
I would love to continue to ask these questions so
that we can show our viewers what every candidate feels
about everyone these issues that they care.
Speaker 10 (24:00):
About and readistorting. It's a massive issue.
Speaker 7 (24:03):
We're going to do an entire story just on the
responses to that question and have asked everybody the same
follow up questions.
Speaker 2 (24:11):
I've never heard anything like that. She supports Prop fifty,
which is a big FU to anybody who votes Republican,
anybody who votes for Trump. It is I mean, you know,
News has been clear about that this is an FU if.
This is the big middle finger. And so the reporter
Julie Watts is saying, well, what if you need Republican votes?
Speaker 1 (24:31):
Well, I'm not going to need them, are you sure?
Speaker 2 (24:34):
Because it could be two Democrats in November and maybe
the other Democrat is farther to the left and more
popular than Katie, And then what do you do? Oh,
I'm going to make sure that doesn't happen. How are
you going to make sure that the number two slot
isn't a Democrat?
Speaker 1 (24:52):
How are you going to do that.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
It may not be it maybe, but why would you
start off by giving the middle thing to over forty percent?
And by the way, does that forty percent have any
rights at all? Or if you vote for Trump, you've
lost all your rights. In California, you can't have a
Republican congressman. It'll be ninety three percent Democratic congressman. If
Prop fifty passes. That's obviously not fair if forty percent
(25:19):
of the state votes for Republicans. But she either didn't
understand how the primary election and the general election works.
She doesn't understand that she very well could need Republican votes.
And you have to see her facial expressions. I want
to have a positive experience. She's crazy. We call her
(25:43):
missus potato Head. When we come back, we'll explain why,
and she will be Missus potato Head every time she's
in the news from now till Election Day.
Speaker 4 (25:52):
You're listening to John Cobels on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (25:58):
After four o'clock, we'll have the podcast John Show on demand.
Quite a bit on the fire suspect and cooling. Interviews
with two attorneys, one who's leading a big lawsuit representing
many Pacific Palisades residents and another attorney who suffered his
own loss, and he's been investigating as well. You gotta
(26:19):
hear all the coverage show that we did. Now before
we go, we just played Katie Porter, and we'll return
to this tomorrow as well, because it's pretty rich. Katie
Porter is inexplicably the top candidate for governor. As soon
as another empty, empty headed idiot Knla Harris dropped out,
Katie Porter made her way to the top, and she
(26:42):
got into a dispute with a CBS reporter in Northern
California because the reporter kept pressing, aren't you worried that
you're going to be writing off all of the Trump voters,
all the Republican voters when you run for governor because
you're coming out in favor of Newsom's Prop fifty, which
gets rid of nearly all the Republican congress people. And
(27:07):
Porter was talking like she she's need Republican voters, and
the reporter said, well, you might eat depending on how
the primary goes.
Speaker 1 (27:16):
Katie Porter's got a bad temper. She's a crazy person.
Speaker 2 (27:21):
She's known as missus potato Head because in her divorce
documents she was married to a guy named Matthew Hoffman
who filed for divorce from Porter in twenty thirteen, and
he had to get a restraining order against her, dated
April thirtieth of that year, claiming he was routinely called
(27:42):
an effing idiot and an effing incompetent by Katie Porter.
She also shattered a glass coffee pot on their kitchen
counter when she felt their house wasn't clean enough March
of twenty twelve. She threw toys, books, and other objects
at him during their marriage, and Katie Porter poured scalding
(28:05):
hot mashed potatoes on his head during a fight. This
was all in the public court records for the divorce.
She poured scalding hot mashed potatoes on his head at
the dinner table in front of their kids or kid
I don't know how many they had. She actually did this.
(28:27):
So her staff is always leaking stories about how impossible
and angry she is.
Speaker 1 (28:36):
They're going to elect her. These were the choices.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
We go from Jerry Brown to Newsom to Kamala Harris
was leading in the polls to now Katie Porter, missus
potato head government her potato head.
Speaker 1 (28:51):
You heard she can't take any follow up questions. I
want to have a positive experience.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
You're running for governor. You can't take follow up questions.
They are so coddled. Newsom's like this too, he can't
take follow up questions. He starts stammering and stuttering and
thumpering because they have no immune system. They've never been criticized,
they've never been challenged. And Julie Wats from CBS challenged her,
and not even all that severely. There's a legitimate question.
(29:21):
You're writing off all the Republican voters. You sure you
want to do that? By the way, do any of
these people want to be the governor for the forty
percent that doesn't vote for Democrats? No, you have no
rights anymore. You can't have any Congress people. So we'll
talk more about this tomorrow. We're going to be back.
(29:45):
Oh we got Bill o'relly on tomorrow too. Bill o'relly
be Bill o'relli because he's got a book out and
he's appearing on a news nation town hall and Conway's
up next. And who's doing the news and where are
they doing the news? Because I see the news booth
is unmas It looks like an air traffic controller office.
All right, now Mike has sat down in the chair.
(30:09):
I think we want to land a plane here. He's
certainly enjoying himself. He's laughing with someone in the hallway,
and now he's looking into the camera, and now he's
looking back out into the hallway. And all right, we'll
see you tomorrow live in the KFI twenty four our newsroom.
Michael Crozer, Hey, you've been listening to the John Cobalt
(30:29):
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
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
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!