March 19, 2025 • 34 mins
The John Kobylt Show Hour 2 (03/19) - Don Mihalek comes on the show to talk about Hunter Biden getting his Secret Service detail revoked by Pres. Trump. How many fires do the homeless start a year? Michael Monks comes on the show to talk about a new homeless agency being created by the LA City Council to oversee all of the old homeless agencies. Chuck Schumer says Republicans are led by wealthy, greedy people.
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 (00:00):
I am six forty.
Speaker 3 (00:02):
You're listening to the John Cobel podcast on the iHeartRadio app.
Michael Monks is going to be with us after Debor's
two thirty news. You're not gonna believe this. The LA
City Council is creating a new a new agency, a
new homeless agency to oversee all the old homeless agencies
(00:24):
that have blown billions of dollars. Seriously, the answer to
deal with these homeless agencies that have lost billions of dollars,
blown a lot of it with no good outcome is
to create a superstructure on top of them. Anyway, Michael, oh,
(00:51):
and I also got a story. Realclear Investigations dot com
has a story that encapsulates all the horrors of homelessness
in Los Angeles over the last few years, focusing on
all the fires that homeless people set. Because, as you know,
the homeless industry is funded far better than the fire department. Well,
(01:16):
we found that out. The fire department is badly underfunded
by about fifty percent. The homeless industry is wildly overfunded
with no visible progress. Weight Tea here is a pretty
extensive story on how many fires the homeless people set
(01:37):
and It really makes you wonder just how insane the
government is and how insane the voters are in this
city to allow this to go on, especially after they
know about it. We'll get to that, but now to
one of the today's big Trump stories, and there's only
about always about a dozen every day. Trump has ended
(01:58):
the Secret Service protection for Joe Biden's kids, including Hunter Biden. Yeah,
we were paying for Hunter Biden's Secret Service detail. Now
under by law, Joe Biden gets Secret Service protection for
the rest of his life. The kids don't. That's the
choice of whoever's president. Let's get Don mahalakan ABC News
(02:21):
law enforcement contributor and a retired a retired Secret Service agent.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
I can't say that phrase. And I don't know why.
You're just having a day. I'm having a day. Don Mahollick, welcome,
How are.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
You good, John? How are you guys?
Speaker 2 (02:34):
I'm good.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
So what's the law and who gets Secret Service protection?
And who's the decision maker on this?
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Ultimately?
Speaker 4 (02:41):
Yeah, so the Secret Service under federal law, you know,
the president his family or vice president their family, A
couple of cabinet officials sect their Homeland Security, Secretary of
Treasury and a couple of White House staff people Chiefest
Staff Machalcuar Buyser are entitled to Secret Service protection. All
others that get Secret Service protection are done by executive order,
(03:04):
and I forgot the menage Fearnhead of states visiting the
United States also are offered Secret Service protection. Everybody else
is by executive order. Former presidents when they leave office
are entitled the lifetime Secret Service protection like you said,
But the children are given Secret Service protection up until
they're eighteen. So Sasha and Malia Obama lost Secret Service
(03:25):
protection once they left the White House after a short
period of time because they were one of them at
least was an adult. So Hunter, Biden, Ashley Biden losing
Secret Service protection. They probably should have because, let's face it,
President Biden is no longer in a position to be
making national security decisions, which was the reason why the
(03:46):
Secret Service protects the family. It's to protect the president's
decision making capacity. He's no longer in a position to
make decisions based on national security. Hunter and Ashley are adults,
and if they want their own security, they could pay
for it, probably at this point in their lives.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
So when Biden left, he gave Hunter and Ashley six
months of Secret Service protection. And that's the part that
Trump presentded today, the extra boost that dad gave his
two kids.
Speaker 4 (04:17):
Yes, that's the beauty of executive orders is one president
can do an executive order and another one can undo it.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
They're written on like flash pay for some of them.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
Well, if we didn't know, we certainly learned in the
last two months.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
Yeah, so you know, President Trump was in his right
to cut off the protection. He also cut off protection
for Secretary Pompeo and Josh Bolton, who I would argue
probably how to hire a threat profile than Hunter and
Ashley because of the Iranian targets on their backs from
their first Trump administration. But they too, they've been out
(04:49):
of office, you know for several years now, and you know,
I think they're both in a position as they need
private security can probably pay for it themselves. The Secret
Services this mission creep, I call it. The last couple
of administrations. They went from the Bushes and the Obamas,
who had a family of four, to the Trumps, who
had a huge family, to the Bidens, who also maintained
(05:11):
a huge umbrella, which is very tasking for the Secret
Service because there's a lot of non traditional protectees there.
So I think it's time for the Secret Service to
be able to focus on his traditional protectees and lose
some of these non traditional protectees that has been saddled with,
which will help the agency.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
In the long haul.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
Now, if Trump has another fit against Biden, could he
take away Joe and Jill Biden's Secret Service protection?
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Is there any there?
Speaker 4 (05:40):
No, because in federal law they're entitled to lifetime Secret
Service protection as a former president former first lady. There
was a time where the former presidents and former first
ladies where that lifetime protection was reduced to ten years
when President Clinton was in office, but then the events
at September eleventh changed that because when President Bush was
leaving office and he had a huge target on his
(06:02):
on his back from al Qaeda, Congress reinstated the lifetime
protection for former presidents the first lady. So no, no
president can undo it by executive order. No, that's in law.
Speaker 3 (06:14):
I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if he tried, and
then you'd have another case in court, because that seems
to be the way everything's going is that Trump is
doing what he wants and then somebody takes him to
court and then he ignores the judge, And so I.
Speaker 4 (06:27):
Would I would think the I think the Secret Service
appointed to the White House. Hey, look, this is a law.
We're mandated here, so you know you can't just you
can't just stop it.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
Sorry.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
Do you think that they have put the Secret Service
back in order after last summer's debacle with Trump getting
getting shot and there was nobody covering that that roof
where the would be assassin was laid out.
Speaker 4 (06:55):
I think the Secret Service, with his new director, Sean Curran,
who was with Trump the day of the assassination, is
in a great spot to rebuild and retain a lot
of the issues that the Secret Service date back to
September twelfth, two thousand and one, when their mission portfolio exploded,
but they're funding in personnel never matched to that explosion. Conversely,
(07:18):
the FBI, whose mission also expanded after nine to eleven,
they got thousands of more agents, thousands of more, thousands
more or you know, millions more in funding to focus
on counter terrorism. So I think the agency is in
a spot, the Secret Services in a spot to rebuild
and rehab and get back to being the agency it
should be and with the new director and with the
(07:42):
backing of the White House and the backing of Congress.
So I think it's on that road. I think people
saw the Super Bowl commercial, which was fantastic. I've heard
the recruitment numbers of skyrocketed, which is what the agency needs.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
Why do you think for all these years, for all
the money that we spend and waste and we're over
budget on why would they short change the Secret Service?
That's so strange.
Speaker 4 (08:07):
I've asked that my entire career, and I think most
agents in the Secret Service would ask that same question.
How does this Secret Service not end up with its
lion's share of funding?
Speaker 1 (08:16):
At times?
Speaker 4 (08:17):
There's been some conversation about moving the agency from Homeland
Security back to Treasury. The Trump administration seems to be
a fan of that. Nobody has a clear answer. I
just all I can say is that you know, the
government budgets and weird and crazy ways, and the Secret
Service at times was neglected for the amount of funding
(08:38):
it probably could have been should have had.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
All right, Don, thank you for coming on with us.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
Thanks for having me John all Right.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
Good always good talking to you. Don Mahallick, and he
is ABC News Law enforcement contributor and a retired senior
Secret Service agent. Yes, third time is the charm when
we come back. Real Clear and Investigations did a piece
on just how many fires and how much destruction the
(09:08):
homeless reec on Los Angeles.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
And this comes on the same day.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
This report comes on the same day that the city
Council has voted to create a new homeless agency overseeing
all the failed homeless agencies.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
That's uh.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
And we'll have Michael Monks with that story after Debra's
two thirty news.
Speaker 5 (09:29):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI Am
six forty.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
Coming up after two thirty in Deborah's news, Michael Monks
from KFI News. The LA City Council today created a
new homeless agency to oversee all the corrupt thieves and
the old homeless agencies. That's right, a new homeless agency,
more money to be spent analyzing.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
What are they going to tell it?
Speaker 3 (10:00):
The details on how much money they steal, on how
much money the nonprofits stealing waste?
Speaker 2 (10:05):
You think that's what they're gonna do now.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
To lead up to that story, we have a piece
done it. You've probably heard of Real Clear Politics. They
have another section called Real Clear Investigations Anna Kasparian, and
she puts together up a comprehensive review of what's gone
(10:32):
on Los Angeles between the homeless and the fire department
and all the fires we have in LA and some
of this we have discussed in the past, especially over
the last two months since the big fires. But this
story you should look it up. It's Realclearinvestigations dot com.
(10:54):
And how Los Angeles is getting scorched by its homeless problem.
And when you see some of this stuff in black
and white, it makes you go huh wow. And she
opens with a story I remember. I'm sure, Debra you do.
Do you remember? This was Francesca Padilla of Venice and
(11:15):
she was awakened at about well in the middle of
the night and her there was fire broke out in
her neighbor's bungalow.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
I remember this.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
And she could hear the screaming of her neighbor's dog.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
Yes, I know, God. She looked outside.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
It was engulfed in flames, and she said another neighbor
said it was yelping so loud. The sound isn't the
usual dog sound. It was suffering the homeowner. Doctor Courtney
Gillenwater was at work when the fire started at three
in the morning. It's a pediatrician, so she's working the
overnight shift as a pediatrician and her dog burns to death.
And because it was an intentionally set fire by the homeless,
(11:58):
they were upset because the drug addicts in the neighborhood
were angry with Gillenwater because she had asked the city
to remove a dumpster behind her house where they would
congregate the nerve, and her neighbor also believes the homeless
were the culprits, and the fire department suspected arson, but.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
Soon I guess this would have been. This would have
been in the Garcetti years.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
The uh Fire Department issued a statement saying there's no
evidence that indicates the involvement of a person experienced homelessness
and so it's sufficiently unsolved, which means they covered it
up and probably on orders of Garcetti, which makes me suspicious.
Why we haven't heard about the cause of the fire
(12:50):
up in the palace.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
I was just gonna say.
Speaker 3 (12:53):
You know, they came up with a diverting story about
an old fire from the week before that they'd put
out out on July first, and.
Speaker 2 (13:01):
We don't know how that one started.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
I was supposed to be fireworth fireworks, but I didn't
see any evidence.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
I don't know if it was kids with fireworks. That's true.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
Well that's what they say, but I don't believe what
they say. So she used this as an opening and
then includes investigations by KEKEW News, NBC's Channel four's ITEAM.
Do you know since twenty nineteen, the number of fires
started by vagrants has increased by the thousands. In twenty
(13:34):
twenty four, there were nearly seventeen thousand fires started by
homeless people in the city of Los Angeles seventeen thousand.
Another investigation by the ITEAM found over fourteen thousand homeless
fires a year earlier, So in twenty twenty three there
(13:55):
were fourteen thousand and twenty twenty four, almost seventeen thousand.
Some of the fires started because of encampments illegally tapping
into the city's electrical system. The fourteen thousand fires in
twenty twenty three were double the number of twenty twenty.
(14:16):
Now more than half the fires in the city are
started by homeless people, even though they account for less
than one percent of the city's population.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
You imagine this.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
One percent of the population starts over fifty percent of
the fires, and they do it right in front of
our eyes in public. Ten years ago, these people didn't exist,
The fires didn't exist. Remember what Gigi Garciet said from
Fox eleven. Fire officials have been advised, probably by Garcetti
(14:49):
and Bass, to evade questions about homeless fires from local journalists.
Even when high ranking fire officials know for a fact
how a fire was connected to an en mean or
an unhoused individual, they are not to say that Grassias
said this on television. They are just to say it's
under investigation. Well, that's exactly the answer we're getting about
(15:13):
the Palisades fire. It's under investigation, but it's two and
a half months. There's no more evidence to be had.
They've been staring at the same spot where the fire
started for two and a half months. They know, they
know what happened. They might not know the guy who
started it, but they know. Grassi has said that many chiefs,
(15:33):
many battalion chiefs, many captains are extremely frustrated to see
their men and their women risking their lives on fires. Well,
if they're not going to have the courage to speak up.
I don't know what to say. LA Fire Department Captain
Freddie Escabar, he's the head of the union. Where's the
(15:54):
outrage for what's happening in the city. I don't know
what's wrong with people I have. I mean because we've
been talking about this, you know, off and on for
two and a half months.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
I mean, they.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
Some of these structures to homeless build or multi stories.
They have pro paine tanks and construction materials. It's all
over the Supulvita Base and Wildlife Reserve, which is near
the four or five in the valley. It's a park area.
They have ball fields there, a bike path. Been there
(16:30):
plenty of times with the kids, the San Fernando Valley
Audubon Society, treasurer Audubon Society.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
They're birdwatchers, she said, she and her colleagues.
Speaker 3 (16:43):
I've seen about one hundred and fifty people living there,
a lot of them mentally ill, and nobody does anything
about it. And then they have the story goes on
about the MacArthur Park fires every night on the side
walks across MacArthur Park and inside the park.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
There's two types of fires.
Speaker 3 (17:04):
There's the fires which are used to cook meth and
the others are to stay warm. And then it goes
into bass slashing the funding from the fire department. Let
me tell you, and I'm ever giving up on this,
you cannot have a fire department fifty percent funded. It's
(17:27):
only fifty percent funded. We only have fifty percent of
the firefighters. We have one hundred engines at minimum that
are broken and not being fixed because they have very
few mechanics. And then you give a half a billion
more dollars to these criminal homeless agencies. Then you do
(17:47):
the fire department, and the homeless agencies are all failing,
and the homeless people are starting more than half the fires,
I mean, seventeen thousand fires.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
When when does and then Karen bast says, I'm not
going to quit on the city. What does she say?
Speaker 1 (18:06):
Eric?
Speaker 2 (18:06):
Play that again? She said this week that she's not
going to quit. I would never quit on my city.
Speaker 3 (18:14):
You already quit if you e left seventeen thousand fires
a year by homeless people. And then you fund the
homeless budget and you've defunded the fire department, and then
the Palisades burns down. Is anybody connecting all these dots
isn't it obvious? Am I crazy? Sometimes I feel like
(18:35):
I'm crazy? Maybe I am crazy? Well, I both could
be true. I could be crazy and I'm right. So
now we come to Michael Monks right after Deborah's news
because the city council voted thirteen to nothing to create
a new homeless agency to oversee all the corrupt, thieving,
old homeless agencies.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
So Michael will be on next. She's a little crazy too, Well, now,
who are you to come? Might not crazy? We'll put
you out to be the judge on the crazy Court.
Speaker 5 (19:09):
You're listening to John Cobels on demand from KFI Am
six forty.
Speaker 2 (19:14):
You may be dizzy.
Speaker 3 (19:17):
With all the cases that have been brought to court
to try to block Donald Trump directives. There's at least
four that I was aware of today that are actively engaged.
We are going to talk with Royal Oaks, ABC News
legal analysts because the biggest one of the week was
Trump deporting hundreds of Venezuelan gang members, some Marisa Latrucia
(19:44):
gang members and put them on a plane. And when
the district Judge, James Boseburg said to turn the planes around,
they said, oh, they're too far away. They can't hear us.
And then the El Salvadoran president said, oopsie, they landed.
And so the judge is upset, and we're going to
get into.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
It because I will.
Speaker 3 (20:05):
Actually I talked about this a few weeks ago. What
happens if Trump just refuses to go along with the
judge's order, then what and we're we're in new territory.
It's fascinating. We've got Michael Monks here, who's also fascinating,
because I don't know how anybody can cover city government
as much as you do without going insane, and maybe
you are insane. They voted thirteen to nothing today, and
(20:28):
it was to create some kind of new homeless agency,
some new homeless department to oversee all the old homeless
departments that have failed.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
Let me stop you right there and correct the facts. John.
Speaker 6 (20:39):
It's not a homeless department. This would be a bureau. Oh,
it's a bureau. It would be a bureau. Not to
be confused with what the county is doing, which is
a department. The city is creating a bureau. There's a
legal difference between a bureau in a department. Well, there's
certainly a bureaucratic difference. In this case. So this is
also in response similar to what the county has done.
(21:00):
Oh no, the money we're spending, which is a lot
for homeless programs, we don't seem to know how it's going,
where it's going, or if the investment is even paying off.
So we need a bureau inside City Hall to keep
better track of where these dollars are going. Man, I
read a quote to you, sir, Yes, sir. Councilwoman Nythia
(21:20):
Rahman says, we spend a lot of money on our
homelessness response, primarily on outreach, shelter beds and long term
housing that includes permanent supportive housing that we're building as
well as rental subsidies.
Speaker 2 (21:29):
Blah blah.
Speaker 6 (21:30):
Homeless response is complicated, she says, But she also says
the obvious and really the thing that should get people's attention.
No one in City Hall is tasked with knowing, for example,
how often encampments are being visited by outreach workers, how
many shelter beds are filled on any given night, how
many vacancies we have across our units, and how long
(21:53):
these vacancies take to get filled. So at City Hall
they don't even have the data on how these programs
are are not working. What do all the people in
these homeless agencies, departments and bureaus, what do they do
all day if they're not tracking what the money is
being spent on, and then what kind of.
Speaker 2 (22:14):
Return they're getting.
Speaker 6 (22:16):
That's a question that has been raised recently by two audits,
one at the end of last year and one this month.
The most recent one was ordered by a federal judge
to look at the way the City of Los Angeles
and the La Homeless Services Authority, which is a joint
agency governed by the city and the county together wanting
to know how your money is being spent, how it's
being tracked. That audit came back and said, we can't
(22:38):
give you a full audit because we didn't get all
the information we needed. But what we do know is
that the accounting is poor and the oversight is worse,
and it was.
Speaker 3 (22:44):
Over two billion dollars that they didn't know where it
went specifically and whether it had any effect.
Speaker 6 (22:49):
That's right, and so the county's response to this being
the second audit of LASA a poor audit.
Speaker 2 (22:56):
Right, because the city controller, I think had an audit too.
Speaker 6 (22:59):
The controllers at an audit it's not looking good for
that agency. Because the county is moving towards its own department,
they will move a lot of their resources out of
LASA and they will oversee it themselves at the city.
This is not a department again which has been proposed,
it's a bureau. This is a bureau, and so they've
(23:20):
asked for a report in thirty days. It's also very
common when you're at city Hall of the county building,
they call for report backs. It's doing all They want
to know how much money they would need to fund
the bureau and how many people would be needed to
work there. And they might be pulled from existing jobs,
existing agencies where they have experience with homeless. So they're
going to take people from these failing homeless agencies and
(23:41):
transfer them to the Homeless Bureau. But these are the
people who've blown the money and don't know where it went,
and now they're going to be in charge of what
It's been stated that yes, some of the folks may
come from LASA itself.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
They might come from a home from the Housing department.
Speaker 3 (23:55):
A second, you're gonna have higher people from LASA who
lost the money to oversee last to see where the
money went, Well, they know where the money went.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
Who's they're the ones you lost it?
Speaker 6 (24:04):
That's right, So there are that's right, You're right, I mean,
and it is the same agencies, it's the same hands.
And that's why this response from the city is not
as strong as the one you saw from the county.
Keep in mind, LASA is governed by a board that
is appointed by the county and the city. So when
the county or the city try to say I don't
know what's going on at LASA, they have direct responsibility
(24:27):
and oversight of that agency. The county is ready to
wash its hands of it. It seems the city is
washing one hand.
Speaker 3 (24:35):
It says in one report the city works with several agencies.
You have in addition to LASA, you have the Housing
Authority of the City of Los Angeles, that Los Angeles
Housing Department. There you go the Los Angeles Sanitation and Environment,
Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, LASA, and then multiple La
County departments. And so is this new Brewer going to
(24:59):
oversee all these different other agencies.
Speaker 6 (25:03):
I think the goal, as stated, is that the Bureau
would streamline some of those efforts, or at least have
a guy in a suit at a desk, knowing where
those various agencies are on any given day. But so far,
what it looks like is the attempts to create better
lives for homeless people has created job opportunities for housed people,
(25:23):
right while not improving the homeless situation.
Speaker 3 (25:26):
I also, if I remember the audit, right, they found
that a lot of the money, like half the money
hadn't even spent.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
What that is the controller audit that came out.
Speaker 6 (25:35):
Now, there was some pushback on that that was valid
that some of these funds are not you know, to
be spent this year. They are from different grants or
that sort of thing. So when you lump it together,
it looks bad. But there was some nuance to that,
right that I think we should concede, you know, yet
this money could not be spent yet, or it's not
reflected in the budget yet, that sort of thing. It's
a three year plan with that money. But still there's
(25:58):
a lot of money in a bucket that hasn't been.
Speaker 3 (26:00):
But they all know this has been going on for years,
and they suddenly sit upright and go, oh my god,
I had no idea.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
Well, yes, you had an idea. It's been ten years
of this nonsense.
Speaker 6 (26:10):
That's what's got to be the most surprising for folks
who've been watching this for a long. Look, I'm a
year into this, and I can't believe sometimes how slowly
things have moved to address this crisis that is visible
on every street in the inner city of Los Angeles.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
I know.
Speaker 6 (26:22):
And for this, by the way, the bureau is not
automatically created. We're getting a report in thirty days and
then we will know more. And the county's new department
is supposed to stand up this summer.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
That's how quickly the county is trying to move.
Speaker 3 (26:35):
Uh, huh, okay, wow, and they all do this with
a straight face.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
Huh.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
It's a very serious delivery of comments today at city Hall.
Speaker 3 (26:43):
I see, all right, Michael Monks k if I News,
he gets paid to witness this. Coming up after three o'clock,
Royal Oaks is going to explain the uh, all the
battles going on between Trump and various judges on all
these executive orders and deportations that he's getting sued over
in court.
Speaker 5 (27:04):
You're listening to John Cobels on demand from KFI AM sixty.
Speaker 3 (27:09):
Coming up after three o'clock after Denver's News, Royal Oaks,
the ABC News legal analyst, and we're going to talk
about these judges who are blocking Trump orders on various issues.
Of course, the biggest headline is Trump sending hundreds of
Venezuelan and El Salvadorian gang members to l Salvador, to
(27:33):
the worst prison in the hemisphere. And the judge was saying, well, no,
I'm blocking that. Turn the planes around. And they said, well,
planes already in the air well, turn them around. Well,
planes inter international airspace, turn them around. I say, oh,
it looks like the planes landed. Sorry, that's really what
(27:55):
went on. So Trump is openly resisting the judge. James
Boseburg Borah Oaks will talk about it now hang on.
Oh with the Democrats, this is very amusing. In fact,
(28:17):
I couldn't believe this. I had to go I heard
this on the radio this morning, and I had to go, well,
Eric has got a fuller clip here, because I couldn't
believe with all the turmoil going on in Washington, d C.
But Chuck Schumer, who is the Minori leader in the
Senate for the Democrats, and he's one of the last
(28:37):
Democratic leaders whose name you might recognize who's actually been
in power for a long time. Now, the Democrats' approval
rating is down to twenty nine percent in this country.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
Twenty nine percent.
Speaker 3 (28:49):
Now, if your party has lost the House and lost
the Senate and lost the presidency and the Supreme Court
seems stacked against you, and your approval rating as a
whole is down to twenty nine percent, would you go
on national television on the view no less those cackling
(29:09):
hens and mock business owners who feel that they built
the business themselves and they don't want the government to
take their money. Would you actually go on TV and
mock them? But if this doesn't show you what guys
like Schumer are really about. He really does think it's
(29:30):
his money to spend and not yours. So play this clip.
They were talking about tariffs, and this is from the
view he.
Speaker 7 (29:37):
Wants to put these tariffs in. It's going to raise you, folks,
the average family, twenty two thousand dollars a year for
these tarifts.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
Why is he doing that? Something so stupid?
Speaker 7 (29:47):
Why he wants to use that money for tax cuts
for the billionaires. The Republican Party is a different kettle
of fish than it used to be, and that's why
we're fighting them so hard. They are controlled by a
small group a wealthy, greedy people. And you know what
their attitude is, I made my money all by myself.
How dare your government take my money for me. I
(30:08):
don't want to pay taxes? Or I built my company
with my bare hands. How dare your government tell me
how I should treat my customers, the land and water
that I own, or my employees. They hate government. Government's
a barrier to people, a barrier to stop them from
doing things. They want to destroy it. We are not
(30:29):
letting them do it, and we're united.
Speaker 3 (30:32):
Notice they jacked up the music to try to get
them off stage. It's like at the Oscars, you know,
it's like, Okay, that's enough of that. Even at the
view it's like, oh, this is not good. He is
setting himself on fire here. I mean, that is one
of the most offensive things I've ever heard. Yes, they
do start up. The people do start companies all by themselves.
(30:58):
They do build companies with their bare hands. And know
they don't want the government taking the money because where
does the money go. That's really so outrageous. You're greedy
for wanting to keep your own money. I've heard everything now,
I thought, greedy is when you take other people's money. No, no,
you're keeping your own money. Schumer wants to take it
(31:18):
from you, but you're the greedy one, not him. And
look at all the garbage that they spend it on.
Speaker 2 (31:24):
I heard this.
Speaker 3 (31:25):
I had to listen to her like like three four times,
like are you serious, buddy, Yes, it is my money. No,
I don't want the government to take it, by the
way once and for all because people are so ignorant.
The top one percent pays over forty percent of the
income tax in this country.
Speaker 2 (31:44):
You got that.
Speaker 3 (31:45):
Write this down, tattoo this on your forehead. Top one
percent pays over forty percent of the income tax. Do
you know what the bottom fifty percent pays? The bottom
fifty percent of earners, they pay three percent.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
Of the income tax. So I don't know. Is that
is that a fair share?
Speaker 3 (32:07):
When you have half the country paying three percent total
and the top one percent paying forty percent.
Speaker 2 (32:16):
I think that's a fair share.
Speaker 3 (32:18):
Top one percent past forty percent, bottom fifty pays three
That's the truth.
Speaker 2 (32:24):
Go look it up.
Speaker 3 (32:27):
And then he talks about greedy businessman And you've heard
over the past two months. What they're spending it on.
I mean, look at the big story we started with
today with Nussum. He's blowing twelve billion dollars on illegal
alien healthcare. It's six billion over budget. He's got to
borrow three and a half billion, and then he wants
(32:49):
another three billion to get them through June. It's illegal
alien healthcare. Yes, I want to keep my money. Call
me greedy. I don't care. Fires running a business and
I'm financing millions of people who broke the law and
are squatting in this country, and I gotta pay all
their medical bills. If I run a small business and
I'm trying to provide health care for my family.
Speaker 2 (33:11):
Yes, I don't want. I don't.
Speaker 3 (33:13):
The government is awful. It's horrendous. Well that's gonna win
you an election. That's a good platform to run on.
All right, we come back. So Trump deports two hundred
and sixty gang members, violent felon, violent felons. I mean,
(33:34):
the worst people in the Northern Hemisphere. These are the
worst people. Of these are terrorist organizations. MS thirteen and
trend Dear Ragua are declared terrorist organizations. They're cartels, they're gangs,
they're violent, they do horrible things, they rape and murder people,
(33:58):
and so Trump ejects to hundred and sixty from the country,
sends them to El Salvador in prison, and some judges going, oh, no,
you can't do that, and judge basically gave him the bird.
We'll talk with Royal Oaks, ABC News legal correspondent about
all that.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
Next.
Speaker 3 (34:15):
Debor Mark Live the KFI twenty four hour Newsroom. Hey,
you've been listening to The John Covelt 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 (00:00):
I am six forty.
Speaker 3 (00:02):
You're listening to the John Cobel podcast on the iHeartRadio app.
Michael Monks is going to be with us after Debor's
two thirty news. You're not gonna believe this. The LA
City Council is creating a new a new agency, a
new homeless agency to oversee all the old homeless agencies
(00:24):
that have blown billions of dollars. Seriously, the answer to
deal with these homeless agencies that have lost billions of dollars,
blown a lot of it with no good outcome is
to create a superstructure on top of them. Anyway, Michael, oh,
(00:51):
and I also got a story. Realclear Investigations dot com
has a story that encapsulates all the horrors of homelessness
in Los Angeles over the last few years, focusing on
all the fires that homeless people set. Because, as you know,
the homeless industry is funded far better than the fire department. Well,
(01:16):
we found that out. The fire department is badly underfunded
by about fifty percent. The homeless industry is wildly overfunded
with no visible progress. Weight Tea here is a pretty
extensive story on how many fires the homeless people set
(01:37):
and It really makes you wonder just how insane the
government is and how insane the voters are in this
city to allow this to go on, especially after they
know about it. We'll get to that, but now to
one of the today's big Trump stories, and there's only
about always about a dozen every day. Trump has ended
(01:58):
the Secret Service protection for Joe Biden's kids, including Hunter Biden. Yeah,
we were paying for Hunter Biden's Secret Service detail. Now
under by law, Joe Biden gets Secret Service protection for
the rest of his life. The kids don't. That's the
choice of whoever's president. Let's get Don mahalakan ABC News
(02:21):
law enforcement contributor and a retired a retired Secret Service agent.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
I can't say that phrase. And I don't know why.
You're just having a day. I'm having a day. Don Mahollick, welcome,
How are.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
You good, John? How are you guys?
Speaker 2 (02:34):
I'm good.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
So what's the law and who gets Secret Service protection?
And who's the decision maker on this?
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Ultimately?
Speaker 4 (02:41):
Yeah, so the Secret Service under federal law, you know,
the president his family or vice president their family, A
couple of cabinet officials sect their Homeland Security, Secretary of
Treasury and a couple of White House staff people Chiefest
Staff Machalcuar Buyser are entitled to Secret Service protection. All
others that get Secret Service protection are done by executive order,
(03:04):
and I forgot the menage Fearnhead of states visiting the
United States also are offered Secret Service protection. Everybody else
is by executive order. Former presidents when they leave office
are entitled the lifetime Secret Service protection like you said,
But the children are given Secret Service protection up until
they're eighteen. So Sasha and Malia Obama lost Secret Service
(03:25):
protection once they left the White House after a short
period of time because they were one of them at
least was an adult. So Hunter, Biden, Ashley Biden losing
Secret Service protection. They probably should have because, let's face it,
President Biden is no longer in a position to be
making national security decisions, which was the reason why the
(03:46):
Secret Service protects the family. It's to protect the president's
decision making capacity. He's no longer in a position to
make decisions based on national security. Hunter and Ashley are adults,
and if they want their own security, they could pay
for it, probably at this point in their lives.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
So when Biden left, he gave Hunter and Ashley six
months of Secret Service protection. And that's the part that
Trump presentded today, the extra boost that dad gave his
two kids.
Speaker 4 (04:17):
Yes, that's the beauty of executive orders is one president
can do an executive order and another one can undo it.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
They're written on like flash pay for some of them.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
Well, if we didn't know, we certainly learned in the
last two months.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
Yeah, so you know, President Trump was in his right
to cut off the protection. He also cut off protection
for Secretary Pompeo and Josh Bolton, who I would argue
probably how to hire a threat profile than Hunter and
Ashley because of the Iranian targets on their backs from
their first Trump administration. But they too, they've been out
(04:49):
of office, you know for several years now, and you know,
I think they're both in a position as they need
private security can probably pay for it themselves. The Secret
Services this mission creep, I call it. The last couple
of administrations. They went from the Bushes and the Obamas,
who had a family of four, to the Trumps, who
had a huge family, to the Bidens, who also maintained
(05:11):
a huge umbrella, which is very tasking for the Secret
Service because there's a lot of non traditional protectees there.
So I think it's time for the Secret Service to
be able to focus on his traditional protectees and lose
some of these non traditional protectees that has been saddled with,
which will help the agency.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
In the long haul.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
Now, if Trump has another fit against Biden, could he
take away Joe and Jill Biden's Secret Service protection?
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Is there any there?
Speaker 4 (05:40):
No, because in federal law they're entitled to lifetime Secret
Service protection as a former president former first lady. There
was a time where the former presidents and former first
ladies where that lifetime protection was reduced to ten years
when President Clinton was in office, but then the events
at September eleventh changed that because when President Bush was
leaving office and he had a huge target on his
(06:02):
on his back from al Qaeda, Congress reinstated the lifetime
protection for former presidents the first lady. So no, no
president can undo it by executive order. No, that's in law.
Speaker 3 (06:14):
I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if he tried, and
then you'd have another case in court, because that seems
to be the way everything's going is that Trump is
doing what he wants and then somebody takes him to
court and then he ignores the judge, And so I.
Speaker 4 (06:27):
Would I would think the I think the Secret Service
appointed to the White House. Hey, look, this is a law.
We're mandated here, so you know you can't just you
can't just stop it.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
Sorry.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
Do you think that they have put the Secret Service
back in order after last summer's debacle with Trump getting
getting shot and there was nobody covering that that roof
where the would be assassin was laid out.
Speaker 4 (06:55):
I think the Secret Service, with his new director, Sean Curran,
who was with Trump the day of the assassination, is
in a great spot to rebuild and retain a lot
of the issues that the Secret Service date back to
September twelfth, two thousand and one, when their mission portfolio exploded,
but they're funding in personnel never matched to that explosion. Conversely,
(07:18):
the FBI, whose mission also expanded after nine to eleven,
they got thousands of more agents, thousands of more, thousands
more or you know, millions more in funding to focus
on counter terrorism. So I think the agency is in
a spot, the Secret Services in a spot to rebuild
and rehab and get back to being the agency it
should be and with the new director and with the
(07:42):
backing of the White House and the backing of Congress.
So I think it's on that road. I think people
saw the Super Bowl commercial, which was fantastic. I've heard
the recruitment numbers of skyrocketed, which is what the agency needs.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
Why do you think for all these years, for all
the money that we spend and waste and we're over
budget on why would they short change the Secret Service?
That's so strange.
Speaker 4 (08:07):
I've asked that my entire career, and I think most
agents in the Secret Service would ask that same question.
How does this Secret Service not end up with its
lion's share of funding?
Speaker 1 (08:16):
At times?
Speaker 4 (08:17):
There's been some conversation about moving the agency from Homeland
Security back to Treasury. The Trump administration seems to be
a fan of that. Nobody has a clear answer. I
just all I can say is that you know, the
government budgets and weird and crazy ways, and the Secret
Service at times was neglected for the amount of funding
(08:38):
it probably could have been should have had.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
All right, Don, thank you for coming on with us.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
Thanks for having me John all Right.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
Good always good talking to you. Don Mahallick, and he
is ABC News Law enforcement contributor and a retired senior
Secret Service agent. Yes, third time is the charm when
we come back. Real Clear and Investigations did a piece
on just how many fires and how much destruction the
(09:08):
homeless reec on Los Angeles.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
And this comes on the same day.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
This report comes on the same day that the city
Council has voted to create a new homeless agency overseeing
all the failed homeless agencies.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
That's uh.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
And we'll have Michael Monks with that story after Debra's
two thirty news.
Speaker 5 (09:29):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI Am
six forty.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
Coming up after two thirty in Deborah's news, Michael Monks
from KFI News. The LA City Council today created a
new homeless agency to oversee all the corrupt thieves and
the old homeless agencies. That's right, a new homeless agency,
more money to be spent analyzing.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
What are they going to tell it?
Speaker 3 (10:00):
The details on how much money they steal, on how
much money the nonprofits stealing waste?
Speaker 2 (10:05):
You think that's what they're gonna do now.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
To lead up to that story, we have a piece
done it. You've probably heard of Real Clear Politics. They
have another section called Real Clear Investigations Anna Kasparian, and
she puts together up a comprehensive review of what's gone
(10:32):
on Los Angeles between the homeless and the fire department
and all the fires we have in LA and some
of this we have discussed in the past, especially over
the last two months since the big fires. But this
story you should look it up. It's Realclearinvestigations dot com.
(10:54):
And how Los Angeles is getting scorched by its homeless problem.
And when you see some of this stuff in black
and white, it makes you go huh wow. And she
opens with a story I remember. I'm sure, Debra you do.
Do you remember? This was Francesca Padilla of Venice and
(11:15):
she was awakened at about well in the middle of
the night and her there was fire broke out in
her neighbor's bungalow.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
I remember this.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
And she could hear the screaming of her neighbor's dog.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
Yes, I know, God. She looked outside.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
It was engulfed in flames, and she said another neighbor
said it was yelping so loud. The sound isn't the
usual dog sound. It was suffering the homeowner. Doctor Courtney
Gillenwater was at work when the fire started at three
in the morning. It's a pediatrician, so she's working the
overnight shift as a pediatrician and her dog burns to death.
And because it was an intentionally set fire by the homeless,
(11:58):
they were upset because the drug addicts in the neighborhood
were angry with Gillenwater because she had asked the city
to remove a dumpster behind her house where they would
congregate the nerve, and her neighbor also believes the homeless
were the culprits, and the fire department suspected arson, but.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
Soon I guess this would have been. This would have
been in the Garcetti years.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
The uh Fire Department issued a statement saying there's no
evidence that indicates the involvement of a person experienced homelessness
and so it's sufficiently unsolved, which means they covered it
up and probably on orders of Garcetti, which makes me suspicious.
Why we haven't heard about the cause of the fire
(12:50):
up in the palace.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
I was just gonna say.
Speaker 3 (12:53):
You know, they came up with a diverting story about
an old fire from the week before that they'd put
out out on July first, and.
Speaker 2 (13:01):
We don't know how that one started.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
I was supposed to be fireworth fireworks, but I didn't
see any evidence.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
I don't know if it was kids with fireworks. That's true.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
Well that's what they say, but I don't believe what
they say. So she used this as an opening and
then includes investigations by KEKEW News, NBC's Channel four's ITEAM.
Do you know since twenty nineteen, the number of fires
started by vagrants has increased by the thousands. In twenty
(13:34):
twenty four, there were nearly seventeen thousand fires started by
homeless people in the city of Los Angeles seventeen thousand.
Another investigation by the ITEAM found over fourteen thousand homeless
fires a year earlier, So in twenty twenty three there
(13:55):
were fourteen thousand and twenty twenty four, almost seventeen thousand.
Some of the fires started because of encampments illegally tapping
into the city's electrical system. The fourteen thousand fires in
twenty twenty three were double the number of twenty twenty.
(14:16):
Now more than half the fires in the city are
started by homeless people, even though they account for less
than one percent of the city's population.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
You imagine this.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
One percent of the population starts over fifty percent of
the fires, and they do it right in front of
our eyes in public. Ten years ago, these people didn't exist,
The fires didn't exist. Remember what Gigi Garciet said from
Fox eleven. Fire officials have been advised, probably by Garcetti
(14:49):
and Bass, to evade questions about homeless fires from local journalists.
Even when high ranking fire officials know for a fact
how a fire was connected to an en mean or
an unhoused individual, they are not to say that Grassias
said this on television. They are just to say it's
under investigation. Well, that's exactly the answer we're getting about
(15:13):
the Palisades fire. It's under investigation, but it's two and
a half months. There's no more evidence to be had.
They've been staring at the same spot where the fire
started for two and a half months. They know, they
know what happened. They might not know the guy who
started it, but they know. Grassi has said that many chiefs,
(15:33):
many battalion chiefs, many captains are extremely frustrated to see
their men and their women risking their lives on fires. Well,
if they're not going to have the courage to speak up.
I don't know what to say. LA Fire Department Captain
Freddie Escabar, he's the head of the union. Where's the
(15:54):
outrage for what's happening in the city. I don't know
what's wrong with people I have. I mean because we've
been talking about this, you know, off and on for
two and a half months.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
I mean, they.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
Some of these structures to homeless build or multi stories.
They have pro paine tanks and construction materials. It's all
over the Supulvita Base and Wildlife Reserve, which is near
the four or five in the valley. It's a park area.
They have ball fields there, a bike path. Been there
(16:30):
plenty of times with the kids, the San Fernando Valley
Audubon Society, treasurer Audubon Society.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
They're birdwatchers, she said, she and her colleagues.
Speaker 3 (16:43):
I've seen about one hundred and fifty people living there,
a lot of them mentally ill, and nobody does anything
about it. And then they have the story goes on
about the MacArthur Park fires every night on the side
walks across MacArthur Park and inside the park.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
There's two types of fires.
Speaker 3 (17:04):
There's the fires which are used to cook meth and
the others are to stay warm. And then it goes
into bass slashing the funding from the fire department. Let
me tell you, and I'm ever giving up on this,
you cannot have a fire department fifty percent funded. It's
(17:27):
only fifty percent funded. We only have fifty percent of
the firefighters. We have one hundred engines at minimum that
are broken and not being fixed because they have very
few mechanics. And then you give a half a billion
more dollars to these criminal homeless agencies. Then you do
(17:47):
the fire department, and the homeless agencies are all failing,
and the homeless people are starting more than half the fires,
I mean, seventeen thousand fires.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
When when does and then Karen bast says, I'm not
going to quit on the city. What does she say?
Speaker 1 (18:06):
Eric?
Speaker 2 (18:06):
Play that again? She said this week that she's not
going to quit. I would never quit on my city.
Speaker 3 (18:14):
You already quit if you e left seventeen thousand fires
a year by homeless people. And then you fund the
homeless budget and you've defunded the fire department, and then
the Palisades burns down. Is anybody connecting all these dots
isn't it obvious? Am I crazy? Sometimes I feel like
(18:35):
I'm crazy? Maybe I am crazy? Well, I both could
be true. I could be crazy and I'm right. So
now we come to Michael Monks right after Deborah's news
because the city council voted thirteen to nothing to create
a new homeless agency to oversee all the corrupt, thieving,
old homeless agencies.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
So Michael will be on next. She's a little crazy too, Well, now,
who are you to come? Might not crazy? We'll put
you out to be the judge on the crazy Court.
Speaker 5 (19:09):
You're listening to John Cobels on demand from KFI Am
six forty.
Speaker 2 (19:14):
You may be dizzy.
Speaker 3 (19:17):
With all the cases that have been brought to court
to try to block Donald Trump directives. There's at least
four that I was aware of today that are actively engaged.
We are going to talk with Royal Oaks, ABC News
legal analysts because the biggest one of the week was
Trump deporting hundreds of Venezuelan gang members, some Marisa Latrucia
(19:44):
gang members and put them on a plane. And when
the district Judge, James Boseburg said to turn the planes around,
they said, oh, they're too far away. They can't hear us.
And then the El Salvadoran president said, oopsie, they landed.
And so the judge is upset, and we're going to
get into.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
It because I will.
Speaker 3 (20:05):
Actually I talked about this a few weeks ago. What
happens if Trump just refuses to go along with the
judge's order, then what and we're we're in new territory.
It's fascinating. We've got Michael Monks here, who's also fascinating,
because I don't know how anybody can cover city government
as much as you do without going insane, and maybe
you are insane. They voted thirteen to nothing today, and
(20:28):
it was to create some kind of new homeless agency,
some new homeless department to oversee all the old homeless
departments that have failed.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
Let me stop you right there and correct the facts. John.
Speaker 6 (20:39):
It's not a homeless department. This would be a bureau. Oh,
it's a bureau. It would be a bureau. Not to
be confused with what the county is doing, which is
a department. The city is creating a bureau. There's a
legal difference between a bureau in a department. Well, there's
certainly a bureaucratic difference. In this case. So this is
also in response similar to what the county has done.
(21:00):
Oh no, the money we're spending, which is a lot
for homeless programs, we don't seem to know how it's going,
where it's going, or if the investment is even paying off.
So we need a bureau inside City Hall to keep
better track of where these dollars are going. Man, I
read a quote to you, sir, Yes, sir. Councilwoman Nythia
(21:20):
Rahman says, we spend a lot of money on our
homelessness response, primarily on outreach, shelter beds and long term
housing that includes permanent supportive housing that we're building as
well as rental subsidies.
Speaker 2 (21:29):
Blah blah.
Speaker 6 (21:30):
Homeless response is complicated, she says, But she also says
the obvious and really the thing that should get people's attention.
No one in City Hall is tasked with knowing, for example,
how often encampments are being visited by outreach workers, how
many shelter beds are filled on any given night, how
many vacancies we have across our units, and how long
(21:53):
these vacancies take to get filled. So at City Hall
they don't even have the data on how these programs
are are not working. What do all the people in
these homeless agencies, departments and bureaus, what do they do
all day if they're not tracking what the money is
being spent on, and then what kind of.
Speaker 2 (22:14):
Return they're getting.
Speaker 6 (22:16):
That's a question that has been raised recently by two audits,
one at the end of last year and one this month.
The most recent one was ordered by a federal judge
to look at the way the City of Los Angeles
and the La Homeless Services Authority, which is a joint
agency governed by the city and the county together wanting
to know how your money is being spent, how it's
being tracked. That audit came back and said, we can't
(22:38):
give you a full audit because we didn't get all
the information we needed. But what we do know is
that the accounting is poor and the oversight is worse,
and it was.
Speaker 3 (22:44):
Over two billion dollars that they didn't know where it
went specifically and whether it had any effect.
Speaker 6 (22:49):
That's right, and so the county's response to this being
the second audit of LASA a poor audit.
Speaker 2 (22:56):
Right, because the city controller, I think had an audit too.
Speaker 6 (22:59):
The controllers at an audit it's not looking good for
that agency. Because the county is moving towards its own department,
they will move a lot of their resources out of
LASA and they will oversee it themselves at the city.
This is not a department again which has been proposed,
it's a bureau. This is a bureau, and so they've
(23:20):
asked for a report in thirty days. It's also very
common when you're at city Hall of the county building,
they call for report backs. It's doing all They want
to know how much money they would need to fund
the bureau and how many people would be needed to
work there. And they might be pulled from existing jobs,
existing agencies where they have experience with homeless. So they're
going to take people from these failing homeless agencies and
(23:41):
transfer them to the Homeless Bureau. But these are the
people who've blown the money and don't know where it went,
and now they're going to be in charge of what
It's been stated that yes, some of the folks may
come from LASA itself.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
They might come from a home from the Housing department.
Speaker 3 (23:55):
A second, you're gonna have higher people from LASA who
lost the money to oversee last to see where the
money went, Well, they know where the money went.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
Who's they're the ones you lost it?
Speaker 6 (24:04):
That's right, So there are that's right, You're right, I mean,
and it is the same agencies, it's the same hands.
And that's why this response from the city is not
as strong as the one you saw from the county.
Keep in mind, LASA is governed by a board that
is appointed by the county and the city. So when
the county or the city try to say I don't
know what's going on at LASA, they have direct responsibility
(24:27):
and oversight of that agency. The county is ready to
wash its hands of it. It seems the city is
washing one hand.
Speaker 3 (24:35):
It says in one report the city works with several agencies.
You have in addition to LASA, you have the Housing
Authority of the City of Los Angeles, that Los Angeles
Housing Department. There you go the Los Angeles Sanitation and Environment,
Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, LASA, and then multiple La
County departments. And so is this new Brewer going to
(24:59):
oversee all these different other agencies.
Speaker 6 (25:03):
I think the goal, as stated, is that the Bureau
would streamline some of those efforts, or at least have
a guy in a suit at a desk, knowing where
those various agencies are on any given day. But so far,
what it looks like is the attempts to create better
lives for homeless people has created job opportunities for housed people,
(25:23):
right while not improving the homeless situation.
Speaker 3 (25:26):
I also, if I remember the audit, right, they found
that a lot of the money, like half the money
hadn't even spent.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
What that is the controller audit that came out.
Speaker 6 (25:35):
Now, there was some pushback on that that was valid
that some of these funds are not you know, to
be spent this year. They are from different grants or
that sort of thing. So when you lump it together,
it looks bad. But there was some nuance to that,
right that I think we should concede, you know, yet
this money could not be spent yet, or it's not
reflected in the budget yet, that sort of thing. It's
a three year plan with that money. But still there's
(25:58):
a lot of money in a bucket that hasn't been.
Speaker 3 (26:00):
But they all know this has been going on for years,
and they suddenly sit upright and go, oh my god,
I had no idea.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
Well, yes, you had an idea. It's been ten years
of this nonsense.
Speaker 6 (26:10):
That's what's got to be the most surprising for folks
who've been watching this for a long. Look, I'm a
year into this, and I can't believe sometimes how slowly
things have moved to address this crisis that is visible
on every street in the inner city of Los Angeles.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
I know.
Speaker 6 (26:22):
And for this, by the way, the bureau is not
automatically created. We're getting a report in thirty days and
then we will know more. And the county's new department
is supposed to stand up this summer.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
That's how quickly the county is trying to move.
Speaker 3 (26:35):
Uh, huh, okay, wow, and they all do this with
a straight face.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
Huh.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
It's a very serious delivery of comments today at city Hall.
Speaker 3 (26:43):
I see, all right, Michael Monks k if I News,
he gets paid to witness this. Coming up after three o'clock,
Royal Oaks is going to explain the uh, all the
battles going on between Trump and various judges on all
these executive orders and deportations that he's getting sued over
in court.
Speaker 5 (27:04):
You're listening to John Cobels on demand from KFI AM sixty.
Speaker 3 (27:09):
Coming up after three o'clock after Denver's News, Royal Oaks,
the ABC News legal analyst, and we're going to talk
about these judges who are blocking Trump orders on various issues.
Of course, the biggest headline is Trump sending hundreds of
Venezuelan and El Salvadorian gang members to l Salvador, to
(27:33):
the worst prison in the hemisphere. And the judge was saying, well, no,
I'm blocking that. Turn the planes around. And they said, well,
planes already in the air well, turn them around. Well,
planes inter international airspace, turn them around. I say, oh,
it looks like the planes landed. Sorry, that's really what
(27:55):
went on. So Trump is openly resisting the judge. James
Boseburg Borah Oaks will talk about it now hang on.
Oh with the Democrats, this is very amusing. In fact,
(28:17):
I couldn't believe this. I had to go I heard
this on the radio this morning, and I had to go, well,
Eric has got a fuller clip here, because I couldn't
believe with all the turmoil going on in Washington, d C.
But Chuck Schumer, who is the Minori leader in the
Senate for the Democrats, and he's one of the last
(28:37):
Democratic leaders whose name you might recognize who's actually been
in power for a long time. Now, the Democrats' approval
rating is down to twenty nine percent in this country.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
Twenty nine percent.
Speaker 3 (28:49):
Now, if your party has lost the House and lost
the Senate and lost the presidency and the Supreme Court
seems stacked against you, and your approval rating as a
whole is down to twenty nine percent, would you go
on national television on the view no less those cackling
(29:09):
hens and mock business owners who feel that they built
the business themselves and they don't want the government to
take their money. Would you actually go on TV and
mock them? But if this doesn't show you what guys
like Schumer are really about. He really does think it's
(29:30):
his money to spend and not yours. So play this clip.
They were talking about tariffs, and this is from the
view he.
Speaker 7 (29:37):
Wants to put these tariffs in. It's going to raise you, folks,
the average family, twenty two thousand dollars a year for
these tarifts.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
Why is he doing that? Something so stupid?
Speaker 7 (29:47):
Why he wants to use that money for tax cuts
for the billionaires. The Republican Party is a different kettle
of fish than it used to be, and that's why
we're fighting them so hard. They are controlled by a
small group a wealthy, greedy people. And you know what
their attitude is, I made my money all by myself.
How dare your government take my money for me. I
(30:08):
don't want to pay taxes? Or I built my company
with my bare hands. How dare your government tell me
how I should treat my customers, the land and water
that I own, or my employees. They hate government. Government's
a barrier to people, a barrier to stop them from
doing things. They want to destroy it. We are not
(30:29):
letting them do it, and we're united.
Speaker 3 (30:32):
Notice they jacked up the music to try to get
them off stage. It's like at the Oscars, you know,
it's like, Okay, that's enough of that. Even at the
view it's like, oh, this is not good. He is
setting himself on fire here. I mean, that is one
of the most offensive things I've ever heard. Yes, they
do start up. The people do start companies all by themselves.
(30:58):
They do build companies with their bare hands. And know
they don't want the government taking the money because where
does the money go. That's really so outrageous. You're greedy
for wanting to keep your own money. I've heard everything now,
I thought, greedy is when you take other people's money. No, no,
you're keeping your own money. Schumer wants to take it
(31:18):
from you, but you're the greedy one, not him. And
look at all the garbage that they spend it on.
Speaker 2 (31:24):
I heard this.
Speaker 3 (31:25):
I had to listen to her like like three four times,
like are you serious, buddy, Yes, it is my money. No,
I don't want the government to take it, by the
way once and for all because people are so ignorant.
The top one percent pays over forty percent of the
income tax in this country.
Speaker 2 (31:44):
You got that.
Speaker 3 (31:45):
Write this down, tattoo this on your forehead. Top one
percent pays over forty percent of the income tax. Do
you know what the bottom fifty percent pays? The bottom
fifty percent of earners, they pay three percent.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
Of the income tax. So I don't know. Is that
is that a fair share?
Speaker 3 (32:07):
When you have half the country paying three percent total
and the top one percent paying forty percent.
Speaker 2 (32:16):
I think that's a fair share.
Speaker 3 (32:18):
Top one percent past forty percent, bottom fifty pays three
That's the truth.
Speaker 2 (32:24):
Go look it up.
Speaker 3 (32:27):
And then he talks about greedy businessman And you've heard
over the past two months. What they're spending it on.
I mean, look at the big story we started with
today with Nussum. He's blowing twelve billion dollars on illegal
alien healthcare. It's six billion over budget. He's got to
borrow three and a half billion, and then he wants
(32:49):
another three billion to get them through June. It's illegal
alien healthcare. Yes, I want to keep my money. Call
me greedy. I don't care. Fires running a business and
I'm financing millions of people who broke the law and
are squatting in this country, and I gotta pay all
their medical bills. If I run a small business and
I'm trying to provide health care for my family.
Speaker 2 (33:11):
Yes, I don't want. I don't.
Speaker 3 (33:13):
The government is awful. It's horrendous. Well that's gonna win
you an election. That's a good platform to run on.
All right, we come back. So Trump deports two hundred
and sixty gang members, violent felon, violent felons. I mean,
(33:34):
the worst people in the Northern Hemisphere. These are the
worst people. Of these are terrorist organizations. MS thirteen and
trend Dear Ragua are declared terrorist organizations. They're cartels, they're gangs,
they're violent, they do horrible things, they rape and murder people,
(33:58):
and so Trump ejects to hundred and sixty from the country,
sends them to El Salvador in prison, and some judges going, oh, no,
you can't do that, and judge basically gave him the bird.
We'll talk with Royal Oaks, ABC News legal correspondent about
all that.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
Next.
Speaker 3 (34:15):
Debor Mark Live the KFI twenty four hour Newsroom. Hey,
you've been listening to The John Covelt Show podcast. You
can always hear the show live on KFI Am six
forty from one to four pm every Monday through Friday,
and of course, anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
The John Kobylt Show News
Host
John Kobylt
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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 Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.