July 1, 2025 • 33 mins
The John Kobylt Show Hour 1 (07/01) - Mark Thompson fills in for John. Ashleigh Fields comes on the show to talk about the "Big Beautiful Bill" passing through the Senate. More on the show to talk about the "Big Beautiful Bill" passing through the Senate. Alex Stone comes on the show to talk about the Bryan Kohberger trial. Mark needs a lawyer.
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):
Canf I AM six forty. You're listening to the John
Cobel podcast on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Mark Thompson sitting in for John as he takes the
fourth of July week. We're here on KFI AM six forty.
I heard everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. We are live.
We've got the whole John Cobilt crew. I am just
happy to be sitting in the in the captain's chair
for a moment. I'll get right into it. I mean,
it's a huge news day with the major bill and
(00:30):
piece of legislation out of this administration staggering across the
finish line. And mean it took a jd vance break
of the tie at fifty to fifty to get it
to fifty one. Fifty isn't fifty one to fifty? Also,
the code for what is that? Like a shrink thing
or a crazy Yeah. I think that is the medical
(00:53):
psychological term. Yes, exactly. Anyway, on this we go to
Washington and great reporting from Ashley Fields over at the Hill.
I welcome you to KFI. Hi, Ashley, Hi, how are you?
I am well and a I'm a Washingtonian. You know,
(01:14):
I grew up there and my dad actually taught at
Howard University, where I see that you graduated from Howard.
That's right, go buy me, I got a right. Well,
that means you know Washington pretty damn well. And I
know you've done a lot of reporting around this legislation.
Tell us what happened, because it really was. It was
(01:35):
a nail bier. There's a lot in the bill that
people wanted. There's a lot in the bill that people didn't.
I'm talking about senators.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
That's correct. It's a stormy day in Washington. But people
can look to the Hill for clarity. One of the
major points of contention within the bill was the touch
to Medicaid. There are definitely going to be work requirements
in order for people to maintain their eligibility providers. In
addition to that, the same situation is going on with
(02:03):
food stamp programs, and so there's a bunch of shifts
and changes that will be in effect if the Senate
bill is able to sustain itself in the House. There's
a couple of other interesting factors within the Senate approved
legislation that would include capping unsubsidized student loans at twenty
five hundred dollars per year and one hundred thousand dollars
(02:24):
per lifetime for graduate students. Those who are borrowing for
professional degrees like doctors and lawyers would be capped at
fifty thousand per year and two hundred thousand dollars per lifetime.
So there's a caveat there. There are Trump accounts is
in the bill where each child born within the next
year starting in twenty twenty six, would having one thousand
(02:45):
dollars investment funded by the Treasury Department, and that would
accumulate growth over time. And so there's a bunch of
different positives and negatives that people are spending as we
look to see what will happen in the House in
the next few days.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
The medicating snap provisions, they were really somewhat radioactive. You know.
I don't want to call them the third rail because
they're not quite Social Security, like messing with that. But
there were promises on the part of the President not
to touch medicaid, and yet this bill does touch Medicaid.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
Yeah, that's correct. The Senate version of the bill would
cut more than one trillion dollars from Medicaid compared to
the previous House version, which would have cut eight hundred
billion dollars, and so that's something to consider. The new
work requirements would be for people who are between the
ages of nineteen to sixty four, and they now have
to prove that they're working or in school for at
(03:37):
least eighty hours per month. This would begin on December
thirty first, twenty twenty six, if passed and approved. So
technically they're not just removing people from Medicaid, but they
are changing work requirements, and they are creating stipulations that
could serve as a barrier for low income families and
those with disabilities.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
And there's a lot of paperwork associated with demonstrating that
you are looking for work or employed to the right,
the idea isn't just because you know, you could say, hey, look,
if somebody's not out there and they're not making an
effort to find a job or at a job, they're
not making an effort, then why am I, as a
tax payer subsidizing their medicaid. The answer is that the
(04:19):
new legislation, I guess that would sort of means test
this if you will. It's build enough paperwork that people
are saying yeah, But as a technical matter, Americans just
aren't going to do that. They're not going to wade
through hip deep paperwork just to prove that they're employed.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
Yeah, that's correct. And so this new bill approved by
the Senate again would require Medicaid to conduct eligibility redeterminations
for coverage every six months rather than once per year,
which is the way the current policy works. So people
are definitely going to be required to, you know, sort
of prove what they're doing each day out of the month,
(04:56):
how much time and effort they're putting into school or
a job in order to continue receiving these benefits.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
Talking to Ashley Field who was in Washington for the Hill,
and you know, in Fox polling that I saw just
over one thousand registered voters nationwide, only thirty eight percent
favored this bill. In fact, fifty nine percent opposed it.
That didn't seem to move the meter in the end, though, huh.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
Not at all. But it did move the needle for some,
including Senator Tom Tillis, who said that he would vote
against the bill and did because he you know, said
he was not going to run for realletion and felt
openly comfortable and saying that President Trump was going against
promises that he made to the American people. And so
as you just mentioned, you know, they're Americans who were
(05:46):
dissatisfied with what was within the bill. And as President
Trump aims to find this legislation on July fourth, there
are going to be a series of protests across the
country coming from this big, beautiful bill Act and the
measures that it would create or impose for communities across
the country.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
Well, it makes the corporate tax cuts permanent. You know,
there was a sunset on them. And there's also it's
interesting and I just find this sort of in the
I smile at this kind of category that some of
the stuff that's in the legislation, like the deduction of
interest on auto loans and the Trump the accounts that
(06:23):
you were talking about for newborns and children that was
really interesting. You did touch on it, but they're calling
them Trump savings accounts. You know. The part that I
smile about is presidents always looking to brand stuff with
his name.
Speaker 3 (06:38):
That's correct. You know, he found that with the Trump
tax cuts from twenty seventeen, he was able to make
a lot of headway with voters. It was something that
was memorable. So the White House is seeking to do
the same thing with these Trump accounts also was in
the bill. We know that the cap on state and
local tax deduction would be raised from ten thousand dollars
to forty thousand dollars, which is another measure that the
(07:00):
White House has been campaigning on. And the child tax credit,
if the Senate bill is approved, would increase to two
tho two hundred dollars. So there are definitely some caveats
for individuals and families that the Trump administration is you know,
hammering down on.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
So when we see the pushback that we saw from Murkowski, Collins,
till Us, Josh Hawley also that on some level is
performative Ashley. I mean, they make the points so that
their constituencies can be aware of the fact that they
push back because the deep cuts to Medicaid, for example,
but in the end they vote for the bill to
(07:35):
get it across the finish line.
Speaker 3 (07:38):
Sometimes that does happen, And as we know, we're heading
into a very crucial year with the term elections, and
so that's one of the reasons Tom Tillis again decided
to step back and say he would not put himself
in the dig for another Senate, uh Senate, a Senate
term because he knew that, you know, this could potentially
post some barriers to another re election.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
So and well, when till started squeaking, right, till Us
started pointing out the fact that, you know, mister President,
you promised you weren't going to touch medicaid. This bill
guts medicaid, et cetera. All of his words that were
quite pointed toward President Trump. President Trump didn't waste any
time to say, hey, great, glad you feel that way,
We'll see in the primaries. We're going to knock you
(08:18):
out office. And Tillis said, you know what, I'm going
to tap out. This is the end of it. That's
kind of the way it went down.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
Right, That's exactly the way it went down. And so
a lot of Republicans now, you know, not only are
they speaking out with the consciousness of what their constituency
might think, but they're also you know, speaking out and
being aware that the president is closely monitoring, you know,
what is being said, conversations that are being had, and
who he believes he can trust as a loyal partner
(08:47):
within Congress. So it's a very interesting time, especially with
the Trump administration right now.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Ashley, real quick, the the deficit increase the debt that
this all runs up. I believe it was the CBO
that had put the figure. Where was it that some
It's in the trillions, right, four.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
Trillion dollars, that's correct, Yeah, four trillion dollars. And so
President Trump has argued that with tariffs, with the rollback
of electric vehicle credits, and a boost and manufacturing and
some other measures that he plans to take on throughout
the next few months, that this large debt could be
possibly covered through other initiatives and measures. And so that's
(09:30):
something that it'll be good to keep an eye on
and watch how it plays out.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Yeah, I guess it will be. Well, you'll be doing that.
Thank you so much, Love the Hill, Love you for
spending a few moments with us, Ashley Fields, thank you.
And let's stay in touch on this all right. Uh yeah,
the reporting of The Hill has been really strong on this.
It's I'll share one thing about this big, beautiful bill.
This isn't a criticism of it, per se. I'm not
(09:57):
really we can do that another time. But I am
surprised by one super curious fact, and it relates to
the last thing we're talking about, which is about a
debt increase because they could have easily done something within
the bill and they didn't do it. And I'm again
(10:17):
it's a head scratcher to me. I'll share that with you,
and everybody would have been okay with it, I think,
But maybe you can tell me why they didn't. Anyway,
I'll tell you what that is. As we follow up
in a few minutes. Mark Thompson here for John COVID
it's the John Covelt Show or KFI AM six forty
live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
What I was saying about the one Big Beautiful Bill
as it's called, that made it through the Senate with
the winning vote cast by Vice President jd Vance. There
was a lot of sweat about this. I never really
thought that it wouldn't get across. I mean, I think
a lot of this is performative. We talked about it yesterday,
(11:03):
the fact, in fact talked about it with the ABC
News correspondence and others who were watching it, and we
just mentioned it a moment ago. The fact that one
needs to sometimes make a speech, sometimes go public with
certain reservations about passing a big bill like this which
includes a real ding to Medicaid, for example, which is
(11:24):
in many cases in the Senate, something that constituencies of
red states very much take advantage of. Anyway, you need
to make noise about this stuff so that your constituents know, hey,
you know my guy, generically my senator cares about this
and is bothered by this part of the bill. That way,
(11:47):
when you go back for reelection. This is true in
the House as well. Obviously you can say, hey, I
brought this up. I tried to get this modified. And
so it was with Lisa Murkowski. She made enough noise
that she was able to actually peel off some gifts
to her constituents to the state of Alaska. Some of
(12:08):
them were vetoed by the parliamentarian because they didn't have
enough to do with the money associated with this bill,
which is really what has to be as you know,
the rule of the day. It doesn't have to do
with money, then you can't pass it in the way
that they wanted to pass it, which was a simple majority.
So the parliamentarian stepped in the case of Murkowski, said hey,
(12:30):
I understand you want to give her all this stuff
but like these three things, you can't give her. So anyway,
she got some gifts and giveaways for the state of Alaska,
but others pushed away, I mean Ran Paul pushed away,
Tom Tillis, we talked about him, Susan Collins, they all
opposed the bill. But Murkowski of Alaska, she again, having
(12:54):
received some of these provisions that were beneficial to her state,
she the horse trading necessarily and gave them the vote
from her. And then it was Jade Vans, Who've got
it across the finish line. Now what's interesting to me,
just as a practical matter, is you've got bill here,
got a bill that's going to go to four trillion,
(13:19):
looks like based on CBO analysis and that's you know,
again independent analysis. And they're obviously tax cuts and benefits
that were first passed under the first Trump administration that
we're going to expire later this year. Now they are permanent.
And their new eligibility requirements for food stamps and Medicaid,
(13:39):
who talked about that some of that stuff is designed
just to get people off the rolls. They make the
paperwork so daunting, and as you know, when you're dealing
with any paperwork, but certainly government paperwork and certainly government
handout paperwork. It has to be done perfectly in order
to get it, so that could mean twelve million Americans
(14:01):
lose coverage within the next nine years. In any case,
this will get dinged around a bit in the House
of Representatives. Also, obviously it has to go back there
and there'll be a second vote, and it'll then go
to Trump's desk for signature. Doubt it'll happen by the
fourth of July, which was wanted, but never know. Anyway,
(14:24):
this four trillion what's interesting to me. And by the way,
that four trillion is a trillion more than the House bill. Okay,
so there's actually a much bigger price tag coming out
of the Senate bill than the House bill. But one
of the big things, and you've heard it talked about,
and we've mentioned it numerous times, and other hosts on
this station have talked about it as well, is the
(14:44):
ding on Medicaid. I mean, the Medicaid support for low
income families and rural health care providers. We've talked about
rural hospitals that depend on Medicaid money. I mean, that's
a real issue, right, And you're talking about what would
be another trillion dollars on the US credit card. Now
(15:08):
I can see all the arguments in the world for
why you don't want to run up the debt. I mean,
you know, you keep running up this debt, and when
you need to spend like a COVID nineteen outbreak, like
an eight market crash, when you need that money, you
can't spend it because you're already in so much debt.
(15:29):
So I get that argument, and maybe that's the reason
that the Senate and House they don't address this medicaid thing.
I would have thought, hey, guys, if you're going to
run into so many political headwinds because this medicaid thing,
why don't you just include it. It's only another trillion dollars.
And you guys don't seem to care about all these trillions.
(15:52):
You're at four trillion, now, what's five trillion? It seems
odd perhaps, but to me that might be politically more
palatable than what they decided to do, which was to
historically cut and medicaid in these programs that their constituencies
depend on. So again, if you look at the projected debt,
(16:17):
you could have increased that projected debt for close to
a trillion dollars. That is what the Medicare bill is.
It's a little under that, and in so doing, no
one has to give up anything. They decided not to
do it, and they're still likely a price to pay
(16:37):
for the way they did it when we come back.
It is a big story. In fact, I would say legally, boy,
there's a lot of stuff in the legal pipeline that
are equally getting attention. I'm thinking about the Sean Combs
p Didy case and this case involving the plea deal
(17:02):
in Idaho. These Idaho college murders, Bryan Koberger agreeing to
a plea deal and the family is furious, I say
the family. There are multiple families involved. I mean, after all,
these are four college students murdered in cold blood, and
this guy will never actually have to face the families
(17:23):
in court. We'll talk to Alex Stone from ABC. Next,
it's the John co Belt Show. Mark Thompson sitting in
for John on KFI AM six forty Live everywhere on
the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 4 (17:35):
You're listening to John Cobelts on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
I listened with interest as the details of the new
Trump cologne become available.
Speaker 5 (17:48):
I are you going to buy some?
Speaker 2 (17:50):
It's a little pricey at two forty nine a bottle,
it's expensive. I mean I was thinking of something I'd
like to, you know, pick up a little gifty of
some sort.
Speaker 5 (18:00):
Well, do you know somebody that wants to smell like
President tru.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
I do, And he's we're going to talk to him
next Alex Stone. Oh I know, Oh yeah, Alex Stone.
I think would be this is the kind of fragrance
that would whip people's head around, you know what I mean.
Speaker 6 (18:12):
Oh, but you know what, don't go cheap? But two
forty nine? Can you go for the five hundred dollars bottle?
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Thank you? He's right when he talks about a more
expensive bottle. Two forty nine is just kind of the
entry price. I think they have a you know, if
you want to it depends how much Colonne you're going
to need. I mean I see it as kind of
a holiday, special occasion thing when you want to smell
like success.
Speaker 6 (18:32):
Yeah, well it is just hanging out of mar A Lago.
But okay, you know they want to spell like mar
A Lago.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
It is called Victory cologne. As Deborah was detailing, and
I'll take a meeting on a Debora. You will, Yeah,
if you want like a stocking stuffer for.
Speaker 5 (18:48):
Me, I was going to say, maybe, you know what,
I'll get it for Alex because he seems really maybe
I'll get one for each of you, thank you. I'm
not going to go for five dollars.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Look, I'm not going to fight with Alex Stone over
who gets the cologne that week. So you better get
it either for both of us or for neither of us. Yes,
all right, Alex is here to talk about a grizzly
thing but also a legal thing. It's the Idaho College murders.
This Brian Koberger. I mean, he murdered these four Idaho
college students in their sleep, and he makes a plea
(19:23):
deal and the family doesn't seem the families, I should say,
don't seem at all happy.
Speaker 6 (19:29):
Yeah, you're right, and I mean allegedly at this point
he did it, because he hasn't actually changed his plea yet. Well, tomorrow,
I'm outside of the the Ada County Courthouse in Emboisi
right now, and this is where he's going to walk
in tomorrow, and if all goes according to plan, tell
the judge that he now admits to these crimes that
he's fought for three years, and that he has claimed
(19:50):
and his attorneys have said that the DNA can't be trusted,
and that the evidence was collected illegally, and the warrants
are not legal, and cell phone data is not accurate,
and the judge has come against all of that and said, no,
that's going to be allowed in It seems like they
got to the point where they didn't think there was
any way they were going to get in a quittle here.
And we understand that last week the defense, Brian Coberger's
(20:13):
defense team came to prosecutors and said, let's make a deal,
give us a deal and if you take the death pedalty,
which here at Idaho is a firing squad is a
primary means of death. Fairly knew that was brought into
effects several months ago, that he does not want the
firing squad and let's get a deal. So that the
(20:33):
discussions began last week and the families they're not happy
about this whatsoever. Kaylee Gonzalvez, one of the victims, her
dad Steve, is livid about this. He says they were
not brought into it. They heard there were discussions on Friday,
and then on Monday they got an email or on
Sunday night they got an email telling him it was
a done deal and that there would be no trial.
(20:55):
And they they're angry. They want this to go to trial.
They feel like a trial that they will learn where
the murder weapon is or was, what the motive of
it was, what went down inside the house on King
Road in Moscow, Idaho, and all of that they may
never know because there will be no trial, there will
be no testimony. But they also want them to get
(21:16):
the firing squad. They want them to put to death
for what he still allegedly but if he really does
plead guilty tomorrow what he did, but at this point
looks like he'll avoid that, he'll get life in prison.
Speaker 2 (21:28):
You lay it out well in making me begin to
understand why the families wanted their moment in court, Why
they want a lot of these grizzly details out there,
as you say, motive, etc. They want to know that
as well. But I wonder why the families weren't consulted.
From what I'm hearing, there was not a lot of
(21:48):
consultation with those families about this deal.
Speaker 6 (21:52):
Yeah, Well, they say that they had that discussion on Friday,
they were going to heads up on a call, and
then it went forward without them, and so that the
judge may have some questions about that. Tomorrow. The judge
could torpedo this whole thing if he wanted to. Unlikely
when there's an agreement between the prosecution and the defense. Look,
it's beneficial to both sides because the defense is going
(22:12):
to avoid the death penalty. The prosecution avoids millions of
dollars spent on what was going to be a three
to four month trial that we were all going to
be here covering that was going to begin in a
couple of weeks. That they know they get a conviction.
You never know with the jury what you're going to
get in the end. You may think that you've got
great evidence and the jury may acquit him or decide
do they want to go with a lesser charge or
(22:34):
something like that. And this gets rid of years of appeals.
He is going to admit that he committed these crimes
that he will not appeal. He's going to go to
prison for the rest of his life for life terms
will be the deal for the murders. Ten more years
for burglary for entering the King Roade home, and they
know he's going to be put away and it won't
go through, especially on a death penalty case. He would
(22:54):
have gone through probably decades of appeals and the high
profile you know, death penalty case in California where there's
still appealing and trying to get the cases overturned. So
this ends all of that and he just you know,
when it happens tomorrow, there will be a sentencing date set,
probably at the end of July. He'll get that sentence
and then he'll go off to prison for the rest
of his life.
Speaker 2 (23:14):
Alex Stone, thank you. The deal is done. It would
seem as Alex says, it'll be finalized tomorrow. In that
Idaho college murder case. Always good to talk to you.
Thank you, my friend.
Speaker 6 (23:24):
Send me Trump cologne up here to the Ada County Courthouse. Please,
he'll be waiting for it.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
You'll be able to smell it coming all right. So
also another verdict that was a plea deal. This is
an actual verdict in the p Diddy case.
Speaker 5 (23:40):
Yeah, this is just coming in now. We have a
partial verdict that has been reached in the Seawan diddycomb
sex trafficking and racketeering case. So it's not clear when
this is going to be announced. But again the jury
says that it does have a partial verdict in this
Sean Diddycomb's case, so we are waiting to hear more.
(24:00):
We don't know when this is going to be announced.
But this did not take very long at all.
Speaker 2 (24:06):
No, this is amazing, especially since they had a hiccup
in the first hour.
Speaker 5 (24:10):
With that juror and then five notes were sent to
the judge.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
Bye, you were thinking we're going to be doing this
dance for a while, but as it turns out, all right.
So we're watching this minute to minute in the KFI
newsroom and we'll give you more details obviously as we
get them. It's John Cobelt Joe Mark Thompson sitting in
for John on KFI A six forty Live everywhere on
the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 4 (24:33):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
John is away Mark Thompson here. We're just watching the
situation with the Sean Combe's Ditty trial and it's been
an interesting It's only the second day of deliberations, right, Deborah, Yeah,
that's it.
Speaker 5 (24:52):
So well, this this just happened. So the jury has
reached a verdict on four of five counts, and the
is indicating that the jury is going to keep on deliberating.
So I don't know if we're going to get something
today or something tomorrow, but four out of five is
what they have a verdict on.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
They've sent the judge six notes, including one this afternoon.
He has five criminal counts. It's racketeering conspiracy, two counts
of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, and two
counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. Of course, he
denies all of it, and there's a considerable body of
(25:36):
opinion that feels as though he's going to walk. Really,
I know, that's what I said. Really, there seems to
be so much in the way of testimony. And again,
just speaking of testimony, the jury has asked that certain
(25:56):
testimony be read back to them, and they've asked to
review you the key witness testimony. Again, you can tell
me does that mean they're leaning toward me a quittal
and mean, you know, I don't know that you can
tell much from that. It's ah, it would be extraordinary
(26:17):
for me with with with the kind of evidence they have,
the nature of the crime, the video, evidence of him
being so abusive to his girlfriend. I mean that, you know,
the attempt to suppress that video. You know, he paid
one hundred thousand dollars to a hotel worker to try
to get rid of that video. It would be extraordinary
if you walk. But there is you know, people I
(26:40):
respect and who watch this stuff for saying, I don't know,
I think he might anyway, the jury has reached a
partial verdict. Will continue to watch it for you. I
need a lawyer actually personally. How come you know I
was coming back from the tennis match in the desert,
and you know, when you're driving that on the ten
(27:02):
back into La It was about twenty miles out of town.
It was night time, like I want to say, ten
o'clock at night. Was there with my pal. We just
come for the tennis, went down there just for the day.
I'm in the carpool lane and Devor the car got
away from me. I you know, it's I was going fast,
so the speed got away from me. Oh, I was
(27:24):
going to say, I don't mean to say. I don't
even say it was an accident. No, I don't have
any accidents on my record, and I thought to myself,
I don't have any speeding tickets on my record. So
when they sent me the speeding ticket, the guy was
very nice and it was all just sort of like,
this is the problem. I just didn't view it as
a big deal when he sent me the ticket, and
(27:48):
when the court sent me the ticket, I just had
the view just pay it. You know, it's not a
big deal. I'm not going to go to traffic court
over it, just going to pay it. Well, that may
have been one of the most expensive things that I've
done from a decision making a standpoint in years. It's
incredibly expensive. How much so the ticket isn't expensive. The
(28:09):
ticket is expensive. Actually, the ticket was like you want
to say, it's like four hundred dollars, Like, wow, that's
a lot. But okay, I'm done with it. You know,
it's a stupid thing. I was going too fast. I mean,
I wasn't going insanely fast, but maybe you know, I
was going above the limit, NA fifteen above the limit
and now here is where the shoe pinches. Uh my insurance,
(28:29):
my car insurance. Oh yeah, yeah, it's thousands of dollars
a year. And this is I'm shopping it right now,
and it's it's a ton of money. And they all
say it's because of the moving violation that one decision
not to contest or not to go to traffic school
(28:50):
or in any.
Speaker 5 (28:51):
Way bad decision.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
Yeah, so let this be a word to all of you.
Because the officer even said, oh, you're for traffic school.
You have not a ticket in a long time. I said,
oh great, I'm thinking to myself, I'm not going to
traffic school. I'll just pay it. And you know, we
got here.
Speaker 5 (29:07):
You can do traffic school online. I mean it's a
pain in that you know what, sure it really is.
Speaker 2 (29:12):
But you know what's a pain, and that you know
what paying thousands of dollars for car insurance? Oh I know.
And so yeah, I was actually looking into once you've
paid the ticket, and this again might be news you
can use, as they used to say, the ability that
you have to go back and get traffic schooled, or
(29:34):
get the points removed from your license, or get the
whole thing expunged or whatever. It goes away the minute
you pay the ticket, because that's viewed as an admission
of guilt. And so if you want to try to
get that vacated or expunged. You can't do it in
the case of a traffic ticket unless maybe they're maybe
(29:56):
you know, I don't know, the dense beard of justice
might be able to do it, you know what I
mean the Yeah, don't you think I mean if I anything, Yeah, yeah,
but I'm throwing more at a situation that's already costing
me a bunch, you know.
Speaker 5 (30:13):
Mark, Sometimes you know, we have to we learn our
lessons and they're not easy, which is true, spoken like
a good mother, right, yeah, I know.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
Yeah, Not even sweet James can get me out of
this show.
Speaker 5 (30:27):
I don't think so.
Speaker 6 (30:28):
I mean, you never know.
Speaker 2 (30:29):
Yeah, sweet James, if you're out there, I'm putting up
the bad beam. I need help. Come on. But when
they offer you that traffic school, take at kids, because
otherwise that insurance is excruciatingly expensive. I'm sorry.
Speaker 5 (30:45):
I don't mean to be so judgy, but I'm really
surprised that you didn't do the traffic school.
Speaker 2 (30:50):
No, thank you. I'm worthy of all the judginess and
all the whip what do they call that self flagellation
or that thing that they do The monks used to
do where they whipped themselves. Oh yeah, yeah, that's what
I feel like I need like a whole day of that.
I am so angry at myself. It's just it's brutal.
(31:10):
But it's also it's also a squeeze I think by
the insurance companies.
Speaker 5 (31:15):
Oh, don't even get me started. John and I talk
about insurance companies and the insurance commissioner and what he
isn't doing.
Speaker 2 (31:24):
All the time. I mean, you know, it's one thing
to talk about crime on the streets. It's not talking
thing of to talk about crime that's hitting you every
month in an envelope, and that's coming from the insurance company.
I mean, it's really it's stealing. They should get a
mask and a gun and just come take my money.
It's ridiculous. It really is excessive if you look. And
(31:48):
this is just in my case, of course, we see
it in now with the way that insurance companies are
pulling out of California where their rate increases are being
green La.
Speaker 5 (31:57):
I mean, in some instances, it's crazy.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
I mean it's obscene, it really is. And in my case,
you look at my driving record, it's impeccable. Okay, so
I have this taken not anymore, and it's thirty six months.
It's on your record. I've learned more about this in
the last day than I ever wanted to know. Oh,
I'm really sorry, Thank you. And again, if there's a
(32:22):
there's a good lawyer out there it wants to take
a crack at it. But I think it's a I
think it's a done deal. I think it's a deal.
I'm no lawyer, but yeah, when we come back, there
is landmark environmental legislation that is getting erased here in
California by the governor. Yeah, two bills written by Democrats.
(32:45):
You know, you associate them with environmental legislation. That's why
I mention it. But they are serving another purpose and
another end. We'll get to that as we continue. And
also watching the Diddy trial, which again there is a
partial verdict on, and Michael Monks joins us on the
(33:08):
entire sanctuary city pushback between Mayor Bass and the Trump
administration that has only gotten uglier. We'll do it next.
It's the John Cobalt Show. Mark Thompson sitting in on
KFI AM six forty. We're live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
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
Canf I AM six forty. You're listening to the John
Cobel podcast on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Mark Thompson sitting in for John as he takes the
fourth of July week. We're here on KFI AM six forty.
I heard everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. We are live.
We've got the whole John Cobilt crew. I am just
happy to be sitting in the in the captain's chair
for a moment. I'll get right into it. I mean,
it's a huge news day with the major bill and
(00:30):
piece of legislation out of this administration staggering across the
finish line. And mean it took a jd vance break
of the tie at fifty to fifty to get it
to fifty one. Fifty isn't fifty one to fifty? Also,
the code for what is that? Like a shrink thing
or a crazy Yeah. I think that is the medical
(00:53):
psychological term. Yes, exactly. Anyway, on this we go to
Washington and great reporting from Ashley Fields over at the Hill.
I welcome you to KFI. Hi, Ashley, Hi, how are you?
I am well and a I'm a Washingtonian. You know,
(01:14):
I grew up there and my dad actually taught at
Howard University, where I see that you graduated from Howard.
That's right, go buy me, I got a right. Well,
that means you know Washington pretty damn well. And I
know you've done a lot of reporting around this legislation.
Tell us what happened, because it really was. It was
(01:35):
a nail bier. There's a lot in the bill that
people wanted. There's a lot in the bill that people didn't.
I'm talking about senators.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
That's correct. It's a stormy day in Washington. But people
can look to the Hill for clarity. One of the
major points of contention within the bill was the touch
to Medicaid. There are definitely going to be work requirements
in order for people to maintain their eligibility providers. In
addition to that, the same situation is going on with
(02:03):
food stamp programs, and so there's a bunch of shifts
and changes that will be in effect if the Senate
bill is able to sustain itself in the House. There's
a couple of other interesting factors within the Senate approved
legislation that would include capping unsubsidized student loans at twenty
five hundred dollars per year and one hundred thousand dollars
(02:24):
per lifetime for graduate students. Those who are borrowing for
professional degrees like doctors and lawyers would be capped at
fifty thousand per year and two hundred thousand dollars per lifetime.
So there's a caveat there. There are Trump accounts is
in the bill where each child born within the next
year starting in twenty twenty six, would having one thousand
(02:45):
dollars investment funded by the Treasury Department, and that would
accumulate growth over time. And so there's a bunch of
different positives and negatives that people are spending as we
look to see what will happen in the House in
the next few days.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
The medicating snap provisions, they were really somewhat radioactive. You know.
I don't want to call them the third rail because
they're not quite Social Security, like messing with that. But
there were promises on the part of the President not
to touch medicaid, and yet this bill does touch Medicaid.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
Yeah, that's correct. The Senate version of the bill would
cut more than one trillion dollars from Medicaid compared to
the previous House version, which would have cut eight hundred
billion dollars, and so that's something to consider. The new
work requirements would be for people who are between the
ages of nineteen to sixty four, and they now have
to prove that they're working or in school for at
(03:37):
least eighty hours per month. This would begin on December
thirty first, twenty twenty six, if passed and approved. So
technically they're not just removing people from Medicaid, but they
are changing work requirements, and they are creating stipulations that
could serve as a barrier for low income families and
those with disabilities.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
And there's a lot of paperwork associated with demonstrating that
you are looking for work or employed to the right,
the idea isn't just because you know, you could say, hey, look,
if somebody's not out there and they're not making an
effort to find a job or at a job, they're
not making an effort, then why am I, as a
tax payer subsidizing their medicaid. The answer is that the
(04:19):
new legislation, I guess that would sort of means test
this if you will. It's build enough paperwork that people
are saying yeah, But as a technical matter, Americans just
aren't going to do that. They're not going to wade
through hip deep paperwork just to prove that they're employed.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
Yeah, that's correct. And so this new bill approved by
the Senate again would require Medicaid to conduct eligibility redeterminations
for coverage every six months rather than once per year,
which is the way the current policy works. So people
are definitely going to be required to, you know, sort
of prove what they're doing each day out of the month,
(04:56):
how much time and effort they're putting into school or
a job in order to continue receiving these benefits.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
Talking to Ashley Field who was in Washington for the Hill,
and you know, in Fox polling that I saw just
over one thousand registered voters nationwide, only thirty eight percent
favored this bill. In fact, fifty nine percent opposed it.
That didn't seem to move the meter in the end, though, huh.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
Not at all. But it did move the needle for some,
including Senator Tom Tillis, who said that he would vote
against the bill and did because he you know, said
he was not going to run for realletion and felt
openly comfortable and saying that President Trump was going against
promises that he made to the American people. And so
as you just mentioned, you know, they're Americans who were
(05:46):
dissatisfied with what was within the bill. And as President
Trump aims to find this legislation on July fourth, there
are going to be a series of protests across the
country coming from this big, beautiful bill Act and the
measures that it would create or impose for communities across
the country.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
Well, it makes the corporate tax cuts permanent. You know,
there was a sunset on them. And there's also it's
interesting and I just find this sort of in the
I smile at this kind of category that some of
the stuff that's in the legislation, like the deduction of
interest on auto loans and the Trump the accounts that
(06:23):
you were talking about for newborns and children that was
really interesting. You did touch on it, but they're calling
them Trump savings accounts. You know. The part that I
smile about is presidents always looking to brand stuff with
his name.
Speaker 3 (06:38):
That's correct. You know, he found that with the Trump
tax cuts from twenty seventeen, he was able to make
a lot of headway with voters. It was something that
was memorable. So the White House is seeking to do
the same thing with these Trump accounts also was in
the bill. We know that the cap on state and
local tax deduction would be raised from ten thousand dollars
to forty thousand dollars, which is another measure that the
(07:00):
White House has been campaigning on. And the child tax credit,
if the Senate bill is approved, would increase to two
tho two hundred dollars. So there are definitely some caveats
for individuals and families that the Trump administration is you know,
hammering down on.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
So when we see the pushback that we saw from Murkowski, Collins,
till Us, Josh Hawley also that on some level is
performative Ashley. I mean, they make the points so that
their constituencies can be aware of the fact that they
push back because the deep cuts to Medicaid, for example,
but in the end they vote for the bill to
(07:35):
get it across the finish line.
Speaker 3 (07:38):
Sometimes that does happen, And as we know, we're heading
into a very crucial year with the term elections, and
so that's one of the reasons Tom Tillis again decided
to step back and say he would not put himself
in the dig for another Senate, uh Senate, a Senate
term because he knew that, you know, this could potentially
post some barriers to another re election.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
So and well, when till started squeaking, right, till Us
started pointing out the fact that, you know, mister President,
you promised you weren't going to touch medicaid. This bill
guts medicaid, et cetera. All of his words that were
quite pointed toward President Trump. President Trump didn't waste any
time to say, hey, great, glad you feel that way,
We'll see in the primaries. We're going to knock you
(08:18):
out office. And Tillis said, you know what, I'm going
to tap out. This is the end of it. That's
kind of the way it went down.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
Right, That's exactly the way it went down. And so
a lot of Republicans now, you know, not only are
they speaking out with the consciousness of what their constituency
might think, but they're also you know, speaking out and
being aware that the president is closely monitoring, you know,
what is being said, conversations that are being had, and
who he believes he can trust as a loyal partner
(08:47):
within Congress. So it's a very interesting time, especially with
the Trump administration right now.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Ashley, real quick, the the deficit increase the debt that
this all runs up. I believe it was the CBO
that had put the figure. Where was it that some
It's in the trillions, right, four.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
Trillion dollars, that's correct, Yeah, four trillion dollars. And so
President Trump has argued that with tariffs, with the rollback
of electric vehicle credits, and a boost and manufacturing and
some other measures that he plans to take on throughout
the next few months, that this large debt could be
possibly covered through other initiatives and measures. And so that's
(09:30):
something that it'll be good to keep an eye on
and watch how it plays out.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Yeah, I guess it will be. Well, you'll be doing that.
Thank you so much, Love the Hill, Love you for
spending a few moments with us, Ashley Fields, thank you.
And let's stay in touch on this all right. Uh yeah,
the reporting of The Hill has been really strong on this.
It's I'll share one thing about this big, beautiful bill.
This isn't a criticism of it, per se. I'm not
(09:57):
really we can do that another time. But I am
surprised by one super curious fact, and it relates to
the last thing we're talking about, which is about a
debt increase because they could have easily done something within
the bill and they didn't do it. And I'm again
(10:17):
it's a head scratcher to me. I'll share that with you,
and everybody would have been okay with it, I think,
But maybe you can tell me why they didn't. Anyway,
I'll tell you what that is. As we follow up
in a few minutes. Mark Thompson here for John COVID
it's the John Covelt Show or KFI AM six forty
live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
What I was saying about the one Big Beautiful Bill
as it's called, that made it through the Senate with
the winning vote cast by Vice President jd Vance. There
was a lot of sweat about this. I never really
thought that it wouldn't get across. I mean, I think
a lot of this is performative. We talked about it yesterday,
(11:03):
the fact, in fact talked about it with the ABC
News correspondence and others who were watching it, and we
just mentioned it a moment ago. The fact that one
needs to sometimes make a speech, sometimes go public with
certain reservations about passing a big bill like this which
includes a real ding to Medicaid, for example, which is
(11:24):
in many cases in the Senate, something that constituencies of
red states very much take advantage of. Anyway, you need
to make noise about this stuff so that your constituents know, hey,
you know my guy, generically my senator cares about this
and is bothered by this part of the bill. That way,
(11:47):
when you go back for reelection. This is true in
the House as well. Obviously you can say, hey, I
brought this up. I tried to get this modified. And
so it was with Lisa Murkowski. She made enough noise
that she was able to actually peel off some gifts
to her constituents to the state of Alaska. Some of
(12:08):
them were vetoed by the parliamentarian because they didn't have
enough to do with the money associated with this bill,
which is really what has to be as you know,
the rule of the day. It doesn't have to do
with money, then you can't pass it in the way
that they wanted to pass it, which was a simple majority.
So the parliamentarian stepped in the case of Murkowski, said hey,
(12:30):
I understand you want to give her all this stuff
but like these three things, you can't give her. So anyway,
she got some gifts and giveaways for the state of Alaska,
but others pushed away, I mean Ran Paul pushed away,
Tom Tillis, we talked about him, Susan Collins, they all
opposed the bill. But Murkowski of Alaska, she again, having
(12:54):
received some of these provisions that were beneficial to her state,
she the horse trading necessarily and gave them the vote
from her. And then it was Jade Vans, Who've got
it across the finish line. Now what's interesting to me,
just as a practical matter, is you've got bill here,
got a bill that's going to go to four trillion,
(13:19):
looks like based on CBO analysis and that's you know,
again independent analysis. And they're obviously tax cuts and benefits
that were first passed under the first Trump administration that
we're going to expire later this year. Now they are permanent.
And their new eligibility requirements for food stamps and Medicaid,
(13:39):
who talked about that some of that stuff is designed
just to get people off the rolls. They make the
paperwork so daunting, and as you know, when you're dealing
with any paperwork, but certainly government paperwork and certainly government
handout paperwork. It has to be done perfectly in order
to get it, so that could mean twelve million Americans
(14:01):
lose coverage within the next nine years. In any case,
this will get dinged around a bit in the House
of Representatives. Also, obviously it has to go back there
and there'll be a second vote, and it'll then go
to Trump's desk for signature. Doubt it'll happen by the
fourth of July, which was wanted, but never know. Anyway,
(14:24):
this four trillion what's interesting to me. And by the way,
that four trillion is a trillion more than the House bill. Okay,
so there's actually a much bigger price tag coming out
of the Senate bill than the House bill. But one
of the big things, and you've heard it talked about,
and we've mentioned it numerous times, and other hosts on
this station have talked about it as well, is the
(14:44):
ding on Medicaid. I mean, the Medicaid support for low
income families and rural health care providers. We've talked about
rural hospitals that depend on Medicaid money. I mean, that's
a real issue, right, And you're talking about what would
be another trillion dollars on the US credit card. Now
(15:08):
I can see all the arguments in the world for
why you don't want to run up the debt. I mean,
you know, you keep running up this debt, and when
you need to spend like a COVID nineteen outbreak, like
an eight market crash, when you need that money, you
can't spend it because you're already in so much debt.
(15:29):
So I get that argument, and maybe that's the reason
that the Senate and House they don't address this medicaid thing.
I would have thought, hey, guys, if you're going to
run into so many political headwinds because this medicaid thing,
why don't you just include it. It's only another trillion dollars.
And you guys don't seem to care about all these trillions.
(15:52):
You're at four trillion, now, what's five trillion? It seems
odd perhaps, but to me that might be politically more
palatable than what they decided to do, which was to
historically cut and medicaid in these programs that their constituencies
depend on. So again, if you look at the projected debt,
(16:17):
you could have increased that projected debt for close to
a trillion dollars. That is what the Medicare bill is.
It's a little under that, and in so doing, no
one has to give up anything. They decided not to
do it, and they're still likely a price to pay
(16:37):
for the way they did it when we come back.
It is a big story. In fact, I would say legally, boy,
there's a lot of stuff in the legal pipeline that
are equally getting attention. I'm thinking about the Sean Combs
p Didy case and this case involving the plea deal
(17:02):
in Idaho. These Idaho college murders, Bryan Koberger agreeing to
a plea deal and the family is furious, I say
the family. There are multiple families involved. I mean, after all,
these are four college students murdered in cold blood, and
this guy will never actually have to face the families
(17:23):
in court. We'll talk to Alex Stone from ABC. Next,
it's the John co Belt Show. Mark Thompson sitting in
for John on KFI AM six forty Live everywhere on
the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 4 (17:35):
You're listening to John Cobelts on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
I listened with interest as the details of the new
Trump cologne become available.
Speaker 5 (17:48):
I are you going to buy some?
Speaker 2 (17:50):
It's a little pricey at two forty nine a bottle,
it's expensive. I mean I was thinking of something I'd
like to, you know, pick up a little gifty of
some sort.
Speaker 5 (18:00):
Well, do you know somebody that wants to smell like
President tru.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
I do, And he's we're going to talk to him
next Alex Stone. Oh I know, Oh yeah, Alex Stone.
I think would be this is the kind of fragrance
that would whip people's head around, you know what I mean.
Speaker 6 (18:12):
Oh, but you know what, don't go cheap? But two
forty nine? Can you go for the five hundred dollars bottle?
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Thank you? He's right when he talks about a more
expensive bottle. Two forty nine is just kind of the
entry price. I think they have a you know, if
you want to it depends how much Colonne you're going
to need. I mean I see it as kind of
a holiday, special occasion thing when you want to smell
like success.
Speaker 6 (18:32):
Yeah, well it is just hanging out of mar A Lago.
But okay, you know they want to spell like mar
A Lago.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
It is called Victory cologne. As Deborah was detailing, and
I'll take a meeting on a Debora. You will, Yeah,
if you want like a stocking stuffer for.
Speaker 5 (18:48):
Me, I was going to say, maybe, you know what,
I'll get it for Alex because he seems really maybe
I'll get one for each of you, thank you. I'm
not going to go for five dollars.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Look, I'm not going to fight with Alex Stone over
who gets the cologne that week. So you better get
it either for both of us or for neither of us. Yes,
all right, Alex is here to talk about a grizzly
thing but also a legal thing. It's the Idaho College murders.
This Brian Koberger. I mean, he murdered these four Idaho
college students in their sleep, and he makes a plea
(19:23):
deal and the family doesn't seem the families, I should say,
don't seem at all happy.
Speaker 6 (19:29):
Yeah, you're right, and I mean allegedly at this point
he did it, because he hasn't actually changed his plea yet. Well, tomorrow,
I'm outside of the the Ada County Courthouse in Emboisi
right now, and this is where he's going to walk
in tomorrow, and if all goes according to plan, tell
the judge that he now admits to these crimes that
he's fought for three years, and that he has claimed
(19:50):
and his attorneys have said that the DNA can't be trusted,
and that the evidence was collected illegally, and the warrants
are not legal, and cell phone data is not accurate,
and the judge has come against all of that and said, no,
that's going to be allowed in It seems like they
got to the point where they didn't think there was
any way they were going to get in a quittle here.
And we understand that last week the defense, Brian Coberger's
(20:13):
defense team came to prosecutors and said, let's make a deal,
give us a deal and if you take the death pedalty,
which here at Idaho is a firing squad is a
primary means of death. Fairly knew that was brought into
effects several months ago, that he does not want the
firing squad and let's get a deal. So that the
(20:33):
discussions began last week and the families they're not happy
about this whatsoever. Kaylee Gonzalvez, one of the victims, her
dad Steve, is livid about this. He says they were
not brought into it. They heard there were discussions on Friday,
and then on Monday they got an email or on
Sunday night they got an email telling him it was
a done deal and that there would be no trial.
(20:55):
And they they're angry. They want this to go to trial.
They feel like a trial that they will learn where
the murder weapon is or was, what the motive of
it was, what went down inside the house on King
Road in Moscow, Idaho, and all of that they may
never know because there will be no trial, there will
be no testimony. But they also want them to get
(21:16):
the firing squad. They want them to put to death
for what he still allegedly but if he really does
plead guilty tomorrow what he did, but at this point
looks like he'll avoid that, he'll get life in prison.
Speaker 2 (21:28):
You lay it out well in making me begin to
understand why the families wanted their moment in court, Why
they want a lot of these grizzly details out there,
as you say, motive, etc. They want to know that
as well. But I wonder why the families weren't consulted.
From what I'm hearing, there was not a lot of
(21:48):
consultation with those families about this deal.
Speaker 6 (21:52):
Yeah, Well, they say that they had that discussion on Friday,
they were going to heads up on a call, and
then it went forward without them, and so that the
judge may have some questions about that. Tomorrow. The judge
could torpedo this whole thing if he wanted to. Unlikely
when there's an agreement between the prosecution and the defense. Look,
it's beneficial to both sides because the defense is going
(22:12):
to avoid the death penalty. The prosecution avoids millions of
dollars spent on what was going to be a three
to four month trial that we were all going to
be here covering that was going to begin in a
couple of weeks. That they know they get a conviction.
You never know with the jury what you're going to
get in the end. You may think that you've got
great evidence and the jury may acquit him or decide
do they want to go with a lesser charge or
(22:34):
something like that. And this gets rid of years of appeals.
He is going to admit that he committed these crimes
that he will not appeal. He's going to go to
prison for the rest of his life for life terms
will be the deal for the murders. Ten more years
for burglary for entering the King Roade home, and they
know he's going to be put away and it won't
go through, especially on a death penalty case. He would
(22:54):
have gone through probably decades of appeals and the high
profile you know, death penalty case in California where there's
still appealing and trying to get the cases overturned. So
this ends all of that and he just you know,
when it happens tomorrow, there will be a sentencing date set,
probably at the end of July. He'll get that sentence
and then he'll go off to prison for the rest
of his life.
Speaker 2 (23:14):
Alex Stone, thank you. The deal is done. It would
seem as Alex says, it'll be finalized tomorrow. In that
Idaho college murder case. Always good to talk to you.
Thank you, my friend.
Speaker 6 (23:24):
Send me Trump cologne up here to the Ada County Courthouse. Please,
he'll be waiting for it.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
You'll be able to smell it coming all right. So
also another verdict that was a plea deal. This is
an actual verdict in the p Diddy case.
Speaker 5 (23:40):
Yeah, this is just coming in now. We have a
partial verdict that has been reached in the Seawan diddycomb
sex trafficking and racketeering case. So it's not clear when
this is going to be announced. But again the jury
says that it does have a partial verdict in this
Sean Diddycomb's case, so we are waiting to hear more.
(24:00):
We don't know when this is going to be announced.
But this did not take very long at all.
Speaker 2 (24:06):
No, this is amazing, especially since they had a hiccup
in the first hour.
Speaker 5 (24:10):
With that juror and then five notes were sent to
the judge.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
Bye, you were thinking we're going to be doing this
dance for a while, but as it turns out, all right.
So we're watching this minute to minute in the KFI
newsroom and we'll give you more details obviously as we
get them. It's John Cobelt Joe Mark Thompson sitting in
for John on KFI A six forty Live everywhere on
the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 4 (24:33):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
John is away Mark Thompson here. We're just watching the
situation with the Sean Combe's Ditty trial and it's been
an interesting It's only the second day of deliberations, right, Deborah, Yeah,
that's it.
Speaker 5 (24:52):
So well, this this just happened. So the jury has
reached a verdict on four of five counts, and the
is indicating that the jury is going to keep on deliberating.
So I don't know if we're going to get something
today or something tomorrow, but four out of five is
what they have a verdict on.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
They've sent the judge six notes, including one this afternoon.
He has five criminal counts. It's racketeering conspiracy, two counts
of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, and two
counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. Of course, he
denies all of it, and there's a considerable body of
(25:36):
opinion that feels as though he's going to walk. Really,
I know, that's what I said. Really, there seems to
be so much in the way of testimony. And again,
just speaking of testimony, the jury has asked that certain
(25:56):
testimony be read back to them, and they've asked to
review you the key witness testimony. Again, you can tell
me does that mean they're leaning toward me a quittal
and mean, you know, I don't know that you can
tell much from that. It's ah, it would be extraordinary
(26:17):
for me with with with the kind of evidence they have,
the nature of the crime, the video, evidence of him
being so abusive to his girlfriend. I mean that, you know,
the attempt to suppress that video. You know, he paid
one hundred thousand dollars to a hotel worker to try
to get rid of that video. It would be extraordinary
if you walk. But there is you know, people I
(26:40):
respect and who watch this stuff for saying, I don't know,
I think he might anyway, the jury has reached a
partial verdict. Will continue to watch it for you. I
need a lawyer actually personally. How come you know I
was coming back from the tennis match in the desert,
and you know, when you're driving that on the ten
(27:02):
back into La It was about twenty miles out of town.
It was night time, like I want to say, ten
o'clock at night. Was there with my pal. We just
come for the tennis, went down there just for the day.
I'm in the carpool lane and Devor the car got
away from me. I you know, it's I was going fast,
so the speed got away from me. Oh, I was
(27:24):
going to say, I don't mean to say. I don't
even say it was an accident. No, I don't have
any accidents on my record, and I thought to myself,
I don't have any speeding tickets on my record. So
when they sent me the speeding ticket, the guy was
very nice and it was all just sort of like,
this is the problem. I just didn't view it as
a big deal when he sent me the ticket, and
(27:48):
when the court sent me the ticket, I just had
the view just pay it. You know, it's not a
big deal. I'm not going to go to traffic court
over it, just going to pay it. Well, that may
have been one of the most expensive things that I've
done from a decision making a standpoint in years. It's
incredibly expensive. How much so the ticket isn't expensive. The
(28:09):
ticket is expensive. Actually, the ticket was like you want
to say, it's like four hundred dollars, Like, wow, that's
a lot. But okay, I'm done with it. You know,
it's a stupid thing. I was going too fast. I mean,
I wasn't going insanely fast, but maybe you know, I
was going above the limit, NA fifteen above the limit
and now here is where the shoe pinches. Uh my insurance,
(28:29):
my car insurance. Oh yeah, yeah, it's thousands of dollars
a year. And this is I'm shopping it right now,
and it's it's a ton of money. And they all
say it's because of the moving violation that one decision
not to contest or not to go to traffic school
(28:50):
or in any.
Speaker 5 (28:51):
Way bad decision.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
Yeah, so let this be a word to all of you.
Because the officer even said, oh, you're for traffic school.
You have not a ticket in a long time. I said,
oh great, I'm thinking to myself, I'm not going to
traffic school. I'll just pay it. And you know, we
got here.
Speaker 5 (29:07):
You can do traffic school online. I mean it's a
pain in that you know what, sure it really is.
Speaker 2 (29:12):
But you know what's a pain, and that you know
what paying thousands of dollars for car insurance? Oh I know.
And so yeah, I was actually looking into once you've
paid the ticket, and this again might be news you
can use, as they used to say, the ability that
you have to go back and get traffic schooled, or
(29:34):
get the points removed from your license, or get the
whole thing expunged or whatever. It goes away the minute
you pay the ticket, because that's viewed as an admission
of guilt. And so if you want to try to
get that vacated or expunged. You can't do it in
the case of a traffic ticket unless maybe they're maybe
(29:56):
you know, I don't know, the dense beard of justice
might be able to do it, you know what I
mean the Yeah, don't you think I mean if I anything, Yeah, yeah,
but I'm throwing more at a situation that's already costing
me a bunch, you know.
Speaker 5 (30:13):
Mark, Sometimes you know, we have to we learn our
lessons and they're not easy, which is true, spoken like
a good mother, right, yeah, I know.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
Yeah, Not even sweet James can get me out of
this show.
Speaker 5 (30:27):
I don't think so.
Speaker 6 (30:28):
I mean, you never know.
Speaker 2 (30:29):
Yeah, sweet James, if you're out there, I'm putting up
the bad beam. I need help. Come on. But when
they offer you that traffic school, take at kids, because
otherwise that insurance is excruciatingly expensive. I'm sorry.
Speaker 5 (30:45):
I don't mean to be so judgy, but I'm really
surprised that you didn't do the traffic school.
Speaker 2 (30:50):
No, thank you. I'm worthy of all the judginess and
all the whip what do they call that self flagellation
or that thing that they do The monks used to
do where they whipped themselves. Oh yeah, yeah, that's what
I feel like I need like a whole day of that.
I am so angry at myself. It's just it's brutal.
(31:10):
But it's also it's also a squeeze I think by
the insurance companies.
Speaker 5 (31:15):
Oh, don't even get me started. John and I talk
about insurance companies and the insurance commissioner and what he
isn't doing.
Speaker 2 (31:24):
All the time. I mean, you know, it's one thing
to talk about crime on the streets. It's not talking
thing of to talk about crime that's hitting you every
month in an envelope, and that's coming from the insurance company.
I mean, it's really it's stealing. They should get a
mask and a gun and just come take my money.
It's ridiculous. It really is excessive if you look. And
(31:48):
this is just in my case, of course, we see
it in now with the way that insurance companies are
pulling out of California where their rate increases are being
green La.
Speaker 5 (31:57):
I mean, in some instances, it's crazy.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
I mean it's obscene, it really is. And in my case,
you look at my driving record, it's impeccable. Okay, so
I have this taken not anymore, and it's thirty six months.
It's on your record. I've learned more about this in
the last day than I ever wanted to know. Oh,
I'm really sorry, Thank you. And again, if there's a
(32:22):
there's a good lawyer out there it wants to take
a crack at it. But I think it's a I
think it's a done deal. I think it's a deal.
I'm no lawyer, but yeah, when we come back, there
is landmark environmental legislation that is getting erased here in
California by the governor. Yeah, two bills written by Democrats.
(32:45):
You know, you associate them with environmental legislation. That's why
I mention it. But they are serving another purpose and
another end. We'll get to that as we continue. And
also watching the Diddy trial, which again there is a
partial verdict on, and Michael Monks joins us on the
(33:08):
entire sanctuary city pushback between Mayor Bass and the Trump
administration that has only gotten uglier. We'll do it next.
It's the John Cobalt Show. Mark Thompson sitting in on
KFI AM six forty. We're live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
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
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.