February 26, 2025 • 33 mins
The John Kobylt Show Hour 3 (02/26) - Alex Stone comes on the show to talk about Gov. Newsom possibly getting involved with the Menendez Brothers case. 100 National Intelligence employees were fired for using an internal chat for sexting. A CA Assemblyman from LA wants to introduce a bill that will restrict self-defense against crime. What does the majority of America support?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Can't.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
I am six forty.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
You're listening to the John Cobelt Podcast on the iHeartRadio app.
Welcome to the show. God, you missed two hours already
if you're just joining us. That's why we had this
podcast posted after four o'clock. John Cobelt Show on demand
on the iHeart app. And among the things that we
(00:23):
have already done, as we talked to say Ed Kashani
from the Palisades, he's found out that the Department of
Water and Power is erasing things on their website regarding
that empty reservoir. If you didn't hear that interview, you
should listen to that. That was the two o'clock hour.
And we also talked to Matt Pakucko and he's with
(00:45):
the group. There are protesting in some cases physically the
toxic waste that's coming in dump trucks headed for the
Calabasas and Granada Hills and Lancaster landfills, and the supervisors told.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Him yesterday to stuff it.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Voted five to nothing and said no, we are bringing
the toxic waste to your neighborhoods. So those that are
on the podcast now we're going to talk with Alex Stone.
This is making headlines all over the world after it
became clear that Nathan Hockman doesn't have a whole a
lot of interest in helping out the Menendez brothers got
(01:20):
a new trial or get them resentenced favorably. Now Newsome
is looks like he's considering giving him clemency. And that's
what Alex Stone from ABC News is going to talk
about here. Hey there, John, Yeah, today the door may
have opened up a little bit for the Menendez brothers
and getting clemens here or maybe not. We don't know
(01:41):
what the governor is thinking here, but he is ordering
and he claims that this is what they do in
a lot of these clemency requests, and he was kind
of waiting to see if the courts would do it
or if the DA would do it, and that and
then it wouldn't There wouldn't be a reason to get
clemency for them if they were going to be out anyway.
But he's asking the California Parole Board to do a
(02:01):
risk assessment on them, the report back and let him
know if they would be a risk to society if
they were to be let out. So they have asked
for clemency until now. Newsoman had said that that he
was waiting today on his new iHeart podcasts, so called
this is Gavin Newsom. It's no longer politicking with Marshawn
Lynch now it's this is Gavin Newsom.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
He explained what he's doing. You put it like this.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
The question for the board is a rather simple one.
Do Eric M Lymanendez do they pose a current what
we call unreasonable risk to public safety?
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Yeah, okay, So even among police and prosecutors who believe
that they should remain in it, it's somewhat hard for
police to argue that if they got out that they
would murder again. The likelihood is that they probably would
not murder of parents to kill. So well, yeah, so
that you got to look at what is prison for.
Is it about keeping the public safe or is it
(02:54):
about the paying the price, about consequences for for your
actions and punishment punishment. It's going to come down for
the governor to some of this that he's going to
have to decide on that. But it's not likely that
this border is going to come back and say these
two thirty six years later are very likely that they're
going to murder again and commit the crime again. So
(03:16):
they're probably going to come back rated as low risk
if they were to get out, and he said.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
There's no guarantee of outcome here. My office conducts dozens
and dozens of these clemency reviews on a consistent basis,
But this process simply provides more transparency, which I think
is important in this case.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
So this comes to the brothers. They're going to go
before a judge in a couple of weeks in March.
They're resentencing hearing that was delayed from December to January.
December they delayed because Hawkman came in and didn't have
enough time, he hadn't read all the files. Then January
was delayed because of the wildfires. Now it's in March
and they're going to try to prove the brothers that
(03:54):
they have been rehabilitated in prison. They are multiple ways
they could get out. This is going to be one
of them. And it was last week that Hawkman kind
of poured cold water on their habeas corpus attempt, that
is their attempt saying they should get a new trial
and their old case, their old conviction should be tossed
out because they didn't get a fair trial or trials
back in the nineties, and Hawkman said, yeah, you did,
(04:16):
and that sexual assault, while if it did go on,
is terribly sad and tragic that that is not a
defense for double murder, and that it hadn't that it
came up in general, but this new letter had not
come up until more recently, so they don't know about
the authenticity of it. So that the pro board is
going to be they're going to give this report to
(04:37):
the judge and to the DA about the resentencing hearing
in case they want to take that in a couple
of weeks into consideration. Whatever the board finds, he had.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
Going to make the findings, by the way, available to
the judges presiding over the resentencing motion in La Superior Court,
as well of course to the District Attorney himself.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
And so this no one of these avenues is going
to be quick. Attorney Mark Garrigos, we all know he
has said that that he's hopeful that they're going to
be out by the end of this year. Now remember
he had said by last Thanksgiving. Oh yeah, that's right,
I said Christmas. Now he's saying by the end of
twenty twenty five, a court could do it, which seems
like Newsom is still kind of hoping that the DA
or the courts make this decision.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
He doesn't have to do it.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Newsom could make the decision, or nobody might lead them out.
They there is the chance that everybody's gonna say no,
the jury said life in prison.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
They murdered their parents, shotgun them to death.
Speaker 1 (05:27):
That that sexual assault is not a defense for a
self defense, uh for for murder in this case, and
that maybe they'll remain in We don't know, all right, Alex,
it's very disturbing news Yeah, but he's gonna ask for
that report, so so we'll see what they say. But
most likely they're going to come back and say low risk.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
I don't care how many caveats and denials he offers.
He wants.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
He wants to let them out otherwise because you don't
have to you don't have to conjure up a risk
report the risk. It doesn't matter what they did. They
should be punished into eternity. They have gotten the death penalty. Yeah, well,
well we'll see and can you imagine that day of
them getting out, how crazy it's going to be? Uh yes,
(06:08):
I And you know what the next next case like
this is going to be Luis Mangione. He's getting the
same treatment from the young women as Menendez brothers. All right,
thank you, Alex, Alex ABC News. My god, did you
see speaking of Mangione that he is getting so many
photos and letters that his lawyers are asking these and
(06:33):
it's almost all crazy young women that to stop sending
the photos or limit them to five to five photos
per entry. It's almost like rules on the contest. Yeah,
you can only submit five photos for MANGIONI to look at.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
And I'm did you see the photo?
Speaker 1 (06:53):
Did we talk about this yesterday or was I talking
to somebody off air?
Speaker 4 (06:56):
No, we weren't talking about this.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
Well, did you see the group of women who were
waiting for him? No, because he was led into a
hearing and some kind of hearing yesterday and all these
women were gathering near the courthouse or in the hallways
or whatever.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
A lot of overfed ladies.
Speaker 4 (07:15):
Yes, okay, So you're saying that there were no attractive women.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Uh no, No, there weren't any. They were.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
You could see why they'd be so lonely that they're
writing to Luigi Mangione hoping to get his attention.
Speaker 4 (07:32):
I didn't say that ladies and gentlemen, Okay, don't be
sending me your mean messages.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
I'm trying to understand, like the psychological type. Here, you
have a guy who shot somebody dead on the street
and it's on video, and unless we have jury, Nolfic.
Speaker 4 (07:48):
Can can look at the mens. Brothers.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
Oh, I don't understand that. I don't understand that either.
I mean there's a you don't see guys like you
remember you remember? Oh? Who could I I'm trying to
think of a one men who did a high profile shooting.
I mean, there aren't too many of them. I remember
remember Gerald Ford, he had two women shooted him back
(08:13):
in the mid seventies. One of them the name was
Squeaky Frome. I just remember seeing her photo.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
See what she looked like.
Speaker 4 (08:23):
No, I don't know, all.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Right, the crazy eyes, wild eyes. There was no group
of men waiting outside the courtroom for Squeaky fron That.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
That's not a thing that guys do. I remember.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
You know you've seen video, old video of like what
happened with girls in the in the Beatles, right, and
even going back to Frank Sinatra, Guys don't do that.
There's some kind of hormone overload. That young women suffer,
especially if it's a good looking man and they've got
some notoriety. They're on stage, they got you know, they sing,
(08:58):
they're a star, or you know, they've made it a
high profile murder, and and it just causes this this
hormone dysfunction. And for the ones who were especially lonely,
they camp out in the courtroom and they're sick. And
what kind of pictures are these women sending? I mean,
I can't imagine.
Speaker 4 (09:13):
Okay, but guys send, uh, send certain pictures.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
Sure, well they're showing off their yes, yeah, their attributes. Yes.
Speaker 4 (09:28):
So you guys do weird things too, I know.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
Uh, speaking of that when we come back. The National
Security Agency is run by Telsea Gabbard, and she has
fired one hundred employees. She's the director of National Intelligence.
And these hundred employees were using the internal chat logs,
(09:52):
you know where the employees talk to each other. Yeah,
the internal text messages, and they were discussing all sorts
of sexual acts, the sexual practices, and also sexual operations
that they had undergone in great detail, operations well you'll
see coming up. It's things I've never heard of before,
(10:14):
never thought of before. And I'm really sorry to introduce
this publicly, but you have to understand everything I say
about government is true. These people are are corrupt and
sick and stupid, and our tax dollars are paying for him.
Emphasis on the sick part. When I tell you what's
coming up, we can't wait next, well, I think I
(10:34):
might clear the room.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
Here.
Speaker 5 (10:36):
You're listening to John Cobel's on demand from KFI AM.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Six forty every day. We're on from one until four.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
The moistline is eight seven seven moistdaty six eight seven
seven moist staty six. So you use the talk back
feature on the iHeartRadio app. The National Security Agency is
one of the major intelligence agencies. Tulsey Gabberd, the form
of Democratic congresswoman, is now running it. Trump nominated her
and she got through the Senate and she is now
(11:08):
going through the National Security Agency with her own chainsaw.
One of the claims that Tulci Gabbard made, and this
got Trump's attention and approval, was the all the intelligence agencies,
including the CIA, were just hopelessly woke and just obsessed
with diversity and equity and inclusion, kind of like what
(11:30):
took over the DWP they they got so sidetracked with
that nonsense. They never bothered to stick a hose in
the reservoir and fill it up in the palisades. Well,
the National Security Agency had their version and when you
when you're with the NSA, you have to sign an
agreement stating that you will use this service called Intelink,
(11:52):
and Intelink is the chat messaging system that NSA employees
can use to communicate with each other internally. And if
you publish anything, any material that's non mission related, then
you could end up getting fired.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
Well, they went through the logs and it looks like
there were a.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
Lot of non mission related discussions going on among some
really weird employees. They looked through two years and Christopher Ruffo,
we've had him on the show in the past, he's
writing about this for the City Journal. He described them
as lurid, wide ranging discussions of sex, kink, polyamory. You
(12:37):
know what that is. You don't know what polyamory. That's
when you have sex with multiple partners. Okay, maybe at once.
Speaker 4 (12:44):
I just call it group sex, or.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
You know, sometimes you have wide They don't all have
to be in the same pilot at the same time.
It's just that you're you're, you have a you have
a lot of action going on depending on the night.
Speaker 2 (12:59):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
And castration was another popular topic, and you're saying castration.
Why would National Security Agency employees be discussing castration?
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Okay, here we go.
Speaker 1 (13:11):
One popular chat topic, because remember they were hiring based
on diversity. One popular topic was male to female transgender surgery.
And there are quite a few of these of these
patients and they would describe in detail what was done
to their bodies and what they liked about it. Transgender
(13:36):
surgery can involve surgically removing a man's penis and then
turning it into an artificial lady part. One male who
said he had the gender reconstruction surgery, also known as GRS.
Mine is everything talking about his new part, I've found
(13:57):
that I like being penetrated. Never liked it before GRS.
But all the rest is just as important as well.
Another intelligence official intelligence official boasted that his genital surgery
allowed him to wear leggings or bikinis without having to
(14:18):
wear a gaff under it.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
Now, what's a gaff?
Speaker 4 (14:24):
You know this one?
Speaker 2 (14:25):
I looked it up online. Yeah, like Merriam Webster.
Speaker 4 (14:31):
I have a feeling I know, but oh, I.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
Take a shot. Let me see if it matches one
of the definitions.
Speaker 4 (14:35):
It's something to hold something in place.
Speaker 2 (14:39):
Well, it can be a hook.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
Or I mean it says a handled hook for lifting
heavy fish, a metal spur for a game cock, a
butcher's hook. I don't see anything that makes you believe
you can win this on your body and that it
makes it easier to where bikinis are. Oh, unless it's
(15:06):
something that would hold your mail part. That's what I
was saying.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
Oh.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
Yes, And they were discussing this on the intelligence channels.
Speaker 4 (15:13):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
They also discussed hair removal, estrogen injections, and the experience
of sexual pleasure post castration after the big chop.
Speaker 4 (15:28):
This is all where anybody could see it.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
All the other employees.
Speaker 4 (15:32):
Wow, this is We have teams here, microscoft.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Teams, well, chick teams.
Speaker 4 (15:37):
I need to do a little research here, see what
goes on.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
Here's another quote and I'm going to have to like
rewrite this a bit. One person wrote that getting one
of his orifices let's say you could you could guess,
zapped by a laser was shocking.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
He spent thousands of dollars on hair removal. Look, I
just didn't.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
That's why other helping other people experience rests, said another
about estrogen treatments. So they took a lot of estrogen
and they got all pumped up on top, and some.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
Of their friends can. I don't know how to describe this. One.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
One of them wrote, quote, one of the weirdest things
that gives me euphoria is when they urinate. I don't
have to push anything down to make sure it aims right.
Speaker 4 (16:31):
Oh my god, I cannot believe these people are writing
about this stuff.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
National intelligence officials, Wow, which which is true? I could
see if I transition to a woman, one of the
benefits would be you don't have to worry about accidentally
soaking the wall.
Speaker 4 (16:45):
You know, you could get Yes, I can see that.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
According to Christopher Rufo sources, the sex chats were legitimized
as part of the National Security Administration's commitment to diversity,
equity and inclusion.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
Here we go active this within the agency.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
Put together LGBDQ plus employee resource groups so they could
discuss their kinks and pathologies into official work duties. They
described that DEI was not only mission critical, but mission imperative,
which means discussing all their sexual habits was part of
(17:23):
the mission and therefore doesn't violate the rules of the
chat rooms.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
There's more.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
So, this diversity became a euphemism for sex talk. Last January,
chat room members discussed the practice of polyamory, also known
as ethical non monogamy. That's where everybody participates in sex
with a wide range of people, either separate or together.
It's called a polycule. You know what a polycule is
(17:54):
a polyamorous group. For example, this guy wrote A is
my girlfriend. He gave letters to all his partners, and
then BCD EFG are her partners. Now B and C
are dating, but not C and D, nor E, F
ANDNG with any of the others, although there are several
(18:15):
friends with benefits connections. You follow that. Another employee complain
claimed to be a member of a nine member polycule,
adding that some of our friends are practically polymers with
all the connected compounds.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
Does sound hot and sexy, though.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
The source at the NSA claimed to have witnessed hundreds
of sexually provocative discussions occurring mostly on taxpayer time. The
former NSA source said he recalls being disgusted by a
particularly shocking thread a particularly shocking thread discussing weekend gang banks.
(18:59):
There was one NSA employee who insisted on using the
IT pronoun instead of he or she. The pronoun he
used was it. It's I understand we can make some
people uncomfortable. Keep in mind that the dehumanizing aspect either
doesn't apply or is a positive effect when we're requesting it.
(19:20):
Refusing to use the it or its pronouns mounted to
erasing a transgender identity. So it used to be if
you called somebody an it, that was an insult. This
person was demanding being called an it. An NSA source says,
they're folks with top secret clearances believing they are an it.
Speaker 4 (19:39):
You can't make this stuff up.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
No, this was written. Christopher Rufo saw the texts this
is the government. So a hundred of them got fired
by Tilson Gabbert today. Wow, it is way worse than
I could have imagined.
Speaker 4 (19:55):
I don't even know what to say, John, I mean,
I don't even understand most of that.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
You live a clean life. You don't know what a
polycule is?
Speaker 4 (20:04):
No, I did you know what it was?
Speaker 2 (20:05):
No? No? And I was never invited.
Speaker 4 (20:07):
And I never I never thought about being an it.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
Being an invited to a polycule.
Speaker 4 (20:13):
No, yeah, I mean we are just not living life.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
No, we're not. Apparently, I'm just going home.
Speaker 5 (20:20):
You're listening to John Cobel's on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (20:26):
I'm just looking up a moro on Hold on a second.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
Do you know there is an assembly man out of
Los Angeles here who has written a bill that would
eliminate certain circumstances in which homicide is justifiable.
Speaker 4 (20:48):
Yeah. So that means that somebody breaks into your house
and you shoot them, that that's not justified.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
That's what he's trying to take away. His name is
Rick ziburr zbu. Is that how you say his name?
You know?
Speaker 4 (21:02):
I yeah, that's good enough.
Speaker 1 (21:04):
Rick zi Burg And he represents Los Angeles. It's Assembly
Bill thirteen thirty three. Pay attention to this, especially if
you own a gun, especially if you live in one
of those cities where there's where they're not like Los Angeles,
where they're not enforcing criminal law very much. It would
(21:26):
eliminate certain circumstances in which homicide is justifiable, including in
defense of your property when the person. According to the bill,
a homicide would not be justified when the person was
outside of their residence and knew that using force would
(21:49):
cause death or great bodily injury. But it could have
been avoided if you were treated okay, likes, there's a
crazy guy your property that you think is going to
do you harm, maybe kill you. You're supposed to run outside,
and if you kill him first, it's not justified. If
(22:13):
it's determined that you could have retreated, you're supposed to
make that. You're supposed to make that decision and then
hope you're right because the guy could follow you. You know,
you could retreat and ever here, follow home robberies. What's
wrong with this guy?
Speaker 4 (22:31):
Now? Isn't he trying to walk this back?
Speaker 1 (22:34):
He's getting a ton of criticisms. Yeah, but he wrote it.
Speaker 4 (22:37):
This was his bill, yes, and now he's trying to
amend it because he's getting a lot of criticism.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
I wanted to start running. He's got to delete this bill.
He's got to erase this bill. This bill has to
be torn into little pieces and flush down a toilet. Also,
homicide wouldn't be justified when the person used more force
than was necessary than was reasonably necessary to defend against
(23:06):
the danger.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
Well, how do you figure that out to say, how
do you know this is this is crazy?
Speaker 4 (23:13):
Let me think.
Speaker 1 (23:16):
The bad guy comes on your property or into your
house threatening, you can't say, hmm, do I have time
to retreat here?
Speaker 2 (23:23):
And where should I retreat to?
Speaker 1 (23:24):
Let's talk this over right, and if I use force
against you, what would be reasonable for us?
Speaker 2 (23:29):
Do you think?
Speaker 1 (23:31):
Oh my god, he is insane? So I'm looking him up,
and once again it's all about woke stuff. I'm looking
at his Wikipedia page. He's an attorney, well known LGBT
civil rights advocate, and first openly gay non incumbent and
a congressional primary and now he's an assembly person.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
It's it's it's all.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
About that stuff, not about he's insane and he's trying
to take away our right to defend ourselves when one
of the bad guys that he will put in prison
breaks into our house or breaks onto our property and
we feel threatened and scared, and you never know what
crazy people are gonna do, especially the ones in Los
(24:17):
Angeles that are racked out on drugs and mentally ill.
And it's all these vague, ambiguous all this ambiguous language
like well, more forced than is reasonably justified. You can't
analyze that in the heat of the moment, it's impossible,
there's no way to do it. And then after it's happened,
how are you gonna determine.
Speaker 2 (24:38):
You can't.
Speaker 4 (24:39):
Why don't you talk to Governor Nusimana's new podcast about this?
Speaker 2 (24:42):
Well, that's another thing I would bring up.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
Oh my god, how do these why do these people
get into office? He represents Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and
Santa Monica.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
Oh geez, close to me, this is where, this.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
Is what lives around me. The thing is, all the
people on the west side, a lot of them have
bought guns. Friends of my back guns exactly because look
what's been going on the last five years.
Speaker 4 (25:14):
Well, look what happened to Gascon. People have said enough
is enough. So why does this guy think that this bill,
that this bill is okay?
Speaker 1 (25:22):
After we kicked out Gascon, we passed Prop thirty six,
and now this guy wants to take away our right
to kill an intruder.
Speaker 4 (25:30):
Well, let's see what would happen if an intruder comes
to his house. Is he gonna go and sit and
let's have some coffee and let's talk about this point.
The gun away from my face.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
Please, that's right, sit down, Let's have some tea. I
don't really like that gun under my jaw there.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
Would you?
Speaker 1 (25:52):
Let's talk about this, uh shemblyman Tom Lackey from Palmdale.
You see, you have normal people in Palmdale and they
own guns. They know how to deal with bad guys.
Because you have the government putting a multiple rapist in
the neighborhood. Whatever happened to the Pillowcase rapist? Was he
put into the house in Juniper Hills. Yet some manly
(26:15):
in time Lackie said, this bill is a complete assault
on self defense. Imagine this, a violent criminal breaks into
your home and you have to second guess whether defending
your family is justifiable. This misguided energy behind the proposal
is beyond comprehension. Now he's saying the bill wasn't intended
(26:38):
to limit self defense.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
Well, yes it was. Are you insane? It says in
the bill.
Speaker 1 (26:46):
When you're outside of your residence and you knew that
using force would likely cause death a great bodily injury
if it could have been avoided with complete safety by retreating,
that is an impossible concept to accurately analyze. In the
moment you cannot determine whether you are retreating fast enough,
(27:09):
and you're gonna end up in complete safety, especially if
the guy keeps chasing you.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
Why do you.
Speaker 1 (27:14):
Give Why do they give rights to people who want
to kill you and who want to rob you, who
are psychotic, who've been dumped out of prison by idiot
politicians like Rick Zebber?
Speaker 2 (27:26):
What the f? I mean? What is this? You can't
defend yourself.
Speaker 4 (27:33):
Because you don't know if the bad person is really
gonna hurt you, is really gonna hurt your family. I mean,
maybe they'll shoot you in the leg, but you'll survive.
So it's not fair if you shoot the guy in
the heart and he dies.
Speaker 1 (27:47):
Yeah, you should be penalized because you're a good shot.
This is crazy and the person used more forced than
was reasonably necessary to defend against the danger. How could
you possibly calculate that by time there is a trial,
it could be a year later and you and the
bad guy in the dark, and you're gonna have people
(28:09):
who weren't there try to tell you that they've assessed
that well, that was unreasonable force, unnecessary defense. You could
have retreated. I he's dangerous. This this I don't know
who's voting for this, Beverly Hills, Westwood, Santa Monica, Hollywood,
(28:32):
wilk Land.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
Yeah, they're my people. I live with these people.
Speaker 1 (28:36):
All these people have spent thousands of dollars on private
security patrols, private security guards. A lot of them have
guns now, and they elect the guy who say, hey,
guy comes down to your property. You know you're taking
a chance. If you should at him, we might put
you in prison. You were going to go to prison.
(29:02):
We will follow up on this.
Speaker 5 (29:04):
You're listening to John Cobelts on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
We are in a state where we have idiot politicians
who allow criminals to run free and break into our
homes and kill us. And now we have this Rick
Zibber from Los Angeles, from Santa Monica, Beverly Hills and
Hollywood and Westwood. That's who he represents, rich people, and
(29:36):
he doesn't know the rich people have stocked up on
weapons because they haven't enforced any laws for years here
in La County and in La City, and so he
wants to get rid of the concept of justifile homicide.
There's such a disconnect between what's going on and the
(29:56):
rest of the country in here. I ran across a
pulled today from Harvard Harris. That's a polling company, and
they ask questions to find out how much support there
is for a lot of Trump and Elon Musk policies.
And so this is what it's like in the real world.
(30:19):
Do you support or oppose deporting immigrants who are here
illegally and have committed crimes? Eighty one percent support deportation
eighty one percent, including ninety two percent of Republicans, eighty
percent of Independents, and seventy percent of Democrats. They want
(30:40):
illegal aliens deported. Karen Baths want gives them sanctuary, so
does Gavin Newsom. Do you support or oppose undertaking a
full scale effort to find and eliminate fraud and waste
in government in government spending? Look at that seventy six
(31:05):
percent support a full scale effort to find and eliminate
fraud and waste, ninety percent of Republicans, seventy four percent
of independence and sixty two percent of Democrats, overwhelming majorities
for deporting illegal aliens and finding all the.
Speaker 2 (31:22):
Waste in fraud.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
Do you support or oppose closing the border with added
security and discouraging illegal crossing. Seventy six percent support banning
men who've undergone operations and hormones to become women, banning
them from girls' sports. Sixty nine percent support banning them.
(31:48):
Declaring that there are only two genders, male and female,
sixty eight percent support. I could go on, which you
get the idea? That's the other forty United States, and
we have Rick Zeburr running around trying to make self
defense against a burglar illegal. You can't defend yourself against
(32:11):
a guy on your property trying to harm you, steal
your stuff, all right, conways here, so sixty eight percent
say there's only men and women yale and female?
Speaker 2 (32:20):
Yes?
Speaker 6 (32:20):
What was the other thirty two percent saying I don't know.
I like to they think they are extra categories. Oh
I see, okay, all right, alternate categories.
Speaker 2 (32:29):
Whatever.
Speaker 6 (32:31):
Life was a leisure when I was growing up. Now,
you wouldn't even talk about it. Never you mentioned how
many sex is that?
Speaker 2 (32:36):
I know?
Speaker 6 (32:36):
It was a golden age, yeah, just no one even
talked about it, no ever, all right, but you questioned it.
I don't know, Maybe we should have Maybe we should
have all been happier, you know, John Decker's coming out
with his White House correspondent for iHeart Media. That guy's great,
he's in the White House. We'll get the Donald Trump
had his very first cabinet meeting with all his cabinet members.
Find out how that went. And then we have the
(32:57):
owner of Boney Island. It's a tree house that the
city is wanting to take down in Sherman Oaks. It's
a really cool hang. We'll talk to Rick, the guy
who owns it. And then we have the uh oh,
the founder and the and the owner of Pacific Sport Fishing.
We've got a big sport fishing. I don't know how
into sport fishing you are, but I love it. And
then doctor Rakah Sherry at six o'clock and we are loaded.
(33:20):
We're talking about measles and the flu. He's a world
class pomonologist. John I've heard. Yeah, take dog with that doctor.
He's great. He's great.
Speaker 1 (33:29):
All right, Yeah, coming up, Yeah, that'll be in moments
from now. When you say you're loaded, does that ye
have a lot on the show, it means I've had
I've had a long lune.
Speaker 2 (33:38):
You're really loaded.
Speaker 1 (33:39):
Uh. Coroz's got the news live in the KFI twenty
four Hour News. Hey, you've been listening to the John
Cobalt Show podcast. You can always hear the show live
on KFI Am six forty from one to four pm
every Monday through Friday, and of course, anytime on demand
on the iHeartRadio app
Can't.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
I am six forty.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
You're listening to the John Cobelt Podcast on the iHeartRadio app.
Welcome to the show. God, you missed two hours already
if you're just joining us. That's why we had this
podcast posted after four o'clock. John Cobelt Show on demand
on the iHeart app. And among the things that we
(00:23):
have already done, as we talked to say Ed Kashani
from the Palisades, he's found out that the Department of
Water and Power is erasing things on their website regarding
that empty reservoir. If you didn't hear that interview, you
should listen to that. That was the two o'clock hour.
And we also talked to Matt Pakucko and he's with
(00:45):
the group. There are protesting in some cases physically the
toxic waste that's coming in dump trucks headed for the
Calabasas and Granada Hills and Lancaster landfills, and the supervisors told.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Him yesterday to stuff it.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Voted five to nothing and said no, we are bringing
the toxic waste to your neighborhoods. So those that are
on the podcast now we're going to talk with Alex Stone.
This is making headlines all over the world after it
became clear that Nathan Hockman doesn't have a whole a
lot of interest in helping out the Menendez brothers got
(01:20):
a new trial or get them resentenced favorably. Now Newsome
is looks like he's considering giving him clemency. And that's
what Alex Stone from ABC News is going to talk
about here. Hey there, John, Yeah, today the door may
have opened up a little bit for the Menendez brothers
and getting clemens here or maybe not. We don't know
(01:41):
what the governor is thinking here, but he is ordering
and he claims that this is what they do in
a lot of these clemency requests, and he was kind
of waiting to see if the courts would do it
or if the DA would do it, and that and
then it wouldn't There wouldn't be a reason to get
clemency for them if they were going to be out anyway.
But he's asking the California Parole Board to do a
(02:01):
risk assessment on them, the report back and let him
know if they would be a risk to society if
they were to be let out. So they have asked
for clemency until now. Newsoman had said that that he
was waiting today on his new iHeart podcasts, so called
this is Gavin Newsom. It's no longer politicking with Marshawn
Lynch now it's this is Gavin Newsom.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
He explained what he's doing. You put it like this.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
The question for the board is a rather simple one.
Do Eric M Lymanendez do they pose a current what
we call unreasonable risk to public safety?
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Yeah, okay, So even among police and prosecutors who believe
that they should remain in it, it's somewhat hard for
police to argue that if they got out that they
would murder again. The likelihood is that they probably would
not murder of parents to kill. So well, yeah, so
that you got to look at what is prison for.
Is it about keeping the public safe or is it
(02:54):
about the paying the price, about consequences for for your
actions and punishment punishment. It's going to come down for
the governor to some of this that he's going to
have to decide on that. But it's not likely that
this border is going to come back and say these
two thirty six years later are very likely that they're
going to murder again and commit the crime again. So
(03:16):
they're probably going to come back rated as low risk
if they were to get out, and he said.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
There's no guarantee of outcome here. My office conducts dozens
and dozens of these clemency reviews on a consistent basis,
But this process simply provides more transparency, which I think
is important in this case.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
So this comes to the brothers. They're going to go
before a judge in a couple of weeks in March.
They're resentencing hearing that was delayed from December to January.
December they delayed because Hawkman came in and didn't have
enough time, he hadn't read all the files. Then January
was delayed because of the wildfires. Now it's in March
and they're going to try to prove the brothers that
(03:54):
they have been rehabilitated in prison. They are multiple ways
they could get out. This is going to be one
of them. And it was last week that Hawkman kind
of poured cold water on their habeas corpus attempt, that
is their attempt saying they should get a new trial
and their old case, their old conviction should be tossed
out because they didn't get a fair trial or trials
back in the nineties, and Hawkman said, yeah, you did,
(04:16):
and that sexual assault, while if it did go on,
is terribly sad and tragic that that is not a
defense for double murder, and that it hadn't that it
came up in general, but this new letter had not
come up until more recently, so they don't know about
the authenticity of it. So that the pro board is
going to be they're going to give this report to
(04:37):
the judge and to the DA about the resentencing hearing
in case they want to take that in a couple
of weeks into consideration. Whatever the board finds, he had.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
Going to make the findings, by the way, available to
the judges presiding over the resentencing motion in La Superior Court,
as well of course to the District Attorney himself.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
And so this no one of these avenues is going
to be quick. Attorney Mark Garrigos, we all know he
has said that that he's hopeful that they're going to
be out by the end of this year. Now remember
he had said by last Thanksgiving. Oh yeah, that's right,
I said Christmas. Now he's saying by the end of
twenty twenty five, a court could do it, which seems
like Newsom is still kind of hoping that the DA
or the courts make this decision.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
He doesn't have to do it.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Newsom could make the decision, or nobody might lead them out.
They there is the chance that everybody's gonna say no,
the jury said life in prison.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
They murdered their parents, shotgun them to death.
Speaker 1 (05:27):
That that sexual assault is not a defense for a
self defense, uh for for murder in this case, and
that maybe they'll remain in We don't know, all right, Alex,
it's very disturbing news Yeah, but he's gonna ask for
that report, so so we'll see what they say. But
most likely they're going to come back and say low risk.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
I don't care how many caveats and denials he offers.
He wants.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
He wants to let them out otherwise because you don't
have to you don't have to conjure up a risk
report the risk. It doesn't matter what they did. They
should be punished into eternity. They have gotten the death penalty. Yeah, well,
well we'll see and can you imagine that day of
them getting out, how crazy it's going to be? Uh yes,
(06:08):
I And you know what the next next case like
this is going to be Luis Mangione. He's getting the
same treatment from the young women as Menendez brothers. All right,
thank you, Alex, Alex ABC News. My god, did you
see speaking of Mangione that he is getting so many
photos and letters that his lawyers are asking these and
(06:33):
it's almost all crazy young women that to stop sending
the photos or limit them to five to five photos
per entry. It's almost like rules on the contest. Yeah,
you can only submit five photos for MANGIONI to look at.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
And I'm did you see the photo?
Speaker 1 (06:53):
Did we talk about this yesterday or was I talking
to somebody off air?
Speaker 4 (06:56):
No, we weren't talking about this.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
Well, did you see the group of women who were
waiting for him? No, because he was led into a
hearing and some kind of hearing yesterday and all these
women were gathering near the courthouse or in the hallways
or whatever.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
A lot of overfed ladies.
Speaker 4 (07:15):
Yes, okay, So you're saying that there were no attractive women.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Uh no, No, there weren't any. They were.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
You could see why they'd be so lonely that they're
writing to Luigi Mangione hoping to get his attention.
Speaker 4 (07:32):
I didn't say that ladies and gentlemen, Okay, don't be
sending me your mean messages.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
I'm trying to understand, like the psychological type. Here, you
have a guy who shot somebody dead on the street
and it's on video, and unless we have jury, Nolfic.
Speaker 4 (07:48):
Can can look at the mens. Brothers.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
Oh, I don't understand that. I don't understand that either.
I mean there's a you don't see guys like you
remember you remember? Oh? Who could I I'm trying to
think of a one men who did a high profile shooting.
I mean, there aren't too many of them. I remember
remember Gerald Ford, he had two women shooted him back
(08:13):
in the mid seventies. One of them the name was
Squeaky Frome. I just remember seeing her photo.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
See what she looked like.
Speaker 4 (08:23):
No, I don't know, all.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Right, the crazy eyes, wild eyes. There was no group
of men waiting outside the courtroom for Squeaky fron That.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
That's not a thing that guys do. I remember.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
You know you've seen video, old video of like what
happened with girls in the in the Beatles, right, and
even going back to Frank Sinatra, Guys don't do that.
There's some kind of hormone overload. That young women suffer,
especially if it's a good looking man and they've got
some notoriety. They're on stage, they got you know, they sing,
(08:58):
they're a star, or you know, they've made it a
high profile murder, and and it just causes this this
hormone dysfunction. And for the ones who were especially lonely,
they camp out in the courtroom and they're sick. And
what kind of pictures are these women sending? I mean,
I can't imagine.
Speaker 4 (09:13):
Okay, but guys send, uh, send certain pictures.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
Sure, well they're showing off their yes, yeah, their attributes. Yes.
Speaker 4 (09:28):
So you guys do weird things too, I know.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
Uh, speaking of that when we come back. The National
Security Agency is run by Telsea Gabbard, and she has
fired one hundred employees. She's the director of National Intelligence.
And these hundred employees were using the internal chat logs,
(09:52):
you know where the employees talk to each other. Yeah,
the internal text messages, and they were discussing all sorts
of sexual acts, the sexual practices, and also sexual operations
that they had undergone in great detail, operations well you'll
see coming up. It's things I've never heard of before,
(10:14):
never thought of before. And I'm really sorry to introduce
this publicly, but you have to understand everything I say
about government is true. These people are are corrupt and
sick and stupid, and our tax dollars are paying for him.
Emphasis on the sick part. When I tell you what's
coming up, we can't wait next, well, I think I
(10:34):
might clear the room.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
Here.
Speaker 5 (10:36):
You're listening to John Cobel's on demand from KFI AM.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Six forty every day. We're on from one until four.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
The moistline is eight seven seven moistdaty six eight seven
seven moist staty six. So you use the talk back
feature on the iHeartRadio app. The National Security Agency is
one of the major intelligence agencies. Tulsey Gabberd, the form
of Democratic congresswoman, is now running it. Trump nominated her
and she got through the Senate and she is now
(11:08):
going through the National Security Agency with her own chainsaw.
One of the claims that Tulci Gabbard made, and this
got Trump's attention and approval, was the all the intelligence agencies,
including the CIA, were just hopelessly woke and just obsessed
with diversity and equity and inclusion, kind of like what
(11:30):
took over the DWP they they got so sidetracked with
that nonsense. They never bothered to stick a hose in
the reservoir and fill it up in the palisades. Well,
the National Security Agency had their version and when you
when you're with the NSA, you have to sign an
agreement stating that you will use this service called Intelink,
(11:52):
and Intelink is the chat messaging system that NSA employees
can use to communicate with each other internally. And if
you publish anything, any material that's non mission related, then
you could end up getting fired.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
Well, they went through the logs and it looks like
there were a.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
Lot of non mission related discussions going on among some
really weird employees. They looked through two years and Christopher Ruffo,
we've had him on the show in the past, he's
writing about this for the City Journal. He described them
as lurid, wide ranging discussions of sex, kink, polyamory. You
(12:37):
know what that is. You don't know what polyamory. That's
when you have sex with multiple partners. Okay, maybe at once.
Speaker 4 (12:44):
I just call it group sex, or.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
You know, sometimes you have wide They don't all have
to be in the same pilot at the same time.
It's just that you're you're, you have a you have
a lot of action going on depending on the night.
Speaker 2 (12:59):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
And castration was another popular topic, and you're saying castration.
Why would National Security Agency employees be discussing castration?
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Okay, here we go.
Speaker 1 (13:11):
One popular chat topic, because remember they were hiring based
on diversity. One popular topic was male to female transgender surgery.
And there are quite a few of these of these
patients and they would describe in detail what was done
to their bodies and what they liked about it. Transgender
(13:36):
surgery can involve surgically removing a man's penis and then
turning it into an artificial lady part. One male who
said he had the gender reconstruction surgery, also known as GRS.
Mine is everything talking about his new part, I've found
(13:57):
that I like being penetrated. Never liked it before GRS.
But all the rest is just as important as well.
Another intelligence official intelligence official boasted that his genital surgery
allowed him to wear leggings or bikinis without having to
(14:18):
wear a gaff under it.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
Now, what's a gaff?
Speaker 4 (14:24):
You know this one?
Speaker 2 (14:25):
I looked it up online. Yeah, like Merriam Webster.
Speaker 4 (14:31):
I have a feeling I know, but oh, I.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
Take a shot. Let me see if it matches one
of the definitions.
Speaker 4 (14:35):
It's something to hold something in place.
Speaker 2 (14:39):
Well, it can be a hook.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
Or I mean it says a handled hook for lifting
heavy fish, a metal spur for a game cock, a
butcher's hook. I don't see anything that makes you believe
you can win this on your body and that it
makes it easier to where bikinis are. Oh, unless it's
(15:06):
something that would hold your mail part. That's what I
was saying.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
Oh.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
Yes, And they were discussing this on the intelligence channels.
Speaker 4 (15:13):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
They also discussed hair removal, estrogen injections, and the experience
of sexual pleasure post castration after the big chop.
Speaker 4 (15:28):
This is all where anybody could see it.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
All the other employees.
Speaker 4 (15:32):
Wow, this is We have teams here, microscoft.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Teams, well, chick teams.
Speaker 4 (15:37):
I need to do a little research here, see what
goes on.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
Here's another quote and I'm going to have to like
rewrite this a bit. One person wrote that getting one
of his orifices let's say you could you could guess,
zapped by a laser was shocking.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
He spent thousands of dollars on hair removal. Look, I
just didn't.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
That's why other helping other people experience rests, said another
about estrogen treatments. So they took a lot of estrogen
and they got all pumped up on top, and some.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
Of their friends can. I don't know how to describe this. One.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
One of them wrote, quote, one of the weirdest things
that gives me euphoria is when they urinate. I don't
have to push anything down to make sure it aims right.
Speaker 4 (16:31):
Oh my god, I cannot believe these people are writing
about this stuff.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
National intelligence officials, Wow, which which is true? I could
see if I transition to a woman, one of the
benefits would be you don't have to worry about accidentally
soaking the wall.
Speaker 4 (16:45):
You know, you could get Yes, I can see that.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
According to Christopher Rufo sources, the sex chats were legitimized
as part of the National Security Administration's commitment to diversity,
equity and inclusion.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
Here we go active this within the agency.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
Put together LGBDQ plus employee resource groups so they could
discuss their kinks and pathologies into official work duties. They
described that DEI was not only mission critical, but mission imperative,
which means discussing all their sexual habits was part of
(17:23):
the mission and therefore doesn't violate the rules of the
chat rooms.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
There's more.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
So, this diversity became a euphemism for sex talk. Last January,
chat room members discussed the practice of polyamory, also known
as ethical non monogamy. That's where everybody participates in sex
with a wide range of people, either separate or together.
It's called a polycule. You know what a polycule is
(17:54):
a polyamorous group. For example, this guy wrote A is
my girlfriend. He gave letters to all his partners, and
then BCD EFG are her partners. Now B and C
are dating, but not C and D, nor E, F
ANDNG with any of the others, although there are several
(18:15):
friends with benefits connections. You follow that. Another employee complain
claimed to be a member of a nine member polycule,
adding that some of our friends are practically polymers with
all the connected compounds.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
Does sound hot and sexy, though.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
The source at the NSA claimed to have witnessed hundreds
of sexually provocative discussions occurring mostly on taxpayer time. The
former NSA source said he recalls being disgusted by a
particularly shocking thread a particularly shocking thread discussing weekend gang banks.
(18:59):
There was one NSA employee who insisted on using the
IT pronoun instead of he or she. The pronoun he
used was it. It's I understand we can make some
people uncomfortable. Keep in mind that the dehumanizing aspect either
doesn't apply or is a positive effect when we're requesting it.
(19:20):
Refusing to use the it or its pronouns mounted to
erasing a transgender identity. So it used to be if
you called somebody an it, that was an insult. This
person was demanding being called an it. An NSA source says,
they're folks with top secret clearances believing they are an it.
Speaker 4 (19:39):
You can't make this stuff up.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
No, this was written. Christopher Rufo saw the texts this
is the government. So a hundred of them got fired
by Tilson Gabbert today. Wow, it is way worse than
I could have imagined.
Speaker 4 (19:55):
I don't even know what to say, John, I mean,
I don't even understand most of that.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
You live a clean life. You don't know what a
polycule is?
Speaker 4 (20:04):
No, I did you know what it was?
Speaker 2 (20:05):
No? No? And I was never invited.
Speaker 4 (20:07):
And I never I never thought about being an it.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
Being an invited to a polycule.
Speaker 4 (20:13):
No, yeah, I mean we are just not living life.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
No, we're not. Apparently, I'm just going home.
Speaker 5 (20:20):
You're listening to John Cobel's on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (20:26):
I'm just looking up a moro on Hold on a second.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
Do you know there is an assembly man out of
Los Angeles here who has written a bill that would
eliminate certain circumstances in which homicide is justifiable.
Speaker 4 (20:48):
Yeah. So that means that somebody breaks into your house
and you shoot them, that that's not justified.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
That's what he's trying to take away. His name is
Rick ziburr zbu. Is that how you say his name?
You know?
Speaker 4 (21:02):
I yeah, that's good enough.
Speaker 1 (21:04):
Rick zi Burg And he represents Los Angeles. It's Assembly
Bill thirteen thirty three. Pay attention to this, especially if
you own a gun, especially if you live in one
of those cities where there's where they're not like Los Angeles,
where they're not enforcing criminal law very much. It would
(21:26):
eliminate certain circumstances in which homicide is justifiable, including in
defense of your property when the person. According to the bill,
a homicide would not be justified when the person was
outside of their residence and knew that using force would
(21:49):
cause death or great bodily injury. But it could have
been avoided if you were treated okay, likes, there's a
crazy guy your property that you think is going to
do you harm, maybe kill you. You're supposed to run outside,
and if you kill him first, it's not justified. If
(22:13):
it's determined that you could have retreated, you're supposed to
make that. You're supposed to make that decision and then
hope you're right because the guy could follow you. You know,
you could retreat and ever here, follow home robberies. What's
wrong with this guy?
Speaker 4 (22:31):
Now? Isn't he trying to walk this back?
Speaker 1 (22:34):
He's getting a ton of criticisms. Yeah, but he wrote it.
Speaker 4 (22:37):
This was his bill, yes, and now he's trying to
amend it because he's getting a lot of criticism.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
I wanted to start running. He's got to delete this bill.
He's got to erase this bill. This bill has to
be torn into little pieces and flush down a toilet. Also,
homicide wouldn't be justified when the person used more force
than was necessary than was reasonably necessary to defend against
(23:06):
the danger.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
Well, how do you figure that out to say, how
do you know this is this is crazy?
Speaker 4 (23:13):
Let me think.
Speaker 1 (23:16):
The bad guy comes on your property or into your
house threatening, you can't say, hmm, do I have time
to retreat here?
Speaker 2 (23:23):
And where should I retreat to?
Speaker 1 (23:24):
Let's talk this over right, and if I use force
against you, what would be reasonable for us?
Speaker 2 (23:29):
Do you think?
Speaker 1 (23:31):
Oh my god, he is insane? So I'm looking him up,
and once again it's all about woke stuff. I'm looking
at his Wikipedia page. He's an attorney, well known LGBT
civil rights advocate, and first openly gay non incumbent and
a congressional primary and now he's an assembly person.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
It's it's it's all.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
About that stuff, not about he's insane and he's trying
to take away our right to defend ourselves when one
of the bad guys that he will put in prison
breaks into our house or breaks onto our property and
we feel threatened and scared, and you never know what
crazy people are gonna do, especially the ones in Los
(24:17):
Angeles that are racked out on drugs and mentally ill.
And it's all these vague, ambiguous all this ambiguous language
like well, more forced than is reasonably justified. You can't
analyze that in the heat of the moment, it's impossible,
there's no way to do it. And then after it's happened,
how are you gonna determine.
Speaker 2 (24:38):
You can't.
Speaker 4 (24:39):
Why don't you talk to Governor Nusimana's new podcast about this?
Speaker 2 (24:42):
Well, that's another thing I would bring up.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
Oh my god, how do these why do these people
get into office? He represents Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and
Santa Monica.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
Oh geez, close to me, this is where, this.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
Is what lives around me. The thing is, all the
people on the west side, a lot of them have
bought guns. Friends of my back guns exactly because look
what's been going on the last five years.
Speaker 4 (25:14):
Well, look what happened to Gascon. People have said enough
is enough. So why does this guy think that this bill,
that this bill is okay?
Speaker 1 (25:22):
After we kicked out Gascon, we passed Prop thirty six,
and now this guy wants to take away our right
to kill an intruder.
Speaker 4 (25:30):
Well, let's see what would happen if an intruder comes
to his house. Is he gonna go and sit and
let's have some coffee and let's talk about this point.
The gun away from my face.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
Please, that's right, sit down, Let's have some tea. I
don't really like that gun under my jaw there.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
Would you?
Speaker 1 (25:52):
Let's talk about this, uh shemblyman Tom Lackey from Palmdale.
You see, you have normal people in Palmdale and they
own guns. They know how to deal with bad guys.
Because you have the government putting a multiple rapist in
the neighborhood. Whatever happened to the Pillowcase rapist? Was he
put into the house in Juniper Hills. Yet some manly
(26:15):
in time Lackie said, this bill is a complete assault
on self defense. Imagine this, a violent criminal breaks into
your home and you have to second guess whether defending
your family is justifiable. This misguided energy behind the proposal
is beyond comprehension. Now he's saying the bill wasn't intended
(26:38):
to limit self defense.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
Well, yes it was. Are you insane? It says in
the bill.
Speaker 1 (26:46):
When you're outside of your residence and you knew that
using force would likely cause death a great bodily injury
if it could have been avoided with complete safety by retreating,
that is an impossible concept to accurately analyze. In the
moment you cannot determine whether you are retreating fast enough,
(27:09):
and you're gonna end up in complete safety, especially if
the guy keeps chasing you.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
Why do you.
Speaker 1 (27:14):
Give Why do they give rights to people who want
to kill you and who want to rob you, who
are psychotic, who've been dumped out of prison by idiot
politicians like Rick Zebber?
Speaker 2 (27:26):
What the f? I mean? What is this? You can't
defend yourself.
Speaker 4 (27:33):
Because you don't know if the bad person is really
gonna hurt you, is really gonna hurt your family. I mean,
maybe they'll shoot you in the leg, but you'll survive.
So it's not fair if you shoot the guy in
the heart and he dies.
Speaker 1 (27:47):
Yeah, you should be penalized because you're a good shot.
This is crazy and the person used more forced than
was reasonably necessary to defend against the danger. How could
you possibly calculate that by time there is a trial,
it could be a year later and you and the
bad guy in the dark, and you're gonna have people
(28:09):
who weren't there try to tell you that they've assessed
that well, that was unreasonable force, unnecessary defense. You could
have retreated. I he's dangerous. This this I don't know
who's voting for this, Beverly Hills, Westwood, Santa Monica, Hollywood,
(28:32):
wilk Land.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
Yeah, they're my people. I live with these people.
Speaker 1 (28:36):
All these people have spent thousands of dollars on private
security patrols, private security guards. A lot of them have
guns now, and they elect the guy who say, hey,
guy comes down to your property. You know you're taking
a chance. If you should at him, we might put
you in prison. You were going to go to prison.
(29:02):
We will follow up on this.
Speaker 5 (29:04):
You're listening to John Cobelts on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
We are in a state where we have idiot politicians
who allow criminals to run free and break into our
homes and kill us. And now we have this Rick
Zibber from Los Angeles, from Santa Monica, Beverly Hills and
Hollywood and Westwood. That's who he represents, rich people, and
(29:36):
he doesn't know the rich people have stocked up on
weapons because they haven't enforced any laws for years here
in La County and in La City, and so he
wants to get rid of the concept of justifile homicide.
There's such a disconnect between what's going on and the
(29:56):
rest of the country in here. I ran across a
pulled today from Harvard Harris. That's a polling company, and
they ask questions to find out how much support there
is for a lot of Trump and Elon Musk policies.
And so this is what it's like in the real world.
(30:19):
Do you support or oppose deporting immigrants who are here
illegally and have committed crimes? Eighty one percent support deportation
eighty one percent, including ninety two percent of Republicans, eighty
percent of Independents, and seventy percent of Democrats. They want
(30:40):
illegal aliens deported. Karen Baths want gives them sanctuary, so
does Gavin Newsom. Do you support or oppose undertaking a
full scale effort to find and eliminate fraud and waste
in government in government spending? Look at that seventy six
(31:05):
percent support a full scale effort to find and eliminate
fraud and waste, ninety percent of Republicans, seventy four percent
of independence and sixty two percent of Democrats, overwhelming majorities
for deporting illegal aliens and finding all the.
Speaker 2 (31:22):
Waste in fraud.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
Do you support or oppose closing the border with added
security and discouraging illegal crossing. Seventy six percent support banning
men who've undergone operations and hormones to become women, banning
them from girls' sports. Sixty nine percent support banning them.
(31:48):
Declaring that there are only two genders, male and female,
sixty eight percent support. I could go on, which you
get the idea? That's the other forty United States, and
we have Rick Zeburr running around trying to make self
defense against a burglar illegal. You can't defend yourself against
(32:11):
a guy on your property trying to harm you, steal
your stuff, all right, conways here, so sixty eight percent
say there's only men and women yale and female?
Speaker 2 (32:20):
Yes?
Speaker 6 (32:20):
What was the other thirty two percent saying I don't know.
I like to they think they are extra categories. Oh
I see, okay, all right, alternate categories.
Speaker 2 (32:29):
Whatever.
Speaker 6 (32:31):
Life was a leisure when I was growing up. Now,
you wouldn't even talk about it. Never you mentioned how
many sex is that?
Speaker 2 (32:36):
I know?
Speaker 6 (32:36):
It was a golden age, yeah, just no one even
talked about it, no ever, all right, but you questioned it.
I don't know, Maybe we should have Maybe we should
have all been happier, you know, John Decker's coming out
with his White House correspondent for iHeart Media. That guy's great,
he's in the White House. We'll get the Donald Trump
had his very first cabinet meeting with all his cabinet members.
Find out how that went. And then we have the
(32:57):
owner of Boney Island. It's a tree house that the
city is wanting to take down in Sherman Oaks. It's
a really cool hang. We'll talk to Rick, the guy
who owns it. And then we have the uh oh,
the founder and the and the owner of Pacific Sport Fishing.
We've got a big sport fishing. I don't know how
into sport fishing you are, but I love it. And
then doctor Rakah Sherry at six o'clock and we are loaded.
(33:20):
We're talking about measles and the flu. He's a world
class pomonologist. John I've heard. Yeah, take dog with that doctor.
He's great. He's great.
Speaker 1 (33:29):
All right, Yeah, coming up, Yeah, that'll be in moments
from now. When you say you're loaded, does that ye
have a lot on the show, it means I've had
I've had a long lune.
Speaker 2 (33:38):
You're really loaded.
Speaker 1 (33:39):
Uh. Coroz's got the news live in the KFI twenty
four Hour News. Hey, you've been listening to the John
Cobalt Show podcast. You can always hear the show live
on KFI Am six forty from one to four pm
every Monday through Friday, and of course, anytime on demand
on the iHeartRadio app
The John Kobylt Show News
Host
John Kobylt
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
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!