March 20, 2025 • 27 mins
Mo Kelly is in for Bill Handel while he is out on vacation. Homeless population in LA County down for second year in a row, preliminary data shows. ABC News crime and terrorism analyst Brad Garrett speaks on the newly uncovered JFK assassination documents and what, if any, new information has been found. NewsNation reporter Tom Dempsey joins the program to talk about Trump potentially signing an executive order aimed at eliminating the Education Department. More than 80% of cannabis users admit to driving within hours of consuming: report.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
You are listening to the Bill Handle Show. Here's Mo Kelly.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
It's a home.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
It feels so special.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
It's almost like they knew I was coming over for breakfast.
Kf I AM six forty. We're live everywhere in the
iHeartRadio app. Yes, it is the Bill Handle Show. I'm
O'Kelly in for Bill. I usually host later with Mo
Kelly here on KFI from seven pm to ten pm,
but today and tomorrow I am in for Bill. And
something that I've been discussing on my show recently with
(00:36):
the crime statistics which came out that Mayor Karen Bassett
had released and discussed as far as LA City, which
is different from La County, and I'm real big on civic.
Sometimes we hear information, but we need to look at
it through the correct prism, the correct lens the best
understand it. The reason I mentioned that is because now
(00:59):
the homeless population statistics for La County, not City, LA
County have come out and the preliminary data shows that
the homeless population, the raw data, the numbers down for
the second year in a row. And here is a
comparison i'd like to make. And I hear from a
(01:20):
lot of people just in my day to day discussions,
and I hear from a lot of people on social media,
and when quote unquote positive information comes out, there is
a reticence and resistance to us, like, oh, I don't.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Believe the numbers. No, no, no, I don't trust it.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
It's because it's coming from the Democrats, or it's coming
from the Republicans.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
No, no, no, no, no, I just don't believe it.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
It's false. It's fake news. That's what I hear. And
I understand the sentiment. I don't agree with it, but
I understand it. Or you may talk about the economy
and you can point to the numbers of where we
are with the stock market, where we are with GDP,
where we are with housing, and you can say, no, no,
(02:05):
that the economy's much worse than that, or it's better
than that. Or we can talk to talk about crime, homelessness,
and economy within the same construct and a lot of
times it's how we feel about it. We feel the
economy is this we feel crime? Or safety is that?
(02:28):
We feel homelessness? Is this that or the other? Why
is that what we have our own worlds that we
live in. We have the eyeball test what we see.
And let's get back to homelessness, and I'm going to
tie it all together. The LA Homeless Services Authority says
that the number of homeless people in LA County is
(02:49):
now just over twenty nine thousand, which is down from
roughly thirty two thousand last year. And you would think
that is encouraging fewer homelesses people is what we all want.
And as a point of full disclosure, I live in
the city of Los Angeles, but unincorporated Los Angeles, meaning
(03:12):
I don't get to vote for the mayor, I don't
get to vote for any city council person. I'm considered
even though my address is Los Angeles, I'm considered as
part of LA County. In other words, my services come
through LA County. So when we talk about LA County,
that's inclusive of me and probably a lot of you
(03:33):
listening right now. When I think about this and you
say to me that homelessness has been decreased to twenty
nine thousand within LA County, is like, yes, intellectually I
can appreciate it. No conspiracy theory. Yes, there are fewer
homeless people on the streets. But the problem is it
doesn't pass my eyeball test. And you know what I'm
(03:55):
talking about. When I walk outside my house, I we
don't see quote unquote fewer homeless people. You probably don't
see fewer homeless people. And that has nothing to do
with the data. It has to do with our every
day albeit anecdotal, but our everyday lives. That's true with
(04:19):
the economy. Now I'm going to tie it all together.
That's true with the economy, and it's true with crime.
Although the crime stats that Mayor Bass gave us, which
were for La City not La County, trying to be consistent.
When we live our day to day lives, when we
listen to the news KFIAM six forty, when we watch
(04:41):
what's going on on television, when we open our citizens
app or our Ring app as far as what's going
on in our neighborhoods, it tells a different story. It
doesn't mean that the information that we've been given is wrong.
It just means that a lot of this has to
do with what we see and what we experience. And
going back to Mayor Baths and her crime stats, well,
(05:04):
when I walk outside my house. Even though crime may
be down ten percent, I don't walk outside and say, hey,
I feel safer today.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
Crime is down ten percent. I feel ten percent safer.
There's ten percent.
Speaker 3 (05:16):
Less likelihood of me being stabbed, shot, or maimed. We
don't think that way, or at least I don't think
that way, and I don't think you think that way.
Here's the correlation. Even though the stats may be accurate,
and I have no reason to disbelieve them, when it
comes to homelessness in La County, a place that I live, Yes,
(05:40):
it may be down three thousand and yes, that is
absolutely positive. I'm just saying my eyeball test. I can't
feel it. And that's what it comes down to. Crime
may be down in La City, I can't feel it.
I know that I'm not going to walk my dogs
(06:00):
around the corner outside my housing development. Is that an
indictment of Mayor Bass and her crime statistics?
Speaker 2 (06:09):
No?
Speaker 3 (06:10):
No, because statistics tell us about the past. It's not
a predictor of the future. And the homelessness stats again,
tying it together tells us it's a snapshot in time.
And yes, they're fewer homeless people on the streets as
they count them this year and last year. But the
(06:31):
eyeball test when I walk outside my door, not only
am I concerned about crime, I'm also concerned about homelessness.
I'm also concerned about the RVs that we may see
lining our streets, not just mine, but yours as well.
My eyeball test tells me there's same number of people
living under the freeway as they were last week, last month,
(06:55):
last year. And yes, homelessness may be in La County
where I live, and yes that is a positive thing,
but no, it hasn't changed my day to day life.
What I see on a day to day basis what
I mean by all of this. Be it the economy,
(07:17):
be it crime, be it homelessness. It's more than just
the statistics. It's about the specifics. It's about what we see,
what we experience, and what we feel. And it doesn't
mean that just because I see just as many homelessness
it doesn't discredit the numbers. I'm saying that it takes
(07:38):
more than just the numbers before anyone and everyone can
collectively say things are getting better. Because if I have
to rely on just what you're telling me as opposed
to what I'm seeing and what I'm experiencing then, as
far as I'm concerned, that's abstract, that's not real, because
the homeless person who was there yesterday is still there today.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
The homelessness encampment and those tents.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
There yesterday are still here today, which means, big picture,
we have a long way to go before the stats
catch up to what I see.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
You may remember growing up.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
I think it depends on the decade which you're in
school as far as how much the Kennedy assassination was taught.
But of course we've also been influenced by movies and
documentaries speculation about what is the truth behind the assassination
of JFK. President Trump, while he was campaigning, said that
he would release the quote unquote remaining JFK documents, declassify
(08:45):
them so we could all find out what supposedly really happened.
In some eighty thousand pages have just been released on
the JFK assassination. What to make of it, heads or tails,
I'm not sure. But ABC News Crime and Terrorism analyst
Brad get It joins me right now to help give
us some perspective.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
Brad, good morning to you.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
Have we learned anything more about these eighty thousand pages,
no pressure.
Speaker 4 (09:10):
Well, other than according to the experts on this assassination,
there are sort of collective responses. Yes, there is information
that's helpful and clarifies some aspects of the case, but
it's not a smoking gun.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
Mo.
Speaker 4 (09:28):
It isn't like there are g whiz documents that would
point you in a different direction other than Lee Harvey
Oswald killed President Kennedy. You know, all the tentacles of
that really are the offshoot of Oswald. In other words,
what motivated him? Did anybody support him? And so conspiracy theories,
(09:51):
as you well know, there are a gagelion of them,
you know, take you to the KGB and russiaze crime
to the CIA, who, by the way, was keeping track
of Oswald when he moved when he moved from the
US to Russia in nineteen fifty nine after getting out
(10:12):
of the Marine Corps, they started tracking his movements, his
communications up until the time that the president was killed.
Then obviously he was killed two days later. But what's
interesting is we don't know in what context now I
can guess think about it's nineteen fifty nine into the
(10:34):
early sixties. You're talking Cold War, you're talking all sorts
of issues of the Russia. It could be just that simple.
But the perplexing part of the CIA picture is nobody
I think at the time knew about the CIA's tracking
of Oswald, and they spent a lot of time and energy,
(10:56):
it appears, making sure that nobody knew about that. I think,
including I don't know this as a gas. The Warren
Commission that was put together to look at the assassination,
you know where they concluded it was Oswald a load
who did it. I'm not suggesting CIA had anything to
do with this other than certainly they have been very
(11:19):
secretive about why they were watching Oswald.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
Brad, I'm going to try to unpack some of the
things that you're saying. And you told us a lot there,
and we look at a lot of this at a
post nine to eleven world. And I say that to say,
in post nine to eleven, you had our agencies, our
homeland security, which didn't exist pre nine to eleven.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Now they share information.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
Obviously back then they did not share information, So there
was no reason to know what the CIA was doing with.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Lee Harvey Oswald or that they were tracking.
Speaker 3 (11:51):
What I found fascinating is that Lee Harvey Oswald was
not only a known entity, but a followed entity. And
also some that I've learned from this latest document tranch
release was that there was a contentious relationship not only
between us, to say, not only the CIA towards President Kennedy,
(12:14):
but President Kennedy towards the CIA. Is there anything that
you can glean about that acrimonious relationship.
Speaker 4 (12:23):
So if you look at the Arthur Schleushinger memo, he
was an aid to President Kennedy, and he brings up
concerns that, in his words, that the CIA was intruding
into foreign policy. And that's I think primarily mode driven
by the fact of the CIA attempting to recruit very distinguished,
(12:47):
high up people in various governments around the world where
that person then could be compromised, which I think translated
into could that manipulate or control foreign policy?
Speaker 1 (13:05):
And so.
Speaker 4 (13:07):
It looks like the President Kennedy was didn't trust the CIA.
Now there's been a lot of presidents not trust the CIA.
So I don't know if that's a new idea, but
it plays into without any facts, into you know, op
it was the CIA up to with Oswald.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
Here is something else, and I wouldn't say it's a
conspiracy theory, but there are some dots which I personally
hoped would be either connected or disconnected. We know of
our relationship today with Russia, especially with President Trump, is
different than under the Cold War, and with the Cold War,
we have to talk about Fidel Castro, the Bay of Pigs,
(13:50):
and also the Cuban missile crisis. Has there anything that
we can glean or we've learned through this latest document
drop which would either suggest or refute that Castro or
the Soviet Union had any type of role or connection
to Lee R.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
Harvey Oswald.
Speaker 4 (14:12):
No. Now, granted, you can imagine trying to go through
eighty thousand pages of documents that you know are in
all different types of forms because back then, obviously there
are no computers, so it's all hard paper. We'll see
what sorts out as various experts go through this stuff.
(14:35):
But I would say, on the front end, the answer
to that is, we don't know of any connection. And
there's been some discussion about, you know, the KGB, and
this would make total sense. Kept track of Oswald because
he's an American running around Russia and he ends up
(14:56):
marrying a Russian and having two children with her that
you know what's going on there. And then the other
thing that adds a bit of a mystery to this
if you look at, excuse me, a few weeks before
President Kennedy was killed, Oswald goes to Mexico City. I
(15:17):
guess the CIA are monitoring that. He goes to the
Russian embassy and he also goes to the Cuban consulate.
I mean, like, why did he do that? Then he
goes back to Dallas and then a few weeks later
kills the president.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (15:36):
Fascinating and after all these years, we still don't know everything.
I'd like to thank Brad Garrett. ABC News Crime and
Terrorism analyst Brad Garrett, thank you for staying on this story.
I'm quite sure we may learn something more in the
coming days.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
Fair enough to.
Speaker 4 (15:50):
Say, sounds great? I think so. Thanks?
Speaker 2 (15:52):
All right.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
President Trump is expected to sign an executive action today
aimed at eliminating the Department of Education. News Nation reporter
Tom Dempsey joins me right now with the latest on
that and what we should expect. Tom, where are we
with this expected executive ask code?
Speaker 1 (16:12):
Yay, good morning man. So this is going to be
being signed, this executive order at the White House later today,
And for any listeners out there wondering, you know, sort
of what's part of all of this, Well, this executive
order would dismantle the Department of Education and it would
fulfill a promise by President Donald Trump to give more
power to states for how they handle education. Now, the
(16:34):
Department of Education has already been a big target for
you know, cuts with programs and job losses. Just last week,
thirteen hundred people were notified about layoffs within the department,
and after layoffs and buyouts, around half the staff of
the Department of Education has already been gutted. But we've
also seen cuts to things like the Office for Civil Rights,
(16:56):
the Office for Federal Student Aid. So again, a lot
of changes happening with the Department of Education. But President
Donald Trump has accused of the Department of being very wasteful.
Just for some perspective, the Department of Education receives the
third highest amount of budget dollars of any department within
the federal government. Other Republicans appointed to things like falling
(17:18):
test scores around the country for the need for change
with education here in the country, and just for some
perspective on that, there was a national test results that
were released in January showing a third of eighth grade
students around the country falling below basic reading levels, meaning
they're lacking fundamental skills when it comes to reading. And
(17:39):
that was I think the worst score I ever recorded
with this test. So there's a lot of momentum right
now to bring about some big changes to the education
here in the country, and President Donald Trump saying that
he really wants to give more power to states for
how they handle education.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
If people were paying attention to the campaign for the
twenty twenty four presidential election, it was clear that then
candidate and former President Donald Trump was going to do this.
This was a part of his action items, one of
his promises that he made, and he's trying to keep
it today. But I do notice that this is something
that he has championed and is not a part of
(18:16):
the supposed DOGE agenda. With Elon Musks, do you have
any clarity as to why that might be.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
Yeah, well, again, this is definitely checking a box that
was in the you know, the agenda for President Donald Trump.
He has you know, there's been a lot of frustration
for some parents, particularly conservative parents, over just the handling
of education in the country. I think back to the pandemic,
some parents, you know, voiced a lot of frustration with children,
(18:44):
you know, maybe's struggling in school, sitting in front of
you know, a computer screen, and maybe not getting them
of attention they deserve. So this became sort of a
rallying cry, you know, anti education. Now it's being handled
in the country for conservative parents and maybe supporters of
Donald Trump, and he's kind of leaned into that, you know,
as a president, to get the Department of Education and
(19:06):
once again saying it would be better handled at a
state level. So and again, like you were, you brought
up the Department of Government efficiency. But President Donald Trump
himself has been saying that it's a very wasteful department.
Like I said, it receives the third highest amount of
budget dollars in the federal government. And he's you know,
using this as example of it what he would call
(19:26):
maybe a bloat of government. So again, this is really
President Donald Trump checking a box on an agenda item today.
Speaker 3 (19:32):
I know that this is going to directly and adversely
affect pell Grant's financial aid, federal financial aid and also
special education. Do we know is that the end of
all of that as we know it, or are we
expecting states to pick up that slack.
Speaker 1 (19:51):
You know, there's still some unknowns with this as far
as the actual total impact, but you are absolutely right
there are some very very big concerns over what exactly
does this mean when we're gutting the Department of Education.
For example, the Department of Education oversees one point six
trillion dollars. It's a t trillion dollars in federal student aide.
(20:13):
So when you're cutting back on programs and cutting back greatly,
cutting back on staffing numbers, what does that mean for
overseeing that amount of money. Also, the Office for Civil
Rights within the Department of Education in particular, that has
been very much gutted. So what does that mean for
you know, students with disabilities or perhaps low income students
when they have a complaint and they need something investigated,
(20:34):
when you're greatly cutting back on the Office of Civil Rights.
So you know, one Democrat who oversees, the leading Democrat
on the House Education Committee, he's been saying that this
could exacerbate disparities already being seen in public schools. So
there's some very big concerns out there that he was
the American Federation of Teachers as well, who sort of
(20:55):
echoed those comments from the leading Democrat and the House
Education Committee. But absolutely right if there's some very big
concerns right now. As as far as what that could
actually look like specifically is still a little bit unknown,
but there's some big worries about, you know what that
could be gutting the Department of Education.
Speaker 3 (21:10):
Last question before I let you go, Tom Dempsey, reporter
for News Nation. We know that Americans who may not
agree with the Trump agenda have been angry about a
lot of things. There's been pushed back against Elon Musk
and Tesla that have to pushback on a number of
Trump priorities. Have we seen any pushback measurable noticeable regarding
(21:32):
the shuttering of the Department of Education.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
We've seen protests. Now the strength of that or you know,
the weight of those you know that could be up
for debate. We definitely have seen some protests here in Washington,
d C. And Bernie Sanders, I believe, has been one
of the biggest most vocal lawmakers here on Capitol Hill
reaching out about concerns about all this. You know, I
(21:56):
brought up leading Democrat on the House education. Many Bobby Scott,
who is bringing up the concerns, think it could exacerbate
the disparities already being seen in public schools by gutting
the Department of Education. So we're hearing concerns voice about that,
but as far as actual, true pushback and actual measurable
things that we've been able to see in response to
(22:18):
these that might show some opposition, like I said, protests,
but you know, again, this is the strength of all
of it. It's Democrats right now are kind of struggling,
sort of coalescing around messaging right now, and you know,
we write more protests with all this, but I think
we're going to keep hearing some of the some of
the bigger concerns and trying to appeal the voters sort
of what that could mean for their child's education.
Speaker 3 (22:40):
Tom Dempsey, News Nation, thanks so much, helpe to talk
to you again soon about this and more.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
Thank you.
Speaker 3 (22:46):
Let's talk a little bit about cannabis before we wrap
up this hour. And if you don't know this about me,
I have always been this way and I don't think
I'll ever change. I have never supported legalization of cannabis
on a recreational level. I've always wanted to decriminalize. But
(23:06):
that's different from legalizing for recreational uses and.
Speaker 2 (23:10):
Say, well, no, it's not as bad as alcohol. I'm
not talking about that. That's a different conversation.
Speaker 3 (23:16):
I'm talking about how I thought society would respond to it.
And one of my chief concerns to the legalization of
cannabis for recreational use was this was years ago I
was talking about this. There wasn't a test in the
way that we have a breathalyzer test for alcohol. I
(23:36):
knew people were going to get in the car after
blazing up every single day, and we would have varying
levels of impairment with no clear measurement for law enforcement
to at least guide us as to where the line
is for impairment. And we still don't have that, and
(23:58):
that has always been my concern. So when I see
this report that more than eighty percent of cannabis users
admit to driving within hours of consuming, and this new
research comes from the American Mobile Association, I say, yeah,
it may be confirmation biased, but that has always been
my concern. According to research from the American Automobile Association
(24:22):
Foundation for Traffic Safety, nearly forty five percent of cannabis
users report consuming multiple times per day and nearly fifty
eight percent drive every day. And if we want to
make a direct comparison alcohol, there is no comparison in
that regard. But more concerning to me, more than eighty
percent of users admit to driving within hours of cannabis consumption,
(24:46):
and nearly half of users believe cannabis has quote unquote
little to no impact on their driving. That's obviously not true.
And the results of these surveys, and this is for
all states which there is legalized cannabis use, that is
the tie in the results of the surveys highlighted key
behaviors and attitudes. Forty four point one percent of users
(25:10):
consume cannabis multiple times daily, Fifty seven point eight percent
drive daily, eighty four point eight percent drive the same
day they consume, with fifty three percent driving within an
hour or less. Forty six point nine percent believe and
(25:33):
just because you believe something, don't make it true. As
they say, forty six point nine percent believe cannabis does
not impair their driving or even improves it. As strange
and ridiculous as that may sound to the sober folks
out there, like me when it comes to cannabis. And
a second study found that messaging focus on personal responsibility
(25:55):
and safety resonated more strongly than messages that harp on
the legal risk.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (26:01):
I mean that may be true, but it's less for
me about the messaging and more about the methodology. We
live in a very permissive society and we permit people
to use cannabis, and we don't really have any structured
impairment guidelines, and that's why I would say we see
(26:22):
more of this use as far as how it relates
to driving that yes, we have people who can get
DUI's driving under the influence, and it also includes cannabis use,
but it's always that gray area of where actual impairment
is that legalized line. As far as alcohol is point
(26:43):
oh eight, it's clear everyone knows got a breath lizer.
Either you are below it or you're above it. We
don't have that for cannabis. And since we don't, I
believe I would submit that it is contributing to not
only the use of it and the legal use of
it and I say very legal, pun intended, and also
how people are using it and driving every single day.
(27:06):
That has always been my concern and it's now bearing
itself out where it goes from here. Oh, there'll probably
more accidents, more deaths, and more indifference. Unfortunately. It's the
Bill Handle Show KFI AM six forty. We are live
everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
You've been listening to The Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 3 (27:25):
Catch my show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
You are listening to the Bill Handle Show. Here's Mo Kelly.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
It's a home.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
It feels so special.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
It's almost like they knew I was coming over for breakfast.
Kf I AM six forty. We're live everywhere in the
iHeartRadio app. Yes, it is the Bill Handle Show. I'm
O'Kelly in for Bill. I usually host later with Mo
Kelly here on KFI from seven pm to ten pm,
but today and tomorrow I am in for Bill. And
something that I've been discussing on my show recently with
(00:36):
the crime statistics which came out that Mayor Karen Bassett
had released and discussed as far as LA City, which
is different from La County, and I'm real big on civic.
Sometimes we hear information, but we need to look at
it through the correct prism, the correct lens the best
understand it. The reason I mentioned that is because now
(00:59):
the homeless population statistics for La County, not City, LA
County have come out and the preliminary data shows that
the homeless population, the raw data, the numbers down for
the second year in a row. And here is a
comparison i'd like to make. And I hear from a
(01:20):
lot of people just in my day to day discussions,
and I hear from a lot of people on social media,
and when quote unquote positive information comes out, there is
a reticence and resistance to us, like, oh, I don't.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Believe the numbers. No, no, no, I don't trust it.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
It's because it's coming from the Democrats, or it's coming
from the Republicans.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
No, no, no, no, no, I just don't believe it.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
It's false. It's fake news. That's what I hear. And
I understand the sentiment. I don't agree with it, but
I understand it. Or you may talk about the economy
and you can point to the numbers of where we
are with the stock market, where we are with GDP,
where we are with housing, and you can say, no, no,
(02:05):
that the economy's much worse than that, or it's better
than that. Or we can talk to talk about crime, homelessness,
and economy within the same construct and a lot of
times it's how we feel about it. We feel the
economy is this we feel crime? Or safety is that?
(02:28):
We feel homelessness? Is this that or the other? Why
is that what we have our own worlds that we
live in. We have the eyeball test what we see.
And let's get back to homelessness, and I'm going to
tie it all together. The LA Homeless Services Authority says
that the number of homeless people in LA County is
(02:49):
now just over twenty nine thousand, which is down from
roughly thirty two thousand last year. And you would think
that is encouraging fewer homelesses people is what we all want.
And as a point of full disclosure, I live in
the city of Los Angeles, but unincorporated Los Angeles, meaning
(03:12):
I don't get to vote for the mayor, I don't
get to vote for any city council person. I'm considered
even though my address is Los Angeles, I'm considered as
part of LA County. In other words, my services come
through LA County. So when we talk about LA County,
that's inclusive of me and probably a lot of you
(03:33):
listening right now. When I think about this and you
say to me that homelessness has been decreased to twenty
nine thousand within LA County, is like, yes, intellectually I
can appreciate it. No conspiracy theory. Yes, there are fewer
homeless people on the streets. But the problem is it
doesn't pass my eyeball test. And you know what I'm
(03:55):
talking about. When I walk outside my house, I we
don't see quote unquote fewer homeless people. You probably don't
see fewer homeless people. And that has nothing to do
with the data. It has to do with our every
day albeit anecdotal, but our everyday lives. That's true with
(04:19):
the economy. Now I'm going to tie it all together.
That's true with the economy, and it's true with crime.
Although the crime stats that Mayor Bass gave us, which
were for La City not La County, trying to be consistent.
When we live our day to day lives, when we
listen to the news KFIAM six forty, when we watch
(04:41):
what's going on on television, when we open our citizens
app or our Ring app as far as what's going
on in our neighborhoods, it tells a different story. It
doesn't mean that the information that we've been given is wrong.
It just means that a lot of this has to
do with what we see and what we experience. And
going back to Mayor Baths and her crime stats, well,
(05:04):
when I walk outside my house. Even though crime may
be down ten percent, I don't walk outside and say, hey,
I feel safer today.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
Crime is down ten percent. I feel ten percent safer.
There's ten percent.
Speaker 3 (05:16):
Less likelihood of me being stabbed, shot, or maimed. We
don't think that way, or at least I don't think
that way, and I don't think you think that way.
Here's the correlation. Even though the stats may be accurate,
and I have no reason to disbelieve them, when it
comes to homelessness in La County, a place that I live, Yes,
(05:40):
it may be down three thousand and yes, that is
absolutely positive. I'm just saying my eyeball test. I can't
feel it. And that's what it comes down to. Crime
may be down in La City, I can't feel it.
I know that I'm not going to walk my dogs
(06:00):
around the corner outside my housing development. Is that an
indictment of Mayor Bass and her crime statistics?
Speaker 2 (06:09):
No?
Speaker 3 (06:10):
No, because statistics tell us about the past. It's not
a predictor of the future. And the homelessness stats again,
tying it together tells us it's a snapshot in time.
And yes, they're fewer homeless people on the streets as
they count them this year and last year. But the
(06:31):
eyeball test when I walk outside my door, not only
am I concerned about crime, I'm also concerned about homelessness.
I'm also concerned about the RVs that we may see
lining our streets, not just mine, but yours as well.
My eyeball test tells me there's same number of people
living under the freeway as they were last week, last month,
(06:55):
last year. And yes, homelessness may be in La County
where I live, and yes that is a positive thing,
but no, it hasn't changed my day to day life.
What I see on a day to day basis what
I mean by all of this. Be it the economy,
(07:17):
be it crime, be it homelessness. It's more than just
the statistics. It's about the specifics. It's about what we see,
what we experience, and what we feel. And it doesn't
mean that just because I see just as many homelessness
it doesn't discredit the numbers. I'm saying that it takes
(07:38):
more than just the numbers before anyone and everyone can
collectively say things are getting better. Because if I have
to rely on just what you're telling me as opposed
to what I'm seeing and what I'm experiencing then, as
far as I'm concerned, that's abstract, that's not real, because
the homeless person who was there yesterday is still there today.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
The homelessness encampment and those tents.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
There yesterday are still here today, which means, big picture,
we have a long way to go before the stats
catch up to what I see.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
You may remember growing up.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
I think it depends on the decade which you're in
school as far as how much the Kennedy assassination was taught.
But of course we've also been influenced by movies and
documentaries speculation about what is the truth behind the assassination
of JFK. President Trump, while he was campaigning, said that
he would release the quote unquote remaining JFK documents, declassify
(08:45):
them so we could all find out what supposedly really happened.
In some eighty thousand pages have just been released on
the JFK assassination. What to make of it, heads or tails,
I'm not sure. But ABC News Crime and Terrorism analyst
Brad get It joins me right now to help give
us some perspective.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
Brad, good morning to you.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
Have we learned anything more about these eighty thousand pages,
no pressure.
Speaker 4 (09:10):
Well, other than according to the experts on this assassination,
there are sort of collective responses. Yes, there is information
that's helpful and clarifies some aspects of the case, but
it's not a smoking gun.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
Mo.
Speaker 4 (09:28):
It isn't like there are g whiz documents that would
point you in a different direction other than Lee Harvey
Oswald killed President Kennedy. You know, all the tentacles of
that really are the offshoot of Oswald. In other words,
what motivated him? Did anybody support him? And so conspiracy theories,
(09:51):
as you well know, there are a gagelion of them,
you know, take you to the KGB and russiaze crime
to the CIA, who, by the way, was keeping track
of Oswald when he moved when he moved from the
US to Russia in nineteen fifty nine after getting out
(10:12):
of the Marine Corps, they started tracking his movements, his
communications up until the time that the president was killed.
Then obviously he was killed two days later. But what's
interesting is we don't know in what context now I
can guess think about it's nineteen fifty nine into the
(10:34):
early sixties. You're talking Cold War, you're talking all sorts
of issues of the Russia. It could be just that simple.
But the perplexing part of the CIA picture is nobody
I think at the time knew about the CIA's tracking
of Oswald, and they spent a lot of time and energy,
(10:56):
it appears, making sure that nobody knew about that. I think,
including I don't know this as a gas. The Warren
Commission that was put together to look at the assassination,
you know where they concluded it was Oswald a load
who did it. I'm not suggesting CIA had anything to
do with this other than certainly they have been very
(11:19):
secretive about why they were watching Oswald.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
Brad, I'm going to try to unpack some of the
things that you're saying. And you told us a lot there,
and we look at a lot of this at a
post nine to eleven world. And I say that to say,
in post nine to eleven, you had our agencies, our
homeland security, which didn't exist pre nine to eleven.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Now they share information.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
Obviously back then they did not share information, So there
was no reason to know what the CIA was doing with.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Lee Harvey Oswald or that they were tracking.
Speaker 3 (11:51):
What I found fascinating is that Lee Harvey Oswald was
not only a known entity, but a followed entity. And
also some that I've learned from this latest document tranch
release was that there was a contentious relationship not only
between us, to say, not only the CIA towards President Kennedy,
(12:14):
but President Kennedy towards the CIA. Is there anything that
you can glean about that acrimonious relationship.
Speaker 4 (12:23):
So if you look at the Arthur Schleushinger memo, he
was an aid to President Kennedy, and he brings up
concerns that, in his words, that the CIA was intruding
into foreign policy. And that's I think primarily mode driven
by the fact of the CIA attempting to recruit very distinguished,
(12:47):
high up people in various governments around the world where
that person then could be compromised, which I think translated
into could that manipulate or control foreign policy?
Speaker 1 (13:05):
And so.
Speaker 4 (13:07):
It looks like the President Kennedy was didn't trust the CIA.
Now there's been a lot of presidents not trust the CIA.
So I don't know if that's a new idea, but
it plays into without any facts, into you know, op
it was the CIA up to with Oswald.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
Here is something else, and I wouldn't say it's a
conspiracy theory, but there are some dots which I personally
hoped would be either connected or disconnected. We know of
our relationship today with Russia, especially with President Trump, is
different than under the Cold War, and with the Cold War,
we have to talk about Fidel Castro, the Bay of Pigs,
(13:50):
and also the Cuban missile crisis. Has there anything that
we can glean or we've learned through this latest document
drop which would either suggest or refute that Castro or
the Soviet Union had any type of role or connection
to Lee R.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
Harvey Oswald.
Speaker 4 (14:12):
No. Now, granted, you can imagine trying to go through
eighty thousand pages of documents that you know are in
all different types of forms because back then, obviously there
are no computers, so it's all hard paper. We'll see
what sorts out as various experts go through this stuff.
(14:35):
But I would say, on the front end, the answer
to that is, we don't know of any connection. And
there's been some discussion about, you know, the KGB, and
this would make total sense. Kept track of Oswald because
he's an American running around Russia and he ends up
(14:56):
marrying a Russian and having two children with her that
you know what's going on there. And then the other
thing that adds a bit of a mystery to this
if you look at, excuse me, a few weeks before
President Kennedy was killed, Oswald goes to Mexico City. I
(15:17):
guess the CIA are monitoring that. He goes to the
Russian embassy and he also goes to the Cuban consulate.
I mean, like, why did he do that? Then he
goes back to Dallas and then a few weeks later
kills the president.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (15:36):
Fascinating and after all these years, we still don't know everything.
I'd like to thank Brad Garrett. ABC News Crime and
Terrorism analyst Brad Garrett, thank you for staying on this story.
I'm quite sure we may learn something more in the
coming days.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
Fair enough to.
Speaker 4 (15:50):
Say, sounds great? I think so. Thanks?
Speaker 2 (15:52):
All right.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
President Trump is expected to sign an executive action today
aimed at eliminating the Department of Education. News Nation reporter
Tom Dempsey joins me right now with the latest on
that and what we should expect. Tom, where are we
with this expected executive ask code?
Speaker 1 (16:12):
Yay, good morning man. So this is going to be
being signed, this executive order at the White House later today,
And for any listeners out there wondering, you know, sort
of what's part of all of this, Well, this executive
order would dismantle the Department of Education and it would
fulfill a promise by President Donald Trump to give more
power to states for how they handle education. Now, the
(16:34):
Department of Education has already been a big target for
you know, cuts with programs and job losses. Just last week,
thirteen hundred people were notified about layoffs within the department,
and after layoffs and buyouts, around half the staff of
the Department of Education has already been gutted. But we've
also seen cuts to things like the Office for Civil Rights,
(16:56):
the Office for Federal Student Aid. So again, a lot
of changes happening with the Department of Education. But President
Donald Trump has accused of the Department of being very wasteful.
Just for some perspective, the Department of Education receives the
third highest amount of budget dollars of any department within
the federal government. Other Republicans appointed to things like falling
(17:18):
test scores around the country for the need for change
with education here in the country, and just for some
perspective on that, there was a national test results that
were released in January showing a third of eighth grade
students around the country falling below basic reading levels, meaning
they're lacking fundamental skills when it comes to reading. And
(17:39):
that was I think the worst score I ever recorded
with this test. So there's a lot of momentum right
now to bring about some big changes to the education
here in the country, and President Donald Trump saying that
he really wants to give more power to states for
how they handle education.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
If people were paying attention to the campaign for the
twenty twenty four presidential election, it was clear that then
candidate and former President Donald Trump was going to do this.
This was a part of his action items, one of
his promises that he made, and he's trying to keep
it today. But I do notice that this is something
that he has championed and is not a part of
(18:16):
the supposed DOGE agenda. With Elon Musks, do you have
any clarity as to why that might be.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
Yeah, well, again, this is definitely checking a box that
was in the you know, the agenda for President Donald Trump.
He has you know, there's been a lot of frustration
for some parents, particularly conservative parents, over just the handling
of education in the country. I think back to the pandemic,
some parents, you know, voiced a lot of frustration with children,
(18:44):
you know, maybe's struggling in school, sitting in front of
you know, a computer screen, and maybe not getting them
of attention they deserve. So this became sort of a
rallying cry, you know, anti education. Now it's being handled
in the country for conservative parents and maybe supporters of
Donald Trump, and he's kind of leaned into that, you know,
as a president, to get the Department of Education and
(19:06):
once again saying it would be better handled at a
state level. So and again, like you were, you brought
up the Department of Government efficiency. But President Donald Trump
himself has been saying that it's a very wasteful department.
Like I said, it receives the third highest amount of
budget dollars in the federal government. And he's you know,
using this as example of it what he would call
(19:26):
maybe a bloat of government. So again, this is really
President Donald Trump checking a box on an agenda item today.
Speaker 3 (19:32):
I know that this is going to directly and adversely
affect pell Grant's financial aid, federal financial aid and also
special education. Do we know is that the end of
all of that as we know it, or are we
expecting states to pick up that slack.
Speaker 1 (19:51):
You know, there's still some unknowns with this as far
as the actual total impact, but you are absolutely right
there are some very very big concerns over what exactly
does this mean when we're gutting the Department of Education.
For example, the Department of Education oversees one point six
trillion dollars. It's a t trillion dollars in federal student aide.
(20:13):
So when you're cutting back on programs and cutting back greatly,
cutting back on staffing numbers, what does that mean for
overseeing that amount of money. Also, the Office for Civil
Rights within the Department of Education in particular, that has
been very much gutted. So what does that mean for
you know, students with disabilities or perhaps low income students
when they have a complaint and they need something investigated,
(20:34):
when you're greatly cutting back on the Office of Civil Rights.
So you know, one Democrat who oversees, the leading Democrat
on the House Education Committee, he's been saying that this
could exacerbate disparities already being seen in public schools. So
there's some very big concerns out there that he was
the American Federation of Teachers as well, who sort of
(20:55):
echoed those comments from the leading Democrat and the House
Education Committee. But absolutely right if there's some very big
concerns right now. As as far as what that could
actually look like specifically is still a little bit unknown,
but there's some big worries about, you know what that
could be gutting the Department of Education.
Speaker 3 (21:10):
Last question before I let you go, Tom Dempsey, reporter
for News Nation. We know that Americans who may not
agree with the Trump agenda have been angry about a
lot of things. There's been pushed back against Elon Musk
and Tesla that have to pushback on a number of
Trump priorities. Have we seen any pushback measurable noticeable regarding
(21:32):
the shuttering of the Department of Education.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
We've seen protests. Now the strength of that or you know,
the weight of those you know that could be up
for debate. We definitely have seen some protests here in Washington,
d C. And Bernie Sanders, I believe, has been one
of the biggest most vocal lawmakers here on Capitol Hill
reaching out about concerns about all this. You know, I
(21:56):
brought up leading Democrat on the House education. Many Bobby Scott,
who is bringing up the concerns, think it could exacerbate
the disparities already being seen in public schools by gutting
the Department of Education. So we're hearing concerns voice about that,
but as far as actual, true pushback and actual measurable
things that we've been able to see in response to
(22:18):
these that might show some opposition, like I said, protests,
but you know, again, this is the strength of all
of it. It's Democrats right now are kind of struggling,
sort of coalescing around messaging right now, and you know,
we write more protests with all this, but I think
we're going to keep hearing some of the some of
the bigger concerns and trying to appeal the voters sort
of what that could mean for their child's education.
Speaker 3 (22:40):
Tom Dempsey, News Nation, thanks so much, helpe to talk
to you again soon about this and more.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
Thank you.
Speaker 3 (22:46):
Let's talk a little bit about cannabis before we wrap
up this hour. And if you don't know this about me,
I have always been this way and I don't think
I'll ever change. I have never supported legalization of cannabis
on a recreational level. I've always wanted to decriminalize. But
(23:06):
that's different from legalizing for recreational uses and.
Speaker 2 (23:10):
Say, well, no, it's not as bad as alcohol. I'm
not talking about that. That's a different conversation.
Speaker 3 (23:16):
I'm talking about how I thought society would respond to it.
And one of my chief concerns to the legalization of
cannabis for recreational use was this was years ago I
was talking about this. There wasn't a test in the
way that we have a breathalyzer test for alcohol. I
(23:36):
knew people were going to get in the car after
blazing up every single day, and we would have varying
levels of impairment with no clear measurement for law enforcement
to at least guide us as to where the line
is for impairment. And we still don't have that, and
(23:58):
that has always been my concern. So when I see
this report that more than eighty percent of cannabis users
admit to driving within hours of consuming, and this new
research comes from the American Mobile Association, I say, yeah,
it may be confirmation biased, but that has always been
my concern. According to research from the American Automobile Association
(24:22):
Foundation for Traffic Safety, nearly forty five percent of cannabis
users report consuming multiple times per day and nearly fifty
eight percent drive every day. And if we want to
make a direct comparison alcohol, there is no comparison in
that regard. But more concerning to me, more than eighty
percent of users admit to driving within hours of cannabis consumption,
(24:46):
and nearly half of users believe cannabis has quote unquote
little to no impact on their driving. That's obviously not true.
And the results of these surveys, and this is for
all states which there is legalized cannabis use, that is
the tie in the results of the surveys highlighted key
behaviors and attitudes. Forty four point one percent of users
(25:10):
consume cannabis multiple times daily, Fifty seven point eight percent
drive daily, eighty four point eight percent drive the same
day they consume, with fifty three percent driving within an
hour or less. Forty six point nine percent believe and
(25:33):
just because you believe something, don't make it true. As
they say, forty six point nine percent believe cannabis does
not impair their driving or even improves it. As strange
and ridiculous as that may sound to the sober folks
out there, like me when it comes to cannabis. And
a second study found that messaging focus on personal responsibility
(25:55):
and safety resonated more strongly than messages that harp on
the legal risk.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (26:01):
I mean that may be true, but it's less for
me about the messaging and more about the methodology. We
live in a very permissive society and we permit people
to use cannabis, and we don't really have any structured
impairment guidelines, and that's why I would say we see
(26:22):
more of this use as far as how it relates
to driving that yes, we have people who can get
DUI's driving under the influence, and it also includes cannabis use,
but it's always that gray area of where actual impairment
is that legalized line. As far as alcohol is point
(26:43):
oh eight, it's clear everyone knows got a breath lizer.
Either you are below it or you're above it. We
don't have that for cannabis. And since we don't, I
believe I would submit that it is contributing to not
only the use of it and the legal use of
it and I say very legal, pun intended, and also
how people are using it and driving every single day.
(27:06):
That has always been my concern and it's now bearing
itself out where it goes from here. Oh, there'll probably
more accidents, more deaths, and more indifference. Unfortunately. It's the
Bill Handle Show KFI AM six forty. We are live
everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
You've been listening to The Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 3 (27:25):
Catch my show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app
The Bill Handel Show News
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.