March 27, 2025 • 26 mins
(March 27, 2025)
Chris Merrill is in for Bill Handel while he is out on vacation. The Atlantic on Wednesday published a new article detailing purported information about recent American strikes in Yemen. Under current law, swatting threats are only considered to be a crime when they are made against an individual — not an institution, such as a school or hospital. Now, state legislators are backing new legislation to close that loophole. President Trump imposes a 25% tariff on cars and car parts that were imported into the United States. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department announced it plans to re-test about 4,000 DNA samples after learning the agency used testing kits over a roughly eight-month period that were found by the manufacturer to occasionally deliver incomplete results.
Chris Merrill is in for Bill Handel while he is out on vacation. The Atlantic on Wednesday published a new article detailing purported information about recent American strikes in Yemen. Under current law, swatting threats are only considered to be a crime when they are made against an individual — not an institution, such as a school or hospital. Now, state legislators are backing new legislation to close that loophole. President Trump imposes a 25% tariff on cars and car parts that were imported into the United States. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department announced it plans to re-test about 4,000 DNA samples after learning the agency used testing kits over a roughly eight-month period that were found by the manufacturer to occasionally deliver incomplete results.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty. Greetings, A good morning, pleasure being with you.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
We will talk about the latest tariffs coming up here
at seven thirty and swatting the law in about fifteen minutes. First,
let's let's go back to one of the biggest stories
that we've had in a while. Call it a White
House scandal if you want to call it a witch
hunt if you like, as the President does. And that
is the mixed signals we're getting. This is the signal
(00:32):
group chat that was laying out plans for attack on
the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and the National Security Advisor
invited in a reporter from the Atlantic, which is awkward.
So what happens now, Well, you better believe that Trump
(00:54):
and many of his accolades are scrambling to figure out
what's the angle that we can use on this in
order to push back. Democrats are pouncing as you would expect.
Even Jesse Kelly, who's a radio host, says, we made
a mistake, a bad mistake for which someone should be fired.
That said, we gave them forty eight hours of the
news cycle with our own stupidity. No need to give
them seventy two. It's done.
Speaker 1 (01:15):
Move on.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
It's not a life sentence. So even people who are
part of MAGA are saying.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Look, it's.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Over.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
Let's just move on. Nothing to see here. Don't pay
any attention to this. This is not a massive security breach.
This is not a huge issue with security protocol, something
that we threw a temper tantrum about when Hillary Clinton
had a BlackBerry phone when she was a Secretary of State.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
Just granted it's thirteen years after that, but we don't
worry about it. This is no big deal.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
Don't give them more of a news cycle, more of
that US v Them approach to things. So, what's the
latest on the fallout from the signal debacle from maybe.
Speaker 4 (02:00):
As the White House and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth
say no war plans were sent to a journalist on
the messaging app Signal.
Speaker 5 (02:06):
Nobody's texting more plans because of I know exactly what
I'm doing.
Speaker 4 (02:11):
The journalist satitor in chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg
today publishing what he says Hegseth sent to President Trump's
national security team and inadvertently him and a group message
ahead of airstrikes in Yemen. Earlier this month, The Atlantic
reports Hegseth notified the group of a planned timeline for
flights of F eighteen fighter jets, MQ nine Reaper drones,
and Tomahawk cruise missiles that were launched for the mission.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Now, one of the things that the administration is saying
is these are not war plans. These were battle plans.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Oh well, that's it.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
So it's semantics. These are battle plans, not war plans.
We're not at war. We're at battle. This is akin
to me getting caught cheating on my wife and saying, Honey,
I didn't have an affair. I had an entanglement. So
what's the big deal. It's not an affair, babe, that's
an entanglement. You shouldn't be so upset with me. It
(03:05):
doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Let me Dean
is a News Nation reporter who's been covering the story
for a while. Let'd be great to have you on here.
The President says, this is nothing more than a witch hunt.
Is it something that we need to move on quickly from?
And is it nothing more than a distraction for the
American people from things we should really focus on, like
are we getting enough vitamin A to fight off measles.
Speaker 6 (03:26):
I think there's a lot of concerns for Americans right now,
and this is certainly one of them, because the new
U Gov. Pole actually showed that seventy five percent of
Americans are very concerned about this signal group chat, so
that being the latest that we're in day four here,
of course, the talk is getting a little nuanced of
this group chat. But the reason it's continuing is because
yesterday the Atlantic released these details the full conversation, in
(03:49):
part the full conversation of what was discussed in the
signal group chat with nineteen members of the Trump administration,
while one of those, of course being Jeffrey Goldberg, the
journalist from the Atlantic who was included in this. So
of course there's a lot of concerns on that front.
I also just spoke with the Press secretary here at
the White House who said that they never denied the
(04:09):
mistake was made when this group chat was made. Kind
of a little bit of a messaging shift from the
White House there rather than saying this was a witch
hunt like President Trump was calling it yesterday.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
All right, Livy, So how many countries do we suppose
they're trying to gain access to private phones right now
of some.
Speaker 6 (04:25):
Of our officials, Well, I don't have a number for
you on that. But of course national security is the
utmost concern when it comes to this, and that's why
intelligence officials were questioned in Congress. These hearings were already planned,
but of course they shifted to focus all on this
group chat. And yesterday I got very fiery in the
House Intelligence Committee when Director of National Intelligence TLCI Gabbard,
(04:49):
as well as John Ratcliffe and Cash Pttel were all
questioned about this group chat and they ultimately admitted that
they were a part of it, some of them overseas.
When they were a part of this group chat. Typically
you would find these officials operating in this sense and
a skiffs they do say that these weren't classified things
included in this. But if they weren't classified, why didn't
they release them in the first place?
Speaker 1 (05:09):
And obviously they've kind of painted themselves into a corner.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
They can't be angry with UH, with Atlantic for printing
this group chat if in fact it was not classified, right.
Speaker 6 (05:20):
Right, That's a big question in the big back and
forth that's been going on all week. If it was
classified or not. But you can look at the messages
for yourself and determine your thoughts on them. But of
course that one message from Pete heegsas the Secretary of
Defense really stands up to me where he gives timing
of when bombs are going to be dropped. He said
at one point, this is definitely when the bomb is
going to be dropped. They detailed who was being hit
(05:43):
when they were hit, not something that you would typically
expect in a signal group chat. Look, I've talked to
Trump officials on signal before. I think this is a
very common app that is used within the Trump world,
but I don't think it has been used in this
sense with a journalist privy. Who knows how many times
it might have happened without a journalist privy.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
So that was going to be my next question. Then,
is there any word on whether or not signal will
be used in the future. Are we clamping down and
using skiffs moving forward, or is anybody.
Speaker 6 (06:12):
That really interesting development?
Speaker 1 (06:13):
Yeah?
Speaker 6 (06:14):
Yeah, that was an interesting development here at the White
House yesterday when the White House Press Secretary did a briefing,
she said that signal is approved on government device It's
something that I didn't even realize was the case. And
of course they said actually that they aren't backing away
from signal and they plan on still using it. The
President Trump yesterday when he was speaking to the press,
(06:35):
actually said that there might have been some kind of
glitch with signal, trying to blame signal for this journalist
being added, when Mike Waltz clearly took the blame for
adding Jeffrey Goldberg to this chat. So signal moving forward
definitely a question on if the Trump administration plans on
using it. It sounds like they do at this point.
But of course national security officials are going to have
(06:56):
to be more tight lipped and not go adding journalists
to One of the things.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
That we've heard Libby Diner, a News Nation reporter, is
that this editor for The Atlantic was a disgraced journalist
from a two bit magazine, that he's no good. And
if that's the case, why why would Mike Walls, the
National Security Advisor, have his info in his phone in.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
The first place.
Speaker 6 (07:20):
Yeah, And Mike Waltz was asked about that during an
interview and he basically said that this was in put
it into his phone or sucked into his phone or something,
is how he described it. He didn't give a very
clear description on his relationship with Jeffrey Goldberg. I saw
that Goldberg did an interview where he also wouldn't detail
his relationship, but he basically said, look, my phone number
is in Mike Walltz's phone for a reason, and if
(07:42):
he wants to discredit me, he can. And that is
what the Trump administration has spent all week doing. It
seems like they're kind of taking a shift with their
messaging here saying that they're admitting it was a mistake,
but also yesterday we heard them rail, and the day
before and the day before that, we heard them rail
against Jeffrey Goldberg. That was their main line of attack.
We'll see if that continues throughout the day today.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
And is there any word on whether or not that
messaging is hitting home with the with the the.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
Mag of faithful Look.
Speaker 6 (08:09):
I think that attacking the media is certainly something that
lands with the Trump base. I think that they're very
familiar with that kind of attack, and people can make
up their mind on if that's credible or not. And
Jeffrey Goldberg has criticized President Trump in the past as
a journalist, so I think there are things to look
into in this fact, but he was involuntarily added to
this chat and now he's just reporting the facts and
(08:35):
part of us with the chat.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
So indeed, Levy Dan, here's nation reported Lebby, thanks for
the great reporting, Well done.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
Yeah, thank yous appreciate that. Yeah, very good. All right.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
We know that we've had a couple of high profile
swatting incidents in southern California here and the last few
weeks we're actually seeing a number of swatting incidences, incidents incidents.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
Growing nationwide.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
In fact, one happened to a radio host, syndicated host
out of Texas, and the FCC.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
Chair Brendan Carr, actually got in on this.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
He was mentioning that it was politically motivated, but he
says he called it political violence, saying that he had
been in touch with law enforcement to ensure that they
have access to trace back resources that locate the calls
originating point. Bad actors will face accountability that according to
the FCC, when it comes to some of these others
incidences incident SI. But what about closer to home, Well,
(09:32):
believe it or not, you can't do a whole lot.
If somebody swats, and by swatting, I mean they call
in law enforcement and they file a false claim saying oh,
there's a bomb or something, you can't really do a
whole lot about it if it's if it's done against
an institution. Now, if Amy were to say that that
Chris Merrill has a bomb, then she would be committing
(09:52):
a crime. If in fact, she were to say that
something's happening at the radio station right now in the state,
you can't do a lot as far as prosecution goes,
Which brings us to what we saw in Clarmont where uh,
I mean, if you're saying it's happening at a hospital
(10:13):
or a college or something of that sort, what can
be done well? Legislators aren't tackling the matter. Cakew was reporting.
Speaker 7 (10:21):
That Claremont Peedee says the intent to prosecute the people
who recently pulled a swatting incident here, but they're often
hard to track down and to prosecute. They're hoping some
new laws will change that. Massive law enforcement responses at
both Claremont McKenna College and Lowilinda University Medical Center last
week after two separate swatting calls or hoax at nine
(10:44):
to one one reports in two days required both campuses
to be evacuated.
Speaker 6 (10:49):
Then here there's like a potential shooter, Like yeah, yeah,
that's It's also quite disruptive too.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
I mean, you're not just disrupting one person. You're talking
about disrupting the operations of a hospital.
Speaker 7 (11:02):
Send students in Claremont into a panic.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Everyone else was kind of running around and leaving campus.
Speaker 7 (11:07):
So it's definitely scary, very freaky.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
I was on the phone calling all of my friends.
Speaker 7 (11:12):
At a time when swatting calls are on the rise
across the country.
Speaker 1 (11:16):
I just said that.
Speaker 7 (11:17):
Why are police departments here in California struggling to hold
the suspects account of the.
Speaker 8 (11:22):
Why you can hide your regular phone number, your IP address.
You can basically use a voiceover for you your own voice,
so it disguises your voice. So any that type of
evidence we're looking for is very hard to track down.
Speaker 7 (11:35):
But it's also because of California laws that require.
Speaker 2 (11:38):
At some point, speaking of disguising your voice, at some point,
one of us is gonna get wrapped up in a
in a legal matter. You know that, right at some
point they're gonna they're gonna take samples of Bill's voice
or Amy's voice, or Neil Savadra's voice, and they're gonna
use AI to process it, and then they're gonna have
what sounds like Neil or Amy or Bill may could
(12:00):
dastardly call and.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
Then there's gonna be a knock on the door.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Ah, yes, mister handle, we'd like to talk to you
about a recent phone call you made. And Bill's gonna go,
I don't even know how my cell phone works. I
have and make the calls for me. But this is
gonna happen. You're gonna you're gonna start getting You're gonna
start getting uh, crank calls from Keanu Reeves, from Taylor Swift,
You're gonna start getting crank calls from all kinds of
(12:26):
celebrities whose voices have simply been emulated by AI.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
Mark my words.
Speaker 7 (12:32):
But it's also because of California laws that require perpetrators
here to threaten specific people instead of just an entity
like a school or a hospital in order to prosecute.
Speaker 8 (12:43):
So what do we do, Tom, Especially since ore now
reaching across the us A, people are realizing this is
a bigger issue than what we're actually thinking about.
Speaker 9 (12:50):
This Bill really is going to tackle that loopo where
you don't need to mention a person and it's still
against the law.
Speaker 7 (12:56):
Senator Susan Rubio, who represents Baldwin Park, authored a new
built SB nineteen which allows prosecutors to charge people who
make any credible threats of mass violence at schools, houses
of warship.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
I mean, this one seems like a no brainer. Why
did it take so long?
Speaker 9 (13:15):
Children deserve better, our students, our communities deserve better. So
hopefully you know this will set a strong message.
Speaker 7 (13:21):
Students we spoke with think threats of violence should not
be tolerated.
Speaker 5 (13:25):
If it negatively impacts the community that it affects. It
negatively impacts the police because they could be doing a
myriad of other things.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
And yeah, this is not a free speech issue because
this is intended to incite immediate reaction.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
For those of you that say, well, I was my
speech not protecting.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
No, no, this is the definition of an exception to free speech.
It is intended to incite immediate reaction here and in
this case violence or at the very least, disruption by
the authorities.
Speaker 1 (13:55):
So no false threats, not okay.
Speaker 7 (13:58):
And Senator Rubio says these swatting calls often cost one
hundred thousand dollars in police response when you factor in
things like helicopters and getting responding agencies out to help
clear campuses. She says it's important for parents to talk
to their kids about how serious it is to make
a threat. But you know, sometimes the people who do
these swatting calls are adults reporting in claremont nicolecom Stock
(14:23):
Kkel News.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
Yeah, I think oftentimes we and I'm glad you made
that point because oftentimes I think we say, oh.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
The kids these days, here's what they're doing. I don't
think so.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
I think sometimes you've just got some disgruntled or off
kilter people that they're bored. They like the challenge or
the adventure. They like to make people jump. Maybe they
are sitting alone in their home and they feel powerless
and this gives them some element of control. I'm sure
there's a psychological factor to this, but either way, we've
got to tighten the laws up so that we can
(14:52):
track these people down and stop the sort of nonsense
in the future. So if you missed it, the President
introduced tariffs on all vehicles that are produced outside of
the United States and tariffs on all car parts that
are produced outside of the United States. This is going
to have an impact. It's going to have an impact
(15:13):
on the new car market, and I'm going to tell
you in a minute that it's going to have an
impact on the.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
Used car market as well.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
NBCLA was doing a breakdown on what this means to
you inside.
Speaker 10 (15:23):
The Oval Office. President Trump explains what he just signed, so.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
Will effectively be charging a twenty five percent tariff. But
if you build your car in the United States, seris
no tariff.
Speaker 10 (15:33):
The tariff's go into effect permanently on April second, when
it comes to trade. That's the day the President has
referred to as Liberation Day in America.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
This is the beginning of Liberation Day in America.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
Oh wait a minute, hold on, So March twenty sixth,
and will you just mark down March twenty six for
our Liberation Day celebrations moving forward, Thank you, we'll just
call it l Day.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
We're going to take back just some of the money
that has been taken from us.
Speaker 5 (16:06):
And this is a direct attack, to be clear, a
direct attack.
Speaker 10 (16:10):
Autos are Canada's second largest export, and tonight Prime Minister
Carney says he will assess the details of the Trump
decision before taking retaliatory measures.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
Oh, they're coming. There will be retaliatory measures.
Speaker 10 (16:24):
But vowing to protect hundreds of thousands of Canadian auto workers,
we are going to.
Speaker 1 (16:30):
Stand up for Canada. We're going to be united.
Speaker 10 (16:32):
In Japan, autos make up twenty eight percent of the
country's total exports to the US.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
Wow, I realized it was that much.
Speaker 10 (16:40):
Ichibun, Japan's Prime Minister Isshub telling lawmakers he is strongly
requesting the US not apply these tariffs to Japan and
is quote considering all options in response to them. President
trum said he expects auto firms to relocate to the
United States and build new side or expand existing ones.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
And of course there are some here.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
We know that Honda's open site, Hyundai's open the site,
Toyota's got a plant here.
Speaker 1 (17:08):
But still parts.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
Aren't necessarily being manufactured here. In fact, many parts for
domestic automakers are manufactured elsewhere.
Speaker 10 (17:16):
These twenty five percent terrace will almost certainly increase the
cost consumers will pay to buy new vehicles affected by
the duties. We wait to see how the stark market
will react when it opens, but shares of the top
us automakers did fall sharply in after hours trading. So
just how will these tariffs impact you? Well, according to autoweek,
(17:37):
prices will go.
Speaker 1 (17:39):
Up and be passed on to buyers.
Speaker 10 (17:41):
Autoweek says, depending on the model you purchase, expect to
pay between four and twelve thousand dollars more.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
I'm Robert Cavosik, all right, so four and twelve thousand
dollars more. By the way, I'm looking at the market
right now, and the Dow is pretty flat four it
is down four percent, so we are seeing that there
are some some of these movers that are moving.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
In the wrong direction.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
But overall, let me see, S and P is up, no,
slightly up, it's about flat and NASDAK is just up
thirty five points. So what does this mean to your pocketbook?
It means that if you want to buy a car,
it's gonna cost you more. And that doesn't just go
(18:26):
for new cars. That's gonna go for used cars too.
And here's the logic, it's pretty basic economics. The price
of the new cars goes up four to twelve thousand dollars,
So you say, well, I'm not gonna give four to
twelve thousand dollars more for that new car. I'm gonna
buy a gently owned, a gently loved used car.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
Maybe it's a.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
Certified pre owned, doesn't matter. You're not the only one
doing that, which means that demand for used cars goes up.
If new cars are up four to twelve thousand dollars,
you're gonna start looking at a gently pre owned vehicle,
and so everybody else. If demand goes up and supply
remains the same, then you're gonna see.
Speaker 1 (19:06):
The prices go up.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Expect supply, however, in the used car market to decline,
and the reason is if you are considering a new vehicle,
but all of a sudden, that new vehicle price goes
up four to twelve thousand dollars, you might say, let's
see how say much longer I can push this one?
Because there is no cost in new car payments if
(19:31):
you're still driving the old car now. The old car
costs might go up because of maintenance, but your other
costs they don't increase. So the best way to save
money is to not buy a new vehicle.
Speaker 1 (19:39):
The longer you.
Speaker 2 (19:40):
Make your car last, the more value you get out
of it, and as a result, fewer cars will be
entering into the used car market, which means supply drops
at the same time that demand is up. Expect to
see US cars increase in price in the same way
that we're about to see these vehicles go up in price. Now,
one interesting little tidbit too on the side here is
that Tesla is the ones least likely impacted by the
(20:04):
US tariffs on vehicles because Tesla does their manufacturing here
in the United States. So some are gonna You're gonna
hear people screaming about how this is an unfair trade
advantage being granted to Tesla, and this is all elon
musk and YadA, YadA, YadA. I don't I don't buy
that this falls under the president's tariff philosophy. It just
happens that his top advisor is a South African born
(20:27):
in Canada and doing business in the United States, and
he will benefit from this to a degree because as
soon as there are retaliatory tariffs, that's when Tesla's gonna
get stung. And where do you know that he's been
trying to crack into the Chinese market that hasn't gone
very well. Chinese byd auto manufacturer actually just introduced some
(20:47):
new charging technology, new battery technology that is superior to
anything that we have stateside. If Japan all of a
sudden says, oh, you're gonna tear if our cars, We're definitely.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
Going to hit any vehicles that are coming out of
the United States.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
That's gonna have an impact on US automakers, including Tesla,
and Tesla of course wants to see growth in Europe,
and Europe's going to say, uh.
Speaker 1 (21:07):
New the take a long wump of a shoot bridge
and then it's gonna hit.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
It's gonna hit him, but not until there are retaliatory tariffs,
and when there are expect to hear more bad French
accents from yours. Truly, there is an issue with some
of the DNA samples that the La County Sheriff's Department
had tested in the past. Now they have to retest
them all because somebody didn't get an email.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
Oops.
Speaker 5 (21:37):
So very bizarre situation about how all of this went down.
So here's the thing. The Sheriff's partment over at their
science lab has a series of DNA tests that they
use for various crimes like sex crimes, DNA and murders,
all kinds of different things. So here's the deal. The
company that provides those tests for them notified the sheriff's
partment that the tests that they had were bad. The
problem is is the company sent a letter to a
person who no longer works at the sheriff's department.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
Oops, yeah, that's a problem.
Speaker 5 (22:02):
So that happened more than a year ago, and so
for the last amount of time since that letter was
sent out, the Sheriff's Department continued to use those tests,
not knowing that they were actually bad.
Speaker 1 (22:12):
Here's the thing.
Speaker 5 (22:13):
The company that runs the testing program says it doesn't
provide false positives, but it's just not as reliable as
they should be. So what happens now Now the department
is trying to retest four thousand DNA samples to figure
out if everything is still okay with the way it
was tested the first time. The problem is, as we've
reported before, in certain crimes, in certain situations, there's not
a lot of DNA evidence to test, So in some
(22:35):
cases there may be none left to retest.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
With these cases. Uh oh, that's a problem. Now.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
Isn't it interesting that this email got sent to somebody
that's no longer with the sheriff's department, which means either
they left the sheriff's department and the email was taken away,
which means that the email was sent to a box
it no longer exists and it's up in the ether.
And I don't know if they got a return message
at the manufacturer, but they didn't do any other follow
They certainly didn't send a second notice, third notice, another
(23:03):
way of contacting. Or it's somebody that was terminated from
the sheriff's department, in which case maybe they're even getting
the notification and they're going, well, shouldn't.
Speaker 1 (23:11):
Have fired me, and then they delete the email.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
To be honest, I would have done that unless I
thought that it was putting somebody in jail, you know, wrongly,
then I would probably follow up.
Speaker 1 (23:24):
But if I thought that.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
You know what this is on you guys, yeah, I
probably would have just deleted the email, been like, shouldn't
have fired me?
Speaker 5 (23:31):
Now, what does this mean for all of the cases
that have already gone through judicial system using these now
hampered essentially DNA tests. Well, the District Attorney's office is
working with the sheriff to try to sort all of
that out. Defense attorneys could certainly get a hold of
this and demand that certain things be retested or retried,
and they could have a very big implication for the
criminal justice system.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
We'll have to wait and play that out.
Speaker 5 (23:51):
By the way, the Sheriff's department is the only one
that's come forward and told us about this issue, but
we are told that other law enforcement agencies in the
county also use that company. So we're reaching out to
the different agencies throughout LA County to figure out if
anybody else has been in this test. But we are
talking thousands of bad DNA tests at least what the
Sheriff's department gest.
Speaker 2 (24:07):
And that's just Sheriff's department. As he said, this could be.
This could have a wider fallout. And if I'm a
if I am a defense attorney, I'm salivating right now.
I mean salivating, not like into a sample tube that
they can future test, but I'm salivating like figuratively speaking,
that would be They've got to be very excited about that. Hey,
(24:31):
before we move to the news here, I want to
take just to tell a personal story. If I can't
has nothing to do with this, amy, can would you
mind if you have a second I know you're trying
to put your newscast together. So my my wife and daughter,
just I mean twenty minutes ago left on a very
long road trip. They're going to be on the road
(24:52):
for the next thirty hours. And so I had to
send a message to my daughter and told her to
use ways, And I said, you're going to need to
use ways.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
And choose the voice Amy on that.
Speaker 2 (25:07):
And so she's all excited now that she has a
celebrity who's giving.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
Her directions to wherever she's going. And I think that's
pretty cool. She says, it's pretty cool.
Speaker 11 (25:17):
Anyway, Well, I hope I don't steer her wrong.
Speaker 1 (25:20):
We would blame the app, We wouldn't blame the voice.
Speaker 11 (25:22):
Oh no, you should see Shannon Farren. She comes in
and yells at me.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
She dies, yeah, how dare she?
Speaker 11 (25:29):
Yeah? Amy, you kicked me off the other day. You
sent me the wrong direction.
Speaker 2 (25:33):
How long did you have to record stuff for that?
Did that take forever to get?
Speaker 11 (25:37):
No? No, no, really no, it didn't take very long.
Speaker 12 (25:41):
And I did it when the app was first unveiled,
so in its crowdsource, so it was brand new when
it came out.
Speaker 11 (25:49):
But no, it didn't take that long.
Speaker 12 (25:51):
It's only about one hundred prompts because they mix and
match them.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
Oh okay, so you have to so you would do
like one word like turn. You wouldn't say turn left
in half a mile mile, turn say in one mile,
and then you say turn left.
Speaker 1 (26:08):
Oh that's fascinating.
Speaker 2 (26:10):
Yeah, that's great. I love it when you take me
behind the scenes on that stuff.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
Thank you for sharing that anytime. Appreciate that.
Speaker 2 (26:15):
Yeah, I will let you know if you do indeed,
steer them wrong?
Speaker 1 (26:21):
Makes it? Why does that say boise ten miles? We
weren't even we weren't even north of Colorado.
Speaker 11 (26:28):
That's yeah.
Speaker 2 (26:29):
Yeah, we're gonna learn how to money with Joel Larsgard.
He joins us next Chris merrill In for Bill Handle
Today kf I Am six forty were lab everywhere in
the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 5 (26:40):
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. Greetings, A good morning, pleasure being with you.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
We will talk about the latest tariffs coming up here
at seven thirty and swatting the law in about fifteen minutes. First,
let's let's go back to one of the biggest stories
that we've had in a while. Call it a White
House scandal if you want to call it a witch
hunt if you like, as the President does. And that
is the mixed signals we're getting. This is the signal
(00:32):
group chat that was laying out plans for attack on
the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and the National Security Advisor
invited in a reporter from the Atlantic, which is awkward.
So what happens now, Well, you better believe that Trump
(00:54):
and many of his accolades are scrambling to figure out
what's the angle that we can use on this in
order to push back. Democrats are pouncing as you would expect.
Even Jesse Kelly, who's a radio host, says, we made
a mistake, a bad mistake for which someone should be fired.
That said, we gave them forty eight hours of the
news cycle with our own stupidity. No need to give
them seventy two. It's done.
Speaker 1 (01:15):
Move on.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
It's not a life sentence. So even people who are
part of MAGA are saying.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Look, it's.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Over.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
Let's just move on. Nothing to see here. Don't pay
any attention to this. This is not a massive security breach.
This is not a huge issue with security protocol, something
that we threw a temper tantrum about when Hillary Clinton
had a BlackBerry phone when she was a Secretary of State.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
Just granted it's thirteen years after that, but we don't
worry about it. This is no big deal.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
Don't give them more of a news cycle, more of
that US v Them approach to things. So, what's the
latest on the fallout from the signal debacle from maybe.
Speaker 4 (02:00):
As the White House and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth
say no war plans were sent to a journalist on
the messaging app Signal.
Speaker 5 (02:06):
Nobody's texting more plans because of I know exactly what
I'm doing.
Speaker 4 (02:11):
The journalist satitor in chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg
today publishing what he says Hegseth sent to President Trump's
national security team and inadvertently him and a group message
ahead of airstrikes in Yemen. Earlier this month, The Atlantic
reports Hegseth notified the group of a planned timeline for
flights of F eighteen fighter jets, MQ nine Reaper drones,
and Tomahawk cruise missiles that were launched for the mission.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Now, one of the things that the administration is saying
is these are not war plans. These were battle plans.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Oh well, that's it.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
So it's semantics. These are battle plans, not war plans.
We're not at war. We're at battle. This is akin
to me getting caught cheating on my wife and saying, Honey,
I didn't have an affair. I had an entanglement. So
what's the big deal. It's not an affair, babe, that's
an entanglement. You shouldn't be so upset with me. It
(03:05):
doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Let me Dean
is a News Nation reporter who's been covering the story
for a while. Let'd be great to have you on here.
The President says, this is nothing more than a witch hunt.
Is it something that we need to move on quickly from?
And is it nothing more than a distraction for the
American people from things we should really focus on, like
are we getting enough vitamin A to fight off measles.
Speaker 6 (03:26):
I think there's a lot of concerns for Americans right now,
and this is certainly one of them, because the new
U Gov. Pole actually showed that seventy five percent of
Americans are very concerned about this signal group chat, so
that being the latest that we're in day four here,
of course, the talk is getting a little nuanced of
this group chat. But the reason it's continuing is because
yesterday the Atlantic released these details the full conversation, in
(03:49):
part the full conversation of what was discussed in the
signal group chat with nineteen members of the Trump administration,
while one of those, of course being Jeffrey Goldberg, the
journalist from the Atlantic who was included in this. So
of course there's a lot of concerns on that front.
I also just spoke with the Press secretary here at
the White House who said that they never denied the
(04:09):
mistake was made when this group chat was made. Kind
of a little bit of a messaging shift from the
White House there rather than saying this was a witch
hunt like President Trump was calling it yesterday.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
All right, Livy, So how many countries do we suppose
they're trying to gain access to private phones right now
of some.
Speaker 6 (04:25):
Of our officials, Well, I don't have a number for
you on that. But of course national security is the
utmost concern when it comes to this, and that's why
intelligence officials were questioned in Congress. These hearings were already planned,
but of course they shifted to focus all on this
group chat. And yesterday I got very fiery in the
House Intelligence Committee when Director of National Intelligence TLCI Gabbard,
(04:49):
as well as John Ratcliffe and Cash Pttel were all
questioned about this group chat and they ultimately admitted that
they were a part of it, some of them overseas.
When they were a part of this group chat. Typically
you would find these officials operating in this sense and
a skiffs they do say that these weren't classified things
included in this. But if they weren't classified, why didn't
they release them in the first place?
Speaker 1 (05:09):
And obviously they've kind of painted themselves into a corner.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
They can't be angry with UH, with Atlantic for printing
this group chat if in fact it was not classified, right.
Speaker 6 (05:20):
Right, That's a big question in the big back and
forth that's been going on all week. If it was
classified or not. But you can look at the messages
for yourself and determine your thoughts on them. But of
course that one message from Pete heegsas the Secretary of
Defense really stands up to me where he gives timing
of when bombs are going to be dropped. He said
at one point, this is definitely when the bomb is
going to be dropped. They detailed who was being hit
(05:43):
when they were hit, not something that you would typically
expect in a signal group chat. Look, I've talked to
Trump officials on signal before. I think this is a
very common app that is used within the Trump world,
but I don't think it has been used in this
sense with a journalist privy. Who knows how many times
it might have happened without a journalist privy.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
So that was going to be my next question. Then,
is there any word on whether or not signal will
be used in the future. Are we clamping down and
using skiffs moving forward, or is anybody.
Speaker 6 (06:12):
That really interesting development?
Speaker 1 (06:13):
Yeah?
Speaker 6 (06:14):
Yeah, that was an interesting development here at the White
House yesterday when the White House Press Secretary did a briefing,
she said that signal is approved on government device It's
something that I didn't even realize was the case. And
of course they said actually that they aren't backing away
from signal and they plan on still using it. The
President Trump yesterday when he was speaking to the press,
(06:35):
actually said that there might have been some kind of
glitch with signal, trying to blame signal for this journalist
being added, when Mike Waltz clearly took the blame for
adding Jeffrey Goldberg to this chat. So signal moving forward
definitely a question on if the Trump administration plans on
using it. It sounds like they do at this point.
But of course national security officials are going to have
(06:56):
to be more tight lipped and not go adding journalists
to One of the things.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
That we've heard Libby Diner, a News Nation reporter, is
that this editor for The Atlantic was a disgraced journalist
from a two bit magazine, that he's no good. And
if that's the case, why why would Mike Walls, the
National Security Advisor, have his info in his phone in.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
The first place.
Speaker 6 (07:20):
Yeah, And Mike Waltz was asked about that during an
interview and he basically said that this was in put
it into his phone or sucked into his phone or something,
is how he described it. He didn't give a very
clear description on his relationship with Jeffrey Goldberg. I saw
that Goldberg did an interview where he also wouldn't detail
his relationship, but he basically said, look, my phone number
is in Mike Walltz's phone for a reason, and if
(07:42):
he wants to discredit me, he can. And that is
what the Trump administration has spent all week doing. It
seems like they're kind of taking a shift with their
messaging here saying that they're admitting it was a mistake,
but also yesterday we heard them rail, and the day
before and the day before that, we heard them rail
against Jeffrey Goldberg. That was their main line of attack.
We'll see if that continues throughout the day today.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
And is there any word on whether or not that
messaging is hitting home with the with the the.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
Mag of faithful Look.
Speaker 6 (08:09):
I think that attacking the media is certainly something that
lands with the Trump base. I think that they're very
familiar with that kind of attack, and people can make
up their mind on if that's credible or not. And
Jeffrey Goldberg has criticized President Trump in the past as
a journalist, so I think there are things to look
into in this fact, but he was involuntarily added to
this chat and now he's just reporting the facts and
(08:35):
part of us with the chat.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
So indeed, Levy Dan, here's nation reported Lebby, thanks for
the great reporting, Well done.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
Yeah, thank yous appreciate that. Yeah, very good. All right.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
We know that we've had a couple of high profile
swatting incidents in southern California here and the last few
weeks we're actually seeing a number of swatting incidences, incidents incidents.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
Growing nationwide.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
In fact, one happened to a radio host, syndicated host
out of Texas, and the FCC.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
Chair Brendan Carr, actually got in on this.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
He was mentioning that it was politically motivated, but he
says he called it political violence, saying that he had
been in touch with law enforcement to ensure that they
have access to trace back resources that locate the calls
originating point. Bad actors will face accountability that according to
the FCC, when it comes to some of these others
incidences incident SI. But what about closer to home, Well,
(09:32):
believe it or not, you can't do a whole lot.
If somebody swats, and by swatting, I mean they call
in law enforcement and they file a false claim saying oh,
there's a bomb or something, you can't really do a
whole lot about it if it's if it's done against
an institution. Now, if Amy were to say that that
Chris Merrill has a bomb, then she would be committing
(09:52):
a crime. If in fact, she were to say that
something's happening at the radio station right now in the state,
you can't do a lot as far as prosecution goes,
Which brings us to what we saw in Clarmont where uh,
I mean, if you're saying it's happening at a hospital
(10:13):
or a college or something of that sort, what can
be done well? Legislators aren't tackling the matter. Cakew was reporting.
Speaker 7 (10:21):
That Claremont Peedee says the intent to prosecute the people
who recently pulled a swatting incident here, but they're often
hard to track down and to prosecute. They're hoping some
new laws will change that. Massive law enforcement responses at
both Claremont McKenna College and Lowilinda University Medical Center last
week after two separate swatting calls or hoax at nine
(10:44):
to one one reports in two days required both campuses
to be evacuated.
Speaker 6 (10:49):
Then here there's like a potential shooter, Like yeah, yeah,
that's It's also quite disruptive too.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
I mean, you're not just disrupting one person. You're talking
about disrupting the operations of a hospital.
Speaker 7 (11:02):
Send students in Claremont into a panic.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Everyone else was kind of running around and leaving campus.
Speaker 7 (11:07):
So it's definitely scary, very freaky.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
I was on the phone calling all of my friends.
Speaker 7 (11:12):
At a time when swatting calls are on the rise
across the country.
Speaker 1 (11:16):
I just said that.
Speaker 7 (11:17):
Why are police departments here in California struggling to hold
the suspects account of the.
Speaker 8 (11:22):
Why you can hide your regular phone number, your IP address.
You can basically use a voiceover for you your own voice,
so it disguises your voice. So any that type of
evidence we're looking for is very hard to track down.
Speaker 7 (11:35):
But it's also because of California laws that require.
Speaker 2 (11:38):
At some point, speaking of disguising your voice, at some point,
one of us is gonna get wrapped up in a
in a legal matter. You know that, right at some
point they're gonna they're gonna take samples of Bill's voice
or Amy's voice, or Neil Savadra's voice, and they're gonna
use AI to process it, and then they're gonna have
what sounds like Neil or Amy or Bill may could
(12:00):
dastardly call and.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
Then there's gonna be a knock on the door.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Ah, yes, mister handle, we'd like to talk to you
about a recent phone call you made. And Bill's gonna go,
I don't even know how my cell phone works. I
have and make the calls for me. But this is
gonna happen. You're gonna you're gonna start getting You're gonna
start getting uh, crank calls from Keanu Reeves, from Taylor Swift,
You're gonna start getting crank calls from all kinds of
(12:26):
celebrities whose voices have simply been emulated by AI.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
Mark my words.
Speaker 7 (12:32):
But it's also because of California laws that require perpetrators
here to threaten specific people instead of just an entity
like a school or a hospital in order to prosecute.
Speaker 8 (12:43):
So what do we do, Tom, Especially since ore now
reaching across the us A, people are realizing this is
a bigger issue than what we're actually thinking about.
Speaker 9 (12:50):
This Bill really is going to tackle that loopo where
you don't need to mention a person and it's still
against the law.
Speaker 7 (12:56):
Senator Susan Rubio, who represents Baldwin Park, authored a new
built SB nineteen which allows prosecutors to charge people who
make any credible threats of mass violence at schools, houses
of warship.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
I mean, this one seems like a no brainer. Why
did it take so long?
Speaker 9 (13:15):
Children deserve better, our students, our communities deserve better. So
hopefully you know this will set a strong message.
Speaker 7 (13:21):
Students we spoke with think threats of violence should not
be tolerated.
Speaker 5 (13:25):
If it negatively impacts the community that it affects. It
negatively impacts the police because they could be doing a
myriad of other things.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
And yeah, this is not a free speech issue because
this is intended to incite immediate reaction.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
For those of you that say, well, I was my
speech not protecting.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
No, no, this is the definition of an exception to free speech.
It is intended to incite immediate reaction here and in
this case violence or at the very least, disruption by
the authorities.
Speaker 1 (13:55):
So no false threats, not okay.
Speaker 7 (13:58):
And Senator Rubio says these swatting calls often cost one
hundred thousand dollars in police response when you factor in
things like helicopters and getting responding agencies out to help
clear campuses. She says it's important for parents to talk
to their kids about how serious it is to make
a threat. But you know, sometimes the people who do
these swatting calls are adults reporting in claremont nicolecom Stock
(14:23):
Kkel News.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
Yeah, I think oftentimes we and I'm glad you made
that point because oftentimes I think we say, oh.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
The kids these days, here's what they're doing. I don't
think so.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
I think sometimes you've just got some disgruntled or off
kilter people that they're bored. They like the challenge or
the adventure. They like to make people jump. Maybe they
are sitting alone in their home and they feel powerless
and this gives them some element of control. I'm sure
there's a psychological factor to this, but either way, we've
got to tighten the laws up so that we can
(14:52):
track these people down and stop the sort of nonsense
in the future. So if you missed it, the President
introduced tariffs on all vehicles that are produced outside of
the United States and tariffs on all car parts that
are produced outside of the United States. This is going
to have an impact. It's going to have an impact
(15:13):
on the new car market, and I'm going to tell
you in a minute that it's going to have an
impact on the.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
Used car market as well.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
NBCLA was doing a breakdown on what this means to
you inside.
Speaker 10 (15:23):
The Oval Office. President Trump explains what he just signed, so.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
Will effectively be charging a twenty five percent tariff. But
if you build your car in the United States, seris
no tariff.
Speaker 10 (15:33):
The tariff's go into effect permanently on April second, when
it comes to trade. That's the day the President has
referred to as Liberation Day in America.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
This is the beginning of Liberation Day in America.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
Oh wait a minute, hold on, So March twenty sixth,
and will you just mark down March twenty six for
our Liberation Day celebrations moving forward, Thank you, we'll just
call it l Day.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
We're going to take back just some of the money
that has been taken from us.
Speaker 5 (16:06):
And this is a direct attack, to be clear, a
direct attack.
Speaker 10 (16:10):
Autos are Canada's second largest export, and tonight Prime Minister
Carney says he will assess the details of the Trump
decision before taking retaliatory measures.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
Oh, they're coming. There will be retaliatory measures.
Speaker 10 (16:24):
But vowing to protect hundreds of thousands of Canadian auto workers,
we are going to.
Speaker 1 (16:30):
Stand up for Canada. We're going to be united.
Speaker 10 (16:32):
In Japan, autos make up twenty eight percent of the
country's total exports to the US.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
Wow, I realized it was that much.
Speaker 10 (16:40):
Ichibun, Japan's Prime Minister Isshub telling lawmakers he is strongly
requesting the US not apply these tariffs to Japan and
is quote considering all options in response to them. President
trum said he expects auto firms to relocate to the
United States and build new side or expand existing ones.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
And of course there are some here.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
We know that Honda's open site, Hyundai's open the site,
Toyota's got a plant here.
Speaker 1 (17:08):
But still parts.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
Aren't necessarily being manufactured here. In fact, many parts for
domestic automakers are manufactured elsewhere.
Speaker 10 (17:16):
These twenty five percent terrace will almost certainly increase the
cost consumers will pay to buy new vehicles affected by
the duties. We wait to see how the stark market
will react when it opens, but shares of the top
us automakers did fall sharply in after hours trading. So
just how will these tariffs impact you? Well, according to autoweek,
(17:37):
prices will go.
Speaker 1 (17:39):
Up and be passed on to buyers.
Speaker 10 (17:41):
Autoweek says, depending on the model you purchase, expect to
pay between four and twelve thousand dollars more.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
I'm Robert Cavosik, all right, so four and twelve thousand
dollars more. By the way, I'm looking at the market
right now, and the Dow is pretty flat four it
is down four percent, so we are seeing that there
are some some of these movers that are moving.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
In the wrong direction.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
But overall, let me see, S and P is up, no,
slightly up, it's about flat and NASDAK is just up
thirty five points. So what does this mean to your pocketbook?
It means that if you want to buy a car,
it's gonna cost you more. And that doesn't just go
(18:26):
for new cars. That's gonna go for used cars too.
And here's the logic, it's pretty basic economics. The price
of the new cars goes up four to twelve thousand dollars,
So you say, well, I'm not gonna give four to
twelve thousand dollars more for that new car. I'm gonna
buy a gently owned, a gently loved used car.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
Maybe it's a.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
Certified pre owned, doesn't matter. You're not the only one
doing that, which means that demand for used cars goes up.
If new cars are up four to twelve thousand dollars,
you're gonna start looking at a gently pre owned vehicle,
and so everybody else. If demand goes up and supply
remains the same, then you're gonna see.
Speaker 1 (19:06):
The prices go up.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Expect supply, however, in the used car market to decline,
and the reason is if you are considering a new vehicle,
but all of a sudden, that new vehicle price goes
up four to twelve thousand dollars, you might say, let's
see how say much longer I can push this one?
Because there is no cost in new car payments if
(19:31):
you're still driving the old car now. The old car
costs might go up because of maintenance, but your other
costs they don't increase. So the best way to save
money is to not buy a new vehicle.
Speaker 1 (19:39):
The longer you.
Speaker 2 (19:40):
Make your car last, the more value you get out
of it, and as a result, fewer cars will be
entering into the used car market, which means supply drops
at the same time that demand is up. Expect to
see US cars increase in price in the same way
that we're about to see these vehicles go up in price. Now,
one interesting little tidbit too on the side here is
that Tesla is the ones least likely impacted by the
(20:04):
US tariffs on vehicles because Tesla does their manufacturing here
in the United States. So some are gonna You're gonna
hear people screaming about how this is an unfair trade
advantage being granted to Tesla, and this is all elon
musk and YadA, YadA, YadA. I don't I don't buy
that this falls under the president's tariff philosophy. It just
happens that his top advisor is a South African born
(20:27):
in Canada and doing business in the United States, and
he will benefit from this to a degree because as
soon as there are retaliatory tariffs, that's when Tesla's gonna
get stung. And where do you know that he's been
trying to crack into the Chinese market that hasn't gone
very well. Chinese byd auto manufacturer actually just introduced some
(20:47):
new charging technology, new battery technology that is superior to
anything that we have stateside. If Japan all of a
sudden says, oh, you're gonna tear if our cars, We're definitely.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
Going to hit any vehicles that are coming out of
the United States.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
That's gonna have an impact on US automakers, including Tesla,
and Tesla of course wants to see growth in Europe,
and Europe's going to say, uh.
Speaker 1 (21:07):
New the take a long wump of a shoot bridge
and then it's gonna hit.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
It's gonna hit him, but not until there are retaliatory tariffs,
and when there are expect to hear more bad French
accents from yours. Truly, there is an issue with some
of the DNA samples that the La County Sheriff's Department
had tested in the past. Now they have to retest
them all because somebody didn't get an email.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
Oops.
Speaker 5 (21:37):
So very bizarre situation about how all of this went down.
So here's the thing. The Sheriff's partment over at their
science lab has a series of DNA tests that they
use for various crimes like sex crimes, DNA and murders,
all kinds of different things. So here's the deal. The
company that provides those tests for them notified the sheriff's
partment that the tests that they had were bad. The
problem is is the company sent a letter to a
person who no longer works at the sheriff's department.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
Oops, yeah, that's a problem.
Speaker 5 (22:02):
So that happened more than a year ago, and so
for the last amount of time since that letter was
sent out, the Sheriff's Department continued to use those tests,
not knowing that they were actually bad.
Speaker 1 (22:12):
Here's the thing.
Speaker 5 (22:13):
The company that runs the testing program says it doesn't
provide false positives, but it's just not as reliable as
they should be. So what happens now Now the department
is trying to retest four thousand DNA samples to figure
out if everything is still okay with the way it
was tested the first time. The problem is, as we've
reported before, in certain crimes, in certain situations, there's not
a lot of DNA evidence to test, So in some
(22:35):
cases there may be none left to retest.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
With these cases. Uh oh, that's a problem. Now.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
Isn't it interesting that this email got sent to somebody
that's no longer with the sheriff's department, which means either
they left the sheriff's department and the email was taken away,
which means that the email was sent to a box
it no longer exists and it's up in the ether.
And I don't know if they got a return message
at the manufacturer, but they didn't do any other follow
They certainly didn't send a second notice, third notice, another
(23:03):
way of contacting. Or it's somebody that was terminated from
the sheriff's department, in which case maybe they're even getting
the notification and they're going, well, shouldn't.
Speaker 1 (23:11):
Have fired me, and then they delete the email.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
To be honest, I would have done that unless I
thought that it was putting somebody in jail, you know, wrongly,
then I would probably follow up.
Speaker 1 (23:24):
But if I thought that.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
You know what this is on you guys, yeah, I
probably would have just deleted the email, been like, shouldn't
have fired me?
Speaker 5 (23:31):
Now, what does this mean for all of the cases
that have already gone through judicial system using these now
hampered essentially DNA tests. Well, the District Attorney's office is
working with the sheriff to try to sort all of
that out. Defense attorneys could certainly get a hold of
this and demand that certain things be retested or retried,
and they could have a very big implication for the
criminal justice system.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
We'll have to wait and play that out.
Speaker 5 (23:51):
By the way, the Sheriff's department is the only one
that's come forward and told us about this issue, but
we are told that other law enforcement agencies in the
county also use that company. So we're reaching out to
the different agencies throughout LA County to figure out if
anybody else has been in this test. But we are
talking thousands of bad DNA tests at least what the
Sheriff's department gest.
Speaker 2 (24:07):
And that's just Sheriff's department. As he said, this could be.
This could have a wider fallout. And if I'm a
if I am a defense attorney, I'm salivating right now.
I mean salivating, not like into a sample tube that
they can future test, but I'm salivating like figuratively speaking,
that would be They've got to be very excited about that. Hey,
(24:31):
before we move to the news here, I want to
take just to tell a personal story. If I can't
has nothing to do with this, amy, can would you
mind if you have a second I know you're trying
to put your newscast together. So my my wife and daughter,
just I mean twenty minutes ago left on a very
long road trip. They're going to be on the road
(24:52):
for the next thirty hours. And so I had to
send a message to my daughter and told her to
use ways, And I said, you're going to need to
use ways.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
And choose the voice Amy on that.
Speaker 2 (25:07):
And so she's all excited now that she has a
celebrity who's giving.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
Her directions to wherever she's going. And I think that's
pretty cool. She says, it's pretty cool.
Speaker 11 (25:17):
Anyway, Well, I hope I don't steer her wrong.
Speaker 1 (25:20):
We would blame the app, We wouldn't blame the voice.
Speaker 11 (25:22):
Oh no, you should see Shannon Farren. She comes in
and yells at me.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
She dies, yeah, how dare she?
Speaker 11 (25:29):
Yeah? Amy, you kicked me off the other day. You
sent me the wrong direction.
Speaker 2 (25:33):
How long did you have to record stuff for that?
Did that take forever to get?
Speaker 11 (25:37):
No? No, no, really no, it didn't take very long.
Speaker 12 (25:41):
And I did it when the app was first unveiled,
so in its crowdsource, so it was brand new when
it came out.
Speaker 11 (25:49):
But no, it didn't take that long.
Speaker 12 (25:51):
It's only about one hundred prompts because they mix and
match them.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
Oh okay, so you have to so you would do
like one word like turn. You wouldn't say turn left
in half a mile mile, turn say in one mile,
and then you say turn left.
Speaker 1 (26:08):
Oh that's fascinating.
Speaker 2 (26:10):
Yeah, that's great. I love it when you take me
behind the scenes on that stuff.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
Thank you for sharing that anytime. Appreciate that.
Speaker 2 (26:15):
Yeah, I will let you know if you do indeed,
steer them wrong?
Speaker 1 (26:21):
Makes it? Why does that say boise ten miles? We
weren't even we weren't even north of Colorado.
Speaker 11 (26:28):
That's yeah.
Speaker 2 (26:29):
Yeah, we're gonna learn how to money with Joel Larsgard.
He joins us next Chris merrill In for Bill Handle
Today kf I Am six forty were lab everywhere in
the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 5 (26:40):
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
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.
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.