May 10, 2024 • 31 mins
Peter Charalambous comes on the show to talk about the latest developments in the Trump "Hush Money" trial. San Francisco wants to give free booze to homeless people. California has cut a lot of jobs recently.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Can't. I am six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
You're listening to the John Cobel Podcast on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Welcome everybody.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
We're on every day from one until four and then
after four o'clock John Cobelt Show on demand on iHeart.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
App as well.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Since it's Friday, we got moistline people will be featured
three twenty and three point fifty later this afternoon. And
also we've got Gavin Newsom announcing announcing an even bigger
budget deficit. They've blown so much money on so much garbage,
they can't keep up with all the cuts that they
(00:37):
need to do. So the whole thing is exploding in
his handsome, stupid face, and we're going to talk about it. Also,
one of the news sites set up a Gavin Newsom
bingo game in advance of the speech, listening a couple
of dozen of his favorite phrases that he used, that
weird techno speak jargon that nobody understands, tries to pass
(01:00):
himself off as an intellectual. We'll we'll play that, play
that game coming up, all right, So you know we're
we're headed towards the finale soon of the Trump trial
with Michael Cohen probably next week is going to be testifying,
but there were still more details to go through today
(01:22):
in between Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen, and we got
Peter Haralumbus from ABC News who's been following following the
case in New York City. Peter, how are you? I
don't hear him. I hear a hum.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Can hear me right now? I can hear you, Peter,
how are you?
Speaker 3 (01:42):
I'm good? Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Okay, So we're kind of in between zone here between
Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen's coming up for much the
next week.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
Correct, that's correct.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
But you're completely right. We're in the final stretch of
this case, just the days, a few days left in
the government's case here. The only real major witness left
of the two outstanding state witnesses is Michael Cohen, who
could take the witness stand as early as Monday, and
who could be on the witness stand for days as
prosecution tries to use him to kind of develop their
(02:15):
cases in many ways to start witness in this case,
and then defense lawyers attempt to go after his credibility
in any way they can.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
What I personally am having trouble figuring out what the
big multi felony crime is here. Can you run through
for people, because I don't think a lot of people
understand that we've got a misdemeanor that they have connected
to a felony and the felony is election interference. Can
you explain how that works? Because next week, I assume
(02:48):
the prosecution is finally going to get into that part
of the case.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
Yeah, it's a good question, and the jury is going
to have to wrap their heads around it sometime in
the next few weeks when they begin deliberating. But fundamentally,
the thirty four counts in this case are falsifying business records.
That's a felony offense here in New York when it's
charged in conjunction or in furtherance excuse me of an
additional crime. So when you look at the actual indictment,
(03:16):
it lists thirty four counts of different business records that
prosecutors say Trump falsified. So we're talking about basically ledger entries, checks,
and invoices. These were documents used to repay Michael Cohen
in twenty seventeen for a hush money payment he made
to Stormy Daniels ahead of the twenty sixteen election. So
(03:36):
those are documents. Fundamentally, it's the document's case, But prosecutors
say all of that activity was used to kind of
hide what they say it's criminal conduct before the twenty
sixteen election, when Trump and David Pecker, the former publisher
of the National Inquirer, and Michael Cohen got together in
a room and said we're going to look out from
(03:57):
negative stories about Trump and kill those stories. The big
story that got killed that we've heard a ton about
over the last week is Stormy Daniel's allegations of an
affair with Donald Trump. That was the kind of reason
for that one hundred and thirty thousand dollars payments in
the days ahead of the twenty sixteen election, and that
was the payment that Trump was reimbursing Michael Cohen for
(04:19):
in twenty seventeen.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
So they're trying to make the case that trying to
bury negative stories in a political campaign is illegal, is
election interference. I mean, I would think every major candidate
has done that since the beginning of time. If there's
something bad out there, you have to find a way
(04:41):
to keep it a secret.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
I mean, fundamentally, that's Trump's lawyer, Trump's defense here there.
His lawyers have been upfront from day one of this
trial telling the jury that, you know, politics is a
game of killing negative stories in a way, and that
there's nothing illegal about signing a non disclosure agreement. I
guess the thing though, for the jur here is that
they don't really have a legal question in front of them.
(05:04):
The judge is going to give the jury very clear
instructions on what the law says and how they should
interpret it. Even though there might be lawyers on this jury,
you know, there are a few These twelve jurors who
begin deliberating in a matter of weeks, will kind of
avoid the legal question. All they'll have to figure out
is the factual one and what they believed Trump's intent
(05:25):
was when he was agreeing with Michael Cohen and David
Pecker to identify and kill negative stories, and what he
was thinking and doing after the twenty sixteen election when
he was signing checks in the overall office to repay
Michael Cohen. But I completely see your points, and defense
lawyers have consistently raised this argument that there's nothing wrong
(05:46):
with killing a negative story or signing in NBA agreements
per se. It's a matter of kind of if it's
done in conjunction with another crime like falsifying business.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
Records, right, and that particular myss to deaner, I keep
hearing the statute of limitations had run out on it
unless you connected to the felony of election interference, but
standing on its own, too much time has lapsed since
the since the incident.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
Yeah, so, I mean the judge you know, had the
opportunity to throw out the case months ago based on
that legal argument that the statute implementations that had run out,
that this wasn't a felony offense, and in his eyes,
the prosecution's theory, the legal theory at least behind the
case is functional, and that's why this case is at
the point where you know, Donald Trump is in a
(06:37):
court room on a daily basis. It's interesting though, today
we heard for kind of the first time that the
judge wants to start hearing instructions on the charge, which
is kind of legal instructions that he will give the
jury after the closing statement. That was interesting because one
it shows that this trial is coming to an end soon,
and two that's going to be a critical moment of
the trial. Basically, what instructions the jury has will be
(07:01):
incredibly significant in terms of how they deliberate in the
final decision they make in terms of Trump's innocence or guilt.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
Very strange trial.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
I mean, obviously a lot of people think this is
just a political hit job, and I'm just fascinated by
how they created the scaffolding of a misdemeanor turned into
thirty four felonies to give it some legitimacy.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
But that's, I don't know, pretty wobbly.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
Scaffolding, especially in the context of you know, the jury
just heard two days of testimony from a porn star
who alledgishiated an affair with the former president. So you know,
it's hard to come back to the fact that this
is a document's case, but fundamentally that's the jury's question
their days or weeks away from beginning to deliberate.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
Peter, thanks very much, Talk with you again soon. Thanks
so much, John, Say Peter Harlambus from ABC News. You know,
I thought i'd hear this trial play out and listen
to the case. But you're right if you think this
is just a political hit job, it absolutely is. There
(08:08):
isn't much of a crime here. First of all, the
basis the base misdemeanor the statue of limitations expired, and
that's falsifying business records. And even that, what he wrote
down is legal fees on the ledger, which they were.
I mean, he was reimbursing his attorney who had paid
(08:29):
off Stormy Daniels. And paying off a woman to keep
her mouth shut about an affair is not illegal. So
Michael Cohen fronts the money, Trump reimburses him. It was
for legal reasons. But even so, even if you buy
the falsification of business records, well, the statute of limitations expired.
The only way to suspend the statue of limitations if
(08:51):
you tied it to a felony, and they came up
with thirty four felonies like Peter said, you know, writing
the check, preparing the invoice, writing in the business ledger
with the what the check was for. So and it
was a series of checks that went to Cohen to
reimburse them.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
But what is it to keep bad keep bad news
out of the public eye. I mean, what president hasn't
done that. You go through the whole Clinton era just
as an example, I mean that was he had a
whole team to keep all the all the affairs out
of the public eye. They were paying off people and
(09:34):
threatening people and making settlements all over that. I just
don't I don't get it. And why can't you keep
a private affair private and pay off your pay off
the woman you were with. I mean, that's not that's
not illegal because it's a political job. So see how
(09:55):
it's really gonna come down to if the jury's part
is in or if all the jurors or parties in
against Trump or not.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
There's really nothing else to it. More coming up.
Speaker 4 (10:05):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI A
M six forty.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
Well, this just in, or maybe it's this just found.
I don't know exactly what time this was posted in
the San Francisco Chronicle, but uh, er did you find
this or someone forward this time?
Speaker 1 (10:22):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (10:22):
I found this as I was scrolling Twitter on the
John Cobelt radio page as I do during the show
to try and look for a new stories for you.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
Well, this is this is terrific. Uh.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
It turns out for a number of years, the city
of San Francisco has given has been giving homeless.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
Drunks free booze.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
Tax money has been sent, spent to give drunks booze.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Not making this up.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
I'm going to read it as is because I just
got it for a small slice of San Francisco's homeless
population that suffers with severe alcohol addiction. Well stop right there,
what do you mean as small slice? I would think
most of them are getting blasted. In fact, when that
homeless encampment sprung up not that far from my house,
(11:18):
I got to see firsthand what it was really like
because I drove by it every day. There's a lot
of people getting blasted on a lot of booze. There
were always empty whiskey bottles strewn about the small slice.
Who wrote this? What's their name? Saint John Barnard Smith?
(11:41):
That a person, Saint John barnetd hythened Smith. Oh again
with the hyphenated people. Hyphenated people are always headaches. And
the other writer is Maggie Angst perfect name.
Speaker 1 (11:56):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
Saint John is a man or a woman who the
hell knows. But it says that nurses offer treatment not
in a pill, but in a shot of vodka or
a glass of beer. This this has been going on
for a while. It may sound counterintuitive, experts say, you think,
(12:19):
but it helps keep people off the streets in an
out of emergency rooms and jails or the morgue.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
I see.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
This is that harm reduction garbage, which is another failed
progressive concept. They you know, like those programs where they
give drugs to drug addicts so they won't die.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
Now, this give booze to alcoholics.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
Do you know any alcohol addiction program that stipulates that
booze should be given several times a day to the addict.
I'm not aware of it. I don't think they do
that at AA meetings, do they. San Francisco set up
a managed alcohol program four years ago as a way
(13:03):
to care for vulnerable, homeless people who drank excessive amounts
of alcohol, and we're among the city's highed users of
emergency services.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
They actually do this.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
Yeah, they're vulnerable because they don't stop drinking. We're supposed
to feel sorry for them. They get up every day
and they choose to drink. There's a billion treatment programs
out there that we pay for. Since its creation, the program,
which started out with ten beds, has served fifty five clients.
(13:40):
Fifty five wow, it's now twenty beds. It costs five
million dollars a year. Nurses dispense doses of vodka and beer?
What brand of vodka and beer for five million bucks
for twenty people.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
Gotta be Gregor's where they buy their vodka.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
Such programs don't focus on sobriety, no kidding, but rather
on improving patients overall health while decreasing hospital stays and
calls to police. So if you're a sick, wasted alcoholic,
San Francisco gives you more booze to be less sick
and less wasted. This is going on in the Tenderloin,
(14:32):
but the city's efforts came under scrutiny this week after
the chair of the board of a local nonprofit that
pushes abstinence shared posts on social media accusing the city
of wasting millions of dollars of taxpayer money on a
program that gives booze to the homeless. Adam Nathan of
(14:54):
the Salvation Army San Francisco said providing free drugs to
drug addicts doesn't solve their problem, It just stretches them out.
Where's the recovery in all this? There is no recovery.
It's just a scam. These are other nonprofits stealing tax
money with a kakamamy.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
Can you imagine.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
I mean, there's a lot of crooks in the nonprofit
business and you can just see them sitting around going,
I got one.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
Why don't we Why don't we give booze to alcoholics?
Speaker 2 (15:22):
Okay, let's call it harm reduction, great idea, And let's
give drugs to drug addicts and call it harm reduction. Excellent.
We can have two nonprofit businesses going on at once.
I'll be CEO of one, you'd be CEO of the other.
We both can make six figures and we're gonna do
harm reduction one to Breed, The mayor said harm reduction
(15:49):
was not reducing harm, but making things worse. This put
her at odds with her own public health department, which
stands by harm reduction as an integral part of the
agency system of care. See with progressive politics, everything is inverted.
Everything that doesn't make sense makes sense to them. But again,
(16:10):
they're just all in on the racket. They're all in
on the scam. Breed recently tried to open abstinence only
housing for homeless people near Chinatown, but she had to
scrap the proposal among neighborhood backlash. I one guy who's
(16:32):
in recovery from Heroin a guy named Tom Wolfe. Are
we going to manage people's addiction with our tax money
in perpetuity forever? It seems like that's what we're saying.
I think we should be spending that money on detox
and recovery. Well, no wonder, the homeless crowd just gets
bigger and bigger, and thousands die in the streets because
(16:53):
even the outreach to send them to some kind of
treatment program, they just treat them with more vodka and
more beer.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
No wonder they stay homeless.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Nathan claimed that he came upon an old hotel where
kegs were set up to give out free beer to
the homeless. It was set up so people in the
program could just walk in and grab a beer and
then another one.
Speaker 5 (17:17):
It's like a fraternity party.
Speaker 1 (17:24):
All right, I got bored. We've got to take a break.
Speaker 4 (17:28):
You're listening to John Cobels on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
We're on from one until four, and then after four
o'clock John Cobelt's show on demand on the iHeart app
Sometime later to the show, We're going to talk to
Vince Fong. Vince is Assemblyman, Republican and he's got a
response to Newsom's budget proposal.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
We've got a big deficit.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
Even though we have unbelievably high taxes in this state
in just about every category where number one are close
to it, there's not enough money and Newsom is scrambling around. First,
he keeps lying about the size of the deficit, but
reality keeps exposing him, and he's got a budget proposal.
(18:16):
Vince Fong says it's not matching reality, so we'll talk
to him sometime later in the show. Very busy man. Now,
I'm sorry, but this Chronicle article is making me crazy.
We just found this a few minutes ago. It's a
whole expose on how the city of San Francisco is
(18:37):
paying millions of dollars to keep drunks drunk. If you're
just joining us, the city has a program to keep
feeding vodka, beer and anything else to the homeless who
are alcoholics. And they're claiming that this saves money on
(18:59):
nine one calls and emergency hospital room visits, so it's
worth spending the money on the booze. And the easy
answer to that is, actually what would help the homeless
and save money is to force them into treatment. Because
public drunkenness is a crime along with all the other
aborate behavior that goes with it. And the way it
(19:22):
should work is when you're found drunk on the street,
you've got two choices. You'll either go to jail or
we're going to send you to detox treatment, and you
have to go. And that's how you help them, because
then they'll get off the booze, you clean out their system,
and you get them real help. But that's going to
(19:45):
trigger some people, so listen to this. The program has
nurses assess the patients that would be the homeless, and
they will give the equivalent of one to two drinks
eight four times a day. So they're giving the vagrants
(20:06):
eight drinks a day, either one point seven ounces of
vodka or any other liquor.
Speaker 1 (20:14):
So you have your.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
You want vodka, you want bourbon, you want rum, your gin?
Speaker 1 (20:22):
What do you want.
Speaker 2 (20:26):
Either one point seven ounces of liquor or five ounces
of wine? I guess you got your choice of red
white rose or twelve ounces of beer. So do they
walk around with like bar menus? And in addition to
medication and therapy, the program provides cultural outings.
Speaker 5 (20:50):
You said they've spent what five million dollars of taxpayer
money on this program. Yes, that's bottle service prices in Vegas.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
I wonder if any other city in the country is
doing this now, And it was it was exposed by
this by this guy, Adam Nathan from the Salvation Army,
and that organization gets a lot of criticism too about
the money it spends. But this is really really outrageous.
This is really out of control. Nuts. So they get
(21:24):
they get eight drinks a day, any kind of liquor.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
They want wine, beer, Oh.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
So they so they go to cultural outings, but you
get them drunk.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
And then what do you take into the theater, the ballet,
the zoo.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
They get the cheap tickets out in the outfield everybody.
Speaker 5 (21:51):
Could you imagine all the homeless people in the top
deck at Dodger Stadium INFLA had this.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
This is San Francisco government, No wonder it's a sewer
up there. Oh, and they give them life skills classes,
life skills. Does any of that involve going to get
a job. And it says that some participants have been
discharged for a higher level of care or recovery program,
but some of the participants died after leaving the program
(22:27):
as a result of their end stage alcoholism, which.
Speaker 1 (22:31):
We paid for. We paid for their death.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
We kept giving them drinks after we knew they were alcoholics,
and then they leave the program and die. Well, what
was the point of that. You force them into treatment
or they go to jail. They'll pick treatment. Wow, this
is a Canadian idea. They've had forty of these programs
(22:55):
in Canada. It's a it says. It says doctor Bernie Pauley,
a researcher who pioneered these programs in Canada. Oh my god,
he says, it's a better way to spend our money
than someone being in jail or a hospital where they're
not getting care for their health needs. I have an
idea again, force them into treatment or they go to jail.
Speaker 1 (23:17):
That's what you do.
Speaker 2 (23:18):
Or you go to jail and you forced you force
them into detox. I mean, they sink, I'm looking at
the reporter's name. Oh it's a guy, Saint John Barnard Smith.
It's a guy. Uh he's and and this this Maggie Angst.
Speaker 1 (23:42):
They don't.
Speaker 2 (23:43):
Oh she covers homelessness, addiction, and mental health. Oh this
is their specialty beat. Wow, this is cracked. I mean,
this is absolutely nuts. Eight drinks a day for alcoholics.
I'm exhausted. We'm back, We've got I don't know what
the hell we have whatever, whatever I feel like to it.
Speaker 4 (24:05):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (24:11):
Coming up after two o'clock. Joe Biden gave an interview
to CNN. Aaron Burnett was the potted plant, and she
sat there while Biden, according to The New York Post,
ripped off seventeen lies in fifteen minutes. Or was it
fifteen lives in seventeen minutes? It was huh, it was
(24:34):
fifteen and seventeen, fifteen and seventeen almost a wy a minute.
He SE's slowing down a bit. And these these were
real lies. These were whoppers. He was saying things about
about the economy that were flat out false. We're going
to play you just a few. We don't have time
to go through all fifteen. But for the like, she
would ask questions that were could be a little pointed.
(24:57):
Then he would give an answer and it would be
to total horseman door.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
And she wouldn't. And it's easily challenged.
Speaker 2 (25:04):
I mean, sometimes you get a politician which I don't
like interviewing them most of the time because you know
they'll throw out all kinds of horse crap, and you
can't be a human wikipedia and respond to every lie
in real time, and you have no idea which way
they're gonna veer and what lies they're going to tell,
and how extensive the lies they're going to be. So
it's why nobody should interview politicians. But these were whoppers.
(25:30):
We'll start with the inflation rate and then I'll be
coming up after two o'clock, so be there for that.
We're also going to talk about Gavin Newsom's budget being
upside down, not only wildly bloated, but wildly in deficit.
They're gushing red Incup and Sacramento because they created a
whole bunch of nonsense programs.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
They're blowing a lot of money on them, and.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
Now they're going to have to cut him because I
don't think anybody's in the move for trying to pass
a tax increase this year. And here's one of the
reasons that the that that tax revenues are way down.
Four hundred and eighty two thousand people in California lost
their jobs in the last year. The year up to
(26:22):
March thirty. First, I take the one year period from
April of twenty twenty three to March of twenty twenty four,
and four hundred and eighty two thousand people got the
bad news. That's a lot of people, and that was
number one in the nation. Now we have the biggest
population in the nation. Sure, but even so it was outsized, disproportionate,
(26:48):
I think is the word that all the progressives like
to use.
Speaker 1 (26:52):
This was it was unequal.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
Texas was second, New York third, Illinois fourth, Florida fifth.
It was the biggest percentage of job cuts in the
last seven quarters. These these job losses were sixteen percent
of the total in the United States. We're only twelve
(27:17):
percent of the population. See, it's disproportionate. We have more
job losses than we should have if things were proportionate.
There was only six states that performed worse than California
over the last over the last ten years. The only
(27:47):
states that were worse were Idaho, New Jersey, Texas, Utah,
New York, and Colorado. So there's there's a there's a
there's a there's a lot of job losses. We also
have really high inflation. So if I've lost your job.
You've lost ground because wages in California are not keeping
(28:09):
up with the inflation increases. And this all leads to
a huge shortage of tax money, which is what we're
going to get into sometime in the next hour or
two because Newsom was trying, Oh do some is trying
to patch this and he's going into the reserves. Do
you know what we're spending? You know, we were spending
(28:30):
over three hundred billion dollars a year, three hundred and
ten billion dollars last year. I remember when Schwarzenegger was governor,
and that's not that long ago, that only goes back
thirteen fourteen years. His budget was one hundred billion. How
did they triple the size of government in fourteen years?
(28:52):
Well by giving away money to everybody in sight. Now
we have a cradle to grave healthcare for every illegal
alien in the state. You got that for starters. All right,
we come back. We're going to go through Joe Biden.
You could you could you could tell how weak a
(29:14):
journalist is if the White House chooses you for one
of the very few one on one sit downs with
Joe Biden. Biden has done next to none of these
for obvious reasons. In fact, you know, as we go
through his lies, you wonder are they lies or maybe
he really believes this because he's senile, Because there was
(29:36):
a way to answer this question and try to spin
it to make yourself look good, it's the inflation question. Instead,
he just flat out made up a reality that doesn't exist,
and so is it because he's seen Nile and he
really believes it. He doesn't remember the circumstances when he
(29:56):
took office. I don't know, but the White House new
that Aaron Burnett at CNN wasn't going to challenge him
on it. Now was that a pre made agreement? Did
the bosses at CNN tell Aaron Burnett don't challenge him.
Just let the old guy say whatever he wants to say.
We want to get the quick rating hit and everyone
will forget by the next day. I mean, That's what
(30:18):
an anchor at ESPN said a couple of weeks ago.
She had to do an interview sit down with Biden
on satellite, and the bosses at ESPN and ABC News
and all the way up to Bob Eiger at Disney
all told her follow this script doesn't matter how he
answers you follow this script and don't challenge him, and
there's no follow ups and there's no nothing. And so
(30:40):
everybody was in on the fake interview. Was Stage Steele
who made that claim, and she was very detailed. I
don't think it was just a claim. I think she
was telling the truth. So did Aaron Burnett. She have to,
I mean, is that what journalists have to do when
the bosses say, Okay, we're going to do a fake
public relations interview for the president. The White House wants
(31:02):
it this way, this, this, I mean, this is communist
China stuff, right, this is so see it in now
like a state news ren agency. I don't know how
any news person sitting there with Biden starting to tell
the lies that he told not stand up and go
wait a second, hold on not doing this or I
mean you really you're going to get fired for challenge
(31:22):
you to the president on a whopping lie. And I
haven't even brought up the double standard with Trump. I'm
just saying factually, we'll get to it next. We've got
Debs off today. Ashley Johnson is hiding the KFI twenty
for our newsroom. Hey, you've been listening to the John
Cobalt Show podcast. You can always hear the show live
(31:43):
on KFI Am six forty from one to four pm
every Monday through Friday, and of course anytime on demand
on the iHeartRadio app
Can't. I am six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
You're listening to the John Cobel Podcast on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Welcome everybody.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
We're on every day from one until four and then
after four o'clock John Cobelt Show on demand on iHeart.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
App as well.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Since it's Friday, we got moistline people will be featured
three twenty and three point fifty later this afternoon. And
also we've got Gavin Newsom announcing announcing an even bigger
budget deficit. They've blown so much money on so much garbage,
they can't keep up with all the cuts that they
(00:37):
need to do. So the whole thing is exploding in
his handsome, stupid face, and we're going to talk about it. Also,
one of the news sites set up a Gavin Newsom
bingo game in advance of the speech, listening a couple
of dozen of his favorite phrases that he used, that
weird techno speak jargon that nobody understands, tries to pass
(01:00):
himself off as an intellectual. We'll we'll play that, play
that game coming up, all right, So you know we're
we're headed towards the finale soon of the Trump trial
with Michael Cohen probably next week is going to be testifying,
but there were still more details to go through today
(01:22):
in between Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen, and we got
Peter Haralumbus from ABC News who's been following following the
case in New York City. Peter, how are you? I
don't hear him. I hear a hum.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Can hear me right now? I can hear you, Peter,
how are you?
Speaker 3 (01:42):
I'm good? Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Okay, So we're kind of in between zone here between
Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen's coming up for much the
next week.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
Correct, that's correct.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
But you're completely right. We're in the final stretch of
this case, just the days, a few days left in
the government's case here. The only real major witness left
of the two outstanding state witnesses is Michael Cohen, who
could take the witness stand as early as Monday, and
who could be on the witness stand for days as
prosecution tries to use him to kind of develop their
(02:15):
cases in many ways to start witness in this case,
and then defense lawyers attempt to go after his credibility
in any way they can.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
What I personally am having trouble figuring out what the
big multi felony crime is here. Can you run through
for people, because I don't think a lot of people
understand that we've got a misdemeanor that they have connected
to a felony and the felony is election interference. Can
you explain how that works? Because next week, I assume
(02:48):
the prosecution is finally going to get into that part
of the case.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
Yeah, it's a good question, and the jury is going
to have to wrap their heads around it sometime in
the next few weeks when they begin deliberating. But fundamentally,
the thirty four counts in this case are falsifying business records.
That's a felony offense here in New York when it's
charged in conjunction or in furtherance excuse me of an
additional crime. So when you look at the actual indictment,
(03:16):
it lists thirty four counts of different business records that
prosecutors say Trump falsified. So we're talking about basically ledger entries, checks,
and invoices. These were documents used to repay Michael Cohen
in twenty seventeen for a hush money payment he made
to Stormy Daniels ahead of the twenty sixteen election. So
(03:36):
those are documents. Fundamentally, it's the document's case, But prosecutors
say all of that activity was used to kind of
hide what they say it's criminal conduct before the twenty
sixteen election, when Trump and David Pecker, the former publisher
of the National Inquirer, and Michael Cohen got together in
a room and said we're going to look out from
(03:57):
negative stories about Trump and kill those stories. The big
story that got killed that we've heard a ton about
over the last week is Stormy Daniel's allegations of an
affair with Donald Trump. That was the kind of reason
for that one hundred and thirty thousand dollars payments in
the days ahead of the twenty sixteen election, and that
was the payment that Trump was reimbursing Michael Cohen for
(04:19):
in twenty seventeen.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
So they're trying to make the case that trying to
bury negative stories in a political campaign is illegal, is
election interference. I mean, I would think every major candidate
has done that since the beginning of time. If there's
something bad out there, you have to find a way
(04:41):
to keep it a secret.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
I mean, fundamentally, that's Trump's lawyer, Trump's defense here there.
His lawyers have been upfront from day one of this
trial telling the jury that, you know, politics is a
game of killing negative stories in a way, and that
there's nothing illegal about signing a non disclosure agreement. I
guess the thing though, for the jur here is that
they don't really have a legal question in front of them.
(05:04):
The judge is going to give the jury very clear
instructions on what the law says and how they should
interpret it. Even though there might be lawyers on this jury,
you know, there are a few These twelve jurors who
begin deliberating in a matter of weeks, will kind of
avoid the legal question. All they'll have to figure out
is the factual one and what they believed Trump's intent
(05:25):
was when he was agreeing with Michael Cohen and David
Pecker to identify and kill negative stories, and what he
was thinking and doing after the twenty sixteen election when
he was signing checks in the overall office to repay
Michael Cohen. But I completely see your points, and defense
lawyers have consistently raised this argument that there's nothing wrong
(05:46):
with killing a negative story or signing in NBA agreements
per se. It's a matter of kind of if it's
done in conjunction with another crime like falsifying business.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
Records, right, and that particular myss to deaner, I keep
hearing the statute of limitations had run out on it
unless you connected to the felony of election interference, but
standing on its own, too much time has lapsed since
the since the incident.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
Yeah, so, I mean the judge you know, had the
opportunity to throw out the case months ago based on
that legal argument that the statute implementations that had run out,
that this wasn't a felony offense, and in his eyes,
the prosecution's theory, the legal theory at least behind the
case is functional, and that's why this case is at
the point where you know, Donald Trump is in a
(06:37):
court room on a daily basis. It's interesting though, today
we heard for kind of the first time that the
judge wants to start hearing instructions on the charge, which
is kind of legal instructions that he will give the
jury after the closing statement. That was interesting because one
it shows that this trial is coming to an end soon,
and two that's going to be a critical moment of
the trial. Basically, what instructions the jury has will be
(07:01):
incredibly significant in terms of how they deliberate in the
final decision they make in terms of Trump's innocence or guilt.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
Very strange trial.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
I mean, obviously a lot of people think this is
just a political hit job, and I'm just fascinated by
how they created the scaffolding of a misdemeanor turned into
thirty four felonies to give it some legitimacy.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
But that's, I don't know, pretty wobbly.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
Scaffolding, especially in the context of you know, the jury
just heard two days of testimony from a porn star
who alledgishiated an affair with the former president. So you know,
it's hard to come back to the fact that this
is a document's case, but fundamentally that's the jury's question
their days or weeks away from beginning to deliberate.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
Peter, thanks very much, Talk with you again soon. Thanks
so much, John, Say Peter Harlambus from ABC News. You know,
I thought i'd hear this trial play out and listen
to the case. But you're right if you think this
is just a political hit job, it absolutely is. There
(08:08):
isn't much of a crime here. First of all, the
basis the base misdemeanor the statue of limitations expired, and
that's falsifying business records. And even that, what he wrote
down is legal fees on the ledger, which they were.
I mean, he was reimbursing his attorney who had paid
(08:29):
off Stormy Daniels. And paying off a woman to keep
her mouth shut about an affair is not illegal. So
Michael Cohen fronts the money, Trump reimburses him. It was
for legal reasons. But even so, even if you buy
the falsification of business records, well, the statute of limitations expired.
The only way to suspend the statue of limitations if
(08:51):
you tied it to a felony, and they came up
with thirty four felonies like Peter said, you know, writing
the check, preparing the invoice, writing in the business ledger
with the what the check was for. So and it
was a series of checks that went to Cohen to
reimburse them.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
But what is it to keep bad keep bad news
out of the public eye. I mean, what president hasn't
done that. You go through the whole Clinton era just
as an example, I mean that was he had a
whole team to keep all the all the affairs out
of the public eye. They were paying off people and
(09:34):
threatening people and making settlements all over that. I just
don't I don't get it. And why can't you keep
a private affair private and pay off your pay off
the woman you were with. I mean, that's not that's
not illegal because it's a political job. So see how
(09:55):
it's really gonna come down to if the jury's part
is in or if all the jurors or parties in
against Trump or not.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
There's really nothing else to it. More coming up.
Speaker 4 (10:05):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI A
M six forty.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
Well, this just in, or maybe it's this just found.
I don't know exactly what time this was posted in
the San Francisco Chronicle, but uh, er did you find
this or someone forward this time?
Speaker 1 (10:22):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (10:22):
I found this as I was scrolling Twitter on the
John Cobelt radio page as I do during the show
to try and look for a new stories for you.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
Well, this is this is terrific. Uh.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
It turns out for a number of years, the city
of San Francisco has given has been giving homeless.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
Drunks free booze.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
Tax money has been sent, spent to give drunks booze.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Not making this up.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
I'm going to read it as is because I just
got it for a small slice of San Francisco's homeless
population that suffers with severe alcohol addiction. Well stop right there,
what do you mean as small slice? I would think
most of them are getting blasted. In fact, when that
homeless encampment sprung up not that far from my house,
(11:18):
I got to see firsthand what it was really like
because I drove by it every day. There's a lot
of people getting blasted on a lot of booze. There
were always empty whiskey bottles strewn about the small slice.
Who wrote this? What's their name? Saint John Barnard Smith?
(11:41):
That a person, Saint John barnetd hythened Smith. Oh again
with the hyphenated people. Hyphenated people are always headaches. And
the other writer is Maggie Angst perfect name.
Speaker 1 (11:56):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
Saint John is a man or a woman who the
hell knows. But it says that nurses offer treatment not
in a pill, but in a shot of vodka or
a glass of beer. This this has been going on
for a while. It may sound counterintuitive, experts say, you think,
(12:19):
but it helps keep people off the streets in an
out of emergency rooms and jails or the morgue.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
I see.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
This is that harm reduction garbage, which is another failed
progressive concept. They you know, like those programs where they
give drugs to drug addicts so they won't die.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
Now, this give booze to alcoholics.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
Do you know any alcohol addiction program that stipulates that
booze should be given several times a day to the addict.
I'm not aware of it. I don't think they do
that at AA meetings, do they. San Francisco set up
a managed alcohol program four years ago as a way
(13:03):
to care for vulnerable, homeless people who drank excessive amounts
of alcohol, and we're among the city's highed users of
emergency services.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
They actually do this.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
Yeah, they're vulnerable because they don't stop drinking. We're supposed
to feel sorry for them. They get up every day
and they choose to drink. There's a billion treatment programs
out there that we pay for. Since its creation, the program,
which started out with ten beds, has served fifty five clients.
(13:40):
Fifty five wow, it's now twenty beds. It costs five
million dollars a year. Nurses dispense doses of vodka and beer?
What brand of vodka and beer for five million bucks
for twenty people.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
Gotta be Gregor's where they buy their vodka.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
Such programs don't focus on sobriety, no kidding, but rather
on improving patients overall health while decreasing hospital stays and
calls to police. So if you're a sick, wasted alcoholic,
San Francisco gives you more booze to be less sick
and less wasted. This is going on in the Tenderloin,
(14:32):
but the city's efforts came under scrutiny this week after
the chair of the board of a local nonprofit that
pushes abstinence shared posts on social media accusing the city
of wasting millions of dollars of taxpayer money on a
program that gives booze to the homeless. Adam Nathan of
(14:54):
the Salvation Army San Francisco said providing free drugs to
drug addicts doesn't solve their problem, It just stretches them out.
Where's the recovery in all this? There is no recovery.
It's just a scam. These are other nonprofits stealing tax
money with a kakamamy.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
Can you imagine.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
I mean, there's a lot of crooks in the nonprofit
business and you can just see them sitting around going,
I got one.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
Why don't we Why don't we give booze to alcoholics?
Speaker 2 (15:22):
Okay, let's call it harm reduction, great idea, And let's
give drugs to drug addicts and call it harm reduction. Excellent.
We can have two nonprofit businesses going on at once.
I'll be CEO of one, you'd be CEO of the other.
We both can make six figures and we're gonna do
harm reduction one to Breed, The mayor said harm reduction
(15:49):
was not reducing harm, but making things worse. This put
her at odds with her own public health department, which
stands by harm reduction as an integral part of the
agency system of care. See with progressive politics, everything is inverted.
Everything that doesn't make sense makes sense to them. But again,
(16:10):
they're just all in on the racket. They're all in
on the scam. Breed recently tried to open abstinence only
housing for homeless people near Chinatown, but she had to
scrap the proposal among neighborhood backlash. I one guy who's
(16:32):
in recovery from Heroin a guy named Tom Wolfe. Are
we going to manage people's addiction with our tax money
in perpetuity forever? It seems like that's what we're saying.
I think we should be spending that money on detox
and recovery. Well, no wonder, the homeless crowd just gets
bigger and bigger, and thousands die in the streets because
(16:53):
even the outreach to send them to some kind of
treatment program, they just treat them with more vodka and
more beer.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
No wonder they stay homeless.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Nathan claimed that he came upon an old hotel where
kegs were set up to give out free beer to
the homeless. It was set up so people in the
program could just walk in and grab a beer and
then another one.
Speaker 5 (17:17):
It's like a fraternity party.
Speaker 1 (17:24):
All right, I got bored. We've got to take a break.
Speaker 4 (17:28):
You're listening to John Cobels on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
We're on from one until four, and then after four
o'clock John Cobelt's show on demand on the iHeart app
Sometime later to the show, We're going to talk to
Vince Fong. Vince is Assemblyman, Republican and he's got a
response to Newsom's budget proposal.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
We've got a big deficit.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
Even though we have unbelievably high taxes in this state
in just about every category where number one are close
to it, there's not enough money and Newsom is scrambling around. First,
he keeps lying about the size of the deficit, but
reality keeps exposing him, and he's got a budget proposal.
(18:16):
Vince Fong says it's not matching reality, so we'll talk
to him sometime later in the show. Very busy man. Now,
I'm sorry, but this Chronicle article is making me crazy.
We just found this a few minutes ago. It's a
whole expose on how the city of San Francisco is
(18:37):
paying millions of dollars to keep drunks drunk. If you're
just joining us, the city has a program to keep
feeding vodka, beer and anything else to the homeless who
are alcoholics. And they're claiming that this saves money on
(18:59):
nine one calls and emergency hospital room visits, so it's
worth spending the money on the booze. And the easy
answer to that is, actually what would help the homeless
and save money is to force them into treatment. Because
public drunkenness is a crime along with all the other
aborate behavior that goes with it. And the way it
(19:22):
should work is when you're found drunk on the street,
you've got two choices. You'll either go to jail or
we're going to send you to detox treatment, and you
have to go. And that's how you help them, because
then they'll get off the booze, you clean out their system,
and you get them real help. But that's going to
(19:45):
trigger some people, so listen to this. The program has
nurses assess the patients that would be the homeless, and
they will give the equivalent of one to two drinks
eight four times a day. So they're giving the vagrants
(20:06):
eight drinks a day, either one point seven ounces of
vodka or any other liquor.
Speaker 1 (20:14):
So you have your.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
You want vodka, you want bourbon, you want rum, your gin?
Speaker 1 (20:22):
What do you want.
Speaker 2 (20:26):
Either one point seven ounces of liquor or five ounces
of wine? I guess you got your choice of red
white rose or twelve ounces of beer. So do they
walk around with like bar menus? And in addition to
medication and therapy, the program provides cultural outings.
Speaker 5 (20:50):
You said they've spent what five million dollars of taxpayer
money on this program. Yes, that's bottle service prices in Vegas.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
I wonder if any other city in the country is
doing this now, And it was it was exposed by
this by this guy, Adam Nathan from the Salvation Army,
and that organization gets a lot of criticism too about
the money it spends. But this is really really outrageous.
This is really out of control. Nuts. So they get
(21:24):
they get eight drinks a day, any kind of liquor.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
They want wine, beer, Oh.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
So they so they go to cultural outings, but you
get them drunk.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
And then what do you take into the theater, the ballet,
the zoo.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
They get the cheap tickets out in the outfield everybody.
Speaker 5 (21:51):
Could you imagine all the homeless people in the top
deck at Dodger Stadium INFLA had this.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
This is San Francisco government, No wonder it's a sewer
up there. Oh, and they give them life skills classes,
life skills. Does any of that involve going to get
a job. And it says that some participants have been
discharged for a higher level of care or recovery program,
but some of the participants died after leaving the program
(22:27):
as a result of their end stage alcoholism, which.
Speaker 1 (22:31):
We paid for. We paid for their death.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
We kept giving them drinks after we knew they were alcoholics,
and then they leave the program and die. Well, what
was the point of that. You force them into treatment
or they go to jail. They'll pick treatment. Wow, this
is a Canadian idea. They've had forty of these programs
(22:55):
in Canada. It's a it says. It says doctor Bernie Pauley,
a researcher who pioneered these programs in Canada. Oh my god,
he says, it's a better way to spend our money
than someone being in jail or a hospital where they're
not getting care for their health needs. I have an
idea again, force them into treatment or they go to jail.
Speaker 1 (23:17):
That's what you do.
Speaker 2 (23:18):
Or you go to jail and you forced you force
them into detox. I mean, they sink, I'm looking at
the reporter's name. Oh it's a guy, Saint John Barnard Smith.
It's a guy. Uh he's and and this this Maggie Angst.
Speaker 1 (23:42):
They don't.
Speaker 2 (23:43):
Oh she covers homelessness, addiction, and mental health. Oh this
is their specialty beat. Wow, this is cracked. I mean,
this is absolutely nuts. Eight drinks a day for alcoholics.
I'm exhausted. We'm back, We've got I don't know what
the hell we have whatever, whatever I feel like to it.
Speaker 4 (24:05):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (24:11):
Coming up after two o'clock. Joe Biden gave an interview
to CNN. Aaron Burnett was the potted plant, and she
sat there while Biden, according to The New York Post,
ripped off seventeen lies in fifteen minutes. Or was it
fifteen lives in seventeen minutes? It was huh, it was
(24:34):
fifteen and seventeen, fifteen and seventeen almost a wy a minute.
He SE's slowing down a bit. And these these were
real lies. These were whoppers. He was saying things about
about the economy that were flat out false. We're going
to play you just a few. We don't have time
to go through all fifteen. But for the like, she
would ask questions that were could be a little pointed.
(24:57):
Then he would give an answer and it would be
to total horseman door.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
And she wouldn't. And it's easily challenged.
Speaker 2 (25:04):
I mean, sometimes you get a politician which I don't
like interviewing them most of the time because you know
they'll throw out all kinds of horse crap, and you
can't be a human wikipedia and respond to every lie
in real time, and you have no idea which way
they're gonna veer and what lies they're going to tell,
and how extensive the lies they're going to be. So
it's why nobody should interview politicians. But these were whoppers.
(25:30):
We'll start with the inflation rate and then I'll be
coming up after two o'clock, so be there for that.
We're also going to talk about Gavin Newsom's budget being
upside down, not only wildly bloated, but wildly in deficit.
They're gushing red Incup and Sacramento because they created a
whole bunch of nonsense programs.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
They're blowing a lot of money on them, and.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
Now they're going to have to cut him because I
don't think anybody's in the move for trying to pass
a tax increase this year. And here's one of the
reasons that the that that tax revenues are way down.
Four hundred and eighty two thousand people in California lost
their jobs in the last year. The year up to
(26:22):
March thirty. First, I take the one year period from
April of twenty twenty three to March of twenty twenty four,
and four hundred and eighty two thousand people got the
bad news. That's a lot of people, and that was
number one in the nation. Now we have the biggest
population in the nation. Sure, but even so it was outsized, disproportionate,
(26:48):
I think is the word that all the progressives like
to use.
Speaker 1 (26:52):
This was it was unequal.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
Texas was second, New York third, Illinois fourth, Florida fifth.
It was the biggest percentage of job cuts in the
last seven quarters. These these job losses were sixteen percent
of the total in the United States. We're only twelve
(27:17):
percent of the population. See, it's disproportionate. We have more
job losses than we should have if things were proportionate.
There was only six states that performed worse than California
over the last over the last ten years. The only
(27:47):
states that were worse were Idaho, New Jersey, Texas, Utah,
New York, and Colorado. So there's there's a there's a
there's a there's a lot of job losses. We also
have really high inflation. So if I've lost your job.
You've lost ground because wages in California are not keeping
(28:09):
up with the inflation increases. And this all leads to
a huge shortage of tax money, which is what we're
going to get into sometime in the next hour or
two because Newsom was trying, Oh do some is trying
to patch this and he's going into the reserves. Do
you know what we're spending? You know, we were spending
(28:30):
over three hundred billion dollars a year, three hundred and
ten billion dollars last year. I remember when Schwarzenegger was governor,
and that's not that long ago, that only goes back
thirteen fourteen years. His budget was one hundred billion. How
did they triple the size of government in fourteen years?
(28:52):
Well by giving away money to everybody in sight. Now
we have a cradle to grave healthcare for every illegal
alien in the state. You got that for starters. All right,
we come back. We're going to go through Joe Biden.
You could you could you could tell how weak a
(29:14):
journalist is if the White House chooses you for one
of the very few one on one sit downs with
Joe Biden. Biden has done next to none of these
for obvious reasons. In fact, you know, as we go
through his lies, you wonder are they lies or maybe
he really believes this because he's senile, Because there was
(29:36):
a way to answer this question and try to spin
it to make yourself look good, it's the inflation question. Instead,
he just flat out made up a reality that doesn't exist,
and so is it because he's seen Nile and he
really believes it. He doesn't remember the circumstances when he
(29:56):
took office. I don't know, but the White House new
that Aaron Burnett at CNN wasn't going to challenge him
on it. Now was that a pre made agreement? Did
the bosses at CNN tell Aaron Burnett don't challenge him.
Just let the old guy say whatever he wants to say.
We want to get the quick rating hit and everyone
will forget by the next day. I mean, That's what
(30:18):
an anchor at ESPN said a couple of weeks ago.
She had to do an interview sit down with Biden
on satellite, and the bosses at ESPN and ABC News
and all the way up to Bob Eiger at Disney
all told her follow this script doesn't matter how he
answers you follow this script and don't challenge him, and
there's no follow ups and there's no nothing. And so
(30:40):
everybody was in on the fake interview. Was Stage Steele
who made that claim, and she was very detailed. I
don't think it was just a claim. I think she
was telling the truth. So did Aaron Burnett. She have to,
I mean, is that what journalists have to do when
the bosses say, Okay, we're going to do a fake
public relations interview for the president. The White House wants
(31:02):
it this way, this, this, I mean, this is communist
China stuff, right, this is so see it in now
like a state news ren agency. I don't know how
any news person sitting there with Biden starting to tell
the lies that he told not stand up and go
wait a second, hold on not doing this or I
mean you really you're going to get fired for challenge
(31:22):
you to the president on a whopping lie. And I
haven't even brought up the double standard with Trump. I'm
just saying factually, we'll get to it next. We've got
Debs off today. Ashley Johnson is hiding the KFI twenty
for our newsroom. Hey, you've been listening to the John
Cobalt Show podcast. You can always hear the show live
(31:43):
on KFI Am six forty from one to four pm
every Monday through Friday, and of course anytime on demand
on the iHeartRadio app
The John Kobylt Show News
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
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.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.