Speaker 1: You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
Speaker 1: six forty signal pleasure being with you. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for inviting us into your lives every morning. Neil
Speaker 1: Sebaibra is in for Bill next week, and your long
Speaker 1: national nightmare is nearly over. Three out of four Americans,
Speaker 1: including sixty percent of Republicans, now saying the Trump administration's
Speaker 1: use of the Signal group chat discussing the military strikes.
Speaker 1: They say that's a serious problem, especially since the Pentagon
Speaker 1: said don't use that. This was from ABC.
Speaker 2: The information was sent on the encrypted messaging app Signal,
Speaker 2: which the Pentagon found in twenty twenty one to be
Speaker 2: an unauthorized means of communicating sensitive information. Secretary of State
Speaker 2: Mark or Rubio says the chat was set up so
Speaker 2: Trump's national security team could coordinate communication with members of
Speaker 2: Congress and foreign leaders.
Speaker 3: This was a sort of description of what we could
Speaker 3: inform our counterparts around the world when the time came
Speaker 3: to do so.
Speaker 2: Growing calls on Capitol Hill from Democrats for Hegseth to
Speaker 2: resign or be fires is that going to happen?
Speaker 1: Lebby Dean is the News Nation correspondent and Lebby joins us. Lebby.
Speaker 1: Is there any sign that Hexith is going to resign
Speaker 1: or be fired?
Speaker 4: Today is the day if that is the case, because
Speaker 4: Hegseth right now is headed to Japan. He was in
Speaker 4: the Philippines. He's been doing this by that overseas trip
Speaker 4: for a couple of days now ever since the story
Speaker 4: broke with the day he left. And then you've got
Speaker 4: Waltz who was headed with the Vice President in his
Speaker 4: landing shortly in Greenland. So for President Trump to fire
Speaker 4: either of these two, to do it while they would
Speaker 4: be overseas unlikely. So we head into this weekend with
Speaker 4: their heads not on the shopping block here, but certainly
Speaker 4: it's been talked about after everything that's happened.
Speaker 1: Yeah, unlikely, but it wouldn't be unprecedented because if we recall,
Speaker 1: James Comy got fired via tweet while he was not
Speaker 1: in DC, although Collmy wasn't handpicked by President Trump either,
Speaker 1: whereas these guys are kind of his name is all
Speaker 1: over these guys, right, So does that pose a political
Speaker 1: issue for him?
Speaker 4: I mean, if the past informs the president here when
Speaker 4: it comes to President Trump firing people, it wouldn't be shocking.
Speaker 4: I would say from my past experience of covering President Trump,
Speaker 4: this would seem to be more of a lenient approach
Speaker 4: from him. We've seen him more or less stand completely
Speaker 4: behind his national security team, specifically Walt who was in
Speaker 4: that cabinet meeting earlier this week and sitting in the
Speaker 4: cabinet room rather and Trump was looking him up, despite
Speaker 4: him taking full fault for this and then saying the
Speaker 4: same of heg Seth as well standing behind them at
Speaker 4: this point. But Yeah, as you mentioned, it wouldn't be
Speaker 4: a shock if President Trump were to ultimately fire someone.
Speaker 4: It's a satellite Lebby.
Speaker 1: Dean is a News Nation correspondent. Lebby. I don't know
Speaker 1: about you. You're probably a very professional person. I have
Speaker 1: pushed boundaries in my career in the past, and there
Speaker 1: have been times that I've been told by the boss.
Speaker 1: You know, this is your get out of jail free card.
Speaker 1: Is this if the President does stand by these guys
Speaker 1: this time, are they basically in double secret probation in
Speaker 1: the same way that my boss has said, one more
Speaker 1: screw up and you're done.
Speaker 4: Look, I don't think that signal is going to be
Speaker 4: a means of communication in the future for either of
Speaker 4: these two, at least when it comes to things of
Speaker 4: this national security concern and whether this is a one
Speaker 4: off and they're getting off this time only to get
Speaker 4: in trouble next time. I mean, what is that saying.
Speaker 4: It's like first is the worst, second is the best,
Speaker 4: or I don't know. There is the possibility, of course,
Speaker 4: that they could find themselves in this kind of situation
Speaker 4: again and potentially be fired by the president. It is
Speaker 4: interesting though Democrats, this is something they ailed against Teg.
Speaker 4: Sass from the beginning, the Defense secretary for Trump who
Speaker 4: sent the very detailed messages about these bombs being dropped
Speaker 4: in Yemen in this signal group chat, and they weious
Speaker 4: concerns about his viability in the position given he of
Speaker 4: course it was in the military and does have that background,
Speaker 4: but less intelligence community experience than some of his counterparts,
Speaker 4: and was facing criticism on that front. But I mean,
Speaker 4: it's fully they're all fully back to work today. One
Speaker 4: headed to green Lend, the other has been overseas, So
Speaker 4: I don't see any developments happening today or at least
Speaker 4: through the weekend. But you never know when a true
Speaker 4: social post is going to come out and everything I've
Speaker 4: said has proven move does.
Speaker 1: Is there an effort right now to expedite the news
Speaker 1: cycle on this. I saw in the past some administrators
Speaker 1: that have said, you know, this has lasted forty two hours,
Speaker 1: it was a mistake, let's move on. Let's not give
Speaker 1: them the next seventy two hours. I mean, there has
Speaker 1: to be This is a headache that continues on for
Speaker 1: this White House. I mean, I can't think of too
Speaker 1: many other examples where something out of the Trump administration
Speaker 1: happens and we discuss it for an entire week. That
Speaker 1: is the case with this Signal Group chat app. It
Speaker 1: seems like they have not been able to turn the
Speaker 1: new cycle as fast as they want to.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's certainly the case that they would want this
Speaker 4: to fade into the background. I don't see that happening
Speaker 4: anytime soon. Now that you've got internal investigations happening at
Speaker 4: the White House, Congress pressing on this, the Atlantic releasing
Speaker 4: more messages. You've got the court battle as well playing
Speaker 4: out with DC Judge Boseberg, who is making sure that
Speaker 4: these intelligence officials keep these messages. I don't see this
Speaker 4: dying down anytime soon, because every day this week that
Speaker 4: I've covered this. I mean we're on day five here.
Speaker 4: Every day this week i've covered this, something new has developed,
Speaker 4: whether that was overnight with last night Boseberg's decision here,
Speaker 4: or it was just the release of these messages. I
Speaker 4: mean every day there is a new development or a
Speaker 4: new comment from an official, which keeps this, of course
Speaker 4: in the headlines and a lot of questions moving forward.
Speaker 4: I would say about what this looks like for the
Speaker 4: administration when it comes to using signal and just their
Speaker 4: means of communication as a whole, because this is the
Speaker 4: big so called scandal. I mean, it's fair to say
Speaker 4: this is pretty scandalous. This is their big that the
Speaker 4: first one for the Trump administration this second go around,
Speaker 4: and they certainly would like to see it die down.
Speaker 4: I'm sure.
Speaker 1: Lebby Dean is our News Nation correspondent to talking with
Speaker 1: us about the signal chat stuff. You mentioned Judge Bosberg,
Speaker 1: who we recognize from He's also the judge that's overseeing
Speaker 1: the deportation of the Venezuelan alleged gang members to the
Speaker 1: l Salvadorian prison. His rulings have not been favorable for
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. Trump has called for him to be
Speaker 1: impeached and now he gets assigned this case as well.
Speaker 1: Does this give political fodder to claim which hunt.
Speaker 4: Well, that's certainly what President Trump is doing and has
Speaker 4: continued to do. But I mean, Boseburg has four cases
Speaker 4: now related to the Trumpe administration, so that he's got
Speaker 4: this signal group chat one the Alien Enemies Act to
Speaker 4: one about the deportation flights as well as the subtle
Speaker 4: grant funding freeze, a lot of details of that, and
Speaker 4: then also DOGE records is what the other case relates to.
Speaker 4: I will point out that, and this is actually how
Speaker 4: Boseburg started the hearing yesterday which I listened in to.
Speaker 4: I've listened into a few of these hearings with Boseburg.
Speaker 4: That one about the immigration flights was incredibly tense, with
Speaker 4: Department of Justice officials going back and tools with Boseburg
Speaker 4: and Boseburg calling their response is disrespectful. That wasn't the
Speaker 4: case during this hearing yesterday with Bosburg. It was certainly
Speaker 4: more tame, and you weren't hearing from Department of Justicials
Speaker 4: because he was just giving his order. But basically Boseburg
Speaker 4: actually started out this hearing by specifying that the court
Speaker 4: decides who gets assign these cases, and Boseburg isn't making
Speaker 4: those decisions because that is where a lot of the blowback.
Speaker 4: And I'm sure he's seen this pushback from the Trump
Speaker 4: administration who's claiming that he's assigning himself these cases in
Speaker 4: some form or fashion. But yeah, what ended up happening
Speaker 4: there was basically this hearing and he told these intelligence
Speaker 4: officials who were included in the chat, they need to
Speaker 4: maintain these records. It was I believe March eleventh through
Speaker 4: fourteenth that he had said, those are the dates that
Speaker 4: you have to maintain these records. But what's interesting enough,
Speaker 4: and I'm curious to fight out and I will be
Speaker 4: asking intelligence officials about is there was on the Signal
Speaker 4: chat because I'm very familiar with Signal, I've used it.
Speaker 4: On the Signal chat, there was a one week dismissal
Speaker 4: of when these would disappear. I mean we're at March
Speaker 4: twenty eighth. I'm just curious what's still there. I mean,
Speaker 4: of course Goldberg had the screenshots, but I just don't
Speaker 4: know how that all works with the Signal platform. And
Speaker 4: that's going to be something to look into as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a great question. It's kind of like trying
Speaker 1: to retrieve a snapchat once it's gone and are understanding
Speaker 1: is way right?
Speaker 4: Save the messages? But how do we save them if
Speaker 4: they're already gone? So that's a question. As this, I
Speaker 4: mean developed last night, so something that's going to be
Speaker 4: developing today I would watch for all right.
Speaker 1: Let me Dan NewsNation White House Correspondent. Let me thank
Speaker 1: you so much for your insight into that, say for
Speaker 1: having me. Yeah, you bet. Of course I've told the
Speaker 1: story before, but I don't think i've told on the
Speaker 1: morning show, so I'm gonna do it again. First came
Speaker 1: to California in twenty twelve and I rolled in. I
Speaker 1: worked in San Diego and I rolled in. They were
Speaker 1: putting me up at a resort, which was nice until
Speaker 1: I got the tax bill on that that was fun.
Speaker 1: So I roll up into this resort. It was February
Speaker 1: the twentieth, I believe, And as I pull into this resort,
Speaker 1: I had left. I was working in Kansas City, and
Speaker 1: I left Kansas City. I pulled into this resort, you know,
Speaker 1: drove a cross country pull in and as I'm driving
Speaker 1: in in February, there's girls standing in the parking lot
Speaker 1: in bikinis, and I thought, I'm never leaving California. This
Speaker 1: is the most amazing thing ever. So I start working
Speaker 1: at this radio station and great stations, still love it,
Speaker 1: fantastic people there. And I hear about this high speed
Speaker 1: rail project again. This is twenty twelve, so still in
Speaker 1: the planning stages, and they said, well, you know, I
Speaker 1: was given a little bit of the backstory and I
Speaker 1: hadn't heard about it until then, and I'm giving the
Speaker 1: backstory and they said, well, the voters approved this eight
Speaker 1: billion dollars to go towards starting this high speed rail
Speaker 1: and eventually it's going to run from the Bay Area
Speaker 1: and eventually it'll go from the Bay Area all the
Speaker 1: way to San Diego. But initially they want to get
Speaker 1: it from Bay Area and Sacramento to Los Angeles. And
Speaker 1: I thought, well, that sounds ambitious, and they said yeah,
Speaker 1: and the the projections are already at I don't know
Speaker 1: what it was at the time, twenty five billion dollar
Speaker 1: something like that. So shortly after I get there, they go, uh, oh,
Speaker 1: we're going to need more money. Projections are now up
Speaker 1: to thirty billion or forty billion dollars whatever it was,
Speaker 1: and I said, I've seen this play out before. I've
Speaker 1: been fired from enough stations and enough cities to see
Speaker 1: how government waste is ubiquitous. It is not a California problem.
Speaker 1: It happens everywhere you have people. It's sort of like
Speaker 1: when you go to a buffet and your eyes are
Speaker 1: bigger than your stomach. That's what happens. When the politicians
Speaker 1: get just an iota of power, they go, we want
Speaker 1: to do this grand project, and they want to attach
Speaker 1: their names to it. Right, So Governor Brown really wanted
Speaker 1: to have this high speed rail. He says, this is
Speaker 1: going to be great, and they all push for it.
Speaker 1: And you had a bunch of the politicians and Sacramento
Speaker 1: padding themselves in the back. This is going to be spectacular.
Speaker 1: And I went, wait a minute. The voters approved eight
Speaker 1: billion dollars. You're already up to forty or fifty billion dollars.
Speaker 1: I said, you mark my words, this is gonna go
Speaker 1: up to one hundred billion dollars. And what I didn't
Speaker 1: realize is how wrong I was, because we blew past
Speaker 1: one hundred billion dollars a long long time ago, long
Speaker 1: time ago, and what do we have to show for it?
Speaker 1: Raise your hand. If you have ridden the high speed
Speaker 1: rail in California? Anybody, anybody? Anybody? Oh? Yeah, we are
Speaker 1: well over the initial projections, and not a single person
Speaker 1: has ever taken a single ride because there's no train
Speaker 1: on any track. And yet the most Bruce Wayne looking
Speaker 1: politician in history, our governor, Governor Batman, is now saying, oh,
Speaker 1: it's on its way. Off we go.
Speaker 5: As I say we did the railhead, we're starting to
Speaker 5: lay track. This thing's starting to get very very real.
Speaker 1: Is it though? You're starting to lay track? Well, good,
Speaker 1: because you know you've gotten enough money and the projections
Speaker 1: are already at one hundred and twenty five billion dollars,
Speaker 1: and lord knows, we'd like to see something out of it.
Speaker 1: But where we lay in track? Is it coming out
Speaker 1: of the Bay Area? Is it somewhere in Riverside? No? No,
Speaker 1: we've spent all this money on the easiest part thus far,
Speaker 1: between Bakersfield and Mercet. But wait, there's more. CACRA had
Speaker 1: the story.
Speaker 6: Governor Kavin Newsom defending California's high speed rail project on
Speaker 6: his latest podcast episode, released Wednesday morning. The project originally
Speaker 6: pitched to voters in two thousand and eight, as a
Speaker 6: bullet train between La to San Francisco is significantly short
Speaker 6: on funds and nowhere near finished.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's barely started.
Speaker 6: The state has so far spent about fourteen billion dollars
Speaker 6: and needs more than double that just to finish the
Speaker 6: first line between Merced and Bakersfield.
Speaker 1: The first line across the easiest part where they had
Speaker 1: to do the least amount of modifications to infrastructure, housing, zoning,
Speaker 1: everything else across the central Valley has already bloomed up
Speaker 1: to twenty eight billion dollars. Oh, this is this is
Speaker 1: going to be tremendous.
Speaker 6: The Trump administration is now reviewing the use of four
Speaker 6: billion in federal funds so far.
Speaker 1: Four billion. Oh, the fens got off easy on this one.
Speaker 6: Finishing the full route between the Bay Area and southern
Speaker 6: California needs at least one hundred billion dollars.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Finishing the full route needs one hundred billion. But
Speaker 1: we're spending twenty eight billion on the easiest part. No, no, no, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: no no. Most of that money has yet to materialize. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean the end of.
Speaker 5: The day, we've got these constraints that are well established already,
Speaker 5: these pre existing constraints and there's not a high speed
Speaker 5: railing system that's not enjoyed some popularity and success. Most
Speaker 5: at least are wildly popular. It's an experienced no one's
Speaker 5: had in the United States of America. At least we're
Speaker 5: out there daring.
Speaker 6: But some Democratic lawmakers during a hearing on the project
Speaker 6: wednesday had different thoughts.
Speaker 1: Yeah, what are they say?
Speaker 7: The definition of insn is doing the same thing over
Speaker 7: and over again and expecting a different outcome.
Speaker 1: I always love it when somebody tells me the definition
Speaker 1: of insanity. Actually, if you look up the definition of insanity,
Speaker 1: that's not it.
Speaker 6: The high speed Rail had not yet submitted its annual report,
Speaker 6: which irked Assembly members Wednesday. The state's Legislative Analysts Office
Speaker 6: told lawmakers the project needs seven billion dollars by next
Speaker 6: June in order to move forward.
Speaker 1: Oh is that all just another seven billion? Or else
Speaker 1: seven billion or else or else? What or else? Will
Speaker 1: have wasted the other? No, this is a fallacy, This
Speaker 1: is a sunk cost fallacy. Well, you've already spent eight billion,
Speaker 1: or we've already spent fourteen billion. You better give us
Speaker 1: another seven or I mean, that's just a waste of
Speaker 1: the other fourteen or it's a waste of twenty one
Speaker 1: billion total, because you're going to come back and say, well,
Speaker 1: we got to have another ten billion, Well, we gotta
Speaker 1: have another fifty billion, while we gotta have another hundred billion.
Speaker 1: We gotta have another two hundred and fifty billion dollars
Speaker 1: and for what so that we can realize the dream
Speaker 1: of Governor Choochu No stop. You got to know when
Speaker 1: to hold them, you got to know when to fold them,
Speaker 1: you got to know when to walk away, and in
Speaker 1: this case, you got to run. We saw the protests
Speaker 1: going on at southern California schools last year, as well
Speaker 1: as a number of other universities across the country, and
Speaker 1: now we're getting the crackdown. If you were protesting, you
Speaker 1: are on alert. One student at Tufts University was surrounded
Speaker 1: by plain clothed officers, cuffed and stuffed in a van.
Speaker 1: Now I don't know about you, but if I had
Speaker 1: a bunch of randos wearing hoodies and masks that threw
Speaker 1: handcuffs on me, I would be pretty sure that I
Speaker 1: was being kidnapped. Even if they flashed flashed a badge,
Speaker 1: I'd go, you know what, I probably need to call
Speaker 1: somebody and make sure that you are who you say
Speaker 1: you are, just the same. That's what happened. AB Seniors
Speaker 1: had the report, mister secretary.
Speaker 8: A Turkish student in Boston was detained and handcuffed on
Speaker 8: the street by playing clothes agents. A year ago, she
Speaker 8: wrote an opinion piece about the gas of war. Could
Speaker 8: you help us understand what the specific action she took
Speaker 8: led to her visa being revoked?
Speaker 1: This is Marco Rubio she's talking to.
Speaker 8: And what was your state department's role in that process?
Speaker 3: Or we revoked her visa? It's an F one visa.
Speaker 3: I believe we revoked.
Speaker 1: More like an FU visa. Am I right? Am? I?
Speaker 3: We were voked it and here's why. And I'll say
Speaker 3: it again. I said it everywhere. Me be abundantly clear. Okay,
Speaker 3: if you go apply for a visa right now anywhere
Speaker 3: in the world, let me just send this message out.
Speaker 3: If you apply for a visa to enter the United
Speaker 3: States and be a student, and you tell us that
Speaker 3: the reason why you're coming to the United States is
Speaker 3: not just because you want to write op eds, but
Speaker 3: because you want to participate in movements that are involved
Speaker 3: in doing things like vandalizing universities harassing students, taking over buildings,
Speaker 3: creating a rock. We're not going to give you a visa.
Speaker 1: Yeah, But did she and I don't know that she didn't.
Speaker 1: But did she vandalize buildings and create a ruckus? Or
Speaker 1: is this a guilt by association? Sitch?
Speaker 3: If you lie to us and get a visa and
Speaker 3: then enter the United States and with that visa participate
Speaker 3: in that sort of activity, We're going to take away
Speaker 3: your visa. And once you've lost your visa, Yeah, you're
Speaker 3: no longer legally in the United States, And we have
Speaker 3: a right, like every country in the world has a
Speaker 3: right to remove you from our country. So it's just
Speaker 3: that simple.
Speaker 1: Did she commit a crime?
Speaker 3: I think it's crazy. I think it's stupid for any
Speaker 3: country in the world to welcome people into their country.
Speaker 1: They're going to go to your universities as visitors. They're
Speaker 1: visitors and say.
Speaker 3: I'm going to your universities to start a riot.
Speaker 1: Again, some people did riot. That would be ignorant for
Speaker 1: me to argue otherwise, did this person were these students
Speaker 1: who were committing the violence, the vandalism, that sort of thing.
Speaker 1: Were they here on visus or are we just saying, well,
Speaker 1: We can't really get them because they're US citizens. We
Speaker 1: can get them for vandalism, but we can stick these
Speaker 1: other people who were in the crowd, they were nearby,
Speaker 1: guilt by association? Is there any evidence that this person
Speaker 1: was pro terrorist? In fact, President Trump has said that
Speaker 1: they're going to get the pro Hamas students out. Well,
Speaker 1: can you be pro Palestinian without being pro Hamas? See,
Speaker 1: that's the nuance that were very bad as a society
Speaker 1: of understanding, and politicians know that. So what they want
Speaker 1: to do is they want to paint this as a
Speaker 1: binary choice. You're with us or you're against us and
Speaker 1: we're with Israel. And if you're not with us with Israel,
Speaker 1: then you are against us and you're with the terrorists.
Speaker 1: And yet, is it possible? It's mind blowing here, Is
Speaker 1: it possible you could be pro not war, pro Palacetian
Speaker 1: and not be pro terrorists? Can you be pro United
Speaker 1: States and still think that Israel went too far with
Speaker 1: bombing rates. I'm not saying they did or they didn't.
Speaker 1: I'm saying can you have that opinion and not be
Speaker 1: un American? Or do we need to have some sort
Speaker 1: of a committee on Unamerican activities? Maybe that's what we
Speaker 1: ought to do. No one's ever tried that before in
Speaker 1: this country. Oh, that's right, we did with the communist thing,
Speaker 1: but that was in the Listen. That was a long
Speaker 1: time ago. That was a mistake we made back in
Speaker 1: the fifties when we did the whole Red Scare and
Speaker 1: we were hunting for communists. We've evolved since then. We
Speaker 1: are no longer the same country that just says are
Speaker 1: you a communist? And if you are, there's going to
Speaker 1: be hell to pay. We don't do that any longer.
Speaker 9: Have you ever been associated or affiliated with the Chinese
Speaker 9: Communist Party?
Speaker 1: Oh crap, that was Josh Hawley. He was talking with
Speaker 1: the TikTok guy. I guess we are still doing the
Speaker 1: same thing, are you now or have you ever been
Speaker 1: associated with Hamas? And even if the answer is no,
Speaker 1: we're still going to deport you. But that's what we
Speaker 1: can do, and we're very proud of it. It's not
Speaker 1: just a toughs also happen at Alabama. ABC's Eric Katursky
Speaker 1: was talking.
Speaker 10: About that welcome back. Officials say federal immigration agents have
Speaker 10: detained a University of Alabama doctoral student who is a
Speaker 10: citizen of Iran. The student is currently being held in
Speaker 10: a detention facility, but ICE records don't list where he's
Speaker 10: being held or the reason for his detention.
Speaker 1: Well, probably for pro hamasiness.
Speaker 10: This follows the arrests of a Peah student at Tuffs University.
Speaker 10: Security video shows the moment the Turkish national who is
Speaker 10: in the US on a visa not anymore.
Speaker 1: See, we can just we can just revoke that visa.
Speaker 1: We don't even have to tell you we revoked it.
Speaker 1: We just revoked visa and now you're here illegally.
Speaker 10: When she was handcuffed by officials Tuesday night while on
Speaker 10: her way to Neet friends to break her Ramadan fast
Speaker 10: features see right there, She's listed in the ICE database
Speaker 10: as incostody and appears to be held at a processing
Speaker 10: center in Louisiana. Want to bring an ABC's chief investigative correspondent,
Speaker 10: Aaron Koturski to talk more about this, Aaron thinks, for
Speaker 10: coming in through here in studio, So what more King
Speaker 10: tell us about the student in Alabama.
Speaker 11: We know that he's Iranian, we know that he's a
Speaker 11: doctoral student studying some kind of a metallurgy and otherwise
Speaker 11: we have got requests out to the Department of Homeland
Speaker 11: Security say why did you detain him? And they haven't
Speaker 11: responded to us. But the University of Alabama says he
Speaker 11: was detained and they are trying to figure out, just
Speaker 11: like we are, why where he's being held, what the
Speaker 11: circumstances are.
Speaker 1: We just don't know.
Speaker 11: But he's one of a half dozen at least international
Speaker 11: students that the administration has detained as they try to
Speaker 11: crack down on people at least that we know of
Speaker 11: who have been pro Palestinian or part of that activist community.
Speaker 1: Are you now or have you ever been a Crimson
Speaker 1: Tide fan? That's good enough for me. Get them out
Speaker 1: of here in what has been a wild week. This
Speaker 1: has been this last week has been the longest year
Speaker 1: in a long time. So we've got the Signal chat app.
Speaker 1: We've got a Greenland visit, which we'll talk about coming
Speaker 1: up here after eight o'clock. We've got abducting students by
Speaker 1: ice who may or may not have been part of
Speaker 1: protests and college campuses. And we're also dropping a twenty
Speaker 1: five percent taxes tariffs excuse me, on vehicles and parts
Speaker 1: that are produced overseas, and other tariffs are set to
Speaker 1: go into effect next week as well, because remember we
Speaker 1: were gonna have those tariffs that were set up to
Speaker 1: go into effect right away February, and then we went up, JK,
Speaker 1: it'll be in March. I put them into effect. The
Speaker 1: two days later, they're out of effect, but they got
Speaker 1: a thirty day reprieve. So here we are. The next
Speaker 1: week will be another thirty days. Are we gonna do
Speaker 1: this every month or are we gonna say, well, we're
Speaker 1: gonna hold off for I mean, we're gonna give ourselves
Speaker 1: like three months at some point, or is it gonna
Speaker 1: drop down to just two weeks to get it done?
Speaker 1: Or are we actually going to see tariffs going to effect.
Speaker 1: I was watching NBCLA as they were talking about the
Speaker 1: tariffs and how these are gonna hit us in a
Speaker 1: number of different places, not just the vehicles either.
Speaker 7: A regular trip to the grocery store for many is
Speaker 7: becoming less of a routine.
Speaker 1: Just ask Ameliacal tearists pretty expensive right now.
Speaker 8: I mean, it's just I don't know how a lot
Speaker 8: of people can you know.
Speaker 7: Okay, well make it right now, to be honest with you,
Speaker 7: with increase on everything. Her trip to this grocery store
Speaker 7: off Gary Avenue on Thursday.
Speaker 1: She says, was enough to get by. What do you want?
Speaker 4: I know, palitas and tomatoes.
Speaker 1: That's about it.
Speaker 7: Customers say the hike in everyday goods is impacting their spending.
Speaker 7: Soon they will feel another punch to their wallet when
Speaker 7: President Donald Trump is expected to add additional tariffs.
Speaker 9: Expectations are our prices are going to go up?
Speaker 1: You see.
Speaker 7: Irvine finance professor Christopher Schwartz says while he believes that
Speaker 7: while the economy is strong, the president's tariffs on imports
Speaker 7: could cause consumers to step back on their spending habits.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And is that as vehicles? If we start throwing
Speaker 1: tariffs on the lumber from Canada, if you're trying to
Speaker 1: rebuild Palisades Alta Dina, that's going to be more expensive
Speaker 1: than it was before. Yeah. And I don't know if
Speaker 1: you've noticed already the most expensive place in the country
Speaker 1: to live.
Speaker 7: This comes as the White House announced this week a
Speaker 7: twenty five percent tariff would be placed on auto imports
Speaker 7: to foster domestic manufacturing.
Speaker 9: Most car parks are not manufactured here in the US,
Speaker 9: so it doesn't note of a new or an old car.
Speaker 9: If you go to your dealership to get a car
Speaker 9: fix that Dezza part. There's a high probability that part
Speaker 9: is not produced here and the US, and so the
Speaker 9: in theory, the price of that would go up.
Speaker 1: Oh crap. Even my old beater has to have new
Speaker 1: parts every now and again, and that means it's going
Speaker 1: to cost me a little bit more still cheaper to
Speaker 1: fix it than it is to buy a new car.
Speaker 1: If you're talking about card prices going up four to
Speaker 1: twelve thousand dollars. But wait, what about Tesla that's made
Speaker 1: in the United States. Surely they're insulated from these tariffs. No,
Speaker 1: they're not because a lot of their parts are electronics.
Speaker 1: And where do we get our electronics? Yeah, yeah, overseas?
Speaker 1: And what else happens? Well, Canada's Prime minister has already
Speaker 1: said the United States is no longer a reliable partner.
Speaker 1: They're working on retaliatory tariffs. Mexico is trying to figure
Speaker 1: out how to stall or evade the auto tariffs. But
Speaker 1: you better believe they're going to hit US with retaliatory tariffs. Japan, China,
Speaker 1: European nations, all of them likely to hit US with
Speaker 1: retaliatory tariff, which means that the teslas will not be
Speaker 1: sold at a very high volume over seas, and can
Speaker 1: I just point out Greenland doesn't manufacture vehicles, so taking
Speaker 1: them over doesn't really help this situation. The Bill handleshow
Speaker 1: Chris Maryland for Bill k I AM six forty and
Speaker 1: Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. You've been listening to
Speaker 1: the Bill handle Show.
Speaker 7: Catch my show Monday through Friday six am to nine am,
Speaker 7: and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.