Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Thanks so much for being here. We can't thank you
enough for choosing to listen to Minty in the morning.
This morning and the Big three of the prosecution's star witness,
diddy former girlfriend Cassie Ventura testified in the sex trafficking
trial of Sean Diddy. Combes I was.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
In the courtroom to hear her testimony. Than what you
saw was a woman that was broken, a woman that
was full of emotion and of regret and is now
having the courage and the strength to come forward and
say what happened to her.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
That's defense attorney BERNARDA. Violano Peter Harlambus, who was in
the courtroom. We'll talk more about the case at eight
thirty five. Also, high profile criminal defense attorney Jeffrey Lickman
is just minutes away now, moments away, and we'll ask
him about the case as well. The Menendez brothers are
(00:49):
re sentenced, the first step in getting them out of
jail on parole.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
I want to do a hat tip to Judge Jessic
who was able to can sold out all the noise
surrounding this.
Speaker 1 (01:05):
That's defense attorney Mark Arragos. Possible Jersey Transit strike that
would shut down train service for three hundred and fifty
thousand passengers is now just two days away. I certainly
hope not for everybody's sake.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
I do need the train to go to school and
to come back from school, so I really hope that
the strike doesn't.
Speaker 5 (01:24):
End up happening.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Labor relations in Washington is now in on this and
part of the negotiations, but so far no signs of movement,
although I will tell you this, neither side is running
out to the media right now, and I think that
is a good sign. Mayor Adams is peppered with questions
at his weekly news conference about his meeting with Donald
(01:47):
Trump this past weekend and if it's true that he
only thanked Donald Trump that's all the meeting was about. Yes, yes,
I think too.
Speaker 5 (01:56):
I wish I could have thanked President Biden when he
was talking about the reapgonization of the Justice Department against
his family. I would have hoped, people say, and he
weaponized it against Eric also, But he didn't, so I
couldn't thank him.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
In the meantime, Donald Trump is in Saudi Arabia and
he issued a threat to Iran.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
They cannot have a nuclear weapon. This is an offer
that will not last forever. The time is right now
for them to choose right now. We don't have a
lot of time to wait.
Speaker 6 (02:24):
Now.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Pete Rose wasn't alive to see it, but Commissioner Bob
Manifor reinstated Pete Rose and others like shoeless Joe Jackson
for eligibility to the Hall of Fame.
Speaker 7 (02:35):
I keep convincing myself for telling myself hang in here, Pete,
You'll get a second chance. This is the one country
that gives you a second chance. And I've been suspended
for almost thirty years, and I have been close to
a second chance. So I continue to hope to someday
I'll get a second chance.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
That was Pete Rose's last interview before he died. It
was last year before he died at the age of
eighty three. So he did get his second chance. He
just is not alive to see it. It came less
than a year too late. Now let's talk. We have
several big cases across the country. Let's talk with Jeffrey Lickman,
high profile criminal defense attorney. He's also host of Beyond
(03:18):
the Legal Limit podcast, which you can find on the
iHeartRadio app. Good morning, Jeffrey, what do you want to
start with Menendez or P Diddy, Well.
Speaker 4 (03:28):
We can start with P Diddy because it's closer to
home in New York. It's there's some unusual things happening.
First of all, I don't think he's going to be convicted,
and I've been pretty consistent with that. You know, the
government starts out with this horrible behavior, the way he
treated Casside, a former girlfriend, and it's this completely disgusting.
I mean, the guy is like, you know, practically subhuman.
(03:49):
That being said, I don't think it's a federal case.
It's domestic violence. It's not the kind of stuff that
you find in a in a federal prosecution. It's very usual.
This is their lead witness as just someone who's going
to say, you know, the guy beat the crap out
of me and made me do horrible things in bed,
all horrible stuff. But is it a rico? Is it
(04:10):
a federal rico case? So that's the first thing that
strikes me. And I think, you know now that we're
just at the beginning, and you're going to have now
seven weeks of evidence that's going to be less shocking
and less persuasive than this. I think eventually the jury
will have had enough and realize that this case doesn't
merit a federal prosecution. He certainly, you know, deserves massive punishment,
(04:31):
but just not in this form. The next thing that's
that's bizarre for me as a defense lawyer is the
fact that you've got one defense lawyer doing the opening.
They've got another defense lawyer doing the cross examination of
one of the male prostitutes. There's going to be another
defense lawyer crossing Cassie. It's just not the way things
(04:53):
are done in criminal cases. As a defense lawyer, you
want to have the ability to be in front of
the judge, in front of the jury as much as
possible to get them to trust you, to get them
to like you, so that when the time comes and
they have to vote in the back, they're partially persuaded,
even at the subconsciously by the fact that, hey, you know,
(05:13):
I like that guy. That guy made me laugh, that
guy was a good lawyer, and they want to do
you as solid by perhaps acquitting. By splitting up the case.
There's eight lawyers, which I've never seen in a case.
Eight defense lawyers for one defendant. It just reduces all
the time in front of the jury and I hope
it's not going to be something that costs them in
(05:35):
the end. But whoever's idea this was, it just makes
no sense, little to no sense.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
There's a lot of people that were in the courtroom
that said the jury was hanging on every word Cassie said,
and they seem shocked. Is it up to the defense now
to let them know that even though some of this
was shocking behavior has nothing to do with the charges.
Speaker 4 (05:55):
Well, you know, it's going to be a recency effect
by the time vote in the back room, and it
may be two months from now. They're not going to
remember this Cassie testimony the way they do today. It's
going to be so far long gone that it won't
have nearly the impact that it does today. And look,
that's the government's prerogative. They want to put the strongest witness,
(06:18):
the most memorable witness first. They don't want to wait
until the end because by then it may be too late.
I just don't think there's enough here. In addition, they've
lost one of their witnesses apparently, who disappeared, refuses to
respond to the prosecutors. It's just not I just don't
think it's the kind of case that belongs in the
federal courtroom. Again, I don't want to suggest that his behavior,
(06:39):
at least as alleged, is not horrific but a rico case.
You see rico cases for organized crime members, you know,
for for cartel leaders. You don't see it for a
guy who you know, beat up his girlfriend and made
her do disgusting things. Doesn't mean he doesn't deserve punishment.
This just isn't the forum, and it really does smell
as if there's sort of a selective prosecution situation going
(07:02):
on here.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
I will add that the defense felt like they had
to put her up first or in the beginning, because
she's seven months pregnant and they could be the government. Yeah,
they couldn't afford to have that happen. Yes, the government.
Do they put P. Diddy on the stand?
Speaker 4 (07:19):
You know, it's possible. I think in a case like this,
it's always in the back of your mind that the
jury certainly wants to hear from him. They want to
hear him being contrite. They want to hear him, you know,
explaining what happened. See, you keep it in the back
of your mind. The possibility, depending on how the trial goes.
My guess and it's with regard to my own experience.
(07:41):
At the end of the day, you feel that you've
done enough damage to their case, to the government's case,
and you don't feel the need to put him on
the stand, because if you do, you open him up
to cross examination for many bad acts that he's done,
for prior statements that may be inconsistent to what he says,
And it's it's a risk, I mean to me, it
suggests that it's a desperate move in a federal case.
(08:04):
And I had an opportunity to put John Gotti Junior
on the stand. He certainly wanted to speak and tell
his story. I felt I had done enough damage to
the government's case and decided not to put them on
and ended up he walked out of out of court free.
So you know, that's the kind of thing that you
think about doing. But at the end of the day,
it's if they put them on the stand, it's because
they think they're behind on points.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Explain to us what happened in the Menendez case. I
could actually care less about these two, but they're now
caused the lebs because of a docu series on Netflix.
That's how strange the world is, right now, but they
were re sentenced and they the family was celebrating, as
the ones that support the brothers explain why they're celebrating
because it doesn't really mean they're gonna they're gonna get clemency,
(08:46):
right or parole.
Speaker 4 (08:48):
Yeah, well it does. They've gotten now fifty to life
instead of life without parole and allows them to appear
in front of a parole board and make their case
as to why they should be released. And they very
well maybe and then as you play it out correctly. Look,
I'm a defense lawyer, but I mean I'll call a
spade a spade. The only reason they're in this situation
is because Netflix put out this this documentary that suggests
(09:12):
that they had been sexually abused by the father. I mean,
all that stuff had come out at the trial. It's
not like any of this stuff is necessarily new. But
I suppose now that it's in the news, everybody wants
to get behind it. They may get out. My guess
is they probably will get out. But keep in mind
that they certainly lied during the trial. They asked witnesses
(09:34):
to lie on their behalf. I mean, it's not like
these these kids were railroaded, you know, they were in
front of a jury, they were convicted. So you know,
as a defense lawyer, I feel like everybody should deserve,
you know, deserves a second chance. But it's somebody who's
an objective viewer from the public. I mean, you know,
I think it's a little bit bizarre that the only
reason they're getting this opportunity is because of Netflix. What
(09:55):
about the zillions of other prisoners that are in jail
right now that don't have flicks specials about them and
they don't get a second chance like these guys are.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
Yeah, great point, as always. Jeffrey Lickman, high profile criminal
defense attorney, host of Beyond the Legal Limit podcast found
in the iHeartRadio app Talk to you again next week.
Thanks Jeffrey, Thanks Larry, welcome back. Well I'll tell you
what so far, there's no clear winner. Sometimes you get
a talkback early on and you go, oh, that's that's
gonna be tough to beat. That hasn't happened yet. They've
(10:27):
been good, but it's nothing like, Wow, that's the one.
So you have an opportunity today. I know you want
one of those T shirts and everybody does, but so
you have an opportunity go to seven to ten wor
on the I Heart radio app. Click the talkback button
and you're on the air. This gentleman wants to talk
about the trip to Saudi Arabia by Donald Trump and
(10:49):
every other president.
Speaker 8 (10:52):
To be Larry, what we should be talking about is
how the Kingdom of Sad was complicit and providing material
support to the hijackers that killed three thousand American citizens,
not whether they recognize Israel or not.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
If Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 8 (11:09):
Wants to enter the world of nations, they should admit
what they did. They should admit how they were involved,
and then we can move on.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
All right, let's talk about that for one second, because
that's an important issue. And I don't completely disagree with you,
but I do know this has been investigated over and
over and over again, and the Saudi government denies that
they were directly involved. That doesn't mean there weren't people
in the government that were giving money and aiding and
(11:38):
abetting terrorists. Did they know about nine to eleven? That
is the question. That's a big question. So I agree
with you that this should be investigated further. It should
be investigated further by Saudi Arabia, not just by US,
and they should take some accountability that their country was involved,
(12:00):
even if they deny that their government was involved.
Speaker 9 (12:04):
Good morning, Larry. How come nobody's talking about what the
new Jersey engineer train engineers want. It seems they want
over two hundred grand a year. That sounds a bit
high to me. How come you never mentioned that.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
We talked about it. We have talked about it. You see,
you have to listen every morning. You gotta listen every morning.
We certainly talked about that a couple of times. No,
some of their demands have been ridiculous, and I think
this is just a big part of negotiations. So they're
gonna come down somewhere in the middle.
Speaker 10 (12:39):
I know.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
The latest thing is they wanted to make as much
as Lai are are engineers and and so Jersey Transit.
The President said, Okay, that's what we'll pay you, and
then that was voted down. So who knows where we
are right now. Both have gone into media silence. So
keep your fingers crussed. You know, gen Z gets attacked
(13:00):
a lot, and both I have two sons that are
in gen Z and they're impressive as hell to me.
And it seems to me and from knowing their friends.
The gen z Is generation and you have gen z ors, Natalie.
I got to as I think they're impressive. I really
believe they're different, but they're impressive. And I think that
(13:21):
they are especially critical of the generations that came before,
and I think that's what makes us upset. They don't
want to do things the way we did them. That's
exactly it.
Speaker 11 (13:33):
I feel like they are comfortable making their own path
and they're not not second guessing themselves.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
In many ways in what matters to them, like being online,
computer savvy, all that stuff. They're smarter than us. They
know things. I've had to go to my son several
times to ask me how to do things online. And
so they they have this attitude with especially about stuff
that has to do with anything online or anything electronic.
(14:03):
You don't tell me what to do. I got this.
And that plays over into the workplace, and so we're
finding out now there's a big article out there about
gen Z and the fact that they want rules change. Well,
if you look at what they want, it's not unreasonable.
Their big thing is they think it's a waste of
(14:24):
time to have a review process every few months to
find out how you're doing it the job. Now, we're
used to that, so we're going, well, what's wrong with that?
Except when you hear their argument, they say, just tell
me now, just see if I'm having a problem, I
want to fix it now. I don't want to wait
for a monthly review or a yearly review to find
(14:44):
out I'm doing it wrong. Tell me now. They aren't wrong,
they aren't wrong, but they get frustrated by this, which
brings us to revenge quitting. It's on the rise. Gen
z er Is especially like this when they quit at
the the exact moment where they hurt the business or
the company the most. Now, see, that's where they're wrong.
(15:06):
They they are right in their argument, they're wrong a
lot in their actions, and that's the reason there's some criticism. Now,
let's get the news at seven point thirty with Jacqueline
Carl Jacklin. Good morning.
Speaker 12 (15:17):
President Trump is expressing his thanks to Arab nations for
their efforts to try and end the Israeli Gaza conflict.
Speaking today in Saudi Arabia, Trump said he hopes for
a future of safety and dignity for the Palestinian people,
but he criticized the militant group Hamas for blocking progress
with the tax against innocent people and Federal Aviation Administration
(15:39):
officials are meeting today with major airlines that operate out
of Newark Airport following massive flight disruptions.
Speaker 13 (15:46):
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy says the number of flights involving
Newark needs to be reduced because of an air traffic
controller shortage and equipment issues and also a runway outage
have led to a day after day of massive delays
and cancelations over the last two weeks at Newark. Slowed
down the flights at Newark until we can stand this
system up and be assured that we have enough controllers
(16:09):
and a system that's actually working. Airlines are expected to
propose specific flight reduction and modification plans at least through
mid June. I'm scappringle wrdw's.
Speaker 12 (16:19):
Okay, So this is a definitely a put your forks
down story. If you're eating breakfasts, please pause.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
For this next story.
Speaker 12 (16:26):
A couple of viewers to KTLA reported seeing a female
Amazon delivery driver relieve herself in their front yards, and
it was caught on security cam video. In the first video,
the unnamed woman can be seen climbing stairs to the
homes porch. As she walks away, she's then seen pulling
up her pants. Well what appears to be poop can
be seen at the bottle of stairs, along with a
(16:48):
dirty piece of paper on the ground nearby.
Speaker 1 (16:50):
I told you it was gross and so now.
Speaker 12 (16:52):
After that video was aired on the news, another family
shared their video of what appears to be that same
woman dropping her pants and having a tink on their
brick walkway. Amazon said they were disturbed, apologized, immediately identified
the employee with the bathroom issues, and says this woman
is no longer making deliveries for them. It doesn't say
she's fired. I just think she might have needed more
(17:13):
training on what exactly was.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
She apparently needs. That's a that's I've I don't even
I have no idea what to say. One of the
few times I'd be absolutely speechless.
Speaker 12 (17:29):
It is kind of like a speechless time story.
Speaker 11 (17:32):
I could see her saying, well, you know, if there's
a medical condition that there is no bathrooms provided, Because
when you think about it, where do you write? You're
on this truck all day long, where do you go?
Just think about all the excuses that are going to
come out.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
That's like, it's not my fault, right, Yes, it's very primitive.
She's marking her territory. She's going my route, Bob, you're
not getting it. Just in case anybody, their Amazon driver
goes there, they're going to know she was there. They're
going to realize. Ye, thanks so much, Jennifer carl Well
A year after Jennifer, Sorry, Jacqueline, I don't I don't
(18:12):
even know who Jennifer is. I have no Jennifers in
my life. I don't even know where that came from.
Sorry about that. A year after he died, Pete Rose
is now eligible for the Hall of Fame, along with
a list of other band players, including Shoeless Joe Jackson.
We'll talk with legendary sports columnist Bill Madden about the
reinstatement next and you can catch the latest edition of
(18:35):
Katie Couric's Next Question podcast as she sits down with
the iconic Christy Brinkley for an intimate conversation on the
moments that shaped her. From our bohemian days in Paris
to the glitz of Studio fifty four, from the heights
of modeling fame to the unexpected heartbreak, all of which
is now finally captured in Brinkley's new memoir Uptown Girl.
(19:00):
Don't miss Katie's chat with Christy. Open the free iHeartRadio
app and search next Question with Katie Couric Today. Well,
big news in the baseball world yesterday when Major League
Baseball Commissioner Paul Manfred removed Pete Rose and sixteen other
deceased individuals from the permanently Ineligible list, making them eligible
(19:24):
for election into the Baseball Hall of Fame. In those
sixteen was shoeless Joe Jackson. Before we get to a
legendary baseball columnist Bill Madden, I do want to play
you a part of the last interview with Pete Rose,
where he talked about his ineligibility.
Speaker 7 (19:46):
I keep convincing myself for telling myself hang in here, Pete.
You'll get a second chance. This is the one country
that gives you a second chance. And I've been suspended
for almost thirty years, and I've been close to a
second chance. So I continue to hope to someday I'll
get a second chance, and I won't need a third
(20:06):
I won't need a third chance. But there again, in
the hands of baseball, the Commissioner of Baseball is a
good guy, mister Manford. I know he's got a tough job.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
Just a couple of months off after that interview, Pete
Rose died. That was last year, September of twenty twenty four.
And to talk about this, as I said, Bill Madden
has covered the Yankees in Major League Baseball for over
fifty years, including more than four decades with the New
York Daily News. He is a best selling author and
(20:41):
the twenty ten recipient of Baseball Hall of Fame's J. G.
Taylor Spink Award. He's got a new book out, Yankees Typewriters,
Scandals and Cooperstown, a baseball memoir, just out last month.
How appropriate for today, Bill, I'd love to have you
back to talk about the book. I'd love to read
(21:03):
the book, so it sounds great, But today let's just
talk about Pete Rose, if that's okay. And what was
your reaction when you heard Bill?
Speaker 14 (21:14):
Well, I wasn't surprised, because once Manford revealed that he'd
have this meeting with Pete Rose's relatives and he was
once again considering this whole matter, I assumed that probably
he would he would rule and to reinstate him and
(21:38):
for the basically for the reasons.
Speaker 10 (21:40):
That he gave.
Speaker 14 (21:41):
You know, the guy is dead, and a lifetime ban
is a lifetime ban. If you're dead, you're no longer
have a lifetime So I got that was his reasoning
me personally, I don't know how I've been up back
and forth on Pete Rose for thirty years. I always
liked the guy. He was a writer's delight. He'd love
(22:03):
to you know, you could go to his locker and
talk baseball, you know, before games and after games, and
he would go on and on, and he loved the writers.
I think I think it's important to understand that when
Bart Giamatti, the commissioner, first rule that he was going
(22:25):
to go on the permanent ineligible list, Giamatti never said
anything about the Hall of Fame. He left that open.
All he said was that Pete you need to reconfigure
your life, and if you do, then you know, this
is up for appeal basically. But what happened was in
(22:48):
nineteen ninety two when nineteen ninety one, when Rose had
been out of the game for five years, he was
now eligible for the Hall of Fame. And it was
the Hall of Fame that decided that anybody on the
Permanent and Eligible list was ineligible for the Hall of Fame,
effectively taking the matter of Rose away from the Baseball
(23:11):
Runners Association. We were not happy about that because it
was clearly the Hall of Fame's opinion or the Board
of Director's opinion that they were worried that we would
vote him in. And you know, we never got a
chance to decide one way or the other way. It's
(23:34):
been all these years on that point.
Speaker 1 (23:37):
Is is it your feeling that the Baseball writers would
have voted him in on the first ballot.
Speaker 14 (23:42):
I don't think so. I don't think he would have
got in on the first ballot. I think he would
have eventually gotten in if he was eligible, because we'd
be having this debate every year, and usually when these
things happen and you debate about someone every year, eventually
the people who want him in went over the people
I don't want him in. I've seen that happen with
(24:04):
various veterans committee choices like Dick Allen and people like
that to finally get in.
Speaker 4 (24:11):
So I think, yeah, we would.
Speaker 14 (24:12):
Have voted him in. But the problem with Pete was
he always did something that made you stop and think,
you know, my feeling about Pete Rose, about the whole
thing with gambling, was no question he broke Baseball's cardinal
rule and he deserved to pay a price for that.
(24:33):
But the difference between Pete Rose and the steroids guys
was night and day. In my opinion, the steroids guys
cheated the game, and what they did was, in my opinion, unforgivable.
In Pete's case, he may have broken baseball's cardinal rule,
but he never cheated the game. He always played all out,
(24:54):
and for me, that's why I probably would have voted
for him.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
It's interesting you say that about the steroid guys because
when I was listening to this last interview with Pete Rose,
he was talking about them, and he said, look, Barry
Bonds had seven hundred and fifteen home runs before before
he was taking steroids, and he deserves to be in
for just that reason alone. But you don't think the
steroid people will ever get in, Well.
Speaker 14 (25:21):
It doesn't look like they're going to get in. And
I never bought that argument, because that was like saying
Shule's Joe was a Hall of Fame player until he
got involved in the nineteen nineteen World Series, right it's true.
It's the same thing. I mean, you know, just because
Barry Bonds was a great player once he started doing steroids,
(25:41):
I mean that's a deal breaker. I don't care how
great a player he was before. There's no question he
would never have hit that many home runs if he
hadn't done steroids.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
So it's interesting, and we only have about a minute left.
But it's interesting that you say he won't get in
on the first ballot. So when he comes up in
twenty twenty seven, does some of the voters feel like
because obviously he's the old time hit leader, just on
talent alone, he should be in on the first ballot,
but they have to make a statement that he did
do something wrong and then vote for him later to
(26:13):
get in.
Speaker 14 (26:15):
No, I didn't mean this. I meant for the baseball writers.
If we had been given a chance to vote on him,
I don't think he would have made it in on
the first ballot with us.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
I got it.
Speaker 14 (26:26):
In this case, I think he'll probably get in, and
I think Shuless Joe will probably get in as well.
Speaker 1 (26:31):
Wow, they both deserve I thought I thought they'd want
to send a message though.
Speaker 14 (26:37):
No, well I don't know. I you know, it's a
strange committee. It's formed, it's got former players, a lot
of whom played against, even with Pete are on that committee.
There's owners on that committee. There's writers on that committee.
It's a I think it's eighteen people on the committee.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
Well, that's fascinating, Bill, Bill, it's fascinating that you that
that everything you've said to his fascinating. With love to
have you back to talk about your new book, Yankees
Typewriters Scandals in Cooperstown, a baseball memoir just out last month.
Can't wait to have you back, Bill.
Speaker 14 (27:09):
Thank you, Okay, thank you.
Speaker 1 (27:11):
You want to keep your brain healthy. World renowned medical
expert Gregory Poland says, it starts in the kitchen. The
good doctor will explain next. And let's get right to
doctor Gregory Poland, world renowned medical expert and leader in
vaccines and infectious diseases at the Mayo Clinic and president
of the Atria Research Institute in New York. Doctor Poland
(27:34):
is always thanks for being here.
Speaker 6 (27:36):
Good to be with you, Larry.
Speaker 1 (27:38):
I know the FDA has just approved an at home
cervical cancer screening test. How important of news is this?
Speaker 6 (27:46):
This is really good news.
Speaker 10 (27:48):
For the women in the population because they can self
collect at home a specimen which actually is designed to
detect eight PV human papaloma virus.
Speaker 4 (28:03):
It is that.
Speaker 10 (28:04):
Virus that causes cervical cancers, vulvar cancers, vaginal cancers. So
they're actually collecting a specimen that can they then mail in,
can be tested for HPV and determine whether they have
it or not. Now, this is important when you consider
that eighty percent eight zero eighty percent of people become
(28:28):
HPV infected during their life. Fortunately, most people resolve it,
but there's a portion that don't. And you consider that,
you know, you have about two hundred and fifty three
hundred thousand people with cervical cancer in the US, and
that about twenty five percent or so of women are
not up to date with screening. What a wonderful thing
(28:52):
to be able to do it in the comfort of
your home, not have to have a doctor appointment or
drive anywhere.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Yeah, that's the great part about it. Not having no effect,
but not having to go to the doctor and then
not have that uncomfortable experience as well. Just do it.
How often do you think that people should be doing this?
Speaker 10 (29:10):
Well, the recommendations are for women twenty one to twenty
nine they get it every three years, and thirty to
sixty five they get a PAP smear every three years
and an HPV test every five years.
Speaker 6 (29:24):
And if you're low risk, then.
Speaker 10 (29:26):
After the age of sixty five, if you have been
screened a number of times when you're younger, you probably
no longer need to test.
Speaker 4 (29:34):
Now.
Speaker 10 (29:34):
The one downside of the home test is that it
doesn't allow you to determine if anything else is going on.
So typically when we do a pelvic exam and we
do a pap smear and we take a specimen for HPV,
we're also feeling the ovaries and being sure there's no
(29:54):
abnormal masses there. So it's not like this is something
where you'll know ever have to have a pelvic exam
and see a doctor. This is an adjunct and I
think particularly for younger women, this is going to be
a lot more comfortable and likely they'll be a lot
more compliant than.
Speaker 6 (30:13):
If they had to go into a physician.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
Oh, that's great information. It's interesting you send us things
you'd like to talk about, and you have here prevention
of Parkinson's disease and Memorial Day. That's pretty fascinating. What
is that heaven?
Speaker 6 (30:29):
It's a little bit of a teaser.
Speaker 10 (30:30):
Well, what's becoming really clear? And actually at HRI, I
work with a colleague does a lot of work in
this area. Toxins, environmental toxins, and ultra processed foods are
the things that really seem to be associated with elevated
risks of Parkinson's disease. And we're sort of choosing Memorial
(30:53):
Day to make the point that brain health begins.
Speaker 6 (30:57):
At the table.
Speaker 10 (30:59):
So think of the typical Memorial Day picnic foods, sodas,
potato chips, hot dogs. You have eleven or so servings
of that, and you've increased your risk of Parkinson's disease
by double I think people don't realize just how bad
these ultra processed foods are for us. And you know,
(31:20):
I might say that we've got in the US alone
about a million people living with Parkinson's disease, about ninety thousand.
Speaker 6 (31:30):
New cases every year, so you're.
Speaker 10 (31:32):
Talking about one out of every three hundred and twenty
eight people or so in the US as Parkinson's and
these sorts of studies, you know, you often hear of
studies well, they say that this week and next week
it'll be something different.
Speaker 6 (31:46):
This is a decades long study of the Nurses Health
Study and the Health Professionals follow up study. These had
forty three thousand people followed for decades.
Speaker 1 (32:00):
Doctor Gregory Poland, that's a great information. Thank you so much.
World renowned medical expert and leader in vaccines and infectious
diseases at the Mayo Clinic and president of the Atria
Research Institute in New York. Thanks again, doctor. A federal
judge takes over Rikers Island? Is that a good thing?
We'll ask Queen's counselwoman and Minority whip Vicki Palladino, coming
(32:22):
up after the eight o'clock News
Thanks so much for being here. We can't thank you
enough for choosing to listen to Minty in the morning.
This morning and the Big three of the prosecution's star witness,
diddy former girlfriend Cassie Ventura testified in the sex trafficking
trial of Sean Diddy. Combes I was.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
In the courtroom to hear her testimony. Than what you
saw was a woman that was broken, a woman that
was full of emotion and of regret and is now
having the courage and the strength to come forward and
say what happened to her.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
That's defense attorney BERNARDA. Violano Peter Harlambus, who was in
the courtroom. We'll talk more about the case at eight
thirty five. Also, high profile criminal defense attorney Jeffrey Lickman
is just minutes away now, moments away, and we'll ask
him about the case as well. The Menendez brothers are
(00:49):
re sentenced, the first step in getting them out of
jail on parole.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
I want to do a hat tip to Judge Jessic
who was able to can sold out all the noise
surrounding this.
Speaker 1 (01:05):
That's defense attorney Mark Arragos. Possible Jersey Transit strike that
would shut down train service for three hundred and fifty
thousand passengers is now just two days away. I certainly
hope not for everybody's sake.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
I do need the train to go to school and
to come back from school, so I really hope that
the strike doesn't.
Speaker 5 (01:24):
End up happening.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Labor relations in Washington is now in on this and
part of the negotiations, but so far no signs of movement,
although I will tell you this, neither side is running
out to the media right now, and I think that
is a good sign. Mayor Adams is peppered with questions
at his weekly news conference about his meeting with Donald
(01:47):
Trump this past weekend and if it's true that he
only thanked Donald Trump that's all the meeting was about. Yes, yes,
I think too.
Speaker 5 (01:56):
I wish I could have thanked President Biden when he
was talking about the reapgonization of the Justice Department against
his family. I would have hoped, people say, and he
weaponized it against Eric also, But he didn't, so I
couldn't thank him.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
In the meantime, Donald Trump is in Saudi Arabia and
he issued a threat to Iran.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
They cannot have a nuclear weapon. This is an offer
that will not last forever. The time is right now
for them to choose right now. We don't have a
lot of time to wait.
Speaker 6 (02:24):
Now.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Pete Rose wasn't alive to see it, but Commissioner Bob
Manifor reinstated Pete Rose and others like shoeless Joe Jackson
for eligibility to the Hall of Fame.
Speaker 7 (02:35):
I keep convincing myself for telling myself hang in here, Pete,
You'll get a second chance. This is the one country
that gives you a second chance. And I've been suspended
for almost thirty years, and I have been close to
a second chance. So I continue to hope to someday
I'll get a second chance.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
That was Pete Rose's last interview before he died. It
was last year before he died at the age of
eighty three. So he did get his second chance. He
just is not alive to see it. It came less
than a year too late. Now let's talk. We have
several big cases across the country. Let's talk with Jeffrey Lickman,
high profile criminal defense attorney. He's also host of Beyond
(03:18):
the Legal Limit podcast, which you can find on the
iHeartRadio app. Good morning, Jeffrey, what do you want to
start with Menendez or P Diddy, Well.
Speaker 4 (03:28):
We can start with P Diddy because it's closer to
home in New York. It's there's some unusual things happening.
First of all, I don't think he's going to be convicted,
and I've been pretty consistent with that. You know, the
government starts out with this horrible behavior, the way he
treated Casside, a former girlfriend, and it's this completely disgusting.
I mean, the guy is like, you know, practically subhuman.
(03:49):
That being said, I don't think it's a federal case.
It's domestic violence. It's not the kind of stuff that
you find in a in a federal prosecution. It's very usual.
This is their lead witness as just someone who's going
to say, you know, the guy beat the crap out
of me and made me do horrible things in bed,
all horrible stuff. But is it a rico? Is it
(04:10):
a federal rico case? So that's the first thing that
strikes me. And I think, you know now that we're
just at the beginning, and you're going to have now
seven weeks of evidence that's going to be less shocking
and less persuasive than this. I think eventually the jury
will have had enough and realize that this case doesn't
merit a federal prosecution. He certainly, you know, deserves massive punishment,
(04:31):
but just not in this form. The next thing that's
that's bizarre for me as a defense lawyer is the
fact that you've got one defense lawyer doing the opening.
They've got another defense lawyer doing the cross examination of
one of the male prostitutes. There's going to be another
defense lawyer crossing Cassie. It's just not the way things
(04:53):
are done in criminal cases. As a defense lawyer, you
want to have the ability to be in front of
the judge, in front of the jury as much as
possible to get them to trust you, to get them
to like you, so that when the time comes and
they have to vote in the back, they're partially persuaded,
even at the subconsciously by the fact that, hey, you know,
(05:13):
I like that guy. That guy made me laugh, that
guy was a good lawyer, and they want to do
you as solid by perhaps acquitting. By splitting up the case.
There's eight lawyers, which I've never seen in a case.
Eight defense lawyers for one defendant. It just reduces all
the time in front of the jury and I hope
it's not going to be something that costs them in
(05:35):
the end. But whoever's idea this was, it just makes
no sense, little to no sense.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
There's a lot of people that were in the courtroom
that said the jury was hanging on every word Cassie said,
and they seem shocked. Is it up to the defense now
to let them know that even though some of this
was shocking behavior has nothing to do with the charges.
Speaker 4 (05:55):
Well, you know, it's going to be a recency effect
by the time vote in the back room, and it
may be two months from now. They're not going to
remember this Cassie testimony the way they do today. It's
going to be so far long gone that it won't
have nearly the impact that it does today. And look,
that's the government's prerogative. They want to put the strongest witness,
(06:18):
the most memorable witness first. They don't want to wait
until the end because by then it may be too late.
I just don't think there's enough here. In addition, they've
lost one of their witnesses apparently, who disappeared, refuses to
respond to the prosecutors. It's just not I just don't
think it's the kind of case that belongs in the
federal courtroom. Again, I don't want to suggest that his behavior,
(06:39):
at least as alleged, is not horrific but a rico case.
You see rico cases for organized crime members, you know,
for for cartel leaders. You don't see it for a
guy who you know, beat up his girlfriend and made
her do disgusting things. Doesn't mean he doesn't deserve punishment.
This just isn't the forum, and it really does smell
as if there's sort of a selective prosecution situation going
(07:02):
on here.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
I will add that the defense felt like they had
to put her up first or in the beginning, because
she's seven months pregnant and they could be the government. Yeah,
they couldn't afford to have that happen. Yes, the government.
Do they put P. Diddy on the stand?
Speaker 4 (07:19):
You know, it's possible. I think in a case like this,
it's always in the back of your mind that the
jury certainly wants to hear from him. They want to
hear him being contrite. They want to hear him, you know,
explaining what happened. See, you keep it in the back
of your mind. The possibility, depending on how the trial goes.
My guess and it's with regard to my own experience.
(07:41):
At the end of the day, you feel that you've
done enough damage to their case, to the government's case,
and you don't feel the need to put him on
the stand, because if you do, you open him up
to cross examination for many bad acts that he's done,
for prior statements that may be inconsistent to what he says,
And it's it's a risk, I mean to me, it
suggests that it's a desperate move in a federal case.
(08:04):
And I had an opportunity to put John Gotti Junior
on the stand. He certainly wanted to speak and tell
his story. I felt I had done enough damage to
the government's case and decided not to put them on
and ended up he walked out of out of court free.
So you know, that's the kind of thing that you
think about doing. But at the end of the day,
it's if they put them on the stand, it's because
they think they're behind on points.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Explain to us what happened in the Menendez case. I
could actually care less about these two, but they're now
caused the lebs because of a docu series on Netflix.
That's how strange the world is, right now, but they
were re sentenced and they the family was celebrating, as
the ones that support the brothers explain why they're celebrating
because it doesn't really mean they're gonna they're gonna get clemency,
(08:46):
right or parole.
Speaker 4 (08:48):
Yeah, well it does. They've gotten now fifty to life
instead of life without parole and allows them to appear
in front of a parole board and make their case
as to why they should be released. And they very
well maybe and then as you play it out correctly. Look,
I'm a defense lawyer, but I mean I'll call a
spade a spade. The only reason they're in this situation
is because Netflix put out this this documentary that suggests
(09:12):
that they had been sexually abused by the father. I mean,
all that stuff had come out at the trial. It's
not like any of this stuff is necessarily new. But
I suppose now that it's in the news, everybody wants
to get behind it. They may get out. My guess
is they probably will get out. But keep in mind
that they certainly lied during the trial. They asked witnesses
(09:34):
to lie on their behalf. I mean, it's not like
these these kids were railroaded, you know, they were in
front of a jury, they were convicted. So you know,
as a defense lawyer, I feel like everybody should deserve,
you know, deserves a second chance. But it's somebody who's
an objective viewer from the public. I mean, you know,
I think it's a little bit bizarre that the only
reason they're getting this opportunity is because of Netflix. What
(09:55):
about the zillions of other prisoners that are in jail
right now that don't have flicks specials about them and
they don't get a second chance like these guys are.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
Yeah, great point, as always. Jeffrey Lickman, high profile criminal
defense attorney, host of Beyond the Legal Limit podcast found
in the iHeartRadio app Talk to you again next week.
Thanks Jeffrey, Thanks Larry, welcome back. Well I'll tell you
what so far, there's no clear winner. Sometimes you get
a talkback early on and you go, oh, that's that's
gonna be tough to beat. That hasn't happened yet. They've
(10:27):
been good, but it's nothing like, Wow, that's the one.
So you have an opportunity today. I know you want
one of those T shirts and everybody does, but so
you have an opportunity go to seven to ten wor
on the I Heart radio app. Click the talkback button
and you're on the air. This gentleman wants to talk
about the trip to Saudi Arabia by Donald Trump and
(10:49):
every other president.
Speaker 8 (10:52):
To be Larry, what we should be talking about is
how the Kingdom of Sad was complicit and providing material
support to the hijackers that killed three thousand American citizens,
not whether they recognize Israel or not.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
If Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 8 (11:09):
Wants to enter the world of nations, they should admit
what they did. They should admit how they were involved,
and then we can move on.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
All right, let's talk about that for one second, because
that's an important issue. And I don't completely disagree with you,
but I do know this has been investigated over and
over and over again, and the Saudi government denies that
they were directly involved. That doesn't mean there weren't people
in the government that were giving money and aiding and
(11:38):
abetting terrorists. Did they know about nine to eleven? That
is the question. That's a big question. So I agree
with you that this should be investigated further. It should
be investigated further by Saudi Arabia, not just by US,
and they should take some accountability that their country was involved,
(12:00):
even if they deny that their government was involved.
Speaker 9 (12:04):
Good morning, Larry. How come nobody's talking about what the
new Jersey engineer train engineers want. It seems they want
over two hundred grand a year. That sounds a bit
high to me. How come you never mentioned that.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
We talked about it. We have talked about it. You see,
you have to listen every morning. You gotta listen every morning.
We certainly talked about that a couple of times. No,
some of their demands have been ridiculous, and I think
this is just a big part of negotiations. So they're
gonna come down somewhere in the middle.
Speaker 10 (12:39):
I know.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
The latest thing is they wanted to make as much
as Lai are are engineers and and so Jersey Transit.
The President said, Okay, that's what we'll pay you, and
then that was voted down. So who knows where we
are right now. Both have gone into media silence. So
keep your fingers crussed. You know, gen Z gets attacked
(13:00):
a lot, and both I have two sons that are
in gen Z and they're impressive as hell to me.
And it seems to me and from knowing their friends.
The gen z Is generation and you have gen z ors, Natalie.
I got to as I think they're impressive. I really
believe they're different, but they're impressive. And I think that
(13:21):
they are especially critical of the generations that came before,
and I think that's what makes us upset. They don't
want to do things the way we did them. That's
exactly it.
Speaker 11 (13:33):
I feel like they are comfortable making their own path
and they're not not second guessing themselves.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
In many ways in what matters to them, like being online,
computer savvy, all that stuff. They're smarter than us. They
know things. I've had to go to my son several
times to ask me how to do things online. And
so they they have this attitude with especially about stuff
that has to do with anything online or anything electronic.
(14:03):
You don't tell me what to do. I got this.
And that plays over into the workplace, and so we're
finding out now there's a big article out there about
gen Z and the fact that they want rules change. Well,
if you look at what they want, it's not unreasonable.
Their big thing is they think it's a waste of
(14:24):
time to have a review process every few months to
find out how you're doing it the job. Now, we're
used to that, so we're going, well, what's wrong with that?
Except when you hear their argument, they say, just tell
me now, just see if I'm having a problem, I
want to fix it now. I don't want to wait
for a monthly review or a yearly review to find
(14:44):
out I'm doing it wrong. Tell me now. They aren't wrong,
they aren't wrong, but they get frustrated by this, which
brings us to revenge quitting. It's on the rise. Gen
z er Is especially like this when they quit at
the the exact moment where they hurt the business or
the company the most. Now, see, that's where they're wrong.
(15:06):
They they are right in their argument, they're wrong a
lot in their actions, and that's the reason there's some criticism. Now,
let's get the news at seven point thirty with Jacqueline
Carl Jacklin. Good morning.
Speaker 12 (15:17):
President Trump is expressing his thanks to Arab nations for
their efforts to try and end the Israeli Gaza conflict.
Speaking today in Saudi Arabia, Trump said he hopes for
a future of safety and dignity for the Palestinian people,
but he criticized the militant group Hamas for blocking progress
with the tax against innocent people and Federal Aviation Administration
(15:39):
officials are meeting today with major airlines that operate out
of Newark Airport following massive flight disruptions.
Speaker 13 (15:46):
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy says the number of flights involving
Newark needs to be reduced because of an air traffic
controller shortage and equipment issues and also a runway outage
have led to a day after day of massive delays
and cancelations over the last two weeks at Newark. Slowed
down the flights at Newark until we can stand this
system up and be assured that we have enough controllers
(16:09):
and a system that's actually working. Airlines are expected to
propose specific flight reduction and modification plans at least through
mid June. I'm scappringle wrdw's.
Speaker 12 (16:19):
Okay, So this is a definitely a put your forks
down story. If you're eating breakfasts, please pause.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
For this next story.
Speaker 12 (16:26):
A couple of viewers to KTLA reported seeing a female
Amazon delivery driver relieve herself in their front yards, and
it was caught on security cam video. In the first video,
the unnamed woman can be seen climbing stairs to the
homes porch. As she walks away, she's then seen pulling
up her pants. Well what appears to be poop can
be seen at the bottle of stairs, along with a
(16:48):
dirty piece of paper on the ground nearby.
Speaker 1 (16:50):
I told you it was gross and so now.
Speaker 12 (16:52):
After that video was aired on the news, another family
shared their video of what appears to be that same
woman dropping her pants and having a tink on their
brick walkway. Amazon said they were disturbed, apologized, immediately identified
the employee with the bathroom issues, and says this woman
is no longer making deliveries for them. It doesn't say
she's fired. I just think she might have needed more
(17:13):
training on what exactly was.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
She apparently needs. That's a that's I've I don't even
I have no idea what to say. One of the
few times I'd be absolutely speechless.
Speaker 12 (17:29):
It is kind of like a speechless time story.
Speaker 11 (17:32):
I could see her saying, well, you know, if there's
a medical condition that there is no bathrooms provided, Because
when you think about it, where do you write? You're
on this truck all day long, where do you go?
Just think about all the excuses that are going to
come out.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
That's like, it's not my fault, right, Yes, it's very primitive.
She's marking her territory. She's going my route, Bob, you're
not getting it. Just in case anybody, their Amazon driver
goes there, they're going to know she was there. They're
going to realize. Ye, thanks so much, Jennifer carl Well
A year after Jennifer, Sorry, Jacqueline, I don't I don't
(18:12):
even know who Jennifer is. I have no Jennifers in
my life. I don't even know where that came from.
Sorry about that. A year after he died, Pete Rose
is now eligible for the Hall of Fame, along with
a list of other band players, including Shoeless Joe Jackson.
We'll talk with legendary sports columnist Bill Madden about the
reinstatement next and you can catch the latest edition of
(18:35):
Katie Couric's Next Question podcast as she sits down with
the iconic Christy Brinkley for an intimate conversation on the
moments that shaped her. From our bohemian days in Paris
to the glitz of Studio fifty four, from the heights
of modeling fame to the unexpected heartbreak, all of which
is now finally captured in Brinkley's new memoir Uptown Girl.
(19:00):
Don't miss Katie's chat with Christy. Open the free iHeartRadio
app and search next Question with Katie Couric Today. Well,
big news in the baseball world yesterday when Major League
Baseball Commissioner Paul Manfred removed Pete Rose and sixteen other
deceased individuals from the permanently Ineligible list, making them eligible
(19:24):
for election into the Baseball Hall of Fame. In those
sixteen was shoeless Joe Jackson. Before we get to a
legendary baseball columnist Bill Madden, I do want to play
you a part of the last interview with Pete Rose,
where he talked about his ineligibility.
Speaker 7 (19:46):
I keep convincing myself for telling myself hang in here, Pete.
You'll get a second chance. This is the one country
that gives you a second chance. And I've been suspended
for almost thirty years, and I've been close to a
second chance. So I continue to hope to someday I'll
get a second chance, and I won't need a third
(20:06):
I won't need a third chance. But there again, in
the hands of baseball, the Commissioner of Baseball is a
good guy, mister Manford. I know he's got a tough job.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
Just a couple of months off after that interview, Pete
Rose died. That was last year, September of twenty twenty four.
And to talk about this, as I said, Bill Madden
has covered the Yankees in Major League Baseball for over
fifty years, including more than four decades with the New
York Daily News. He is a best selling author and
(20:41):
the twenty ten recipient of Baseball Hall of Fame's J. G.
Taylor Spink Award. He's got a new book out, Yankees Typewriters,
Scandals and Cooperstown, a baseball memoir, just out last month.
How appropriate for today, Bill, I'd love to have you
back to talk about the book. I'd love to read
(21:03):
the book, so it sounds great, But today let's just
talk about Pete Rose, if that's okay. And what was
your reaction when you heard Bill?
Speaker 14 (21:14):
Well, I wasn't surprised, because once Manford revealed that he'd
have this meeting with Pete Rose's relatives and he was
once again considering this whole matter, I assumed that probably
he would he would rule and to reinstate him and
(21:38):
for the basically for the reasons.
Speaker 10 (21:40):
That he gave.
Speaker 14 (21:41):
You know, the guy is dead, and a lifetime ban
is a lifetime ban. If you're dead, you're no longer
have a lifetime So I got that was his reasoning
me personally, I don't know how I've been up back
and forth on Pete Rose for thirty years. I always
liked the guy. He was a writer's delight. He'd love
(22:03):
to you know, you could go to his locker and
talk baseball, you know, before games and after games, and
he would go on and on, and he loved the writers.
I think I think it's important to understand that when
Bart Giamatti, the commissioner, first rule that he was going
(22:25):
to go on the permanent ineligible list, Giamatti never said
anything about the Hall of Fame. He left that open.
All he said was that Pete you need to reconfigure
your life, and if you do, then you know, this
is up for appeal basically. But what happened was in
(22:48):
nineteen ninety two when nineteen ninety one, when Rose had
been out of the game for five years, he was
now eligible for the Hall of Fame. And it was
the Hall of Fame that decided that anybody on the
Permanent and Eligible list was ineligible for the Hall of Fame,
effectively taking the matter of Rose away from the Baseball
(23:11):
Runners Association. We were not happy about that because it
was clearly the Hall of Fame's opinion or the Board
of Director's opinion that they were worried that we would
vote him in. And you know, we never got a
chance to decide one way or the other way. It's
(23:34):
been all these years on that point.
Speaker 1 (23:37):
Is is it your feeling that the Baseball writers would
have voted him in on the first ballot.
Speaker 14 (23:42):
I don't think so. I don't think he would have
got in on the first ballot. I think he would
have eventually gotten in if he was eligible, because we'd
be having this debate every year, and usually when these
things happen and you debate about someone every year, eventually
the people who want him in went over the people
I don't want him in. I've seen that happen with
(24:04):
various veterans committee choices like Dick Allen and people like
that to finally get in.
Speaker 4 (24:11):
So I think, yeah, we would.
Speaker 14 (24:12):
Have voted him in. But the problem with Pete was
he always did something that made you stop and think,
you know, my feeling about Pete Rose, about the whole
thing with gambling, was no question he broke Baseball's cardinal
rule and he deserved to pay a price for that.
(24:33):
But the difference between Pete Rose and the steroids guys
was night and day. In my opinion, the steroids guys
cheated the game, and what they did was, in my opinion, unforgivable.
In Pete's case, he may have broken baseball's cardinal rule,
but he never cheated the game. He always played all out,
(24:54):
and for me, that's why I probably would have voted
for him.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
It's interesting you say that about the steroid guys because
when I was listening to this last interview with Pete Rose,
he was talking about them, and he said, look, Barry
Bonds had seven hundred and fifteen home runs before before
he was taking steroids, and he deserves to be in
for just that reason alone. But you don't think the
steroid people will ever get in, Well.
Speaker 14 (25:21):
It doesn't look like they're going to get in. And
I never bought that argument, because that was like saying
Shule's Joe was a Hall of Fame player until he
got involved in the nineteen nineteen World Series, right it's true.
It's the same thing. I mean, you know, just because
Barry Bonds was a great player once he started doing steroids,
(25:41):
I mean that's a deal breaker. I don't care how
great a player he was before. There's no question he
would never have hit that many home runs if he
hadn't done steroids.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
So it's interesting, and we only have about a minute left.
But it's interesting that you say he won't get in
on the first ballot. So when he comes up in
twenty twenty seven, does some of the voters feel like
because obviously he's the old time hit leader, just on
talent alone, he should be in on the first ballot,
but they have to make a statement that he did
do something wrong and then vote for him later to
(26:13):
get in.
Speaker 14 (26:15):
No, I didn't mean this. I meant for the baseball writers.
If we had been given a chance to vote on him,
I don't think he would have made it in on
the first ballot with us.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
I got it.
Speaker 14 (26:26):
In this case, I think he'll probably get in, and
I think Shuless Joe will probably get in as well.
Speaker 1 (26:31):
Wow, they both deserve I thought I thought they'd want
to send a message though.
Speaker 14 (26:37):
No, well I don't know. I you know, it's a
strange committee. It's formed, it's got former players, a lot
of whom played against, even with Pete are on that committee.
There's owners on that committee. There's writers on that committee.
It's a I think it's eighteen people on the committee.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
Well, that's fascinating, Bill, Bill, it's fascinating that you that
that everything you've said to his fascinating. With love to
have you back to talk about your new book, Yankees
Typewriters Scandals in Cooperstown, a baseball memoir just out last month.
Can't wait to have you back, Bill.
Speaker 14 (27:09):
Thank you, Okay, thank you.
Speaker 1 (27:11):
You want to keep your brain healthy. World renowned medical
expert Gregory Poland says, it starts in the kitchen. The
good doctor will explain next. And let's get right to
doctor Gregory Poland, world renowned medical expert and leader in
vaccines and infectious diseases at the Mayo Clinic and president
of the Atria Research Institute in New York. Doctor Poland
(27:34):
is always thanks for being here.
Speaker 6 (27:36):
Good to be with you, Larry.
Speaker 1 (27:38):
I know the FDA has just approved an at home
cervical cancer screening test. How important of news is this?
Speaker 6 (27:46):
This is really good news.
Speaker 10 (27:48):
For the women in the population because they can self
collect at home a specimen which actually is designed to
detect eight PV human papaloma virus.
Speaker 4 (28:03):
It is that.
Speaker 10 (28:04):
Virus that causes cervical cancers, vulvar cancers, vaginal cancers. So
they're actually collecting a specimen that can they then mail in,
can be tested for HPV and determine whether they have
it or not. Now, this is important when you consider
that eighty percent eight zero eighty percent of people become
(28:28):
HPV infected during their life. Fortunately, most people resolve it,
but there's a portion that don't. And you consider that,
you know, you have about two hundred and fifty three
hundred thousand people with cervical cancer in the US, and
that about twenty five percent or so of women are
not up to date with screening. What a wonderful thing
(28:52):
to be able to do it in the comfort of
your home, not have to have a doctor appointment or
drive anywhere.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Yeah, that's the great part about it. Not having no effect,
but not having to go to the doctor and then
not have that uncomfortable experience as well. Just do it.
How often do you think that people should be doing this?
Speaker 10 (29:10):
Well, the recommendations are for women twenty one to twenty
nine they get it every three years, and thirty to
sixty five they get a PAP smear every three years
and an HPV test every five years.
Speaker 6 (29:24):
And if you're low risk, then.
Speaker 10 (29:26):
After the age of sixty five, if you have been
screened a number of times when you're younger, you probably
no longer need to test.
Speaker 4 (29:34):
Now.
Speaker 10 (29:34):
The one downside of the home test is that it
doesn't allow you to determine if anything else is going on.
So typically when we do a pelvic exam and we
do a pap smear and we take a specimen for HPV,
we're also feeling the ovaries and being sure there's no
(29:54):
abnormal masses there. So it's not like this is something
where you'll know ever have to have a pelvic exam
and see a doctor. This is an adjunct and I
think particularly for younger women, this is going to be
a lot more comfortable and likely they'll be a lot
more compliant than.
Speaker 6 (30:13):
If they had to go into a physician.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
Oh, that's great information. It's interesting you send us things
you'd like to talk about, and you have here prevention
of Parkinson's disease and Memorial Day. That's pretty fascinating. What
is that heaven?
Speaker 6 (30:29):
It's a little bit of a teaser.
Speaker 10 (30:30):
Well, what's becoming really clear? And actually at HRI, I
work with a colleague does a lot of work in
this area. Toxins, environmental toxins, and ultra processed foods are
the things that really seem to be associated with elevated
risks of Parkinson's disease. And we're sort of choosing Memorial
(30:53):
Day to make the point that brain health begins.
Speaker 6 (30:57):
At the table.
Speaker 10 (30:59):
So think of the typical Memorial Day picnic foods, sodas,
potato chips, hot dogs. You have eleven or so servings
of that, and you've increased your risk of Parkinson's disease
by double I think people don't realize just how bad
these ultra processed foods are for us. And you know,
(31:20):
I might say that we've got in the US alone
about a million people living with Parkinson's disease, about ninety thousand.
Speaker 6 (31:30):
New cases every year, so you're.
Speaker 10 (31:32):
Talking about one out of every three hundred and twenty
eight people or so in the US as Parkinson's and
these sorts of studies, you know, you often hear of
studies well, they say that this week and next week
it'll be something different.
Speaker 6 (31:46):
This is a decades long study of the Nurses Health
Study and the Health Professionals follow up study. These had
forty three thousand people followed for decades.
Speaker 1 (32:00):
Doctor Gregory Poland, that's a great information. Thank you so much.
World renowned medical expert and leader in vaccines and infectious
diseases at the Mayo Clinic and president of the Atria
Research Institute in New York. Thanks again, doctor. A federal
judge takes over Rikers Island? Is that a good thing?
We'll ask Queen's counselwoman and Minority whip Vicki Palladino, coming
(32:22):
up after the eight o'clock News
Popular Podcasts
Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes present: Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial
Introducing… Aubrey O’Day Diddy’s former protege, television personality, platinum selling music artist, Danity Kane alum Aubrey O’Day joins veteran journalists Amy Robach and TJ Holmes to provide a unique perspective on the trial that has captivated the attention of the nation. Join them throughout the trial as they discuss, debate, and dissect every detail, every aspect of the proceedings. Aubrey will offer her opinions and expertise, as only she is qualified to do given her first-hand knowledge. From her days on Making the Band, as she emerged as the breakout star, the truth of the situation would be the opposite of the glitz and glamour. Listen throughout every minute of the trial, for this exclusive coverage. Amy Robach and TJ Holmes present Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial, an iHeartRadio podcast.
Betrayal: Season 4
Karoline Borega married a man of honor – a respected Colorado Springs Police officer. She knew there would be sacrifices to accommodate her husband’s career. But she had no idea that he was using his badge to fool everyone. This season, we expose a man who swore two sacred oaths—one to his badge, one to his bride—and broke them both. We follow Karoline as she questions everything she thought she knew about her partner of over 20 years. And make sure to check out Seasons 1-3 of Betrayal, along with Betrayal Weekly Season 1.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.