All Episodes

May 31, 2024 38 mins
Mark as Played

Episode Transcript

Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
President Trump is convicted. What doesit mean? How did it happen?
The legal Johnny Girardi breakdown right herefor you. All right, So let's
talk about this. And I thinkthe first thing I want to discuss is
the Grand Democrat plan with all ofthis. What was the plan? I

think it was pretty transparent based onthe timing of everything. Is all this
different? These different charges all gotdropped at very similar times. Here was
the timing, here was the idea. Basically, I think the Biden folks,
the pro Biden folks, who wereoverseeing the filing of these charges.

And let's understand that the people overseeingthe filing of these charges are all Democrat
political people. They're either Democrat politicalappointees or Democrat Democrat elected officials. These
are people who are political Okay.These are not like, this isn't John
Roberts, Okay, this isn't ajudge who is outside of the political branches

of government. Okay. These areelected political officials or political appointees. And
those two people are Merrick Garland,the Attorney General, a political appointee,
and Alvin Bragg, an elected partisanDemocrat, a guy who ran as a

Democrat in Manhattan for the District attorneyseat, and their thought process was basically,
this, the twenty twenty four electionis coming up. It's in November
of twenty twenty four, so theRepublican primary process begins at this time,

once the primaries start. We wantDonald Trump to be Joe Biden's opponent in
the primary. All the conventional wisdomwas that Trump would be a weak opponent
for Joe Biden in twenty twenty four, and especially if there was something they

could get Trump for legally, somekind of crime that they could plausibly charge
now at the federal level, MerrickGarland overseeing it. That was the mar
A Lago documents case, stuff surroundingJanuary sixth, That was the main thing.
Also, you have Fanny Willis,the District Attorney of Fulton County,

Georgia, another partisan elected Democrat official. Okay, so they all file their
charges against Trump at roughly the sametime, around the time of the Republican
primaries starting. Republican primaries get kickedoff. Ronda Santis is in the race.
Ronda Santis is the new hot youngthing. Everyone's oh, what does

Ronda Santis have to say? Oh, he's launching his campaign on Twitter with
Elon Musk Andla Ronda Santis is like, you know, mister, everyone's very
enthusiastic for Ronda Santis. And it'salmost immediately after Ronda Santis gets into the
race that these charges start coming downagainst Trump. The January sixth charges,

the mar A Lago charges, theManhattan charge, and the Manhattan The Manhattan
DA's case was the first one tocome in, and the Manhattan DA's case
is, of all of the casesthat Donald Trump is facing, I think,
objectively speaking, the weakest. Hisindictment it wasn't even complete. He

didn't even state, and the judgeultimately throughout the trial never ever specified what
exactly the crime was. It was. He was charged with thirty four counts
of falsifying business records in furtherance ofa felony. What felony It wasn't specified

in It wasn't specified in the originalcharging documents. And the judge himself and
his instructions to the jury said,well, you might think that the felony,
you might think that the other crimewas a violation of federal election law.
You might think that the other crimewas a violation of New York election
law. Or you might think thatthe other crime was the filing of more

fraudulent business records, and forgers couldthink one thing, and forgers could think
another, and the forgers could thinkthe third. It doesn't matter. According
to the judge, it did notmatter. Now I think according to the
law, it pretty darn well matterswhat it is this other thing that you're
charging. It mattered as far asthe statute of limitations for the relevant New
York law at issue. It matteredas far as from a constitutional perspective,

Trump's defense being able to prepare forthe defense. You're being charged with falsifying
business records in furtherance of another crime. Well, what's the other crime that
we were allegedly falsefying business records for? That needs to be specified so that
we can defend our client. Andinstead it was this sort of mishmash of,

well, maybe he violated New Yorkelection law, with no definitive ruling
that Trump had violated New York electionlaws, maybe he violated federal election laws,
no ruling ever that Trump had violatedfederal election law. And in fact,
both the Southern District of New Yorkthe federal prosecutors in Manhattan and the
Federal Elections Commission had examined Trump tosee if he violated federal election law and

declined to press any charges or takeany actions against him. So, regardless,
Bragg's indictment was the weakest of allthe indictments Trump is faced. I
think, and a lot of otherlegal observers think similarly. But he drops

this indictment right when the primary starts, and what does it do. It
naturally angers the Republican primary voting baseand makes them say they want to take
Trump out. Screw them, We'regoing to stick with our guy. And

I don't think the Republican there aresome people in the Republican base who maybe
are a little don't like DeSantis,but DeSantis is still a very popular Republican
figure. It wasn't so much peoplehating DeSantis. It was people saying,
well, you know what, I'msticking with Trump. He's the known factor.
When he was president, things werepretty good in this country. I'm
sticking with him. And so asevery new indictment that came down against Trump,

his poll numbers would bump, hisfundraising would bump, and Trump cruised
to an easy primary win over DeSantisand Nikki Haley and all the rest.
So that was I think precisely whatthe Democrats wanted. They wanted to press

the charges during the primary system angerRepublicans so much that they actually pick Trump
to be the nominee. And nowthat he's locked in as the nominee and
we can't really change course at thispoint, get him convicted. So now

that we're stuck with Trump, he'sconvicted and we can't we don't have the
opportunity to bring in run to Santis. Now Trump's already locked in as the
nominee. We're done. We're donein the sense that it's not like we
can pick anyone else at this point. And so what Democrats are banking on

is now that Republicans are stuck withTrump, Trump will be a convicted felon
and there is no way that DonaldTrump can win the election as a convicted
felon. And that's maybe where thecalculus by the left may go astray.
I think Trump can still win.I think he very well might still win.

I've gotten a lot of questions frompeople basically asking, like, you
know, can Trump, you know, can Trump still run? Is?
What does this mean? Practically?Practically? Trump can still run for president.
It's not like being convicted of thisfelony in New York that does not
bar him from running for president ofthe United States. So he still can

run. And all of the intelligentthings, all the intelligent attorneys I'm hearing
who are looking at this. It'sactually kind of an interesting YouTube video.
One of my law school professors sentit to me. A woman who's a
public defender in New York, andshe was talking about, like, what

are the odds of Donald Trump actuallyserving any jail time? And her best
guess, Now, this is aNew York public defender, so I'm gonna
go out on a limb and guessthat she's not a Trump voter. But
her assessment of it, and whatI've heard from people, is that Trump
is unlikely to go to jail inspite of the fact that these are felonies

that could carry the max sentences youcan get are very very high. Okay,
So I mean these are He wasconvicted of thirty four felonies for which
the max sentence for all thirty fourit's four years apiece, So four four
six carry the one we're talking onehundred and thirty six years in jail.

He's not gonna do that. He'snot going to spend the rest of his
life in prison. He may notgo to jail at all. So it
has to do with the fact thatthese are non violent felonies, and according
to how they're classified in New Yorklaw, it's the fact that Trump has
no prior criminal record. He maynot even get probation. Honestly, now,

sentencings coming up in July, andthis judge who has overseen this trial
and who has been so unbelievably biasedthe whole time against Trump and I And
by the way, in case you'rejust thinking, you know, talk radio
power talk, John Gerardi is justbeing a chill for Trump. Listen,

I'm gonna call and strikes here.I've called balls and strikes with Trump's legal
woes the whole time. I havealways said I thought that the mar a
Lago indictment had a lot of weightto it. I think it's pretty clear
that Trump was misusing, you know, storing inappropriately all those documents that he

kept in mar Lago, and thathe didn't actually declassify them, and that
he didn't have a right to havethem at his house. I have always
said I thought that was very strong, and I've been critical of various other
Trump legal escapades before. I thinkthat a lot of the stop the steel
stuff after the November twenty twenty wasflimsy, and he had his stuff that

was being said in press conferences didn'tmatch up with the stuff that his lawyers
were actually saying in court. Look, I'm not just a shill for Trump
here, I'm not just carrying water, but I will say this, I
think the conduct of the judge,Judge Murchon was unbelievably biased and unbelievably inappropriate.

I think it's highly likely, frankly, that Trump's conviction is going to
be overturned on appeal. But thatagain brings us back to the politics,
the big broad scheme of this.What does Biden really want out of all
of this? What do Biden's politicaloperatives? Who did this? And I'm
not saying that Biden openly connived withGarland to get Trump convicted. I'm sure

he made sure there was a buffer. I'm sure Biden didn't directly communicate with
Alvin Bragg about this. I'm surethere was a buffer. Maybe they didn't
even need to discuss it, theyjust Bragg just knows what's politically helpful for
Biden, and he just does it. What they want is the ability between

now an election day. Trump mightIs Trump going to go to jail?
Probably not. It seems like ifthings follow suit for how most of this
stuff is handled in New York lawmost of the time. No, I
don't think he will. What Bidenwants is the ability, is the ability
between now an election day for thenext five months to say, Donald Trump

convicted felon, Donald Trump convicted felon, Donald Trump, convicted felon. Donald
Trump's new name, according to themedia, will be Donald Trump convicted felon,
Donald Trump, a convicted felon,the former president of the United States
who was convicted of thirty four felamaccounts of blah blah blah. That will

be how Donald Trump is referred toin every news story from now until election
day. That is how Joe Bidenwill refer to Donald Trump every single time
he opens his mouth. His handlerswill train him to say that. And
that's what this is all about.It doesn't matter how inappropriately the Judge ac
did. It doesn't matter how Ithink unconstitutionally the Judge Act, the Constitutional

problems with not affording Trump's defense alegitimate opportunity to defend itself by not even
specifying the crime that Trump committed.It doesn't matter the number of things that
merited a mistrial during the case thatthe judge allowed in. None of that

matters. How it doesn't matter thehigh likelihood that this thing will be overturned
on appeal. It won't be overturnedon appeal for another year. The election
will be over. If Trump appealsthis and wins his appeal, it won't
be till twenty twenty five. Theimportant thing is Biden's ability from now until

November to say Donald Trump convicted felon, and that's the Democrat's whole strategy.
File these indictments right as the Republicanprimary start tick off. If all the
Republicans so much that they all votefor Trump, ensure that Trump wins the
primary, then have the trials intwenty twenty four before election day, get

Trump convicted and throw the republic andthrow the election into chaos, maybe by
putting Trump actually having Trump actually beingphysically incarcerated or limited in his movement.
And if not that at the veryleast to be able to say for five
months, Donald Trump convicted felon.That's what they want and that's what they

got. When we return, isDonald Trump convicted felon actually going to change
the minds of the electric very much. That's next on The John Girardi Show.
Twitter dot com, slash Fresno Johnnyat Fresno Johnny on Twitter if you
want to check me out and myshort form thoughts and ramblings and rants.

I posted a video I retweeted avideo there from Eliza Orleans, who's a
public defender in New York, talkingabout the likelihood of Trump being said,
the likelihood of whether Trump will actuallyserve any time in jail, and one
way or another, her her opinionis that he will not serve even a

day in jail, that he probablywon't even get probation. So check out
her opinion. She's, you know, a public defender from New York.
I'm gonna guess she's not. Youknow, she doesn't have a MAGA hat
in her closet. So I thoughtit was a pretty pretty interesting perspective from
someone who is more neutral about thisthan you know, your average Joe Republican

would be. Now, as I'vebeen saying, I think the big plan
throughout for the Democrats was indict Trumpright after the Republican primary start. And
I say that, by the way, because they could have brought a lot
of these indictments years ago, oryou know, they could have brought a
lot of these indictments in twenty twentytwo or late in twenty twenty one.

They chose to bring them in latetwenty twenty three so that the trials would
take place here in twenty twenty four, so that the timing thing was clearly
a strategic thing to have maximal impacton the election. The idea was indict

Trump at the start of the Republicanprimary season, tick off Republicans enough that
they all vote for Trump, lockhim in as the nominee, then have
the trials in twenty twenty four inthe midst of the election cycle. Trump
gets convicted and either maybe he's incarceratedagain. Sounds like there's a very decent

argument that Trump won't be incarcerated,won't serve any jail time, or at
the very least that Biden will beable to say, Donald Trum, I'm
convicted felon from now until election day, and that will cause Donald Trump to
lose because the American people would nevervote for someone who's a convicted felon.
Would they would they That's the thatis the gamble that Democrats are hinging this

whole election cycle on that there's noway a convicted felon can get elected president.
There's no way that anyone with afelony conviction could convince enough Americans to
vote for him to get two hundredand seventy Electoral College votes. There's just

no way it can happen. Iwonder, I am just not sure that
that is true. I don't knowthat that is the case, and it's
because of the unique weakness of JoeBiden. Biden has just been a terrible

president, and the economy is reallyrough on a ton of people right now
under his watch. And even ifthe economy is doing better in some factors,
maybe the stock market's getting better,maybe the rate of inflation is slowed,
I mean, the fact remains thateverything's still way more expensive than it
was four years ago. And we'renot like getting a reversal. It's not

like the price of ground beef isgoing to go back down to the price
that it was four years ago.It's never gonna go back down. We're
stuck here at this unsustainably high costof living. People are still feeling the
pinch all over the place. Thecost of everything is too much. And
Biden ranks terribly when you do opinionpolling of Americans. Biden does worse on

every single issue, with the exceptionof abortion. Trump is beating Biden on
who do you think handled the economybetter? Trump? Who do you think
handled foreign policy better? Trump?Who do you think handled this better?
Trump? Who do you think handledthat better? Trump? Trump is kicking
Biden's butt on every single issue,with the exception of abortion. And I

don't know that this conviction changes that. I don't think it changes any of
that. If people are still goingto vote with the economy high on their
mind, how does this conviction changeit. It's also this that you know,

is anyone really coming up with anovel idea of what they think about
Joe Biden or Donald Trump? Like, does anyone think, well, this
is it? Like like this isthe breaking point for someone's Trump support?
No. I think, if anything, there's enough media coverage or indications out
there of how biased this trial wasto make people even more hardened to vote

for Trump. I saw there wasa you know, Fox News polls,
or you know, Fox News pollsaren't necessarily always accurate, but they did
a poll of Republican voters. Eightyseven percent. It was basically something like
sixty something percent of people their opinionon Trump was unchanged. Sixteen percent said

it made them more likely to votefor him, sixteen percent made it less
likely to vote for him. Imean, I don't know that it's changing.
I don't think it's moving the needleall that much. I mean,
everything I have thought about Trump,good or bad, remains the same.
After this trial. It doesn't affectme at all. I think the whole

trial was a complete sham. I'mnot affected. So and I guess I
just wonder, is there really anyoneleft in the United States of America after
the last nine years of talking aboutDonald Trump pretty much non stop, is
there anyone in the United States ofAmerica who has failed to formulate yet their

opinion of Donald Trump. I don'tknow that that is the case. When
we return, we'll talk a littlebit more about the details of the case,
what it was about, what itwas presented that it was about,
how people misunderstood it, including thejury. Why I blame the judge far
more than the jury. That's nexton the John Drardy Show. So Trump

was convicted today, What was heactually charged with? This is an interesting
question and one I think where thejudge's instructions to the jury were highly unclear
the whole time. What was Trumpactually charged with? Was he charged with

illegal hush money payments? New hewas charged with falsifying business records in furtherance
of another crime. So let's talkabout that. Because the way the media
portrayed this throughout, and frankly,the way the judge portrayed it to the

jurors, you would think that thistrial is about hush money payments. I'm
here to tell you that hush moneypayment is not a thing. It's not
a crime, certainly, So whatdo we mean by a hush money payments?
Specifically? In this case, we'retalking about Donald Trump, he's running

for president, and Stormy Daniels,a former playboy model with whom it seemed
allegedly Trump had an affair with thiswoman. Now, did Trump actually have
an affair with her or not?Unclear? Trump continues to maintain he did

not, which, frankly I don'tknow that that helped him too much,
because I think he looked like aliar to the jury saying that he didn't.
A lot of the evidence would seemto indicate that he did. And
I think the jury, you know, hearing Trump and his legal team,
and clearly his legal team was doingthis at Trump's insistence, was still acting
as though Trump had never had asexual relationship with this woman. And I

think the jury was probably rolling theireyes at this, as you know,
a lot of America is that,you know, hey, maybe Trump is
innocent, but there's a lot ofevidence kind of point towards the distinct possibility
that he did, in fact havean affair with this woman. Now,
so Trump denies it regardless, StormyDaniels goes to Trump's people and says,

I want to go public with thisstory that I had an affair with you,
and Trump is trying to get herto not tell this story in the
midst of the twenty sixteen election cycle, and also not only could it be
damaging to him politically, but alsofor his marriage. I mean, it's

because the allegation is that she hadan affair with him right after his son
Baron was born, it would probablybe quite disruptive and destructive to his marriage
if this story became public. SoTrump has this setup with the publisher of
the National Inquirer, who's a friendand an ally, and with Michael Cohen,

who was Trump's personal attorney represented Trumpin a number of things over the
years. Basically that Trump would payto secure non disclosure agreements from these women
saying that they would not tell theirstory publicly, that they would sell the
rights to their story exclusively to theNational Inquirer. Trump would reimburse National Inquirer.

National Inquirer would pay the person comingforward with this embarrassing story. Okay,
and I will concede to you thatthis whole setup is sleazy as hell.
This is Trump trying to kill negativestories about him, as sleazy as
it all is. Though, thisisn't illegal. Non disclosure agreements aren't illegal.

Non disclosure agreements to cover up embarrassingstories about you are not illegal.
Non disclosure agreements to cover up embarrassingstories about you during an election are not
illegal. The argument is, well, well, it's a it was a

campaign expense, and he never henever reported it as a campaign expense.
No federal election law that defines thekinds of things that are campaign expenses and
the kinds of things that are notcampaign expenses, and the kinds of things
you have to report to the FederalElections Commission as campaign expenses. This is

not a campaign expense in the traditionalsense. Okay, paying for campaign adds
on TV, that's a campaign expense. Paying for internal polling, paying for
you know, polling data to helpyou with your campaign, that's an election
expense. Stuff that would only exist, that does not exist, but for

the campaign, that is a campaignexpense. And it's noteworthy because the judge
in this case very strongly indicated tothe jury that almost as if it were
established fact that a campaign finance violationhappened here, and that just is not
established. Trump was not convicted,let alone. He wasn't even charged with

any elections violations. And this isafter the Federal Elections Commission and the federal
prosecutors in New York both investigated Trumpand declined to charge him with anything.
So no, it has not beenestablished that Trump committed any kind of elections
violations whatsoever. So I agree it'ssleazy as hell to pay off a porn

star to ensure that she doesn't tellan embarrassing story about the affair that you,
guys head right after your wife justgave birth to your son. Pretty
sure missus Girardi would be pretty tickedabout it, understandably. So not a
thing I've ever done, not athing I ever want to do, not
not good Christian living by any extent. And if you think that that speaks

to Donald Trump's character in a waythat is politically disqualifying, I guess I'd
have a hard time arguing with you. At the same time, it's not
a crime, it's not illegal.You can you can you can say it's
sleazy and bad till the cows comehome. You can say he deceived the

American people. He didn't allow theevidence of this story to come out before
the election, you know, asif people didn't know that Donald Trump was
a philanderer, As if that wouldhave changed the outcome of New York's statewide
election for president. Let's remember thatthe presidential election is on a state by
state basis. Okay, it's notone big national popular vote. It's a

state by state thing. Donald Trumplost New York handily in twenty sixteen.
This revelation wouldn't have changed the outcomeof things. And yet it's New York's
elections that Alvin Bragg as the DAof Manhattan has any kind of jurisdiction over
all. Right, so Trump wasn'tactually charged with hush money payments, which

he is allowed to give. Hewas charged with falsifying business records. Why
well, because Trump basically here wasthe chain of things. Michael Cohen pays
Stormy Daniels. Stormy Daniels signs anon disclosure agreement with the National Inquirer,

gives National Acquirer exclusive rights to herstory. She signs the National, she
signs the non disclosure agreement. MichaelCohen pays Stormy Daniels under thirty thousand bucks.
He takes out a one himself.He pays her. So Trump's got
to reimburse Cohen. And in Trump'sbooks they call it payment of legal fees,

when really, the argument goes itshould have been labeled loan reimbursement.
Now what does that matter. That'sa very good question. The charge Trump

is facing here was fraudulently falsifying businessrecords in furtherance of some other crime.
That word fraud is important. Frauddoesn't just mean any kind of dishonesty.
Fraud means basically a good shorthand forthis is lying for money. All right,

I'm applying for a home loan.I lie about my income to make
it look like I make much morethan I do. I get a nice,
big, fear favorable loan based onthe fact that I lied. That's
fraud, Okay, lying for money, lying for money or property or something
like that. Lying for money.What money did Trump get by lying?

First of all, there's also agood threshold question whether it was a lie
at all. Was it actually fairto classify this as legal fees? Trump
was doing other legal stuff for Trump. There were other things that Trump was
reimbursing him before that that would maybemore classically fit into legal fees. Was
it actually even what was he actuallywere the Was this actually a misstatement of

what this was? There was alsolike practical factual questions about like the kind
of QuickBooks esque system that the Trumpcorporation was using. They've had the same
system since the nineties, had akind of limited range of drop down options
for how to classify some of thesepayments, which, by the way,
having Trump convicted of thirty four counts, it was like the check itself well,

plus the invoice over the course ofa year's worth of monthly installment payments,
and somehow that that's how they gotto thirty four felony counts for basically
one act really of Trump reimbursing Cohenfor one hundred thirty thousand bucks. So

was it even was it even inaccurate? Unclear? Was it fraudulent? Also
unclear? Who was bilked out ofmoney? What extra money did Trump get
out of this? Actually Trump hadto spend way more because, basically,
because they labeled attorney's fees rather thandebt reimbursement, Cohen was going to have

to pay taxes on it. Okay, if I loan you fifty thousand dollars
and you give it back to me, well, that fifty thousand dollars I
get back, I don't get taxedon that. But if I just make
fifty thousand dollars an income, Iget taxed on it. So, because
it was coming to Cohen as legalfees, Cohen and said, hey,
I'm gonna have to pay taxes onthis. You got to gross me up
so that I'm not losing money here. So Trump actually wound up paying Cohen

double. So it's not like thetaxpayers got built. The taxpayers actually got
more revenue out of this whole thing. So was it falsified business records?
No, I don't think so.Was it fraudulent falsification of business records,
No, I don't think so.Was it in furtherance of some other felony,

No, I don't think so.I don't think there was a federal
elections violation. I don't think therewas a New York elections violation. I
don't think I think it's circular tosay it was in furtherance of other falsified
records. I just think every stepof the way this was not a case

that should have been brought, andit's not a case where Trump should have
been convicted. But I think theinstructions that the judge gave to the jury,
the kind of evidence he let in, the kind of evidence he excluded,
the kind of prejudicial evidence that heallowed in, was so biased that

I think the jurors almost were forcedto no other conclusion than to convict Trump
because the judge so badly misstated thelaw didn't allow in evidence that was exculpatory
to Trump. I think I honestlydon't even blame the jurors for this.
I think the judge was so outof bounds that I mean, I don't

even know what I would have doneon I think if I were on the
jury, I might have voted toconvict if I was receiving all the same
jury instructions, etc. From thisjudge. All right, when we returned,
maybe the big picture question what doesthis mean for the country? That's
next on the John Girardi Show,What does Trump's conviction mean for the country.

I don't know that I have agreat big picture question other than I
think it's just open law, fairseason, and I think we've crossed a
line that we're never going to beable to uncross again. You know what,
I've read a lot about the RomanRevolution, and the Roman Revolution was

basically the one hundred year or sotransition of Rome from a republic to a
monarchical form of government, from theRoman Republic to the Roman Empire, and
how basically the beginning of that changewas the new precedent setting violations of the

most majorum as the Romans called it, the way of the ancestors. The
Roman Constitution was not a written constitution. It was sort of oral tradition and
the tradition of how we've always donethings the most mayorum, the habits of
our elders, the habits of ourancestors, the way of our ancestors.
That was how their system worked.And you had a couple of politicians in

the late second century AD who starteddoing things differently, who tried to do
things by bypassing the Senate. TheRoman Senate was kind of a different thing
from the US Senate. How itworked was much more complicated and sort of
different, but basically they sort ofbuck tradition in order to get legislation passed.

Some of the Graky brothers, whowere this very ambitious pair of aristocratic
brothers, were trying to get legislationpassed of various kinds and were stymied by
the Senate, and so tried tobypass the Senate in a way that was
counter to the normal way that thingswere done. And this resulted in people
responding to the Gracqy brothers violently andintroducing violence into Roman politics, which would

never leave Roman politics ever again.Once violence was introduced as a possible solution
for political problems, it was impossibleto get it out. I think now
that we've introduced law fair that weprosecute our political enemies. I think this
is going to be with us tostay. Trump's the first American president to

be convicted of a felony. Heis not going to be the last that'll
do it. John Jilady Show,See you next time on Power Talk.
Advertise With Us

Popular Podcasts

1. Start Here
2. Dateline NBC

2. Dateline NBC

Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.

3. Amy and T.J. Podcast

3. Amy and T.J. Podcast

"Amy and T.J." is hosted by renowned television news anchors Amy Robach and T. J. Holmes. Hosts and executive producers Robach and Holmes are a formidable broadcasting team with decades of experience delivering headline news and captivating viewers nationwide. Now, the duo will get behind the microphone to explore meaningful conversations about current events, pop culture and everything in between. Nothing is off limits. “Amy & T.J.” is guaranteed to be informative, entertaining and above all, authentic. It marks the first time Robach and Holmes speak publicly since their own names became a part of the headlines. Follow @ajrobach, and @officialtjholmes on Instagram for updates.

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.


© 2024 iHeartMedia, Inc.