All Episodes

June 4, 2024 38 mins
Mark as Played
Transcript

Episode Transcript

Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Well, we've had about four orfive days to process at all, and
I want to give as best Ican some kind of big picture Trump case
thoughts, but also then move onto another case, the Hunter Biden gun
case, which is starting up thisweek. Jury selection started today. So

(00:24):
looking at the Trump case, there'sseveral lingering questions. First is the question
of how this is impacting things politically. I'm not sure exactly how it's impacting
things politically. In one sense,it's an obvious massive boon to Trump insofar

(00:48):
as he's raised two hundred million dollarsover two hundred million dollars since the guilty
plea came down. So that's amassive infusion of money, a lot of
it from small dollar donors, alot of it coming from large dollar donors,
though, and I get this sensethat there are more and more large

(01:11):
dollar donors sort of saying, allright, enough is enough, We're back
in Trump here now. Trump hasbeen out fundraised significantly both in twenty sixteen
and in twenty twenty. The CookeBrothers or the well I guess it's not
only one Coke brother left several kindof libertarian leaning Republican donors who financed guys

(01:36):
like Mitt Romney, et cetera.They're not opening their wallets for Trump.
So this infusion of cash may actuallywind up being quite the boon for Trump.
Now beyond that, though, therecomes sentencing, and that is a

(02:00):
murky picture. So Trump was convicted. He's convicted of a low level,
the lowest level, nonviolent felony withinthe New York State criminal court system.
Now most of the time, andthis is the problem with all of the
legal analysis of this, So muchof the legal analysis of this has illustrated

(02:25):
how atypical this whole trial is.Most of the time, someone who commits
a felony like this felony is inthis category, okay, nonviolent, within

(02:45):
this certain classification within New York statelaw. You know, before the trial
had wrapped up and before the verdicthad come down, I was, you
know, seeing videos produced by youknow New York area attorney's talking about,
well, what's the usual sentencing ina case like this, And in a
case like this, usually the sentencingwould be no jail time, possibly not

(03:10):
even probation. Maybe you'd have todo some community service, maybe you'd have
to do this, you have todo that, blah blah, blah blah
blah. But and I heard AnnyMcCarthy, who is a great attorney who
writes for National Review. He madethis point, no aspect, well he's

(03:30):
hardly the only one who made thispoint. But no aspect of this trial
has been typical, So why shouldwe assume that the sentencing would be typical?
Okay, Yes, I understand thesentencing usually speaking, usually for a
guy who doesn't have a prior convictionon his background, is convicted of a

(03:52):
low level felony, nonviolent felony.He's not posing an imminent risk to anyone's
physical harm, and god knows NewYork doesn't like locking people in jail anyway.
Yes, usually the sentencing will bethis way. And by the way,
the sentencing is going to be fourdays before the Republican Convention. So

(04:16):
I understand the argument that usually thesentencing is going to be this way.
But let's recall what the whole theoryof this case is, all right now,
or maybe what I should say isthe whole narrative of this case,
because theory would assume that there's likesome hard legal base, which there wasn't.

(04:45):
Okay, how did Trump get chargedwith a felony? To begin with,
Well, he kind of got chargedwith a felony by the smushing together
of two misdemeanors. A misdemeanor falsificationof business records can become a felony if
it's in further and so another crime. Well, you would per suppose that
that other crime was, you know, felony level something else. Falsification of

(05:11):
business records in furtherance of you know, trying to defraud someone out of fifty
thousand dollars. Okay, that becomesa felony, But no, the felony.
Somehow the judge was able to turnmisdemeanor offense falsification of business records when
it was in furtherance of another misdemeanor, and somehow he thinks two misdemeanors smushed

(05:31):
together amounts to a felony, whichwas wild legal reasoning that hasn't really been
applied to anyone other than Donald Trump. So there was not much theory to
the case. But the narrative tothe case was this, by covering this

(05:54):
up, Donald Trump stole sixteen electionby covering up his affair with Stormy Daniels
by having her sign a non disclosureagreement paying her one hundred thirty thousand dollars,
agreeing to pay her one hundred thirtythousand dollars, and then subsequently paying

(06:17):
her one hundred thirty thousand dollars.That Donald Trump stole the twenty sixteen election,
and that that both the judge allowedthe prosecutors tried to make that argument,
and the judge allowed them to makethat argument. That basically what this

(06:38):
case was about was Donald Trump stealingthe twenty sixteen election by preventing the voters
from hearing about the fact that hehad an affair. Now that theory is,
in my opinion, demonstrably silly.We knew Trump was a sleeze ball,

(07:01):
everyone voting for him knew he wasa sleeze and a philanderer and cheats
on his wife or has been allegedto cheat on his wife. And in
fact, the Karen McDougall story avery basically a copycat thing to Stormy Daniels,
woman who allegedly had an affair withDonald Trump, also a playboy model,

(07:28):
signed a non disclosure agreement. Shebroke the non disclosure agreement. Karen
McDougall came out a few days beforethe election and Trump won. Why would
Stormy Daniels be any different. StormyDaniels became big time news because liberals thought
that this was a legal gotcha forTrump, and indeed it was. If
it just came out that this womansaid she had an affair with Trump.

(07:53):
I don't think it actually changes theneedle. Certainly it doesn't in New York,
which, by the way, isthe only state over which Alvin Bragg,
the Massachusetts sorry, the Manhattan DistrictAttorney can possibly claim to have any
jurisdiction. But that's the theory ofthis case. That's the narrative of this

(08:22):
case. The narrative of this casewas that Donald Trump stole the twenty sixteen
elections by his illegal conduct of misrepresentinghis in his financial documents, misrepresenting what
was in fact the loan repayment aslegal expenses. And that's a big deal.

(08:52):
Now again, I reject the premisethat that's what happened, but that's
the narrative the judge has given throughout. That is the or that the judge
has allowed to be presented throughout.That was the narrative that Alvin Bragg and
the District Attorney's office from Manhattan laidout that Donald Trump stole the twenty sixteen
elections by his conduct, and weare here to vindicate that massive wrong.

(09:18):
And if that were true, thatwould be a massive wrong. If you
did conduct illegal conduct that was soegregious that it flipped the outcome of a
United States presidential election, that's ahuge deal. Again, I don't think
that's what happened here, But that'sthe narrative that the prosecutors have given.

(09:45):
If that's the narrative the prosecutors gave, and that's the narrative that you,
as the judge, obviously allowed inhighly questionable ruling after ruling after ruling after
ruling after ruling, And if that, what's the narrative that you, as
the judge obviously believe in yourself,and you, as a judge, oversaw

(10:07):
a conviction on that narrative, Howdo you just give Trump a slap on
the wrist? How do you letTrump go without spending a day in jail?
If he, in fact was themastermind who stole the twenty sixteen election,

(10:28):
who altered the course of world historyby keeping Hillary Clinton out of the
White House and putting himself in forfour years. For four years, the
United States had a president elected viaillegal and fraudulent means. That's the narrative

(10:52):
that the prosecutors pushed and the judgeallowed. How could the judge if he
believes that, and I'm sure surehe does, how can the judge just
say, h community service. Imean the judge and the prosecutors. The

(11:13):
prosecutors were presenting it. The judgewas allowing it as if this is the
crime of the century. I thinkTrump is gonna be in jail now.
How far is the judge gonna pushit? Clearly, this judge has pushed

(11:33):
everything to eleven. There's almost nothinghe didn't allow the prosecutors to do,
and he acts like, I mean, there was so much stuff that the
judge did that was so inappropriate.I mean, at one point, he
lets Stormy Daniels testify about her andTrump's sexual relationship, which has nothing to

(11:58):
do with the charges against Trump.It was irrelevant testimony, and all it
did was inflame the jury with stuffthat's irrelevant to the case because her testimony
makes it look like Trump is terrible. All of a sudden, now she's
changing her story to say that Trumpmay have kind of assaulted her, which

(12:20):
is something she had never said.Before all of her prior talk about the
Trump about her relationship with Trump wasthat it was consensual, that it was
stupid and she shouldn't have done it, but it was consensual. So she
gives testimony that has nothing to dowith the case at hand. By the
way, the case was about howthe Trump corporation listed the payments to Michael

(12:41):
Cohen, paying Michael Cohen back forhaving paid Stormy Daniels for the non disclosure
agreement. Whether Trump had an affairwith Stormy Daniels or the nature of their
affair or how they had sex witheach other is irrelevant to that case.
It shouldn't have come in. Thejudge let it come in, and then
he has the gall to turn tojudges to Trump's defense attorneys and say,

(13:05):
boy, that was a pretty roughtestimony. I feel like you guys should
have objected more the judgement. Youalready ruled to let her in to testify.
What are we gonna object to youlet her in. If we just
object to her giving the testimony thatyou're allowing her to give, then we're
just gonna look contemptuous. So thisjudge, I mean, the Stormy Daniels

(13:31):
thing was one example out of abouttwenty of inappropriate, biased things that this
judge did to get to the conviction. If the judge is gonna allow all
that, what makes us think he'snot going to sentence Trump to some actual

(13:52):
jail time such that maybe he can'tphysically go to the Republican Convention or beyond.
And that's the thing is pretty mucheveryone is in a state of we're
not sure. There's stuff about,and everyone's trying to become an expert all

(14:13):
of a sudden in New York,you know New York sentencing law and can
people be out on bail pending appealand stuff like that. Whether he can
be out on bail pending appeal ornot, this judge is going to sentence
Trump to some time. I wasthe other way last week, and now

(14:37):
I'm fully in the well. Ofcourse he has to sentence him to time.
If he doesn't sentence Trump to anykind of time, then what was
the point of the trial. IfTrump is so diabolical that he stole the
twenty sixteen election became leader of thefree world under false pretenses, then you

(15:01):
gotta put him in jail. Whenwe return the idea of jailing your political
opponents and how that ramps things upto eleven. Some Roman history for you
all next on the John Girardi Show, Why did Julius Caesar cross the Rubicon?

(15:26):
Crossing the Rubicon is a very commonexpression. It means basically to pass
a line that once you pass it, you can't go back. It's a
decision that there's no going back from. Julius Caesar was a Roman general.

(15:50):
He was basically a governor of aRoman province, and basically he had both
governing and military powers. He wasa pro consul for Gaul. Okay,
which Gaul. We think of Gaulas basically, you know, we we

(16:12):
think of Gaul as basically France.But for the Roman conception, there was
Gaul on this side of the Alps, so kind of northern Italy, and
then there was Gaul on the otherside of the Alps, France. So
Julius Caesar was the governor of Cisalpine, Gaul Gall on this side of the

(16:34):
Alps, closer to us in Italy, and the border of his jurisdiction was
the Rubicon River. Once he andthe way that Roman command Roman military command

(16:56):
works is basically you had what wascalled your imperium and your imperium only existed
within a certain geographical boundary. Onceyou crossed out of that geographical boundary,
you lay down your office. Ina sense, you can't be ordering soldiers
around once you cross the line ofyour imperium. If you do, you're

(17:22):
violating the law and religious customer,and there was religious stuff associated with blah
blah blah blah blah, but you'reviolating the law. When Julius Caesar came
south with his army, crossed theRubicon and headed south towards Rome, it

(17:45):
was an act of starting off acivil war. It was a civil war
that would be a bloody affair,and he crossed the civil war in forty
nine b c. Julius Caesar wouldwin this civil war, chiefly against his

(18:06):
faux Punius Pompeius Pompey, and becomethe most powerful man in the Roman world,
eventually declared dictator for life before hewas stabbed to death on the IDEs
of March. So why did hedo it? Why did he cross the
Rubicon? Why did he take thisdecisive step overstep his military authority in order

(18:30):
to kick off a civil war?Why did he do it? Well,
if he followed the rules. Hewas supposed to lay down his office as
proconsul. His office's pro consul hada certain term limit to it, and

(18:51):
he was supposed to lay down hisoffice. He was supposed to leave Cisalpine,
Gaul and come to Rome, wherehe was going to be pro secuted
by his enemies. The way theRoman court system worked was different from how
our court system works. People couldbring prosecute. Individuals could bring criminal charges

(19:15):
or sort of an equivalent of criminaltype charges against their fellow citizens. Julius
Caesar's political enemies people who were jealousof how much power he was getting,
jealous of how much wealth he wasgetting from his conquests in Gaul. His
conquests in Gall were making Julius Caesarone of the richest men in Rome.
After having taken out massive, massive, massive amounts of debt in order to

(19:37):
finance his political career, finally paidoff with a huge campaign in Goal where
he got tons and tons and tonsof money. He was becoming incredibly rich,
he was becoming incredibly powerful. Hehad political disagreements with different people.
They wanted they basically they were gunningfor him, and if Caesar came back

(19:59):
to Rome, they were going toprosecute him and convict him and send him
into exile. And so Julius Caesarwas like, Nope, not going to
do it. I'm not going tosubject myself to political prosecution. So just

(20:22):
like strong men the generation before Mariusand Sola, who were similarly Roman generals,
who sort of became strong men intheir day rather than because basically violence
had come into the Roman politics,the threat of politicized prosecutions, the threat

(20:45):
of physical violence, and armies,and basically this then devolved into armies having
loyalty to their army commanders personally ratherthan to the Roman state. So Julius
Caesar followed that tradition laid down ageneration earlier, early in the first century,

(21:06):
when Marius and Solo were duking itout for supremacy of the Roman world
and issuing proscriptions in which their politicaland a list of their political enemies would
be published, and it was openseason. People could kill their political enemies.
I think Julius Caesar feared. Idon't think this is obviously true.

(21:26):
Julius Caesar feared if he laid downhis military command and came back to Rome
buy the books, A meek citizenhe would be prosecuted, and he said,
nope, forget it. I'm comingdown with my army, and he
kicked off a civil war. Nowthat we've let this genie out of the

(21:52):
bottle, that we can prosecute ourpolitical foes under high stretched circumstances, I
think we are entering a dangerous erawhere the stakes of running for president are

(22:14):
getting ramped up a lot higher.Some enterprising conservative appointee US attorney could very
well go after Joe Biden after heleaves office, and it's going to turn
into this thing where if you runfor president, buckle up because someone's going

(22:38):
to try and send you to jail. When we return the Hunter Biden trial
next on the John Girardi Show.So jury's selection has begun for the Hunter
Biden trial. Remember that that HunterBiden guy. This is Hunter Biden's gun

(22:59):
case, which is less significant thanyou know, all the other nefarious stuff
that Hunter Biden probably did, probablyfailed registers, a foreign agent, probably
doing all kinds of shenanigans using hisdad's name in ways that seem pretty darn

(23:19):
corrupt. And maybe a future JusticeDepartment appoints a future special counsel that investigates
this if the statute of limitations cango back that far, which you know,
who would have thought that a twoyear statute of limitations New York fraudulent

(23:40):
business records law could somehow be stretchedinto a six year felony New York Business
records falsification law. But I digress. So he's beginning his trial. But
let's talk about the statute of limitationsand how that worked. All right?

(24:02):
What is statute of limitation? Thattalked about this a little bit Friday when
I was talking about the Catholic diocesesfiling for bankruptcy. Statute of limitations is
basically this principle that if somebody committeda crime, or if someone did something
that allows you to sue him orher, you have to file the lawsuit

(24:25):
within a certain time frame. Ifsomeone did something bad, you got to
file your lawsuit or submit your indictmentif you're the government process. So if
you're the government, you're prosecuting someonecriminally. If you're an individual, you
might sue someone civilly. Sometimes thegovernment also civilly sues people very often in

(24:47):
fact, but basically you have todo it within a certain timeframe. Why,
Well, for a lot of reasons. One is to allow people to
have some security in their lives.Okay, I don't have to live with
this lingering over my head for thenext twenty Did I do something wrong here?
Well, five years have passed,We're done. You know. We

(25:07):
don't have to retain these records forforever, or I don't have to worry
about what happened, you know,seven years ago, it's over, it's
past. Okay. But also ithas to do with the preservation of evidence.
Okay, did Michael rob a liquorstore fifty years ago? Okay?

(25:33):
Well, Michael is fifty years older. His memory, to be in his
own defense is going to be worse. Most of the witnesses we now are
scattered to the four wins. Severalwitnesses may be dead by this point.
The video footage may have been corrupted. Evidence gets worse as years go by.

(25:57):
People's memories get fuzzier and fuzzier andfuzzier. The preservation of physical evidence
gets harder and harder and harder.So it's kind of a thing of helping,
you know, how can you reasonablylitigate a claim when so much time

(26:17):
has passed? And as a result, we require a statute of limitations.
You've got to file your charge withina certain time frame for pretty much most
crimes. And the only crimes thatwe're gonna be willing to go back that
far is something that's so serious,maybe like murder, okay, but other
than that, we're requiring statutes oflimitations. And that's in part why I

(26:45):
think the situation the Catholic Church isin right now is unjust. California,
basically, in a certain way,is unjust. California opens up this statute
of limitations for people to bring civillawsuits regarding sexual abuse. Basically, they
open up a three year window andsay you can go back as far as

(27:07):
you want and bring a lawsuit.These eager trial attorneys get one hundred and
fifty something claimants to file lawsuits againstthe Dices a President in that time,
with cases that date back decades.Most of the priests who committed these offenses

(27:27):
allegedly are dead, most of thewitnesses are dead. How can you fairly
adjudicate that claim. That's why theDices of President had to file for Chapter
eleven bankruptcy. Basically, it's anincredibly difficult kind of claim to defend against.
When the priest is dead. Allthe witnesses are dead. It's the

(27:52):
word of the alleged victim against yours. And you can't say that you had
great processes in those days, youknow. But is that is that a
fair outcome? I mean, Ifrom a due process perspective, I don't
know how that that seems very unfairto me. It seems very flimsy.

(28:14):
Now, are some of those claimslegit? Probably some of those claims are
legit. Yes, I'm I wouldassume maybe many of them are, but
I'd have to assume at least someare not. I find it hard to
believe all of those claims are onelegit. And and I don't think a

(28:37):
criminal a civil process where again,all the evidence is gone, most of
the witnesses are dead. The witnesswho the person who allegedly perpetrated this act
can't speak in his defense because he'sdead. I find it hard to believe
justice speking to other anyway. Sothat's why statue of limitations exist. Now,

(29:07):
when you know what, I mightjust save this for its own segment.
I'll do this now, all right, Let's look at the ways in
which statutes of limitations were manipulated.To get Trump, but to try to
get Hunter off the hook, andsuccessfully have gotten Hunter off the hook.
Trump had committed a crime, allegedlyof falsifying business records. He was giving

(29:34):
Michael Cohen a loan repayment, andhe called it legal expenses. That is
usually if he did it with afraudulent intent, and by the way,
fraudulent intent means lying for money.If he just misstated it, that might

(29:55):
not be a crime. It hasto be misstating it for some kind of
pecuniary advantage. That's a misdemeanor inNew York law, and it only has
a two year statute of limitations.Trump allegedly Trump made those payments to Michael
Cohen in twenty seventeen. We're intwenty twenty four, the two years are

(30:18):
up. Alvin Bragg can't bring thatlawsuit unless there's this provision with the New
York law that it becomes a felonywith a six year statute of limitations window
if the falsification of business records wasin furtherance of some other crime. So

(30:42):
Alvin Bragg charges it that way.He says this was falsification, fraudulent falsification
of business records in furtherance of anothercrime, and then he kind of never
specifies the other crime. He saysviolation of New York election law, which
isn't really a felony, violation offederal election law also not a felony,

(31:03):
violation of in furtherance of falsifying morebusiness records, which is circular. But
basically what Alvin Bragg did was hetried to argue that fraudulent falsification of business
records in furtherance of another crime isa felony, but then pretended like that

(31:23):
second crime didn't have to be afelony. So by smushing two misdemeanors together,
he makes it a felony, andmost critically, extends the statute of
limitations from two years to six years. So Bragg was able to charge Donald
Trump in twenty twenty three within thatsix year statute of limitation window. Conduct

(31:45):
happened in twenty seventeen, filed theindictment in twenty three, So Bragg manipulates
the statue's statute of limitations, manipulatesthe law in order to get his intended
outcome with Hunter the federal prosecutors goingafter him with kid gloves, delay and

(32:12):
delay and delay and delay bringing theindictments against him for his massive criminal failures
to pay his taxes. We're talkingmillions of dollars of income that Hunter is
paying Zilcherino taxes on. When youdon't pay your taxes, like, okay,

(32:36):
you're five thousand dollars short on yourtaxes, all right, the IRS
is involved. If you're several millionsof dollars not paying your taxes, that's
when the DOJ gets involved and startscriminally talking about criminal prosecution. Okay,
so tax stuff has a six yearact, you to limitations. The DOJ

(33:06):
doesn't do anything with Hunter Biden.They know about this in twenty eighteen,
twenty nineteen, goes by, twentytwenty, goes by twenty twenty one,
goes by what's happening? Oh,we learn that the DOJ is getting together
with Hunter's attorneys on a plea dealto make it all go away. His
tax stuff and his gun stuff.Remember how Hunter Biden lied on a federal

(33:29):
background check said he didn't have adrug problem. Well, he was trying
to buy a gun. He lieson a federal background check says that he
doesn't have a drug problem when hehas a rich and storied history of drug
abuse, and he gets the gunby lying on the federal background check and
then proceeds to misuse the gun ina way that you would anticipate a drug

(33:51):
he might misuse the gun scares hispartner, Halle biden Voe's old widow,
who throws it in a garbage cannext to a school. Because the DA
and his lawyers were trying to workout a plea deal, and they kept
working on it, delayed, delaying, delane, all of Hunter's tax stuff

(34:13):
from twenty fourteen, twenty fifteen andtwenty sixteen is gone. We can't bring
a charge for it because the statuteof limitations has passed. And that's when
the most interesting Hunter financial stuff happenedthat maybe points to the big guy.
So now we won't find out aboutthat stuff. Let me return again.

(34:39):
We'll just do the basics of Hunter'sgun trial. But understand that the by
far more interesting stuff that Hunter didthat's illegal is gone because of the Statute
of limitations, because of how thedoj sat on their hands, will manipulate
everything to make the statute of limitationswork against Trump. Ump with the Manhattan

(35:00):
Day's Office, but lives at theDOJ. No, no, no,
no, no, let's treat Hunterwith kid gloves. We'll be back on
the John Girardi Show. So whatis Hunter Biden facing here? Hunter Biden's
facing some pretty serious charges. Solet me just reiterate what Biden Hunter Biden

(35:20):
did for which he is now facingcriminal prosecution. Let's remember he wasn't going
to face any criminal prosecution for anyof this stuff, or for anything else
for that matter, until the judgelooked at this bizarrely crafted plea deal that
Hunter's lawyers clearly drafted for the DOJmuch of it, and said, this

(35:45):
doesn't make any sense, why areyou doing that? And the whole thing
imploded. So now the DOJ isbasically shamed into actually bringing the gun charges
against Hunter Biden. All of histax stuff is gone because because it's all
time barred by the statute of limitations. So we bring the gun charges,
which are, by the way,a slam dunk. Here's basically what happened.

(36:10):
When you try to buy a gun, you get a federal background check.
On that federal background check, theyask you, hey, you have
a history of drug abuse. Why, well, we don't want druggies getting
guns. It's kind of the natureof druggies. They're a little erratic,

(36:32):
and guns are really violent, powerfultools that in the wrong hands could well
be misused. Well, Hunter justlies. He lies on the background check
and says, Nope, no problemwith substance abuse, in spite of the
fact that he has many, rich, storied problems with drug abuse for it.

(37:00):
By this point, Hunter gets thegun as a result of his lying.
He then proceeds to misuse the gunin the ways that you would fear
a druggie misusing a gun, takingall kinds of weird pictures with it,
et cetera, and then ultimately scaringhis partner so much that she throws the

(37:23):
gun into a garbage can, anoutdoor garbage can near a school, and
they lose the gun. So God, God only knows if you're going to
be a Democrat and you're going topass gun control legislation, including stuff like

(37:46):
a federal background check, like,I can't believe there is any liberal objecting
to Hunter Biden being prosecuted. Heso blatantly violated this law that's a out
gun safety that liberals want past.Why would you want this past and then

(38:08):
not enforce it. It's insanity.To me, So that's what Hunter's looking
at. We'll see what happens.That'll do it. John Jerlady Show,
See 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.

Connect

© 2024 iHeartMedia, Inc.