August 7, 2026 • 13 mins
Ryan talks with ABC News Legal Analyst Royal Oakes and National Correspondent Rory O’Neill about the vote to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress, the impact of his pardon, and questions surrounding his pandemic-era cellphone.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Ryan Gorman Show podcast presented by Vera and Farah
accident attorneys Tama.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Let's bring in ABC News legal analyst Royal Oaks to
break down that vote yesterday by the Senate Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs Committee to hold doctor Anthony Fauci in
contempt of Congress. Royal there was a party line vote
eight to five holding Faunci in contempt of Congress. What
exactly does that mean?
Speaker 3 (00:27):
Well, it's the first step toward a possible contempt, a
criminal matter against doctor Fauci. Now, normally, once a committee
votes for congressional contempt, it goes to the full US Senate.
But Ran Paul may say, let's not waste time there,
because to get a majority in the Senate, he'd have
to overcome the filibuster rule, which me and Jolie you'd
(00:48):
have to have sixty votes, and that ain't gonna happen.
So there are a couple of options. Number One, Rand
Paul can say, well, how about this. I'm just going
to send to Janine Piro, the US Attorney for the
District of Columbia, the recommendation of this committee that you
prosecute Fauci for congressional contempt because there's no law that
(01:08):
absolutely requires him to go to the full Senate. The
other option is nan Pero can just do it on
her own. She didn't have to wait for ram Paul
or the Senate. She can say, Hey, I've been reading
the news. I think Fauci committed perjury or has no
right to claim the Fifth so I'm going to prosecute him.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
Well, that would certainly get Janine Piro back in the
good graces of Republicans, that's for sure. Maybe even President Trump.
Now contempt of Congress that specific charge. Explain that because
it's not contempt for Congress, a lot of us have
that this is contempt of Congress.
Speaker 3 (01:42):
Well, what it means is that he was subpoened. Faunci
was to testify before the Senate committee that is run
by Ram Paul. And when you've been subpoenad, you're supposed
to take an oath and answer questions. He refused to
answer questions one hundred and eleven times as we know,
claiming the Fifth Amendment. That the problem for Fauci is
for Rand Paul is that there are pardon issues involved here.
(02:06):
In other words, Joe Biden gave a pardon to Anthony Fauncer,
and so Rand Paul is able to say, you know what,
you can't take the fifth because, after all, you have
to get out of jail free card from Joe Biden.
The answer by Fauci to that is, you know what,
I think you ran. Paul just don't want to put
me behind bars, and so I'm going to take the
(02:27):
fifth because I think you're going to try to find
that I committed perjury in twenty twenty six, so that
the pardon wouldn't help me. Plus, four states, including Florida,
are now looking at the possibility of going after Fauci.
And since US presidential pardons only protect you against federal charges,
not state charges, that's a separate basis for Fauci to
(02:48):
take the fifth.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
We're joined by ABC News legal analyst Royal Oaks. So
those really are the two main arguments that doctor Fauci
and his attorneys would have. One that the pardon covered
a certain period of time, It wouldn't cover you trying
to get me in a perjury trap in a current
(03:11):
day hearing. And also there are state attorneys general who
have an interest in coming after me, and the pardon
power wouldn't cover that. Those are the two main arguments
he'd be able to make as to why he's constitutionally
allowed to invoke the Fifth Amendment right.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
Exactly right, And as a result of that, you framed
it perfectly. As a result of that, I don't think
you want to go to Vegas and bet on Iauci
being held in contempt of court. Instead, I think this
will move into the political realm, and of course it
already has. He came across as such a fanboy. In
his diary Entrince Julia Roberts called me Barbara streisand called me,
(03:49):
I think I'm one of the most recognized people on
the planet. Even Democrats who want to support him and
I think are kind of separating themselves from him a
little bit. But you know, a lot of folks do
want to do what Ran Paul says he's interested in, namely,
let's look back. Did we overreact to COVID. Should we
just have said let's protect the old folks and morbidly
(04:10):
obese folks and not ruin countless kids' educational experiences? Should
we really have insisted on masking up and social distancing.
People want to look at that, but unfortunately, the fauci
aspect of it has gotten such a life of its
own in terms of the politics and his taking the Fifth,
(04:30):
it's going to be hard to focus on those hardcore
COVID issues.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Do we find that the courts generally give a lot
of deference to those invoking the fifth and their reasons
for doing so.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
Yeah, absolutely, I mean, because it is, after all a
constitutional right. Usually, if there's any doubt to the matter,
the courts will be sympathetic and allow people to claim
the Fifth. So I think that's a reason to be
optimistic from Fauci's standpoint that you know, there's going to
be a lot of dust kicked up, and it's a
big kerfuffle with Rand Paul, but at the end of
(05:05):
the day, he will be entitled to claim the Fifth.
He won't be prosecuted, but he's got to put up
with the political fallout over him coming across like such
a fanboy.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
And last question for you, let's say he were to
lose that argument in courts, that the way he invoked
the Fifth Amendment, courts finds now he doesn't work like
that this contempt of Congress charge. If US Attorney jeanein
Piro moved forward with that, and look we've seen the
(05:36):
Trump administration, they sometimes move forward with charges even when
it appears they don't have much of a case. But
let's say she moves forward and she does end up
winning in court. What could that mean for doctor Fauci.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
Yeah, one year behind bars and a fine is what
he would be looking at if found guilty in a
criminal case of a criminal of congressional contempt. You remember
months ago the Clintons were involved in this bill and
Hillary we subpoened. They said, oh, this is you know,
you don't need us. We're not gonna We're not going
to talk, and so they went the congressional contempt route
and within a week both sides lawyers talked, they negotiated,
(06:12):
and then Bill and Hillary did testa So that's an
option if it looks like a contempt is going to
head down the railroad track for Abstanci's lawyers with wheel
and deal with Rand Paul's lawyers and have some guardrails
and then you testify.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
So even though he invoked the fifth before, he could
still return for a hearing and testify.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
Exactly he'd followed the bill and Hillary Clinton president right.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
ABC News legal analyst Royal Oaks with us Royal. Really
fantastic breakdown.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Thanks so much, you bet, thank you.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Right now, let's check in with our national correspondent Rory
O'Neil here on the Ryan Gorman Show. His reports brought
to you by Mark Spain Real Estate. So Rory. The
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted eight to
five along party lines, to recommend holding doctor Anthony Fauci
in contempt of Congress. What stood out to you about
(07:05):
the vote and what potentially comes next.
Speaker 4 (07:08):
Well, obviously this is because doctor Fauci led the Fifth
Amendment more than one hundred times at the hearing last week.
And the argument from Republicans is, hey, look, you're covered
by Joe Biden's blanket pardon that covers everything from twenty
fourteen up until January nineteenth of twenty twenty five. You
don't have a right to exert your Fifth Amendment. And
(07:28):
apparently now that this will be up to the DOJ
to decide, you know, there are some questions about whether
or not Ran Paul, the chairman of the committee, is
right about going directly to DOJ with this request that
they investigate, because historically you would need the whole Senate
to vote and of course, that would take sixty votes,
and that's not going to happen. So careful what you
(07:48):
wish for when you have a Senator Paul going direct
to DOJ when the shoe is on the left foot,
you may not like that.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
He certainly gives Democrats some ammunition here, and you'll give
doctor Fauci's legal team even more to work with. But
it'll be interesting how this plays out if there is
a criminal charge brought against doctor Fauci. I'm not convinced
there will be just yet, although it's going to US
(08:18):
Attorney Janine Piro, and boy, she's got a little pressure
on herself to today especial.
Speaker 4 (08:24):
Yeah, you've got three state attorneys general than kidding our
own from Florida pursuing perhaps state charges against doctor Fauci
in this. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Look, ultimately, I don't think any of this goes anywhere.
And I think the problem that's going to come is that, yes, uh,
Fauci got a pardon from President Biden covering federal crimes
through January nineteen, twenty twenty five. The problem is you've
got Rampaul out there saying that he wants to lock
(08:56):
Fauci up. You knew that Rampaul was going to try
to get him on some kind of perjury charge in
order to That was the most likely way you were
going to get Fauci because even with the money issue,
this issue that we talked about yesterday, involving this award
that he had his staff put in for back in
(09:17):
twenty twenty one that led him to win nine hundred
thousand dollars, it was one hundred thousand dollars went to scholarships,
and there's a question as to whether or not that
was an appropriate use of government resources. Maybe you could
find something there, it's unlikely that that's going to go anywhere.
It's likely, you know, unethical. Even though the ethics committee
(09:39):
that took a look at it, that looks over these
kinds of things, they gave the staff the okay to
put in for it. Yeah, it's unlikely that you're going
to nail him on that. So it was probably gonna
be something tied to perjury and that is not something
that is covered by the pardon. And then of course
potential state charges. And although the Attorney's General Roll didn't
(10:00):
announce that they were going to do these investigations till
after the hearing, he knew that was a possibility. So look,
I didn't like that Fauci took the fifth. I want
answers from him. I think he has uh responsibility to
the American public to answer those questions. But that being said,
I didn't blame him and his attorneys for deciding that
(10:22):
the safest course of action for him was to plead
the fifth. And I just don't think these these charges
are going to mount any I'm not saying that there
won't be charges, because look like we saw with the
Reflecting Pool cases, Department of Justice will bring charges even
if he evidence. Letessia James, I mean, it's a pretty
(10:42):
long list of them bringing charges against people on the
stuff not going anywhere and vice versa.
Speaker 4 (10:47):
Right, But but then good luck to the prosecutors. You know,
back back in the COVID days, way back when, in
ancient times, I mean, there was just so much much
stuff and information out there that you would be hard
pressed to get a conviction. I think just because there's
so much confusion even today as we look back at
(11:10):
what happened, then that could feed into some sort of
a reasonable doubt to get you to a conviction. I
just think that would be very difficult to do to
show that in some way there was some malicious intent
back in the day during all of this that yes,
mistakes were made, but you know, do you get a
criminal conviction on mistakes being made?
Speaker 3 (11:28):
Right? Right?
Speaker 2 (11:29):
I think it was clear of Faunc. She misled the
public on a number of different things. He'll give his
reasoning as to why. I'm sure he has his reasons
that he would say. But taking that and turning it
into something that you can nail him on criminally, that's
the step that becomes very very difficult.
Speaker 4 (11:51):
Now with all twelve people agreed, well, you find twelve
people that agree on COVID, Okay, that's whole point.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
We're joined by our national course on Rory O'Neil. We
also learned yesterday the copy of Fauci's pandemic era cell
phone was turned over by the Department of Health and
Human Services to the Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations and a lot of different committees up from DC.
Speaker 4 (12:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Well, Ron Johnson actually chairs that subcommittee. So they've got
the phone, but we don't know if they've got access
to any of the information on it. I mean, based
on what he put in his diary. Can only imagine
was in the cell phone?
Speaker 3 (12:29):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2 (12:30):
There might be some more stuff in there.
Speaker 4 (12:32):
Please, he was an eighty year old man. How good
do you think they could use their cell phones?
Speaker 2 (12:36):
But okay, the fact that he kept a diary and
wrote a diary like that, you might be right. Maybe
he didn't put a whole lot in the cell phone.
And then I don't know if you saw the pictures
of him after the contempt of Congress vote was taken yesterday,
he took out a recycling bin to the curbs, got
a nice little two point four million dollar home there
in Washington, DC, and then his wife drove him away eventually,
(13:01):
and she flipped the burdy the sale.
Speaker 4 (13:04):
Yes, gave the salute to the photographers.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Photographers, so they're not loving all the attention they're getting
these days.
Speaker 4 (13:11):
But hey, what's in her diary?
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Yeah right, these jackass reporters and outside my home today,
dear diary. All right, Rory O'Neil, our national correspondent with
us this morning. Rory, have a great weekend. We'll talk
to you next week.
Speaker 1 (13:27):
Talk to you then, Ryan, Thanks week The Ryan Gorman
Show podcast up we set on iHeartRadio. Presented by Verah
and Farah Accident Attorney's Tampa
The Ryan Gorman Show podcast presented by Vera and Farah
accident attorneys Tama.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Let's bring in ABC News legal analyst Royal Oaks to
break down that vote yesterday by the Senate Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs Committee to hold doctor Anthony Fauci in
contempt of Congress. Royal there was a party line vote
eight to five holding Faunci in contempt of Congress. What
exactly does that mean?
Speaker 3 (00:27):
Well, it's the first step toward a possible contempt, a
criminal matter against doctor Fauci. Now, normally, once a committee
votes for congressional contempt, it goes to the full US Senate.
But Ran Paul may say, let's not waste time there,
because to get a majority in the Senate, he'd have
to overcome the filibuster rule, which me and Jolie you'd
(00:48):
have to have sixty votes, and that ain't gonna happen.
So there are a couple of options. Number One, Rand
Paul can say, well, how about this. I'm just going
to send to Janine Piro, the US Attorney for the
District of Columbia, the recommendation of this committee that you
prosecute Fauci for congressional contempt because there's no law that
(01:08):
absolutely requires him to go to the full Senate. The
other option is nan Pero can just do it on
her own. She didn't have to wait for ram Paul
or the Senate. She can say, Hey, I've been reading
the news. I think Fauci committed perjury or has no
right to claim the Fifth so I'm going to prosecute him.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
Well, that would certainly get Janine Piro back in the
good graces of Republicans, that's for sure. Maybe even President Trump.
Now contempt of Congress that specific charge. Explain that because
it's not contempt for Congress, a lot of us have
that this is contempt of Congress.
Speaker 3 (01:42):
Well, what it means is that he was subpoened. Faunci
was to testify before the Senate committee that is run
by Ram Paul. And when you've been subpoenad, you're supposed
to take an oath and answer questions. He refused to
answer questions one hundred and eleven times as we know,
claiming the Fifth Amendment. That the problem for Fauci is
for Rand Paul is that there are pardon issues involved here.
(02:06):
In other words, Joe Biden gave a pardon to Anthony Fauncer,
and so Rand Paul is able to say, you know what,
you can't take the fifth because, after all, you have
to get out of jail free card from Joe Biden.
The answer by Fauci to that is, you know what,
I think you ran. Paul just don't want to put
me behind bars, and so I'm going to take the
(02:27):
fifth because I think you're going to try to find
that I committed perjury in twenty twenty six, so that
the pardon wouldn't help me. Plus, four states, including Florida,
are now looking at the possibility of going after Fauci.
And since US presidential pardons only protect you against federal charges,
not state charges, that's a separate basis for Fauci to
(02:48):
take the fifth.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
We're joined by ABC News legal analyst Royal Oaks. So
those really are the two main arguments that doctor Fauci
and his attorneys would have. One that the pardon covered
a certain period of time, It wouldn't cover you trying
to get me in a perjury trap in a current
(03:11):
day hearing. And also there are state attorneys general who
have an interest in coming after me, and the pardon
power wouldn't cover that. Those are the two main arguments
he'd be able to make as to why he's constitutionally
allowed to invoke the Fifth Amendment right.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
Exactly right, And as a result of that, you framed
it perfectly. As a result of that, I don't think
you want to go to Vegas and bet on Iauci
being held in contempt of court. Instead, I think this
will move into the political realm, and of course it
already has. He came across as such a fanboy. In
his diary Entrince Julia Roberts called me Barbara streisand called me,
(03:49):
I think I'm one of the most recognized people on
the planet. Even Democrats who want to support him and
I think are kind of separating themselves from him a
little bit. But you know, a lot of folks do
want to do what Ran Paul says he's interested in, namely,
let's look back. Did we overreact to COVID. Should we
just have said let's protect the old folks and morbidly
(04:10):
obese folks and not ruin countless kids' educational experiences? Should
we really have insisted on masking up and social distancing.
People want to look at that, but unfortunately, the fauci
aspect of it has gotten such a life of its
own in terms of the politics and his taking the Fifth,
(04:30):
it's going to be hard to focus on those hardcore
COVID issues.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Do we find that the courts generally give a lot
of deference to those invoking the fifth and their reasons
for doing so.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
Yeah, absolutely, I mean, because it is, after all a
constitutional right. Usually, if there's any doubt to the matter,
the courts will be sympathetic and allow people to claim
the Fifth. So I think that's a reason to be
optimistic from Fauci's standpoint that you know, there's going to
be a lot of dust kicked up, and it's a
big kerfuffle with Rand Paul, but at the end of
(05:05):
the day, he will be entitled to claim the Fifth.
He won't be prosecuted, but he's got to put up
with the political fallout over him coming across like such
a fanboy.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
And last question for you, let's say he were to
lose that argument in courts, that the way he invoked
the Fifth Amendment, courts finds now he doesn't work like
that this contempt of Congress charge. If US Attorney jeanein
Piro moved forward with that, and look we've seen the
(05:36):
Trump administration, they sometimes move forward with charges even when
it appears they don't have much of a case. But
let's say she moves forward and she does end up
winning in court. What could that mean for doctor Fauci.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
Yeah, one year behind bars and a fine is what
he would be looking at if found guilty in a
criminal case of a criminal of congressional contempt. You remember
months ago the Clintons were involved in this bill and
Hillary we subpoened. They said, oh, this is you know,
you don't need us. We're not gonna We're not going
to talk, and so they went the congressional contempt route
and within a week both sides lawyers talked, they negotiated,
(06:12):
and then Bill and Hillary did testa So that's an
option if it looks like a contempt is going to
head down the railroad track for Abstanci's lawyers with wheel
and deal with Rand Paul's lawyers and have some guardrails
and then you testify.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
So even though he invoked the fifth before, he could
still return for a hearing and testify.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
Exactly he'd followed the bill and Hillary Clinton president right.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
ABC News legal analyst Royal Oaks with us Royal. Really
fantastic breakdown.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Thanks so much, you bet, thank you.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Right now, let's check in with our national correspondent Rory
O'Neil here on the Ryan Gorman Show. His reports brought
to you by Mark Spain Real Estate. So Rory. The
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted eight to
five along party lines, to recommend holding doctor Anthony Fauci
in contempt of Congress. What stood out to you about
(07:05):
the vote and what potentially comes next.
Speaker 4 (07:08):
Well, obviously this is because doctor Fauci led the Fifth
Amendment more than one hundred times at the hearing last week.
And the argument from Republicans is, hey, look, you're covered
by Joe Biden's blanket pardon that covers everything from twenty
fourteen up until January nineteenth of twenty twenty five. You
don't have a right to exert your Fifth Amendment. And
(07:28):
apparently now that this will be up to the DOJ
to decide, you know, there are some questions about whether
or not Ran Paul, the chairman of the committee, is
right about going directly to DOJ with this request that
they investigate, because historically you would need the whole Senate
to vote and of course, that would take sixty votes,
and that's not going to happen. So careful what you
(07:48):
wish for when you have a Senator Paul going direct
to DOJ when the shoe is on the left foot,
you may not like that.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
He certainly gives Democrats some ammunition here, and you'll give
doctor Fauci's legal team even more to work with. But
it'll be interesting how this plays out if there is
a criminal charge brought against doctor Fauci. I'm not convinced
there will be just yet, although it's going to US
(08:18):
Attorney Janine Piro, and boy, she's got a little pressure
on herself to today especial.
Speaker 4 (08:24):
Yeah, you've got three state attorneys general than kidding our
own from Florida pursuing perhaps state charges against doctor Fauci
in this. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Look, ultimately, I don't think any of this goes anywhere.
And I think the problem that's going to come is that, yes, uh,
Fauci got a pardon from President Biden covering federal crimes
through January nineteen, twenty twenty five. The problem is you've
got Rampaul out there saying that he wants to lock
(08:56):
Fauci up. You knew that Rampaul was going to try
to get him on some kind of perjury charge in
order to That was the most likely way you were
going to get Fauci because even with the money issue,
this issue that we talked about yesterday, involving this award
that he had his staff put in for back in
(09:17):
twenty twenty one that led him to win nine hundred
thousand dollars, it was one hundred thousand dollars went to scholarships,
and there's a question as to whether or not that
was an appropriate use of government resources. Maybe you could
find something there, it's unlikely that that's going to go anywhere.
It's likely, you know, unethical. Even though the ethics committee
(09:39):
that took a look at it, that looks over these
kinds of things, they gave the staff the okay to
put in for it. Yeah, it's unlikely that you're going
to nail him on that. So it was probably gonna
be something tied to perjury and that is not something
that is covered by the pardon. And then of course
potential state charges. And although the Attorney's General Roll didn't
(10:00):
announce that they were going to do these investigations till
after the hearing, he knew that was a possibility. So look,
I didn't like that Fauci took the fifth. I want
answers from him. I think he has uh responsibility to
the American public to answer those questions. But that being said,
I didn't blame him and his attorneys for deciding that
(10:22):
the safest course of action for him was to plead
the fifth. And I just don't think these these charges
are going to mount any I'm not saying that there
won't be charges, because look like we saw with the
Reflecting Pool cases, Department of Justice will bring charges even
if he evidence. Letessia James, I mean, it's a pretty
(10:42):
long list of them bringing charges against people on the
stuff not going anywhere and vice versa.
Speaker 4 (10:47):
Right, But but then good luck to the prosecutors. You know,
back back in the COVID days, way back when, in
ancient times, I mean, there was just so much much
stuff and information out there that you would be hard
pressed to get a conviction. I think just because there's
so much confusion even today as we look back at
(11:10):
what happened, then that could feed into some sort of
a reasonable doubt to get you to a conviction. I
just think that would be very difficult to do to
show that in some way there was some malicious intent
back in the day during all of this that yes,
mistakes were made, but you know, do you get a
criminal conviction on mistakes being made?
Speaker 3 (11:28):
Right? Right?
Speaker 2 (11:29):
I think it was clear of Faunc. She misled the
public on a number of different things. He'll give his
reasoning as to why. I'm sure he has his reasons
that he would say. But taking that and turning it
into something that you can nail him on criminally, that's
the step that becomes very very difficult.
Speaker 4 (11:51):
Now with all twelve people agreed, well, you find twelve
people that agree on COVID, Okay, that's whole point.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
We're joined by our national course on Rory O'Neil. We
also learned yesterday the copy of Fauci's pandemic era cell
phone was turned over by the Department of Health and
Human Services to the Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations and a lot of different committees up from DC.
Speaker 4 (12:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Well, Ron Johnson actually chairs that subcommittee. So they've got
the phone, but we don't know if they've got access
to any of the information on it. I mean, based
on what he put in his diary. Can only imagine
was in the cell phone?
Speaker 3 (12:29):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2 (12:30):
There might be some more stuff in there.
Speaker 4 (12:32):
Please, he was an eighty year old man. How good
do you think they could use their cell phones?
Speaker 2 (12:36):
But okay, the fact that he kept a diary and
wrote a diary like that, you might be right. Maybe
he didn't put a whole lot in the cell phone.
And then I don't know if you saw the pictures
of him after the contempt of Congress vote was taken yesterday,
he took out a recycling bin to the curbs, got
a nice little two point four million dollar home there
in Washington, DC, and then his wife drove him away eventually,
(13:01):
and she flipped the burdy the sale.
Speaker 4 (13:04):
Yes, gave the salute to the photographers.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Photographers, so they're not loving all the attention they're getting
these days.
Speaker 4 (13:11):
But hey, what's in her diary?
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Yeah right, these jackass reporters and outside my home today,
dear diary. All right, Rory O'Neil, our national correspondent with
us this morning. Rory, have a great weekend. We'll talk
to you next week.
Speaker 1 (13:27):
Talk to you then, Ryan, Thanks week The Ryan Gorman
Show podcast up we set on iHeartRadio. Presented by Verah
and Farah Accident Attorney's Tampa
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com