Labour's Ginny Andersen and National's Mark Mitchell joined Mike Hosking to delve into some of the biggest political stories of the week so far.
Mike's got the register of Pecuniary Interests, which lists the gifts MPs received between February 1st of 2024 and January 31st 2025 - so the three of them discussed some of the entries on the list.
They also discussed debate, or lack thereof, in the House, and what might else might be coming out of Budget 2025.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Mark Mitchell's with us along with Ginny and some good
morning you.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
Too, Good morning, morning, good morning.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
I've got your pecuniary list in front of me. Details. Well,
you heard you.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
Were very disappointed with it because we don't have much
on that.
Speaker 4 (00:13):
I just feel well when you say not much, I'm
neither of you have received a single gift. Now, just
for the record that I'm assuming you get offered things
and you turn them down, or is it really sad
and you were offered nothing?
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Well, I think it's a five hundred I'm pretty sure
just discussing this on offline, I think it's a five
hundred dollars limit. So if it's under five hundred, you don't.
Speaker 4 (00:36):
Have to So you've got a bit of stuff stashed
away there, Jinny, in the cupboard that was under five hundred.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
We just got stuff that was under five hundred. Year.
I'm thinking of like plaques and you know, ornaments. You
know what, you get some interesting stuff. Mark will tell you.
Speaker 4 (00:50):
I bet maybe got you got any largro on the
cupboard there, Jenny.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
The limit is five hundred.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
I've got a few challenge coins that were given to me.
I offered tickets to sports games, a lot but I
always decline those.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Why although now I've got sport and wreck.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
Mainly because I'm just to be perfectly honest with you,
because I'm so busy and too busy that if I
do get some downtime, I'll like to spend it with
my family.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
See.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
Now here's where embarrassing at this particular point of time,
because that was really good as an answer. And yet
I look at Chris Bishop, who appears to spend his
entire life either the Olympics or the cricket or the rugby.
Speaker 3 (01:31):
Well that that was just that was just going to
say that, minister. Well, I'm now the Minister of Sports.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
So you're going to have to turn up some sport.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
Yeah I do, and I and I do, and I
go to many sports events now in that role, and
I enjoy them.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
I love sport.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
I've been involved in sport my whole life and it's
got an important role to play for us the country.
But Ambush is also the Associate Minister of Sport, and.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
True though there wasn't they didn't used to be, as
far as I remember, an Associate Minister of sport. I
think he just made that.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Too many ministers.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
Yeah, well he's well, he's focused on sports diplomacy and
also he's the infrastructure Minister and we've got a lot
of facilities that we want to deliver and he's got
oversight on everything that we're doing as a country all.
Speaker 4 (02:13):
Also, he was at the Pearl Jam concert. So he's
a headbanger too, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
He loves his music concerts absolutely.
Speaker 4 (02:21):
So Boyak who seems ginny to have more free tickets
than anybody else in the history of the world. She
is arts and so she would defend it by going
I was at Wearable Arts, and I was at the opera,
and I was at the choir, and I was at
the Book Awards, and I was at the ballet. She
she's doing her job, would be her argument.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
I take it.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
He she does get a lot of those events. Is
arts and culture spikes person and also understanding, you know,
going along and seeing those events, how they're running, where
they they're well run, and if they funded. All those
sorts of things come up as well as going along.
Speaker 4 (02:54):
Okay, see Paul Goldsmith went to Pink. I don't see
him there. I don't see Paul enjoying Pink.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
I don't think to Pink.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Did you go to pink.
Speaker 4 (03:01):
I didn't go to pink, but I know people to pink.
But Paul Goldsmith's a bit stiff to go to pink,
isn't he. I mean he's a bit thing like you.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
He's a chaffo fed. So yeah, I think you'd go
to a peak. Yeah, a big shoo fed.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
Just very quickly.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
While we're talking sport, I want to give a shout
out to us with our pre woman's team that beat
nor Shore on the weekend. I went down watched the game.
They were outstanding, so big shout out to them.
Speaker 4 (03:30):
Luxon got a case of twelve bottles of Gibson Valley Winery. Mark,
have you seen any of that? Does he share that stuff?
Speaker 2 (03:38):
No?
Speaker 1 (03:38):
I haven't, but I'll have to ask him about it.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
There he doesn't drink, We should ask him.
Speaker 1 (03:42):
Actually, very good point, he doesn't drink. Right now.
Speaker 4 (03:45):
Our next question for you, Ginny, Tom and Taylor is
standing on the platform at the railway station. Some bloke
starts abusing you. You've got the apology from the company.
Where's the line? What's the line between being an individual
and being working for a company with a lanyard around
your neck? And what should happen to him.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
Well when I was when I was working in Parliament,
I remember a case where someone had back in the
day when Trevor Mallard was trying to build a stadium
down by the Wad two thousand and someone with their
work address wrote a rude, pretty rude email, so similar
case using having something work on you but taking a
(04:24):
personal opinion, and Trevor really went to task to the
company which was reason we well known and and said
it's unacceptable for someone to be doing that worth work.
So I think it is not a good reflection on
the company that's paying your wages. If you were giving
your own personal views wearing branded wearing branded stuff is
(04:44):
where it goes wrong. That you can do that off
your own bat from your private email or with your
own coat over your jacket. That's your decision, But if
you're bringing your company into it, I think that's a
real p What do you reckon?
Speaker 1 (04:56):
I just think you've made a great point. What was
were de Lenya around two?
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Look?
Speaker 3 (05:01):
Look, my mum raised us to treat other treat others
as you have them treat you, and I think that
he not only was he disrespectful towards the Deputy Prime
Minister and in the minister on an announcement. He was
disrespectful to all those that were there to hear the announcement.
But you know it's obviously up to his company to
figure out what how they're going to deal with that.
Speaker 4 (05:18):
All right, just a quick comment of you wouldn't mind
Jenny on what happened in the House yesterday. What is
the less on debt of mister Hipkins and his endless
defense of the Maori Party? Why do you need to
dabble in this area? The Privileges Committee met, they made
a decision.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
It is what it is. Move on.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Well, rules are important at a time when everything's going
a bit crazy, which it has been lately. Sticking to
the rules is important for everybody, and going to twenty
one days is not sticking to the rules. Standing orders
is really clear on what the number of days is.
So they needed to make a clear distinction as to
why they departed from the rules.
Speaker 4 (05:54):
Can I just well, okay, that was the one point
he made that I thought did make sense, So fair enough.
But to side, what's famous about the Privileges Committee is
it's all powerful. It can allegedly hence the prison sentence
idea can do anything, can do anything. So therefore it
is what it is. It's been accepted as being. It
is what it is. At twenty one day, there you go,
(06:15):
don't don't point guns at people, and don't dance on
the floor and interrupt the boat of the house. You
know tried and what's why defend it? Why try to
water it down?
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Because it's important that you have faith in the rules
and faith in the system.
Speaker 4 (06:29):
But you're part of the system though, that's the point
of the Privileges committee.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
Everyone. You need to treat like it was a split decision,
but that's life.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
So it's a jury decision. You know, you go to court.
You it is what it is.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
So other examples where to Henaday and Triba Mallard are
rolling around the corridors punching each other, but not in
the house. He's intimidating each other in the house. There's
been a couple of instances, but.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
Not the same way. I mean, look, I just don't
get it.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
It's difficult. It's difficult to establish why twenty one day
and that everyone agrees that that seems a huge amount
of time and it is really consuming.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
Maybe it's a deterror.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
If you've got a government who's keeping opposition in peas out,
so you that you think.
Speaker 4 (07:13):
Mate, so what do you argue Mark that it was
what it was? Or is this political or what?
Speaker 3 (07:18):
No, they're trying to make it political. I think that
there was behavior in the House that we have never
seen before as a country. The Privileges Committee would have
taken all of the seriousness of the offending and what occurred,
and they would have tried to apply the consequences that
matches that and pure labor style which we had six
years of this. They want to revet. They they don't
want consequences that matches the serious of the offending, and
(07:39):
that's what they're going on about. Yesterday I was at
Government House with the Governor General handing out posthumously a
Bravery Award to Consul Matthew Hunt's family. I was there
with Diane and Sam and Ellie and I was also
there were three other gentlemen that received Bravery Awards for
their outstanding work they did at the Linn Moore tr attack.
And I can tell you now not talking about this stuff,
(08:02):
there was bad behavior in the House. The Privileges Committee
have come down with consequences for that. We've got to
respect that and get on with it.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
We agree that there should be a sanction. There definitely
should be a but it needs to be in line
with others.
Speaker 3 (08:16):
Similarly, you're challenging and questioning the privilege and that's not right.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
But Mark has got one good point and that people
are sick of politicians talking about themselves and they would
prefer we got back to issues like women's pay and
the cost of true but that's.
Speaker 3 (08:30):
Exactly what you're doing. You keep reltigating it, you keep
talking about it, and that's not wrong.
Speaker 4 (08:35):
See I would have seen Jenny if i'd been if
I'd been advising you guys, I would have said, don't debate,
just get on with it.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
Move on it.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Who choose is that it's a government who you don't have.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
To stand up. You don't have to stand up in debate.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
It's an order on the order paper brought by the
government who then changed their mind by the way and
put it off into Lafe Bud.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
You're not you're not accepting the finding of the Privilege
Committee and you're trying to relitigate it. And you're the
ones that are keeping this thing alive. You're the one
does it continue to want to debate it. Everyone else
in the rest of the country want to move on
as you any one day.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
It's disproportionate and we stand by.
Speaker 4 (09:07):
All right, quick thing right, quick, quick comment, mark on
the budget tomorrow. What to look out for? Tell me
what to look out for. Don't give it away, don't yeh.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
Question, I'm not. Just tell me what.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Women's pay. We're going to increase women's pay right across.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
I think I think you can definitely look out for.
And what the Finance Minister has underlined and underscored is
it's a growth budget. We've got to get growth back
into our economy because that's the way that we can
continue to fund and provide world class services. It's the
way that we can grow jobs, it's the way that
we can grow wages. So it's going to be a
growth budget.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
Okay, what do you say, what are you looking out for?
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Well, how how do you get growth going when all
of those thirty three pequity claims are being taken away
by this budget and that's what's paying for it. So
it's going to be known to me. Finished. Please let
me finish mark that that this is theudget that will
be remember in New Zealand history is the budget that
caused women's pay to go backwards. And that's the truth.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
Well, I'll tell you how to get a growth budget
and let's not have a Labor Greens into party, Mary
party government and place.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
Let's see, how did you come up with that one yourself?
Digit it's a.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
Great I think it's a very good one.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
Nice to see you, guys, Mike Mitchell, Jinny Anderson.
Speaker 4 (10:20):
For more from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to
news Talks it'd be from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Mark Mitchell's with us along with Ginny and some good
morning you.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
Too, Good morning, morning, good morning.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
I've got your pecuniary list in front of me. Details. Well,
you heard you.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
Were very disappointed with it because we don't have much
on that.
Speaker 4 (00:13):
I just feel well when you say not much, I'm
neither of you have received a single gift. Now, just
for the record that I'm assuming you get offered things
and you turn them down, or is it really sad
and you were offered nothing?
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Well, I think it's a five hundred I'm pretty sure
just discussing this on offline, I think it's a five
hundred dollars limit. So if it's under five hundred, you don't.
Speaker 4 (00:36):
Have to So you've got a bit of stuff stashed
away there, Jinny, in the cupboard that was under five hundred.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
We just got stuff that was under five hundred. Year.
I'm thinking of like plaques and you know, ornaments. You
know what, you get some interesting stuff. Mark will tell you.
Speaker 4 (00:50):
I bet maybe got you got any largro on the
cupboard there, Jenny.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
The limit is five hundred.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
I've got a few challenge coins that were given to me.
I offered tickets to sports games, a lot but I
always decline those.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Why although now I've got sport and wreck.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
Mainly because I'm just to be perfectly honest with you,
because I'm so busy and too busy that if I
do get some downtime, I'll like to spend it with
my family.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
See.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
Now here's where embarrassing at this particular point of time,
because that was really good as an answer. And yet
I look at Chris Bishop, who appears to spend his
entire life either the Olympics or the cricket or the rugby.
Speaker 3 (01:31):
Well that that was just that was just going to
say that, minister. Well, I'm now the Minister of Sports.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
So you're going to have to turn up some sport.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
Yeah I do, and I and I do, and I
go to many sports events now in that role, and
I enjoy them.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
I love sport.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
I've been involved in sport my whole life and it's
got an important role to play for us the country.
But Ambush is also the Associate Minister of Sport, and.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
True though there wasn't they didn't used to be, as
far as I remember, an Associate Minister of sport. I
think he just made that.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Too many ministers.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
Yeah, well he's well, he's focused on sports diplomacy and
also he's the infrastructure Minister and we've got a lot
of facilities that we want to deliver and he's got
oversight on everything that we're doing as a country all.
Speaker 4 (02:13):
Also, he was at the Pearl Jam concert. So he's
a headbanger too, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
He loves his music concerts absolutely.
Speaker 4 (02:21):
So Boyak who seems ginny to have more free tickets
than anybody else in the history of the world. She
is arts and so she would defend it by going
I was at Wearable Arts, and I was at the opera,
and I was at the choir, and I was at
the Book Awards, and I was at the ballet. She
she's doing her job, would be her argument.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
I take it.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
He she does get a lot of those events. Is
arts and culture spikes person and also understanding, you know,
going along and seeing those events, how they're running, where
they they're well run, and if they funded. All those
sorts of things come up as well as going along.
Speaker 4 (02:54):
Okay, see Paul Goldsmith went to Pink. I don't see
him there. I don't see Paul enjoying Pink.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
I don't think to Pink.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Did you go to pink.
Speaker 4 (03:01):
I didn't go to pink, but I know people to pink.
But Paul Goldsmith's a bit stiff to go to pink,
isn't he. I mean he's a bit thing like you.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
He's a chaffo fed. So yeah, I think you'd go
to a peak. Yeah, a big shoo fed.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
Just very quickly.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
While we're talking sport, I want to give a shout
out to us with our pre woman's team that beat
nor Shore on the weekend. I went down watched the game.
They were outstanding, so big shout out to them.
Speaker 4 (03:30):
Luxon got a case of twelve bottles of Gibson Valley Winery. Mark,
have you seen any of that? Does he share that stuff?
Speaker 2 (03:38):
No?
Speaker 1 (03:38):
I haven't, but I'll have to ask him about it.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
There he doesn't drink, We should ask him.
Speaker 1 (03:42):
Actually, very good point, he doesn't drink. Right now.
Speaker 4 (03:45):
Our next question for you, Ginny, Tom and Taylor is
standing on the platform at the railway station. Some bloke
starts abusing you. You've got the apology from the company.
Where's the line? What's the line between being an individual
and being working for a company with a lanyard around
your neck? And what should happen to him.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
Well when I was when I was working in Parliament,
I remember a case where someone had back in the
day when Trevor Mallard was trying to build a stadium
down by the Wad two thousand and someone with their
work address wrote a rude, pretty rude email, so similar
case using having something work on you but taking a
(04:24):
personal opinion, and Trevor really went to task to the
company which was reason we well known and and said
it's unacceptable for someone to be doing that worth work.
So I think it is not a good reflection on
the company that's paying your wages. If you were giving
your own personal views wearing branded wearing branded stuff is
(04:44):
where it goes wrong. That you can do that off
your own bat from your private email or with your
own coat over your jacket. That's your decision, But if
you're bringing your company into it, I think that's a
real p What do you reckon?
Speaker 1 (04:56):
I just think you've made a great point. What was
were de Lenya around two?
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Look?
Speaker 3 (05:01):
Look, my mum raised us to treat other treat others
as you have them treat you, and I think that
he not only was he disrespectful towards the Deputy Prime
Minister and in the minister on an announcement. He was
disrespectful to all those that were there to hear the announcement.
But you know it's obviously up to his company to
figure out what how they're going to deal with that.
Speaker 4 (05:18):
All right, just a quick comment of you wouldn't mind
Jenny on what happened in the House yesterday. What is
the less on debt of mister Hipkins and his endless
defense of the Maori Party? Why do you need to
dabble in this area? The Privileges Committee met, they made
a decision.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
It is what it is. Move on.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Well, rules are important at a time when everything's going
a bit crazy, which it has been lately. Sticking to
the rules is important for everybody, and going to twenty
one days is not sticking to the rules. Standing orders
is really clear on what the number of days is.
So they needed to make a clear distinction as to
why they departed from the rules.
Speaker 4 (05:54):
Can I just well, okay, that was the one point
he made that I thought did make sense, So fair enough.
But to side, what's famous about the Privileges Committee is
it's all powerful. It can allegedly hence the prison sentence
idea can do anything, can do anything. So therefore it
is what it is. It's been accepted as being. It
is what it is. At twenty one day, there you go,
(06:15):
don't don't point guns at people, and don't dance on
the floor and interrupt the boat of the house. You
know tried and what's why defend it? Why try to
water it down?
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Because it's important that you have faith in the rules
and faith in the system.
Speaker 4 (06:29):
But you're part of the system though, that's the point
of the Privileges committee.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
Everyone. You need to treat like it was a split decision,
but that's life.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
So it's a jury decision. You know, you go to court.
You it is what it is.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
So other examples where to Henaday and Triba Mallard are
rolling around the corridors punching each other, but not in
the house. He's intimidating each other in the house. There's
been a couple of instances, but.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
Not the same way. I mean, look, I just don't
get it.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
It's difficult. It's difficult to establish why twenty one day
and that everyone agrees that that seems a huge amount
of time and it is really consuming.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
Maybe it's a deterror.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
If you've got a government who's keeping opposition in peas out,
so you that you think.
Speaker 4 (07:13):
Mate, so what do you argue Mark that it was
what it was? Or is this political or what?
Speaker 3 (07:18):
No, they're trying to make it political. I think that
there was behavior in the House that we have never
seen before as a country. The Privileges Committee would have
taken all of the seriousness of the offending and what occurred,
and they would have tried to apply the consequences that
matches that and pure labor style which we had six
years of this. They want to revet. They they don't
want consequences that matches the serious of the offending, and
(07:39):
that's what they're going on about. Yesterday I was at
Government House with the Governor General handing out posthumously a
Bravery Award to Consul Matthew Hunt's family. I was there
with Diane and Sam and Ellie and I was also
there were three other gentlemen that received Bravery Awards for
their outstanding work they did at the Linn Moore tr attack.
And I can tell you now not talking about this stuff,
(08:02):
there was bad behavior in the House. The Privileges Committee
have come down with consequences for that. We've got to
respect that and get on with it.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
We agree that there should be a sanction. There definitely
should be a but it needs to be in line
with others.
Speaker 3 (08:16):
Similarly, you're challenging and questioning the privilege and that's not right.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
But Mark has got one good point and that people
are sick of politicians talking about themselves and they would
prefer we got back to issues like women's pay and
the cost of true but that's.
Speaker 3 (08:30):
Exactly what you're doing. You keep reltigating it, you keep
talking about it, and that's not wrong.
Speaker 4 (08:35):
See I would have seen Jenny if i'd been if
I'd been advising you guys, I would have said, don't debate,
just get on with it.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
Move on it.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Who choose is that it's a government who you don't have.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
To stand up. You don't have to stand up in debate.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
It's an order on the order paper brought by the
government who then changed their mind by the way and
put it off into Lafe Bud.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
You're not you're not accepting the finding of the Privilege
Committee and you're trying to relitigate it. And you're the
ones that are keeping this thing alive. You're the one
does it continue to want to debate it. Everyone else
in the rest of the country want to move on
as you any one day.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
It's disproportionate and we stand by.
Speaker 4 (09:07):
All right, quick thing right, quick, quick comment, mark on
the budget tomorrow. What to look out for? Tell me
what to look out for. Don't give it away, don't yeh.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
Question, I'm not. Just tell me what.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Women's pay. We're going to increase women's pay right across.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
I think I think you can definitely look out for.
And what the Finance Minister has underlined and underscored is
it's a growth budget. We've got to get growth back
into our economy because that's the way that we can
continue to fund and provide world class services. It's the
way that we can grow jobs, it's the way that
we can grow wages. So it's going to be a
growth budget.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
Okay, what do you say, what are you looking out for?
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Well, how how do you get growth going when all
of those thirty three pequity claims are being taken away
by this budget and that's what's paying for it. So
it's going to be known to me. Finished. Please let
me finish mark that that this is theudget that will
be remember in New Zealand history is the budget that
caused women's pay to go backwards. And that's the truth.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
Well, I'll tell you how to get a growth budget
and let's not have a Labor Greens into party, Mary
party government and place.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
Let's see, how did you come up with that one yourself?
Digit it's a.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
Great I think it's a very good one.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
Nice to see you, guys, Mike Mitchell, Jinny Anderson.
Speaker 4 (10:20):
For more from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to
news Talks it'd be from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
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.
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.
Good Hang with Amy Poehler
Come hang with Amy Poehler. Each week on her podcast, she'll welcome celebrities and fun people to her studio. They'll share stories about their careers, mutual friends, shared enthusiasms, and most importantly, what's been making them laugh. This podcast is not about trying to make you better or giving advice. Amy just wants to have a good time.