November 13, 2025 • 11 mins
Tonight on The Huddle, Brigitte Morton from Franks Ogilvie and former mayor of Auckland Phil Goff joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more!
Is it in the public interest to pursue charges against the woman at the centre of the McSkimming saga? She's charged under the Harmful Digital Communications Act for sending emails to the detective who arrested her. What do we make of all this?
David Seymour has blamed the teachers' strikes on a drop in school attendance last term? Was this out of line on his part?
A think tank is floating the idea of KiwiSaver schemes for kids, claiming it could set them up with $10,000-$20,000 in savings by the time they reach adulthood. Do we think this is a good idea?
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):
The huddle with New Zealand Southeby's International Realty, a name
you can trust locally and globally.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
On the huddle with me this evening, we have Bridget
Morton of Frank's Ogilvy and Phil GoF, former labor leader
and mayor of Auckland, amongst other things. Hire you too, goody,
good evening. Now, Bridget, you're a lawyer, so tell me.
Are you comfortable with police pressing new charges against the
woman at the center of the mix skimming case?
Speaker 3 (00:22):
No?
Speaker 4 (00:23):
Absolutely not. And I think this show is an inherent
flaw in this piece of legislation that it can often
be used and weaponized against speech that we do think
is true or needs to be public interest, or you know,
shouldn't be punishable in this way. And I think it
gives us a really good opportunity to re look at
that legislation and really determine actually whether or not it's
(00:43):
actually helping us or harming us.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Okay, so is your problem actually more with the legislation
than anything the fact it exists?
Speaker 4 (00:50):
Well, I think the fact that the way the legislation
is drafted clearly demonstrates that it can be used in
this way. I think we do want to have protections
for people from online harm. I think there's a lot
of bad things that can occur in that way. But
obviously when you've got an organization like this can use
it basically to cover up in a way to intimidate,
it shows that the legislation is not such a purpose.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
But what about the fact bridget that, I mean, we
don't know what she says. So the charges against the
mix gimming email charges have been dropped, but these are
fresh emails allegedly sent to a police officer and his
wife Rick. We don't know what was in them. That
maybe whatever is said and it may not be true, right,
So in that case, would that be fair?
Speaker 4 (01:29):
Yeah, I think there is obviously a line that needs
to be determined. But when you think about the wider context,
what we want is a situation where people can speak
up against power and can speak up when they are
in a situation. And it may be sometimes that that
what's the content that those emails may not be comfortable
to us or may be seen this's pushing too far,
but that's what we ask from our activists, from the
(01:51):
people that actually make change in this world.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
Yeah, what do you reckon film.
Speaker 3 (01:55):
Yeah, Look, she may well have been abusive in the
ten emails she's sent to the police officer and his
wife that was responsible for the prosecution against her, But
you've got to see it within the context of the
fact that she was not being listened to. Clearly under
the influence of nick skimming. It looked very much like
(02:16):
the police were protecting their own And you know, was
she angry. Of course she was angry, and she had
every right to be angry. I think in the overall
context of the damage that was done to her by
the failure to treat her fairly overwhelms the charge against
her that she may have been abusive to the detective
and his wife that were responsible for prosecuting her.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Okay, do you want to see an investigation to determine
whether something illegal has been done by these officers, phil.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
Well? I think the officers that are still in the police,
their careers will now be in jeopardy. They'll have no
future in the police. And the officers, including Andy Costa,
that now hold positions outside of police but still within
the public service, are not likely to be holding onto
(03:09):
those positions given the damaging the damage to their reputation
caused by what they did wrong. I don't know that
it was corruption. I know that the that the minister
said that if it walks like a duck and quacks
like a ducker, then it is a duck. I think
(03:30):
it's just seriously bad misjudgment on the part of Andy Costa,
and he has a price to pay for that.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
What do you reckon Bridge? Should there be an investigation?
Speaker 4 (03:41):
I think what needs to happen now is the police
need to rebuild some of the trust. I think that
you know, most New Zealanders will look at this and
be horrified that this is the police force that is
meant to uphold the integrity and standards of our society.
I think for them to be able to clear their names,
they have to do the investigation, regardless of whether or
not it actually results charges, because I think that will
(04:01):
help demonstrate that they're actually turning over every storet and
taking every effort possible.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Because because the argument that you're making there, basically bridget
is the old were they bad or just exercising bad judgment?
Speaker 3 (04:12):
Right?
Speaker 2 (04:12):
And you'd almost need an investigation to determine that, wouldn't.
Speaker 4 (04:15):
You, Yeah, Because otherwise they're essentially being able to apply
that judgment again to that question, and of course that's
not going to help rebuild any of that trust or
we felt on.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
This pension thing. The Herald is estimated that Gevin mcskimming
may get a pension of worth like a million bucks
or something. Is Richard Chambers right that there's nothing that
can be done to take the pension off him.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
I think he is right. He's done. Mc skimming did
twenty nine years with the police under the Police super Scheme,
so he's contributed to it, and the police have contributed
their share to it. And I don't think our justice
system enables.
Speaker 5 (04:47):
Us to.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Take account of bad acts by people and denying them
the money that they've put into a personal super scheme.
You know, I think he had opened up a real
can of worms if you were to do that. Although
every instinct in your body said, this guy.
Speaker 5 (05:06):
Was being paid half a million a year and spending
work time on his work computer watching Kenny child porn
and bestiality, and you're kind of your rage that you know,
this very senior person being paid so much was doing
this in breach of the law. Say, how the hell
can we remedy.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
That and get some justice but I think that under
the current law, I don't think that's possible, And before
you'd changed that law, you'd have to think of all
the repercussions of so doing fair.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
Point, Bridget, listen, is it obvious to you, like it
feels obvious to me that the leak of the fact
that we know that Richard Chamber has got a speeding
ticket is a strategic leak to show that he is
not made of the same stuff as these other cops.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (05:51):
Absolutely, And I think you talking about that in the
in his speech, his graduation speech demonstrates that he wants
to really overt that he has to these other police officers,
and I appaud him for that. I think this is
you know, he made a mistake and he owned up
to it.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
Yeah too, Right, Okay, we'll take a break. Come back
to you guys shortly, Bridget Molton, Phil Golf.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
Our huddle, the Huddle with New Zealand Southeby's international real team,
the only truly global brand.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Right, you're back of the huddle, Pill Golf and Bridget Moulton, Phil.
I want your take on the truancy. Is the drop
in attendance this year, the fault of the teachers who
did the strike on a Thursday, or the parents who
decided not to put their kids in school on the
friday thereafter.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
Well, I suspect strongly it's the latter, because leaving aside
the teachers strike that week, if you look back at
the history of truancy, you find that on the last
day of term the school attendants of kids drops, and
not even on the last day, not even on the friday.
It's Thursday and the Friday. And some of that is
families just deciding, well, we're going to go away for
(06:52):
holidays for the school holidays, and we won't book on
the Saturday because af fairs are really expensive during school holiday,
so we'll go before the end of the school year.
I think it feels to me a bit like a
bit of cheap politics, actually, And there's one other thing
I'd want to pick up, you know, David Semol was
blaming the teachers' unions. That kind of implies that the
(07:14):
teachers are all cheap and don't make their own mind up.
The decision to strike was a decision taken by the teachers,
So let's not do the union bashing thing. If you
don't like it and you want to blame somebody for it,
then you've got to say, well, it's the teachers that
made that decision. Don't bring in literally the red hearing
of saying it's the unions that are to blame. But
the teachers are really decent people, but they're being led
(07:36):
astray by their union. I think that's nonsense as.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Well, Bridget I've been very irritated by that strike, but
I think that the teachers might be right on this account.
It's actually the parents fault.
Speaker 4 (07:48):
Yeah, I mean, ultimately parents are sponsoredily to get their
kids to school, and then teachers for teaching when they're there.
So I think that's true. I mean, without a doubt
there are some parents who saw that as an opportunity
to take the Friday who might have taken it otherwise.
But yeah, ultimately for into results of the list.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Yeah, totally now Bridge it on the key we save
it for kids idea, good idea or bad idea.
Speaker 4 (08:07):
I really enjoy and appreciate sort of ideas to get
more of our kids saving and more financially literate. But
I think giving them a handout at birth when they've
got no ability to actually think about investment, I don't
think that really achieves it, and then ultimately they're just
incentivizing parents to contribute to that so that it'll be
parents that.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
Can It's all a clever way bridget of us getting
out of the pension one day.
Speaker 4 (08:27):
Well, I think more there's more settings that we can
deal with, and I think the government's changes to aid
funancial literacy to the education criculum was really important. But
also that change they made that employer contributions for sixteen
and seventeen year olds I think is really important because
that's actually when young people actually engaged with key we
Saver for the first time, and that actually advises them
a real incentive to actually put the money away and
(08:49):
start that habit which been encouragement to continue it. I
think those things are much more important than handouts the
baby all.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Right, hand babies. That is what it is though, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (09:01):
Yeah, Yeah, Look, I tend to agree. I like the
idea of kids being encouraged to save, and that's that's great,
But if it's not the kids saving at that point,
it's the parents putting the money in, and you know,
then the government, I think the idea was to match
the parents' contribution. What that might end up being as
a bit of a social welfare system for the middle
(09:23):
income people, because those that can't afford to save won't
be able to do it, and we're giving more money
to people from middle income backgrounds who arguably don't need it.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
It's also like, I mean, what is going on here, right,
We're constantly abdicating pairingal responsibility to the state. Whatever happened
to going and buying a money box in the shape
of a dinosaur and giving the kid a couple of
bucks for doing something good and you teach child that way?
Speaker 3 (09:46):
Phil, Yeah, well I'd be in favor of that.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
What did you do with your kids.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
Don't I don't think we opened a bank account for them.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
You have a money box though?
Speaker 3 (09:56):
Yeah? Yeah, we always had the money box, and you
know that was that was bit of fun for the kids.
And you know, if they did something good, you could say, well,
we're going to put some money in your money box.
And there was probably just coins. It wasn't a huge
amount of money, but it was. It was a symbolic thing.
And in the old days, of course, you used to
be you know, you join your kids up to the
post office savings bank and you know to go along.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
And you're in the nineteenth century, wasn't it, Bridgie, Brigitte.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
You would have had and Queen Victoria.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
Yeah, Bridget, you would have had the ASB elephant, wouldn't you.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
No, I'm not quite that young, but I mean it's
not Bridgit in the early forties.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
So I had the elephant. What are you talking about?
And you got the little book and then you had
to write your deposits and like you had to do
it manually with a pen. You didn't do that.
Speaker 4 (10:42):
Well, look, clearly I was deprived of that. But I
mean I definitely had a money box. But interestingly, we
recently tried to buy a moneybox on my nephew. He's
six years old. They're not actually easy to come by anymore.
I don't think they're as popular as they used to
bid you google it, I think.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
Google.
Speaker 4 (10:57):
We tried the old session you know, a shops localnic
me approach.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
You got to google it. Hey, guys, thanks for Bridget.
Go away and google it now and then text me
when you found it. You will have found it within
ten seconds. Bridget Morton, Frank's Ogilby and Phil GoF, former
labor leader and mayor of
Speaker 1 (11:12):
Auckland, For more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live
to News Talk se' B from four pm weekdays, or
follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
The huddle with New Zealand Southeby's International Realty, a name
you can trust locally and globally.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
On the huddle with me this evening, we have Bridget
Morton of Frank's Ogilvy and Phil GoF, former labor leader
and mayor of Auckland, amongst other things. Hire you too, goody,
good evening. Now, Bridget, you're a lawyer, so tell me.
Are you comfortable with police pressing new charges against the
woman at the center of the mix skimming case?
Speaker 3 (00:22):
No?
Speaker 4 (00:23):
Absolutely not. And I think this show is an inherent
flaw in this piece of legislation that it can often
be used and weaponized against speech that we do think
is true or needs to be public interest, or you know,
shouldn't be punishable in this way. And I think it
gives us a really good opportunity to re look at
that legislation and really determine actually whether or not it's
(00:43):
actually helping us or harming us.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Okay, so is your problem actually more with the legislation
than anything the fact it exists?
Speaker 4 (00:50):
Well, I think the fact that the way the legislation
is drafted clearly demonstrates that it can be used in
this way. I think we do want to have protections
for people from online harm. I think there's a lot
of bad things that can occur in that way. But
obviously when you've got an organization like this can use
it basically to cover up in a way to intimidate,
it shows that the legislation is not such a purpose.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
But what about the fact bridget that, I mean, we
don't know what she says. So the charges against the
mix gimming email charges have been dropped, but these are
fresh emails allegedly sent to a police officer and his
wife Rick. We don't know what was in them. That
maybe whatever is said and it may not be true, right,
So in that case, would that be fair?
Speaker 4 (01:29):
Yeah, I think there is obviously a line that needs
to be determined. But when you think about the wider context,
what we want is a situation where people can speak
up against power and can speak up when they are
in a situation. And it may be sometimes that that
what's the content that those emails may not be comfortable
to us or may be seen this's pushing too far,
but that's what we ask from our activists, from the
(01:51):
people that actually make change in this world.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
Yeah, what do you reckon film.
Speaker 3 (01:55):
Yeah, Look, she may well have been abusive in the
ten emails she's sent to the police officer and his
wife that was responsible for the prosecution against her, But
you've got to see it within the context of the
fact that she was not being listened to. Clearly under
the influence of nick skimming. It looked very much like
(02:16):
the police were protecting their own And you know, was
she angry. Of course she was angry, and she had
every right to be angry. I think in the overall
context of the damage that was done to her by
the failure to treat her fairly overwhelms the charge against
her that she may have been abusive to the detective
and his wife that were responsible for prosecuting her.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Okay, do you want to see an investigation to determine
whether something illegal has been done by these officers, phil.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
Well? I think the officers that are still in the police,
their careers will now be in jeopardy. They'll have no
future in the police. And the officers, including Andy Costa,
that now hold positions outside of police but still within
the public service, are not likely to be holding onto
(03:09):
those positions given the damaging the damage to their reputation
caused by what they did wrong. I don't know that
it was corruption. I know that the that the minister
said that if it walks like a duck and quacks
like a ducker, then it is a duck. I think
(03:30):
it's just seriously bad misjudgment on the part of Andy Costa,
and he has a price to pay for that.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
What do you reckon Bridge? Should there be an investigation?
Speaker 4 (03:41):
I think what needs to happen now is the police
need to rebuild some of the trust. I think that
you know, most New Zealanders will look at this and
be horrified that this is the police force that is
meant to uphold the integrity and standards of our society.
I think for them to be able to clear their names,
they have to do the investigation, regardless of whether or
not it actually results charges, because I think that will
(04:01):
help demonstrate that they're actually turning over every storet and
taking every effort possible.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Because because the argument that you're making there, basically bridget
is the old were they bad or just exercising bad judgment?
Speaker 3 (04:12):
Right?
Speaker 2 (04:12):
And you'd almost need an investigation to determine that, wouldn't.
Speaker 4 (04:15):
You, Yeah, Because otherwise they're essentially being able to apply
that judgment again to that question, and of course that's
not going to help rebuild any of that trust or
we felt on.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
This pension thing. The Herald is estimated that Gevin mcskimming
may get a pension of worth like a million bucks
or something. Is Richard Chambers right that there's nothing that
can be done to take the pension off him.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
I think he is right. He's done. Mc skimming did
twenty nine years with the police under the Police super Scheme,
so he's contributed to it, and the police have contributed
their share to it. And I don't think our justice
system enables.
Speaker 5 (04:47):
Us to.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Take account of bad acts by people and denying them
the money that they've put into a personal super scheme.
You know, I think he had opened up a real
can of worms if you were to do that. Although
every instinct in your body said, this guy.
Speaker 5 (05:06):
Was being paid half a million a year and spending
work time on his work computer watching Kenny child porn
and bestiality, and you're kind of your rage that you know,
this very senior person being paid so much was doing
this in breach of the law. Say, how the hell
can we remedy.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
That and get some justice but I think that under
the current law, I don't think that's possible, And before
you'd changed that law, you'd have to think of all
the repercussions of so doing fair.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
Point, Bridget, listen, is it obvious to you, like it
feels obvious to me that the leak of the fact
that we know that Richard Chamber has got a speeding
ticket is a strategic leak to show that he is
not made of the same stuff as these other cops.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (05:51):
Absolutely, And I think you talking about that in the
in his speech, his graduation speech demonstrates that he wants
to really overt that he has to these other police officers,
and I appaud him for that. I think this is
you know, he made a mistake and he owned up
to it.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
Yeah too, Right, Okay, we'll take a break. Come back
to you guys shortly, Bridget Molton, Phil Golf.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
Our huddle, the Huddle with New Zealand Southeby's international real team,
the only truly global brand.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Right, you're back of the huddle, Pill Golf and Bridget Moulton, Phil.
I want your take on the truancy. Is the drop
in attendance this year, the fault of the teachers who
did the strike on a Thursday, or the parents who
decided not to put their kids in school on the
friday thereafter.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
Well, I suspect strongly it's the latter, because leaving aside
the teachers strike that week, if you look back at
the history of truancy, you find that on the last
day of term the school attendants of kids drops, and
not even on the last day, not even on the friday.
It's Thursday and the Friday. And some of that is
families just deciding, well, we're going to go away for
(06:52):
holidays for the school holidays, and we won't book on
the Saturday because af fairs are really expensive during school holiday,
so we'll go before the end of the school year.
I think it feels to me a bit like a
bit of cheap politics, actually, And there's one other thing
I'd want to pick up, you know, David Semol was
blaming the teachers' unions. That kind of implies that the
(07:14):
teachers are all cheap and don't make their own mind up.
The decision to strike was a decision taken by the teachers,
So let's not do the union bashing thing. If you
don't like it and you want to blame somebody for it,
then you've got to say, well, it's the teachers that
made that decision. Don't bring in literally the red hearing
of saying it's the unions that are to blame. But
the teachers are really decent people, but they're being led
(07:36):
astray by their union. I think that's nonsense as.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Well, Bridget I've been very irritated by that strike, but
I think that the teachers might be right on this account.
It's actually the parents fault.
Speaker 4 (07:48):
Yeah, I mean, ultimately parents are sponsoredily to get their
kids to school, and then teachers for teaching when they're there.
So I think that's true. I mean, without a doubt
there are some parents who saw that as an opportunity
to take the Friday who might have taken it otherwise.
But yeah, ultimately for into results of the list.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Yeah, totally now Bridge it on the key we save
it for kids idea, good idea or bad idea.
Speaker 4 (08:07):
I really enjoy and appreciate sort of ideas to get
more of our kids saving and more financially literate. But
I think giving them a handout at birth when they've
got no ability to actually think about investment, I don't
think that really achieves it, and then ultimately they're just
incentivizing parents to contribute to that so that it'll be
parents that.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
Can It's all a clever way bridget of us getting
out of the pension one day.
Speaker 4 (08:27):
Well, I think more there's more settings that we can
deal with, and I think the government's changes to aid
funancial literacy to the education criculum was really important. But
also that change they made that employer contributions for sixteen
and seventeen year olds I think is really important because
that's actually when young people actually engaged with key we
Saver for the first time, and that actually advises them
a real incentive to actually put the money away and
(08:49):
start that habit which been encouragement to continue it. I
think those things are much more important than handouts the
baby all.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Right, hand babies. That is what it is though, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (09:01):
Yeah, Yeah, Look, I tend to agree. I like the
idea of kids being encouraged to save, and that's that's great,
But if it's not the kids saving at that point,
it's the parents putting the money in, and you know,
then the government, I think the idea was to match
the parents' contribution. What that might end up being as
a bit of a social welfare system for the middle
(09:23):
income people, because those that can't afford to save won't
be able to do it, and we're giving more money
to people from middle income backgrounds who arguably don't need it.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
It's also like, I mean, what is going on here, right,
We're constantly abdicating pairingal responsibility to the state. Whatever happened
to going and buying a money box in the shape
of a dinosaur and giving the kid a couple of
bucks for doing something good and you teach child that way?
Speaker 3 (09:46):
Phil, Yeah, well I'd be in favor of that.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
What did you do with your kids.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
Don't I don't think we opened a bank account for them.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
You have a money box though?
Speaker 3 (09:56):
Yeah? Yeah, we always had the money box, and you
know that was that was bit of fun for the kids.
And you know, if they did something good, you could say, well,
we're going to put some money in your money box.
And there was probably just coins. It wasn't a huge
amount of money, but it was. It was a symbolic thing.
And in the old days, of course, you used to
be you know, you join your kids up to the
post office savings bank and you know to go along.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
And you're in the nineteenth century, wasn't it, Bridgie, Brigitte.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
You would have had and Queen Victoria.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
Yeah, Bridget, you would have had the ASB elephant, wouldn't you.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
No, I'm not quite that young, but I mean it's
not Bridgit in the early forties.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
So I had the elephant. What are you talking about?
And you got the little book and then you had
to write your deposits and like you had to do
it manually with a pen. You didn't do that.
Speaker 4 (10:42):
Well, look, clearly I was deprived of that. But I
mean I definitely had a money box. But interestingly, we
recently tried to buy a moneybox on my nephew. He's
six years old. They're not actually easy to come by anymore.
I don't think they're as popular as they used to
bid you google it, I think.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
Google.
Speaker 4 (10:57):
We tried the old session you know, a shops localnic
me approach.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
You got to google it. Hey, guys, thanks for Bridget.
Go away and google it now and then text me
when you found it. You will have found it within
ten seconds. Bridget Morton, Frank's Ogilby and Phil GoF, former
labor leader and mayor of
Speaker 1 (11:12):
Auckland, For more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live
to News Talk se' B from four pm 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.
Medal of Honor: Stories of Courage
Rewarded for bravery that goes above and beyond the call of duty, the Medal of Honor is the United States’ top military decoration. The stories we tell are about the heroes who have distinguished themselves by acts of heroism and courage that have saved lives. From Judith Resnik, the second woman in space, to Daniel Daly, one of only 19 people to have received the Medal of Honor twice, these are stories about those who have done the improbable and unexpected, who have sacrificed something in the name of something much bigger than themselves. Every Wednesday on Medal of Honor, uncover what their experiences tell us about the nature of sacrifice, why people put their lives in danger for others, and what happens after you’ve become a hero. Special thanks to series creator Dan McGinn, to the Congressional Medal of Honor Society and Adam Plumpton. Medal of Honor begins on May 28. Subscribe to Pushkin+ to hear ad-free episodes one week early. Find Pushkin+ on the Medal of Honor show page in Apple or at Pushkin.fm. Subscribe on Apple: apple.co/pushkin Subscribe on Pushkin: pushkin.fm/plus
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