December 2, 2025 • 12 mins
The best military analyst on the airwaves, (Ret.) Maj. Mike Lyons joins A&G to share his thoughts on the Venezuela drug boat controversy.
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):
Find out what happened when, and you know what orders
were given. I think all the all the particulars. You
want to know what the facts are, and then you
want to compare that with the relevant and figure out,
you know, procedurally, you know, was the you know, the
correct lawful way to do things, and determine whether or
(00:22):
not that everything is followed.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Of course, we're talking about the second strike on the boat.
Turns out second, third, and fourth maybe strikes on the
boat off the coast of Venezuela, and whether or not
Pete Hegseth ordered it or not, and exactly what was ordered, when,
by whom, and whether it was legal. It's worth noting
that the voice you heard was Senator John Thune, the
Republican leader of the Senate. The very last is from
(00:47):
the New York Times, citing five US officials today that
hegzth called for the original strike but did not specify
what should happen if survivors remained. And then at Frank Bradley,
who you've now heard his name a lot, ultimately signed
off on the initial strike and several follow up strikes
(01:07):
that killed eleven people.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
Okay, interesting to gain a little perspective, we have invited
on the terrific Mike Lyons, military analyst who is also
I was happy to see writing for Real Clear Defense,
including a great piece about the possible Ukraine deal, which
we'll touch on in a minute. But first, Mike, welcome,
How are.
Speaker 4 (01:25):
You, hiy goo one of you guys. Thanks for having
me back.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
Trust you and the family had a great Thanksgiving? Could
do talk to you?
Speaker 4 (01:31):
Yeah, it was good.
Speaker 5 (01:32):
I didn't have my son home or my daughter home,
but hopefully well get him a Christmas time at this point,
so we locome forward to.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
Yeah, onto that part of life. Yeah, so, Mike, let's
talk a little bit about your impressions of the you know,
what is known thus far about the alleged targeting of survivors.
What do you think?
Speaker 5 (01:48):
Yeah, you know, so I've ordered this story for a
while because I just a lot of it as one
hundred percent politics. That video that was released, I guess
you know ten days ago, almost two weeks ago by
the Congressman and Senator is over you know, not fine,
not not obeying legal audors.
Speaker 4 (02:04):
I thought that pierced this veil.
Speaker 5 (02:05):
Between the military and the civilians like I've never seen
before and set this path on to where I think
we are today, and the fact that this mission is
being so scrutinized because I can give you multiple examples
of previous missions that and people have testified in front
of Congress about these kinds of double taps that we've
done in the past. But for now it's now reached
(02:27):
this hyperbolic boiling point over what's going on here.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Well, let's let's make sure we understand what you're saying.
Speaker 4 (02:34):
There.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Are you saying the sort of thing that is being
alleged here happens regularly.
Speaker 5 (02:38):
Well, no, first of all, nobody in the military is
committing war crimes, which is where this has gone to.
It's gone to, you know, we're murdering people that are
hanging off of you know, ship parts in the in
the Caribbean, out of the Pacific, or whatever the mission was.
I mean, you know, it's not like Robinson Caruso or
Rose hanging off the side of the Titanic here. I mean,
it's insane that we're having this conversation. And this is
(03:00):
a military target that the initial target was approved legally,
and the target is to be destroyed and destroyed means destroyed,
and so if the first target hits and there are
still survivors, and there's still a target in the water.
Speaker 4 (03:16):
Well, those survivors were.
Speaker 5 (03:17):
Still part of the original target to begin with, so
they are legal targets as well.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
So but this is all about context.
Speaker 5 (03:25):
It's all about what, you know, what what people want
to view and they want how they want to see this,
And from from my perspective, it's it's a shame. Now
we've seen the Secretary of Defense throw this over to
the SOCOM commander and this addle now will testify in
front of Congress. But these missions go on all the time.
They're approved legal, and once they are approved legal and
(03:47):
they start, it's pretty hard to bring that health fire
missile back.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
So there's a pretty good history, including the Nuremberg Trials,
of prosecutions for targeting survivors of an attack on a
ship who no longer posed any threat. Are you saying
this doesn't apply here or that's wrong or what?
Speaker 4 (04:05):
Yeah, I don't know enough about it. I have to
see a lot more.
Speaker 5 (04:08):
But sure we're not going to target sole survivors waving
their hands in the water, let's say, right, especially with
the health fire missile. And again I don't know what
visual is on them, and we're with seal Teams six
close to them. I mean, there's just so much information
that needs to come out that would figure out whether
or not. I mean, I saw this one report that
(04:31):
said maybe they thought that there was another boat in
the area and this boat could have came and picked
up some of the cargo of this ship.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (04:39):
Again, I haven't seen the battle damage assessment or anything,
but all I know is that so many different opinions
are being layered into this contextually that is now clouded
it to the point of we don't it's going to
get this mission accomplished, of stopping what they're trying to do.
I think it's a pure political situation that Democrats don't
(04:59):
want anything to do with what Trump is doing in
the Caribbean. I think he needs to say what that
strategy is. I still don't know what that is as well.
But this is not the way to do it, to
use the military, because basically, if he's going to accuse
hext of a war crime, if you're going to accuse
him of war crime, you're accusing everybody.
Speaker 4 (05:15):
To pull the trailer all the way down to who
fired that missile.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
Okay, just for the record, obviously, you know, we're not
engaging in hyperbole or trying to cloud new waters. In fact,
we're trying to do just the opposite and help people
understand what are the actual issues going on here.
Speaker 5 (05:28):
Yeah, so, yeah, no, I don't think you are. This
is again I avoided this just for this reason. I
think it's more political. I think it's a shame that
we're at this place that now the military is going
to be questioned about this going forward, We're going to
drag this admiral and into this political hearing and this
is all about getting Secretary heccess frankly from my perspective
(05:49):
and interesting. So it just seems too close to the
video that was released ten days ago to have this
situation come up right now.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
Yeah, we wondered about that yesterday. The timing seems pretty
sis vicious exactly.
Speaker 5 (06:01):
And then the initial Washington Post article now has proven wrong.
When the New York Times is throwing the Washington Post
off under the bus over there, then you know something
is up.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
So is your take? And I just want to make
sure I completely understand what you're saying is that we
are entering into getting way too loyally on this sort
of thing, or much more lawyerly than we usually are
in reality, you know, in a war situation.
Speaker 5 (06:28):
Well, my take is that I think they decided that
these are legal targets, and they are their military targets
as they've been declared narco terrorists and enemies of the state,
and each one is evaluated separately with regard to how
they're going to take it out and what they want
to do, and what the definition of destroyed means. And
(06:49):
I think that once the initial shot was fired then
and if that was determined legal, then any shot fired
after it is determined legal as well. Again, I got
to think there's not a video and audio of haig
Sets standing up saying kill them all and all these
other things that are coming out of this. I mean,
it's just not the case the people, you know. I
(07:10):
had a chance to talk to some of the former
JASCK commanders the last few days, and they wanted me
to reiterate to everybody that the people that are on
these missions are professionals and they're doing things exactly by
the book. And if they thought for one second so
that was an illegal target or they were there were survivors,
and the fact that they thought that the target wasn't destroyed,
(07:30):
they wouldn't have fired. Again, why did in a couple
of weeks later we turned two people back over to
this to the host country.
Speaker 4 (07:36):
Why did that happen?
Speaker 5 (07:37):
Well, they must have thought that situation was different from this.
I'm sure that would be explained in the Senate Armed
Services Committee. But the professionals in the military are looking
at every single aspect and there's just no way they
were going to fire on a target that wasn't legal.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
All right, well said, we will wait for more facts
to come out. Now to your piece about the still
taking shape Ukraine deal, I thought the way you framed
it was so interesting that it's not exactly a peace treaty.
It's more a Korean style armistice or freeze. Tell us
about that.
Speaker 5 (08:07):
Yeah, it's a freeze, and you know the you know,
it's a classic trading land for some kind of freedom
or immediate relief from stopping the war. We all want
the war to stop, but there's no guarantees of what's
specifically what that means without NATO being involved, for example,
I still don't believe Russia will accept anything, any peace
(08:29):
agreement or any agreement that they come to right now anyway.
And I'll kind of put this out preemptively because it's
going to forest United States to try to create more
leverage at some point. But if they did, if they
did accept what what's currently on their table right now,
all it does is going to set up round two
at some point. I mean, it's it's appeasement to try
to stop a world we're you know that nineteen thirty eight.
Let's say that was kind of appeasement to try to
(08:50):
keep a war from happening. This is the flips it
on it's head. It's Korea nineteen fifty three in the
same regard. That will create a DMZ, and we'll create
this line, but it can always be restarted. And I
just don't believe this is good for the long term
of Eastern Europe, and I don't think it's in the
long term interest in the United States.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
We were wondering yesterday, why would Putin quit If you're Russia,
with Russia's goals, would you keep prosecuting the war?
Speaker 4 (09:15):
Exactly?
Speaker 5 (09:16):
Not for one second would I quit. So that's the thing.
And there's the battlefield math has not changed. There's nothing
differently on the battlefield. In fact, the Russians have caught
up with the Ukrainians when it comes to their drone technology.
It's incredible the five or optic drones that are being
used right now, and they're tethered and there, they're ubicuous
to the weather and and they're not impervious to electronic warfare.
(09:40):
You know, we need to be paying close attention. I
know we are at the military academy this because we've
got a leaf fraud this technology. We can't be satisfied
with what's good enough on the battlefield right now. We've
got to be looking over the horizon and figuring out
what it's going to take, what the drone technology looks
like on the next battlefield, because because right now it's
very very advanced right now, and the Russians have caught
right up with the Ukrainians it right.
Speaker 3 (10:01):
And final point on the comparison with Korea, the thing
that bothers me is somebody who's been standing up for
Ukraine is that unlike the Korean deal where you got
your demilitarized zone, but then everybody's armed to the teeth
on both sides of it. Yeah, this is calling for
Ukraine to more or less disarmed to weaken their own
military and become a just It wouldn't take ten minutes
(10:22):
for Putin to violate the agreement and beat the hell
out of Ukraine, take even more land a year or
two hence, so exactly.
Speaker 5 (10:28):
They would have interior lines. They would take land that
they haven't conquered yet. You know, in Korea we poured
in forty five thousand troops. There's ten thousand artillery rounds,
you know, targeting each other right now, that's a tinderbox
on some level, and we've talked about that and before,
but this in particular would be it would clearly lead
to a round two at some point unless NATO, for example,
(10:50):
provided an air defense umbrella over Ukraine that guaranteed all
missiles coming from Russia would be shot down, perhaps a
no fly zone, although a no fly zone is technically
an active.
Speaker 4 (11:01):
And what are the troops? Where do the troops come from?
Speaker 5 (11:03):
So NATO has to be in the game or the
or NATO countries have got to be in the game
from a security perspective, or to execut your point, they
would roll right through Ukraine once this they were disarmed.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
Military analyst Mike Lyons will post his piece for from
real clear defense at Armstrong and Getty dot com. Mike,
really interesting perspective. Thanks so much for the time.
Speaker 5 (11:23):
Yeah, great guys, thanks for having Thanks for having this
kind of conversation. I'm not sure other people are having it,
and I think it's important to recognize that our military
is professional and not murdering people in the water. I
just think I just want to make that point clear.
Speaker 3 (11:35):
Yeah, we'd probably be better off pandering, but we're too
stubborn to do it. So anyway, Thanks Mike, great to
talk to you.
Speaker 4 (11:41):
Great guys, great out here.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
So do these two things go together, though, that our
military is professional and we're not in the business of
murdering people in the water, and things aren't quite as
delineated as you think they are in TV shows or
whatever around these issues.
Speaker 3 (12:01):
Well, and to what extent is a drug cartel an
enemy force? In to what extent we're are we at war?
Because that's there's an underlying set of questions before we
even get to the specifics.
Speaker 4 (12:12):
Armstrong and Getty
Find out what happened when, and you know what orders
were given. I think all the all the particulars. You
want to know what the facts are, and then you
want to compare that with the relevant and figure out,
you know, procedurally, you know, was the you know, the
correct lawful way to do things, and determine whether or
(00:22):
not that everything is followed.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Of course, we're talking about the second strike on the boat.
Turns out second, third, and fourth maybe strikes on the
boat off the coast of Venezuela, and whether or not
Pete Hegseth ordered it or not, and exactly what was ordered, when,
by whom, and whether it was legal. It's worth noting
that the voice you heard was Senator John Thune, the
Republican leader of the Senate. The very last is from
(00:47):
the New York Times, citing five US officials today that
hegzth called for the original strike but did not specify
what should happen if survivors remained. And then at Frank Bradley,
who you've now heard his name a lot, ultimately signed
off on the initial strike and several follow up strikes
(01:07):
that killed eleven people.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
Okay, interesting to gain a little perspective, we have invited
on the terrific Mike Lyons, military analyst who is also
I was happy to see writing for Real Clear Defense,
including a great piece about the possible Ukraine deal, which
we'll touch on in a minute. But first, Mike, welcome,
How are.
Speaker 4 (01:25):
You, hiy goo one of you guys. Thanks for having
me back.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
Trust you and the family had a great Thanksgiving? Could
do talk to you?
Speaker 4 (01:31):
Yeah, it was good.
Speaker 5 (01:32):
I didn't have my son home or my daughter home,
but hopefully well get him a Christmas time at this point,
so we locome forward to.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
Yeah, onto that part of life. Yeah, so, Mike, let's
talk a little bit about your impressions of the you know,
what is known thus far about the alleged targeting of survivors.
What do you think?
Speaker 5 (01:48):
Yeah, you know, so I've ordered this story for a
while because I just a lot of it as one
hundred percent politics. That video that was released, I guess
you know ten days ago, almost two weeks ago by
the Congressman and Senator is over you know, not fine,
not not obeying legal audors.
Speaker 4 (02:04):
I thought that pierced this veil.
Speaker 5 (02:05):
Between the military and the civilians like I've never seen
before and set this path on to where I think
we are today, and the fact that this mission is
being so scrutinized because I can give you multiple examples
of previous missions that and people have testified in front
of Congress about these kinds of double taps that we've
done in the past. But for now it's now reached
(02:27):
this hyperbolic boiling point over what's going on here.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Well, let's let's make sure we understand what you're saying.
Speaker 4 (02:34):
There.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Are you saying the sort of thing that is being
alleged here happens regularly.
Speaker 5 (02:38):
Well, no, first of all, nobody in the military is
committing war crimes, which is where this has gone to.
It's gone to, you know, we're murdering people that are
hanging off of you know, ship parts in the in
the Caribbean, out of the Pacific, or whatever the mission was.
I mean, you know, it's not like Robinson Caruso or
Rose hanging off the side of the Titanic here. I mean,
it's insane that we're having this conversation. And this is
(03:00):
a military target that the initial target was approved legally,
and the target is to be destroyed and destroyed means destroyed,
and so if the first target hits and there are
still survivors, and there's still a target in the water.
Speaker 4 (03:16):
Well, those survivors were.
Speaker 5 (03:17):
Still part of the original target to begin with, so
they are legal targets as well.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
So but this is all about context.
Speaker 5 (03:25):
It's all about what, you know, what what people want
to view and they want how they want to see this,
And from from my perspective, it's it's a shame. Now
we've seen the Secretary of Defense throw this over to
the SOCOM commander and this addle now will testify in
front of Congress. But these missions go on all the time.
They're approved legal, and once they are approved legal and
(03:47):
they start, it's pretty hard to bring that health fire
missile back.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
So there's a pretty good history, including the Nuremberg Trials,
of prosecutions for targeting survivors of an attack on a
ship who no longer posed any threat. Are you saying
this doesn't apply here or that's wrong or what?
Speaker 4 (04:05):
Yeah, I don't know enough about it. I have to
see a lot more.
Speaker 5 (04:08):
But sure we're not going to target sole survivors waving
their hands in the water, let's say, right, especially with
the health fire missile. And again I don't know what
visual is on them, and we're with seal Teams six
close to them. I mean, there's just so much information
that needs to come out that would figure out whether
or not. I mean, I saw this one report that
(04:31):
said maybe they thought that there was another boat in
the area and this boat could have came and picked
up some of the cargo of this ship.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (04:39):
Again, I haven't seen the battle damage assessment or anything,
but all I know is that so many different opinions
are being layered into this contextually that is now clouded
it to the point of we don't it's going to
get this mission accomplished, of stopping what they're trying to do.
I think it's a pure political situation that Democrats don't
(04:59):
want anything to do with what Trump is doing in
the Caribbean. I think he needs to say what that
strategy is. I still don't know what that is as well.
But this is not the way to do it, to
use the military, because basically, if he's going to accuse
hext of a war crime, if you're going to accuse
him of war crime, you're accusing everybody.
Speaker 4 (05:15):
To pull the trailer all the way down to who
fired that missile.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
Okay, just for the record, obviously, you know, we're not
engaging in hyperbole or trying to cloud new waters. In fact,
we're trying to do just the opposite and help people
understand what are the actual issues going on here.
Speaker 5 (05:28):
Yeah, so, yeah, no, I don't think you are. This
is again I avoided this just for this reason. I
think it's more political. I think it's a shame that
we're at this place that now the military is going
to be questioned about this going forward, We're going to
drag this admiral and into this political hearing and this
is all about getting Secretary heccess frankly from my perspective
(05:49):
and interesting. So it just seems too close to the
video that was released ten days ago to have this
situation come up right now.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
Yeah, we wondered about that yesterday. The timing seems pretty
sis vicious exactly.
Speaker 5 (06:01):
And then the initial Washington Post article now has proven wrong.
When the New York Times is throwing the Washington Post
off under the bus over there, then you know something
is up.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
So is your take? And I just want to make
sure I completely understand what you're saying is that we
are entering into getting way too loyally on this sort
of thing, or much more lawyerly than we usually are
in reality, you know, in a war situation.
Speaker 5 (06:28):
Well, my take is that I think they decided that
these are legal targets, and they are their military targets
as they've been declared narco terrorists and enemies of the state,
and each one is evaluated separately with regard to how
they're going to take it out and what they want
to do, and what the definition of destroyed means. And
(06:49):
I think that once the initial shot was fired then
and if that was determined legal, then any shot fired
after it is determined legal as well. Again, I got
to think there's not a video and audio of haig
Sets standing up saying kill them all and all these
other things that are coming out of this. I mean,
it's just not the case the people, you know. I
(07:10):
had a chance to talk to some of the former
JASCK commanders the last few days, and they wanted me
to reiterate to everybody that the people that are on
these missions are professionals and they're doing things exactly by
the book. And if they thought for one second so
that was an illegal target or they were there were survivors,
and the fact that they thought that the target wasn't destroyed,
(07:30):
they wouldn't have fired. Again, why did in a couple
of weeks later we turned two people back over to
this to the host country.
Speaker 4 (07:36):
Why did that happen?
Speaker 5 (07:37):
Well, they must have thought that situation was different from this.
I'm sure that would be explained in the Senate Armed
Services Committee. But the professionals in the military are looking
at every single aspect and there's just no way they
were going to fire on a target that wasn't legal.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
All right, well said, we will wait for more facts
to come out. Now to your piece about the still
taking shape Ukraine deal, I thought the way you framed
it was so interesting that it's not exactly a peace treaty.
It's more a Korean style armistice or freeze. Tell us
about that.
Speaker 5 (08:07):
Yeah, it's a freeze, and you know the you know,
it's a classic trading land for some kind of freedom
or immediate relief from stopping the war. We all want
the war to stop, but there's no guarantees of what's
specifically what that means without NATO being involved, for example,
I still don't believe Russia will accept anything, any peace
(08:29):
agreement or any agreement that they come to right now anyway.
And I'll kind of put this out preemptively because it's
going to forest United States to try to create more
leverage at some point. But if they did, if they
did accept what what's currently on their table right now,
all it does is going to set up round two
at some point. I mean, it's it's appeasement to try
to stop a world we're you know that nineteen thirty eight.
Let's say that was kind of appeasement to try to
(08:50):
keep a war from happening. This is the flips it
on it's head. It's Korea nineteen fifty three in the
same regard. That will create a DMZ, and we'll create
this line, but it can always be restarted. And I
just don't believe this is good for the long term
of Eastern Europe, and I don't think it's in the
long term interest in the United States.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
We were wondering yesterday, why would Putin quit If you're Russia,
with Russia's goals, would you keep prosecuting the war?
Speaker 4 (09:15):
Exactly?
Speaker 5 (09:16):
Not for one second would I quit. So that's the thing.
And there's the battlefield math has not changed. There's nothing
differently on the battlefield. In fact, the Russians have caught
up with the Ukrainians when it comes to their drone technology.
It's incredible the five or optic drones that are being
used right now, and they're tethered and there, they're ubicuous
to the weather and and they're not impervious to electronic warfare.
(09:40):
You know, we need to be paying close attention. I
know we are at the military academy this because we've
got a leaf fraud this technology. We can't be satisfied
with what's good enough on the battlefield right now. We've
got to be looking over the horizon and figuring out
what it's going to take, what the drone technology looks
like on the next battlefield, because because right now it's
very very advanced right now, and the Russians have caught
right up with the Ukrainians it right.
Speaker 3 (10:01):
And final point on the comparison with Korea, the thing
that bothers me is somebody who's been standing up for
Ukraine is that unlike the Korean deal where you got
your demilitarized zone, but then everybody's armed to the teeth
on both sides of it. Yeah, this is calling for
Ukraine to more or less disarmed to weaken their own
military and become a just It wouldn't take ten minutes
(10:22):
for Putin to violate the agreement and beat the hell
out of Ukraine, take even more land a year or
two hence, so exactly.
Speaker 5 (10:28):
They would have interior lines. They would take land that
they haven't conquered yet. You know, in Korea we poured
in forty five thousand troops. There's ten thousand artillery rounds,
you know, targeting each other right now, that's a tinderbox
on some level, and we've talked about that and before,
but this in particular would be it would clearly lead
to a round two at some point unless NATO, for example,
(10:50):
provided an air defense umbrella over Ukraine that guaranteed all
missiles coming from Russia would be shot down, perhaps a
no fly zone, although a no fly zone is technically
an active.
Speaker 4 (11:01):
And what are the troops? Where do the troops come from?
Speaker 5 (11:03):
So NATO has to be in the game or the
or NATO countries have got to be in the game
from a security perspective, or to execut your point, they
would roll right through Ukraine once this they were disarmed.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
Military analyst Mike Lyons will post his piece for from
real clear defense at Armstrong and Getty dot com. Mike,
really interesting perspective. Thanks so much for the time.
Speaker 5 (11:23):
Yeah, great guys, thanks for having Thanks for having this
kind of conversation. I'm not sure other people are having it,
and I think it's important to recognize that our military
is professional and not murdering people in the water. I
just think I just want to make that point clear.
Speaker 3 (11:35):
Yeah, we'd probably be better off pandering, but we're too
stubborn to do it. So anyway, Thanks Mike, great to
talk to you.
Speaker 4 (11:41):
Great guys, great out here.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
So do these two things go together, though, that our
military is professional and we're not in the business of
murdering people in the water, and things aren't quite as
delineated as you think they are in TV shows or
whatever around these issues.
Speaker 3 (12:01):
Well, and to what extent is a drug cartel an
enemy force? In to what extent we're are we at war?
Because that's there's an underlying set of questions before we
even get to the specifics.
Speaker 4 (12:12):
Armstrong and Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
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.
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
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.