Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is a podcast from WOR Now, the WOR Saturday
Morning Show.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Here's Larry Minty.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Good morning, and welcome to Saturday Morning. On this week's show,
the bogus Donald Trump real estate case is before a
state appellate court and it's been a long time since
we got a ruling, almost a year. We'll talk with
Ariy Hoffman from The New York Sun, who has been
covering the case, and a bombshell this week when a
court orders that the man convicted of killing Aton Pates
(00:31):
will be either released from prison or he'll get a
new trial, and correspondent Aaron Katersky tells us what happens next.
It is the video that has captured the attention of
the world. A couple from work, a married CEO and
the head of HR, are caught on a kiss cam
at a concert. HR expert Greg g and Grande is
(00:53):
here to tell us how a company handles that, and finally,
WOR host Jimmy Fayla, a former cab driver, is here
to talk about driverless cabs invading the city. But first
Ariy Hoffman, associate editor of The New York Sun, on
the appeal of that ridiculous five hundred million dollar ruling
(01:15):
against Donald Trump in the bogused real estate lawsuit brought
by Attorney General Letitia James. Good morning, Airy.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
Good morning, Hey ariy A.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
You know, the first time we talked, the first time
I'd reached out to you, was on this story. I
don't know if you remember, but it was. It was
months and months ago. And even at that time, I
was asking you, what is the hold up? And we're
talking about the appeal of the real estate fraud case
where Donald Trump had this ridiculous penalty of half a
(01:48):
billion dollars when Letitia James brought this case and it
seemed like it was absurd from the beginning, and yet
here we are now is went to an appellate court
and we don't have a ruling yet. What is the
hold up?
Speaker 3 (02:03):
Sure? Absolutely, Larry, you were on this story and the
mystery has only deepened. We're coming up now on close
to a year now without a verdict on whether the
five hundred at this point million dollars fraud verdict imposed
by Judge angering On will be overturned. You know, virtually
(02:27):
everyone Larry who is in that hearing reported on that
appeal said that five judge panel was deeply skeptical of
Judge anger On and with Sisia James, you know, they
likened it to a commercial dispute. They said it was
a mended it was troubling. Those are all quotes and
yet radio silence since. And usually with these appeals they're
(02:51):
decided about within a month, so now we're at ten
times that length. So something strange is going on here.
There's been some speculation that the presiding judge of that
court maybe is holding this up. Maybe the judges are
internally divided and sort of deadlocked. But it's a very
(03:14):
strange situation that, as you mentioned, really Larry, you were
one of the first people on this, uh isn't really
being covered?
Speaker 1 (03:21):
Well, I just watched the hearing like you did, and
when you looked at the hearing, you were going, oh
my god, they they're really going after the State Attorney
General's office. At one point, Ery they thought that the
ruling was so ridiculous. They were talking about sanctions that
that was one of the judges. I'm not talking for
the entire panel, but it seemed like several of the
(03:44):
justices were upset with the ruling. That's why we thought
there was going to be something before this, but.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
No, yeah, and you know you have to remember the
stakes here. I mean this, you know, this judgment, you know,
was a product of Leticia James vowing during her campaign
to go after Trump, to shine a light on every
little looking cranny of his business dealings. It was really
a body blow to his whole career, right, And so
(04:11):
you have to imagine that a reversal on this would
not only be a huge setback for Letitia James, but
also a real boost to the president. So you know,
if you're kind of just gaming it out here, you'd say,
you know, if they were likely to overturn the verdict,
you know, maybe there's one judge being a stick in
(04:31):
them on it doesn't want to give Trump that victory.
But I mean, at a certain point, you know, how
long can you delay justice? Right? Famous line? Justice delayed
is justice denied? And at some point the court has
to come back because either side is going to want
to appeal that to the New York's highest appellate court,
(04:53):
which they call, confusingly, the Court of Appeals. So this
story isn't over, but it's really hit hit a road block.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
Well, and I think you're exactly right, because it was
pretty obvious, and just to fill people in and what
happened at that hearing. The judges kept asking if a
case like this has ever been filed before, and they
had to admit no. And they said, well, let let
me understand who was damaged? Who were the people of
New York City damaged? And they and the attorneys had
(05:21):
to say no. And then they said, but he paid
everything back right on time with interest, and they said yes.
And one judge finally and I know you saw this area.
One judge finally said, We've never had a case like
this in history where there's no victim, there's no damages,
(05:42):
and the people of the of the city of New
York were never touched by this or didn't even know
about it, So why would you bring charges against this man?
That's how bad it got, right.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
And you know, it also is worth you know, reminding people,
this was not a case brought by the lenders, right,
This was not a case brought by the banks mostly
that Trump was doing business with, So they didn't bring
a civil complaint. This was a complaint initiated by the state, right,
initiated initiated by with Fisia James. So I'm overwhelmingly agree
(06:20):
with you, Larry that you know, it's a five judge panel.
There are at least three judges there who I think
would be, you know, come down on this for the president.
So the question is, you know, is there being is
there a kind of you know, block or an obstruction
(06:40):
happening within the court refusing to release the decision is
a decision written? I mean, I think that people deserve
some transparency on this, right is it it? Has a
decision been drafted? Is just not being released or have
they not even gone that far?
Speaker 1 (06:57):
No, it is a mystery, and you have to wonder
because the case, as you pointed out, was bizarre from
the beginning the hearing, the court case itself was bizarre.
And and person after person that he got the loan
from or got loans in the bass that you know,
he's always paid back in time. Nobody felt like a victim.
(07:19):
It was a victimless crime, and and and yet he was.
He had to pay half a billion dollars.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
Yeah, they were not only that penalty, but you know,
also the imposition of an independent monitor in the in
the heart of the Trump organization and various bands on
conducting business in New York that's targeted not only Trump
but also you know, his two oldest sons. So this
was really, uh, you know, a missile aimed at the
heart of of of the Trump enterprise. And and like
(07:50):
you said, uh, you know, those judges look at this
five hundred billion dollars and just if iment and just said,
you know, yeah, this is this is unreasonable.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
They said that time and time again. Ery Hoffman, Associate
editor of The New York Sun go to the New
York Sun dot com. He's all over this story. Thank
you so much. Eric. When we come back, what would
you do if you worked in HR and the CEO
of your company and your boss in HR are caught
very publicly having an affair, Well ask Greg g and
(08:19):
Grande HR and career advice expert.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Next, here's Larry Minty with more of the WR Saturday
Morning Show.
Speaker 1 (08:28):
Let's get the Greg g and Grande career advice expert.
You can check them out at go to Greg dot com.
Greg joins us every Wednesday at nine to thirty five.
A whole lot to talk about. I thought about you
when I saw the viral moment, the Coldplay viral moment
with the CEO and the person in charge of HR
(08:50):
in an embrace because they were having an affair. What
were your first thoughts? I mean you look at that
at a different angle than I do. What were your
first thoughts when you found out who they were and
about that moment?
Speaker 4 (09:05):
Well, first, please clarify when you say that you thought
of me, because I would never I would never do
such a thing. But I did. I have an immediate reaction.
It's like, of all of the spectacular career crash and
(09:30):
burns that I have witnessed throughout my career, this definitely
is in the pantheon of like one of the most
epic that. Well, here we are a week later, still
talking about it, and it will be referenced for many
years to come. It's you know. And then I also
(09:51):
thought of a few things, like it's no surprise that
co workers are having an affair. I mean what according
to most surveys, here's is something. It's just what percentage
of employees admit to having an affair at work? A
sexual encounter at work?
Speaker 1 (10:09):
When you're talking about affair, that means one of them
is married or are we just.
Speaker 4 (10:12):
Talking about have had have had have had sex with
a coworker?
Speaker 1 (10:17):
Oh, eighty. What, well, I come from the TV news world.
It's different.
Speaker 4 (10:26):
We're not goodness, We're not We're not talking about like
porn hubs. Yeah well, now it's not going to have
any impact. But when you when you when you talk
about affairs, right, like one of them is married. The
(10:50):
number is still high. It's it's more than twenty percent
of people say that they have had an affair with
a coworker.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
Like again, I'm sorry, I was still was still a
little hazy. I was reminiscing, but go ahead, what was
that number? One more time?
Speaker 4 (11:09):
It's as much as twenty five percent of employees who
admit that they have cheated on their spouse with a coworker.
Speaker 1 (11:19):
That's people that are telling the truth. They admit it
is a strong word.
Speaker 4 (11:25):
Well yeah, well, and that's the saying they've cheated with
a coworker. It doesn't mean that they haven't, you know,
cheated with other people as well. But the point is
there's a lot of sex going on at work, or
at least between people who work together. But in some cases, yes,
I have caught people doing that at work. It's so
that's not surprising. What's surprising is how indiscreete people are.
(11:50):
It's almost like they don't care if they get caught
or or they want to get caught. I can't get
into psychoanalyzing why some people do some of the things
they do. And I'm not being judgmental, you know, consenting
adults like you know, you do what you want to
do and then you take the risks and you pay
the price. And if you're willing to do that, okay.
(12:12):
But there's no way either one of them, you know,
their jobs could have survived. Of course, the CEO had
to resign, and you haven't heard anything about the head
of HR. That's because her lawyer is working out a deal.
I don't know this firsthand, but I know exactly what's
going on. Her lawyer is negotiating. You know, he was
the boss. There's so many different things we don't know
(12:34):
about the story and the relationship of course that I'm
sure she's trying to negotiate as good an exit as
she can.
Speaker 5 (12:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
I don't want to cut them any slack at all.
I think what they've did was abhorrent. However, the chances
of you saying you have to be careful and you
have to watch out the chances of being caught on
a kiss cam at a Cold Play concert when you're
like up in the third level are minuscule. Are absolutely minuscule.
And as we've talked about several times, it was their reaction.
(13:07):
Had they not reacted at all, they'd be fine.
Speaker 4 (13:10):
It was this shack no one would have known. But
and so you know, I don't know that I can
give advice on you know, what to do if you get.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
Caught, Like, come on, try.
Speaker 5 (13:25):
Help.
Speaker 4 (13:27):
It is normal for a CEO and a CHR to
be embracing at a concert. Don't lot if you get caught.
Don't act like you're doing something wrong.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
Yeah, since your nature you would know from personal Yeah,
that's exactly You're right. What hell else are you going
to react? The person that posted the video said, had
they just been normal, I wouldn't even have posted the video.
It was the reaction that had me do that. I
know you have a strong reaction. We were talking about
dogs at work. You have a strong reaction to this one,
(14:00):
is it?
Speaker 4 (14:01):
I love animals. Dogs belong at home in a yard,
but not at work. It's hard enough to live with
neighbors who have dogs from like, you know, vicious little
chiualas to pitbulls. Imagine bringing that collection of animals to
an office. It shouldn't be done. No employers should agree
(14:23):
to that. It may sound cool, you might be able
to hire a few extra gen zers, but you're going
to lose more talent than you're going to gain.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
Yeah, real quick. What about a four day work week?
Good thing, bad thing?
Speaker 4 (14:37):
Well, I think hybrid is going to make that a
moot point because what that means is people want more
flexibility by having three days off, and I think you
can accommodate that, which where most employers that do now
by having more flexibility built into working in the office
and working from home. So I don't think that's going
to become a norm.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
Greg gim Grande career advice expert. You can check I'm
out go to Greg dot com. Greg joins us every
Wednesday at nine thirty five. Greg, thanks a lot, good
to talk to you.
Speaker 4 (15:07):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
When six year old Aton Pates went missing in New
York City in nineteen seventy nine, it was a national story. Finally,
seventeen years later, police thought they had their man, but
now he may be released from prison, ABC corresponded. Aaron
Katersky explains, here again is Larry Minty with the wr
(15:28):
Saturday Morning show, Welcome Back. It was a story that
captured the attention in hearts of the country. In nineteen
seventy nine, a six year old boy disappears without a
trace from the straits of Manhattan. That started the missing
child database and put missing children on the back of
milk cartons. And then in twenty fourteen, police finally found
(15:50):
the man they believed killed Aton, or so they thought.
ABC corresponded, Aaron Katersky explains why all these years later,
Pedro Hernandez may walk free. Aaron, thanks so much for
being with us this morning. Appreciate your time. I never
went through that fifty two page decision, but I'm sure
(16:13):
you have. What is in there? What does it says?
They as they built to this decision.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
So the second Circuit, Larry has said that the trial
judge Max Wiley made an error when during jury deliberations,
jurors sent a note asking about Pedro Hernandez's confessions. Remember,
he confessed effectively twice. The first time he did it
before police read him as Miranda rights. And that's a
(16:45):
mistake and he should have been mirandized. The second time.
He did it on video after his rights were read,
and the jury was wondering, if they don't believe the
first con confession was proper, do they automatically have to
disregard the second confession? And Judge Wiley answered no without
(17:11):
any further explanation, And the Federal Appeals Court said that
that instruction was clearly wrong and it was manifestly prejudicial.
And so the court has ordered Pedro Hernandez get released
or retried by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, which is
now reviewing the decision.
Speaker 1 (17:29):
Do we have any idea what they may do? We
have a whole new set of prosecutors now, do we
know which way from maybe past cases or what they've
talked about in this case that they may decide?
Speaker 2 (17:43):
You know, the only I think comparable reversal may be
Harvey Weinstein, and in that case, Alvin Bragg opted to
retry Harvey Weinstein with a mixed result. Here, of course,
the circumstances are different. Pedro Hernandez has already served thirteen
years of a twenty five year to life sentence. The
(18:07):
Pates family stand Paige. He moved away to Hawaii, thinking
that justice had finally been served Larry, and so whether
he wants to go through what would be a third trial.
Remember the first trial ended with a hung jury, second
one ended with this conviction. There's a lot for prosecutors
(18:28):
to consider, and of course they they opt for a
different route, which is to challenge the appellate court and
maybe take it, try to take it to the US
Supreme Court.
Speaker 1 (18:39):
I remember at the time there were some questions about
the arrest too, because of the mental competency of that.
There was discussed at the time of Pedro Hernandez. Tell
us about that.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
Well, remember how it all started, that the NYPD ended
up digging up a basement in Soho and at the
time prosecutors kind of thought that was a waste of
time then really end up finding anything. But it did
have an effect in that it kind of shook the
trees a little bit, and a relative of Pedro Hernandez
and someone in his church community ended up coming forward
(19:13):
to police to say, hey, this guy who had not
been on the radar ended up confessing to the crime
and said he did it. And when he was talking
to the authorities, he gave details that they believed at
the time only someone who actually committed the crime would
(19:34):
have known, and so they were quite excited about it
because it was a break in the case that had
effectively gone dormant. There was this other guy they'd been
looking at. He wasn't the guy, so there was some excitement.
The Federal Appeals Court did, however, that Pedro Hernandez does
have a low IQ. There were questions about his competency,
(19:55):
and even jurors at the time said it was not
an open and shut but they believed the confession because
it was on video, and that was too much at
the time for Hernandez to overcome.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
Right. I brought up the mental competency for this reason
because before they put it on video, Before they put
that confession on video, they spent seven hours with him,
and I guess there is this suspicion that they talked
him into this, that they spent so much time on him,
with him and he and he, and he wasn't with
(20:30):
it enough to realize what was happening until they finally
convinced him he did it.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
So and and that's one of the reasons I think
why the Federal appeals Court said that the trial judge,
you know, made an error in his instruction that it's
the tactic that the law is meant to correct. They
don't want police talking to a suspect before he's read
his rights and then you know, read him his rights
(20:56):
and lo and behold, look what happens. So so prosecutors
ended up coming into the interview and they I think
it's called attenuation where they have to wait a certain
number of hours before they can talk to a suspect
again to make sure the confession is proper. So this
(21:18):
went on like all day, all night, and they you know,
they fed him, they had to give him meals, they
had to step away from him, they had to let
him just be for a good while before they could
flip on the video camera and start asking him questions again. So,
in theory, the confession that was on video was legally proper,
(21:43):
but what preceded it is it was not. And you know,
the prosecutors knew that going in, and perhaps the judges
instructions should have been a little clearer to the jury.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
Aaron Katski, Chief investigative correspondent at ABC News. You're always great,
Thanks so much, Aaron, appreciate your time.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
Thanks Larry for having me.
Speaker 1 (22:02):
Appreciate it. Oh no, absolutely, man, is he good? I
will tell you what if I was the father? If
I am the father, do you want to put yourself
through this again? Coming up next, The Very Funny wo
R host Jimmy Fayla, a former cab driver, reacts to
driverless cabs coming to New York WOR host nine to
(22:24):
Midnight Fox Across America with Jimmy Fayla and host of
Fox News Saturday Night with Jimmy Fayla on the Fox
News Channel. Jimmy, I see you during the week now
a lot You're on with a good friend of mine,
Rich Zoie, and the two of you seem to be
a team of mid Days on Fox as well. How
(22:44):
often do you How often do you make those appearances?
Speaker 5 (22:47):
Well, I do America's Newsroom every Monday. I'm supposed to
do Fox and Friends every Tuesday. They basically make me
dressed like an adult a couple days a week and
then deal MENTI like, you have the highest security clearance
in the administration, so I wear officially like state sanctioned
clothing up until eight PM, and then after eight I'm
(23:10):
allowed to bust out my overweight figure skater collection. So
that's basically that's basically how it works. I'm not kidding,
like I'm about to go on Fox and Friends here
in a little bit, and you'll see me on the
couch and a shirt and tie like I look like
I kind of work in television, you know. And then
a the clock rolls around and that other thing happens
(23:31):
where I'm in the Magic Mic spinoff called Tragic Mic,
and he's got a chubby mail stripper who got fat
during COVID and had to lower his rates. I mean
that's what I am. I mean, let's see. Know, we
don't have to dress it.
Speaker 1 (23:41):
Up, will do? They give you your clothes at Fox.
Speaker 5 (23:45):
This is what happens. Yes, you get a wardrobe budget
for the things you'll see me wearing an hour from
now on Fox and Friends. They do not session or
financed anything with a rhinestone or heaven. Okay, Larry, it's
a cry for help, pal, I'm looking for help.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
No, you look good. I like the way they dress
you on Fox News. You look good and by the
way you do all that, and then you come on
and you are on here at wo R nine to midnight.
And I know for a fact, like a lot of
people might think, well he works all the time that
a lot of that must be taped. It's not you
(24:26):
do all that live. When do you.
Speaker 5 (24:27):
Sleep when I'm driving usually that's the problem.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
You know, my best.
Speaker 5 (24:34):
Sleep at eighty one miles an hour. Unfortunately I've got
a record to back it up. But no, you know,
I think, and it's about intensity of sleep. A lot
of people. I don't know if you've ever discussed this.
You know, some people try to get their eight hours.
They're nine hours, but if you're rolling over all night,
you wake up three times, you didn't really get good sleep.
So it's really about intensity of sleep. Like you can
(24:54):
knock me out for five or six hours and I'm
clinically dead, and then I wake up pretty well. But
it's like my five or six is like somebody else's
eight or nine. That's the key.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
I will tell you this, and I believe in what
you're saying. And I know for a fact it's true.
One time I did a test and they kept me up.
They had a producer with me. When I was working
at NBC. They had a producer and they kept me
up with for a little bit over forty eight hours,
and I wasn't able to sleep. And then I had
to go. I went to a sleep lab in the
middle of it, and they put all these things on me,
(25:26):
you know, all these monitors on me, and they put
me in a dark room and I fell right to
sleep and I was asleep and they woke me up
and they said how long. How long did you sleep?
I said a few hours, and they said, you slept
for five minutes. And it's because, yeah, it's because I
went right into a deep sleep. I was so sleep deprived,
(25:48):
as you're just mentioning right there, it is the intensity
of the sleep. I went right into that zone that
rem sleep that you're looking for, and that's really all
you need. So it was. It was fascinating to me.
So I know exactly what you're talking about. If you
can train yourself to do that, it's perfect. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (26:06):
Well, it's a wild similarity between us, though, because I
went to a sleep lab ones too. It was called
The View, and a girl I knew was the warm
up comic and she took me to watch your work.
I was like, God, well shut out for me, keep talking.
Speaker 1 (26:23):
Whoopee, hey, listen to you know we're talking about you
said a second ago, you're going to sleep while you drive.
Pretty soon you'll be able to. There's a company called
way Mo. They're coming in to test self driving taxi
cabs in New York City. Would you trust that though?
Speaker 5 (26:42):
No, And let me tell you an experience. I was
just in San Francisco. They are over fifty percent of
the cars on the road in San Francisco. They are everywhere.
You might have seen them in La too. They're not
as prevalent in LA as they are in Frisco. But
here's the thing. They argue that it's safer because it
could read the other vehicles, it's less inclined to make
human error. Number one, I don't buy that because I'm
(27:05):
not sure the technology has been smoothed out between the
Weymo vehicle and the non Weymo vehicle. But number two,
everybody's missing. The whole point of a cab driver is
Number one, it's to make you sit in the back
and feel better about your own life choice. And number two,
if you've got something to get off your chest, you
shouting at a Weaimo about your axe on the way
(27:27):
back in the morning isn't gonna give you the catharsis.
It's yelling at a community polity graduate like me. About
all the dumb things that Raymond did when you thought
he was the one. You know, you need these volt
You're not gonna Wei mo your way out of therapy.
That's the point. You still got to go to therapy.
(27:48):
If you yell at me, I was saving people money
on therapy? Do they were getting some out? Why am
I doing that?
Speaker 1 (27:56):
I'll tell you what I mean. You must have a
lot of friends that this would affect, right, I'm sure
you're friendly with some of the guys that drove cabs,
so this is going to affect them horribly. I mean
they'll have to find her the jobs.
Speaker 4 (28:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (28:07):
Well, it already nuked the cost of the medallion. You know,
they did that with Uber and everything else. So most
of the guys I know already got that beat down.
But the thing about it is, and this does matter,
like cab drivers are so much more than a ride.
And that's what people.
Speaker 4 (28:22):
I mean.
Speaker 5 (28:23):
There's a story on Saturday somebody gave birth of a taxi.
That happens, you know, probably a few times a year.
Not that he delivered the baby. I've never people acting
it all the time, like have you ever delivered a
baby in your taxi? I'm like, no, but I've seen
several get made. But there are things we provide you with,
(28:45):
say you don't get from a computer. And that's the point, man,
these direction stuff like that. And somebody had mentioned this
to me. It might have been when I was filling
in for you, Larry. Somebody had said, you could revitalize
the taxi industry by just making it like niche tourism,
where people, rather than hailing a cab to go to
a meeting, you actually hail it for like the week.
(29:07):
It's going to be like your family's you know, driver
around New York City, maybe your tour guide and stuff
like that. And that might be the future of human
taxis because you're not going to want to do that
with a waimo either, you know. So I don't you know,
me being the optimist the glass half full with vodka.
You know, we're trying over here.
Speaker 1 (29:25):
That's a great idea that that would save the industry
real quick. We should talk about something that's in the news.
What about Epstein? He is tired of it?
Speaker 5 (29:33):
I mean no, I find the whole story fascinating and
I'm where I was a week ago. You know, the
whole idea that we should just shut up and stop
asking questions. Seems weird to me. Just Laine Maxwell says
she wants to talk, which also seems weird to me.
She wants to deal the history, yes exactly, Yeah, no
(29:57):
question about that. But I think they're you know, I
don't know if this is intentional or not, but there's
a lot of red meat getting handed out to the angry,
you know, Republican Twitter base right now. Because to be clear,
Trump is polling as good as ever with his party,
He's just not polling well on Twitter, you know, and
(30:17):
because they were really hung up on the Epstein thing.
So now they're getting handed at Camey investigation, an Obama investigation.
There's a lot of red meat for Twitter right now.
And I don't believe me. I don't think Obama is
going to jail. I mean, if he was going to jail,
the fashion police would have got him for that tan
suit back in twenty fourteen. You know, if they didn't
get him, he's gonna be fun.
Speaker 1 (30:38):
Jimmy Fayla WR host You can hear him Monday through
Friday from nine to midnight right here on seven to
ten WOR That wraps up Saturday morning for this week.
Thanks so much for listening. I'll be back Monday morning
from six to ten for Minty in the Morning. Hope
you join us. This has been a podcast from WR
This is a podcast from WOR Now, the WOR Saturday
Morning Show.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Here's Larry Minty.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Good morning, and welcome to Saturday Morning. On this week's show,
the bogus Donald Trump real estate case is before a
state appellate court and it's been a long time since
we got a ruling, almost a year. We'll talk with
Ariy Hoffman from The New York Sun, who has been
covering the case, and a bombshell this week when a
court orders that the man convicted of killing Aton Pates
(00:31):
will be either released from prison or he'll get a
new trial, and correspondent Aaron Katersky tells us what happens next.
It is the video that has captured the attention of
the world. A couple from work, a married CEO and
the head of HR, are caught on a kiss cam
at a concert. HR expert Greg g and Grande is
(00:53):
here to tell us how a company handles that, and finally,
WOR host Jimmy Fayla, a former cab driver, is here
to talk about driverless cabs invading the city. But first
Ariy Hoffman, associate editor of The New York Sun, on
the appeal of that ridiculous five hundred million dollar ruling
(01:15):
against Donald Trump in the bogused real estate lawsuit brought
by Attorney General Letitia James. Good morning, Airy.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
Good morning, Hey ariy A.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
You know, the first time we talked, the first time
I'd reached out to you, was on this story. I
don't know if you remember, but it was. It was
months and months ago. And even at that time, I
was asking you, what is the hold up? And we're
talking about the appeal of the real estate fraud case
where Donald Trump had this ridiculous penalty of half a
(01:48):
billion dollars when Letitia James brought this case and it
seemed like it was absurd from the beginning, and yet
here we are now is went to an appellate court
and we don't have a ruling yet. What is the
hold up?
Speaker 3 (02:03):
Sure? Absolutely, Larry, you were on this story and the
mystery has only deepened. We're coming up now on close
to a year now without a verdict on whether the
five hundred at this point million dollars fraud verdict imposed
by Judge angering On will be overturned. You know, virtually
(02:27):
everyone Larry who is in that hearing reported on that
appeal said that five judge panel was deeply skeptical of
Judge anger On and with Sisia James, you know, they
likened it to a commercial dispute. They said it was
a mended it was troubling. Those are all quotes and
yet radio silence since. And usually with these appeals they're
(02:51):
decided about within a month, so now we're at ten
times that length. So something strange is going on here.
There's been some speculation that the presiding judge of that
court maybe is holding this up. Maybe the judges are
internally divided and sort of deadlocked. But it's a very
(03:14):
strange situation that, as you mentioned, really Larry, you were
one of the first people on this, uh isn't really
being covered?
Speaker 1 (03:21):
Well, I just watched the hearing like you did, and
when you looked at the hearing, you were going, oh
my god, they they're really going after the State Attorney
General's office. At one point, Ery they thought that the
ruling was so ridiculous. They were talking about sanctions that
that was one of the judges. I'm not talking for
the entire panel, but it seemed like several of the
(03:44):
justices were upset with the ruling. That's why we thought
there was going to be something before this, but.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
No, yeah, and you know you have to remember the
stakes here. I mean this, you know, this judgment, you know,
was a product of Leticia James vowing during her campaign
to go after Trump, to shine a light on every
little looking cranny of his business dealings. It was really
a body blow to his whole career, right, And so
(04:11):
you have to imagine that a reversal on this would
not only be a huge setback for Letitia James, but
also a real boost to the president. So you know,
if you're kind of just gaming it out here, you'd say,
you know, if they were likely to overturn the verdict,
you know, maybe there's one judge being a stick in
(04:31):
them on it doesn't want to give Trump that victory.
But I mean, at a certain point, you know, how
long can you delay justice? Right? Famous line? Justice delayed
is justice denied? And at some point the court has
to come back because either side is going to want
to appeal that to the New York's highest appellate court,
(04:53):
which they call, confusingly, the Court of Appeals. So this
story isn't over, but it's really hit hit a road block.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
Well, and I think you're exactly right, because it was
pretty obvious, and just to fill people in and what
happened at that hearing. The judges kept asking if a
case like this has ever been filed before, and they
had to admit no. And they said, well, let let
me understand who was damaged? Who were the people of
New York City damaged? And they and the attorneys had
(05:21):
to say no. And then they said, but he paid
everything back right on time with interest, and they said yes.
And one judge finally and I know you saw this area.
One judge finally said, We've never had a case like
this in history where there's no victim, there's no damages,
(05:42):
and the people of the of the city of New
York were never touched by this or didn't even know
about it, So why would you bring charges against this man?
That's how bad it got, right.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
And you know, it also is worth you know, reminding people,
this was not a case brought by the lenders, right,
This was not a case brought by the banks mostly
that Trump was doing business with, So they didn't bring
a civil complaint. This was a complaint initiated by the state, right,
initiated initiated by with Fisia James. So I'm overwhelmingly agree
(06:20):
with you, Larry that you know, it's a five judge panel.
There are at least three judges there who I think
would be, you know, come down on this for the president.
So the question is, you know, is there being is
there a kind of you know, block or an obstruction
(06:40):
happening within the court refusing to release the decision is
a decision written? I mean, I think that people deserve
some transparency on this, right is it it? Has a
decision been drafted? Is just not being released or have
they not even gone that far?
Speaker 1 (06:57):
No, it is a mystery, and you have to wonder
because the case, as you pointed out, was bizarre from
the beginning the hearing, the court case itself was bizarre.
And and person after person that he got the loan
from or got loans in the bass that you know,
he's always paid back in time. Nobody felt like a victim.
(07:19):
It was a victimless crime, and and and yet he was.
He had to pay half a billion dollars.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
Yeah, they were not only that penalty, but you know,
also the imposition of an independent monitor in the in
the heart of the Trump organization and various bands on
conducting business in New York that's targeted not only Trump
but also you know, his two oldest sons. So this
was really, uh, you know, a missile aimed at the
heart of of of the Trump enterprise. And and like
(07:50):
you said, uh, you know, those judges look at this
five hundred billion dollars and just if iment and just said,
you know, yeah, this is this is unreasonable.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
They said that time and time again. Ery Hoffman, Associate
editor of The New York Sun go to the New
York Sun dot com. He's all over this story. Thank
you so much. Eric. When we come back, what would
you do if you worked in HR and the CEO
of your company and your boss in HR are caught
very publicly having an affair, Well ask Greg g and
(08:19):
Grande HR and career advice expert.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Next, here's Larry Minty with more of the WR Saturday
Morning Show.
Speaker 1 (08:28):
Let's get the Greg g and Grande career advice expert.
You can check them out at go to Greg dot com.
Greg joins us every Wednesday at nine to thirty five.
A whole lot to talk about. I thought about you
when I saw the viral moment, the Coldplay viral moment
with the CEO and the person in charge of HR
(08:50):
in an embrace because they were having an affair. What
were your first thoughts? I mean you look at that
at a different angle than I do. What were your
first thoughts when you found out who they were and
about that moment?
Speaker 4 (09:05):
Well, first, please clarify when you say that you thought
of me, because I would never I would never do
such a thing. But I did. I have an immediate reaction.
It's like, of all of the spectacular career crash and
(09:30):
burns that I have witnessed throughout my career, this definitely
is in the pantheon of like one of the most
epic that. Well, here we are a week later, still
talking about it, and it will be referenced for many
years to come. It's you know. And then I also
(09:51):
thought of a few things, like it's no surprise that
co workers are having an affair. I mean what according
to most surveys, here's is something. It's just what percentage
of employees admit to having an affair at work? A
sexual encounter at work?
Speaker 1 (10:09):
When you're talking about affair, that means one of them
is married or are we just.
Speaker 4 (10:12):
Talking about have had have had have had sex with
a coworker?
Speaker 1 (10:17):
Oh, eighty. What, well, I come from the TV news world.
It's different.
Speaker 4 (10:26):
We're not goodness, We're not We're not talking about like
porn hubs. Yeah well, now it's not going to have
any impact. But when you when you when you talk
about affairs, right, like one of them is married. The
(10:50):
number is still high. It's it's more than twenty percent
of people say that they have had an affair with
a coworker.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
Like again, I'm sorry, I was still was still a
little hazy. I was reminiscing, but go ahead, what was
that number? One more time?
Speaker 4 (11:09):
It's as much as twenty five percent of employees who
admit that they have cheated on their spouse with a coworker.
Speaker 1 (11:19):
That's people that are telling the truth. They admit it
is a strong word.
Speaker 4 (11:25):
Well yeah, well, and that's the saying they've cheated with
a coworker. It doesn't mean that they haven't, you know,
cheated with other people as well. But the point is
there's a lot of sex going on at work, or
at least between people who work together. But in some cases, yes,
I have caught people doing that at work. It's so
that's not surprising. What's surprising is how indiscreete people are.
(11:50):
It's almost like they don't care if they get caught
or or they want to get caught. I can't get
into psychoanalyzing why some people do some of the things
they do. And I'm not being judgmental, you know, consenting
adults like you know, you do what you want to
do and then you take the risks and you pay
the price. And if you're willing to do that, okay.
(12:12):
But there's no way either one of them, you know,
their jobs could have survived. Of course, the CEO had
to resign, and you haven't heard anything about the head
of HR. That's because her lawyer is working out a deal.
I don't know this firsthand, but I know exactly what's
going on. Her lawyer is negotiating. You know, he was
the boss. There's so many different things we don't know
(12:34):
about the story and the relationship of course that I'm
sure she's trying to negotiate as good an exit as
she can.
Speaker 5 (12:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
I don't want to cut them any slack at all.
I think what they've did was abhorrent. However, the chances
of you saying you have to be careful and you
have to watch out the chances of being caught on
a kiss cam at a Cold Play concert when you're
like up in the third level are minuscule. Are absolutely minuscule.
And as we've talked about several times, it was their reaction.
(13:07):
Had they not reacted at all, they'd be fine.
Speaker 4 (13:10):
It was this shack no one would have known. But
and so you know, I don't know that I can
give advice on you know, what to do if you get.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
Caught, Like, come on, try.
Speaker 5 (13:25):
Help.
Speaker 4 (13:27):
It is normal for a CEO and a CHR to
be embracing at a concert. Don't lot if you get caught.
Don't act like you're doing something wrong.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
Yeah, since your nature you would know from personal Yeah,
that's exactly You're right. What hell else are you going
to react? The person that posted the video said, had
they just been normal, I wouldn't even have posted the video.
It was the reaction that had me do that. I
know you have a strong reaction. We were talking about
dogs at work. You have a strong reaction to this one,
(14:00):
is it?
Speaker 4 (14:01):
I love animals. Dogs belong at home in a yard,
but not at work. It's hard enough to live with
neighbors who have dogs from like, you know, vicious little
chiualas to pitbulls. Imagine bringing that collection of animals to
an office. It shouldn't be done. No employers should agree
(14:23):
to that. It may sound cool, you might be able
to hire a few extra gen zers, but you're going
to lose more talent than you're going to gain.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
Yeah, real quick. What about a four day work week?
Good thing, bad thing?
Speaker 4 (14:37):
Well, I think hybrid is going to make that a
moot point because what that means is people want more
flexibility by having three days off, and I think you
can accommodate that, which where most employers that do now
by having more flexibility built into working in the office
and working from home. So I don't think that's going
to become a norm.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
Greg gim Grande career advice expert. You can check I'm
out go to Greg dot com. Greg joins us every
Wednesday at nine thirty five. Greg, thanks a lot, good
to talk to you.
Speaker 4 (15:07):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
When six year old Aton Pates went missing in New
York City in nineteen seventy nine, it was a national story. Finally,
seventeen years later, police thought they had their man, but
now he may be released from prison, ABC corresponded. Aaron
Katersky explains, here again is Larry Minty with the wr
(15:28):
Saturday Morning show, Welcome Back. It was a story that
captured the attention in hearts of the country. In nineteen
seventy nine, a six year old boy disappears without a
trace from the straits of Manhattan. That started the missing
child database and put missing children on the back of
milk cartons. And then in twenty fourteen, police finally found
(15:50):
the man they believed killed Aton, or so they thought.
ABC corresponded, Aaron Katersky explains why all these years later,
Pedro Hernandez may walk free. Aaron, thanks so much for
being with us this morning. Appreciate your time. I never
went through that fifty two page decision, but I'm sure
(16:13):
you have. What is in there? What does it says?
They as they built to this decision.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
So the second Circuit, Larry has said that the trial
judge Max Wiley made an error when during jury deliberations,
jurors sent a note asking about Pedro Hernandez's confessions. Remember,
he confessed effectively twice. The first time he did it
before police read him as Miranda rights. And that's a
(16:45):
mistake and he should have been mirandized. The second time.
He did it on video after his rights were read,
and the jury was wondering, if they don't believe the
first con confession was proper, do they automatically have to
disregard the second confession? And Judge Wiley answered no without
(17:11):
any further explanation, And the Federal Appeals Court said that
that instruction was clearly wrong and it was manifestly prejudicial.
And so the court has ordered Pedro Hernandez get released
or retried by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, which is
now reviewing the decision.
Speaker 1 (17:29):
Do we have any idea what they may do? We
have a whole new set of prosecutors now, do we
know which way from maybe past cases or what they've
talked about in this case that they may decide?
Speaker 2 (17:43):
You know, the only I think comparable reversal may be
Harvey Weinstein, and in that case, Alvin Bragg opted to
retry Harvey Weinstein with a mixed result. Here, of course,
the circumstances are different. Pedro Hernandez has already served thirteen
years of a twenty five year to life sentence. The
(18:07):
Pates family stand Paige. He moved away to Hawaii, thinking
that justice had finally been served Larry, and so whether
he wants to go through what would be a third trial.
Remember the first trial ended with a hung jury, second
one ended with this conviction. There's a lot for prosecutors
(18:28):
to consider, and of course they they opt for a
different route, which is to challenge the appellate court and
maybe take it, try to take it to the US
Supreme Court.
Speaker 1 (18:39):
I remember at the time there were some questions about
the arrest too, because of the mental competency of that.
There was discussed at the time of Pedro Hernandez. Tell
us about that.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
Well, remember how it all started, that the NYPD ended
up digging up a basement in Soho and at the
time prosecutors kind of thought that was a waste of
time then really end up finding anything. But it did
have an effect in that it kind of shook the
trees a little bit, and a relative of Pedro Hernandez
and someone in his church community ended up coming forward
(19:13):
to police to say, hey, this guy who had not
been on the radar ended up confessing to the crime
and said he did it. And when he was talking
to the authorities, he gave details that they believed at
the time only someone who actually committed the crime would
(19:34):
have known, and so they were quite excited about it
because it was a break in the case that had
effectively gone dormant. There was this other guy they'd been
looking at. He wasn't the guy, so there was some excitement.
The Federal Appeals Court did, however, that Pedro Hernandez does
have a low IQ. There were questions about his competency,
(19:55):
and even jurors at the time said it was not
an open and shut but they believed the confession because
it was on video, and that was too much at
the time for Hernandez to overcome.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
Right. I brought up the mental competency for this reason
because before they put it on video, Before they put
that confession on video, they spent seven hours with him,
and I guess there is this suspicion that they talked
him into this, that they spent so much time on him,
with him and he and he, and he wasn't with
(20:30):
it enough to realize what was happening until they finally
convinced him he did it.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
So and and that's one of the reasons I think
why the Federal appeals Court said that the trial judge,
you know, made an error in his instruction that it's
the tactic that the law is meant to correct. They
don't want police talking to a suspect before he's read
his rights and then you know, read him his rights
(20:56):
and lo and behold, look what happens. So so prosecutors
ended up coming into the interview and they I think
it's called attenuation where they have to wait a certain
number of hours before they can talk to a suspect
again to make sure the confession is proper. So this
(21:18):
went on like all day, all night, and they you know,
they fed him, they had to give him meals, they
had to step away from him, they had to let
him just be for a good while before they could
flip on the video camera and start asking him questions again. So,
in theory, the confession that was on video was legally proper,
(21:43):
but what preceded it is it was not. And you know,
the prosecutors knew that going in, and perhaps the judges
instructions should have been a little clearer to the jury.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
Aaron Katski, Chief investigative correspondent at ABC News. You're always great,
Thanks so much, Aaron, appreciate your time.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
Thanks Larry for having me.
Speaker 1 (22:02):
Appreciate it. Oh no, absolutely, man, is he good? I
will tell you what if I was the father? If
I am the father, do you want to put yourself
through this again? Coming up next, The Very Funny wo
R host Jimmy Fayla, a former cab driver, reacts to
driverless cabs coming to New York WOR host nine to
(22:24):
Midnight Fox Across America with Jimmy Fayla and host of
Fox News Saturday Night with Jimmy Fayla on the Fox
News Channel. Jimmy, I see you during the week now
a lot You're on with a good friend of mine,
Rich Zoie, and the two of you seem to be
a team of mid Days on Fox as well. How
(22:44):
often do you How often do you make those appearances?
Speaker 5 (22:47):
Well, I do America's Newsroom every Monday. I'm supposed to
do Fox and Friends every Tuesday. They basically make me
dressed like an adult a couple days a week and
then deal MENTI like, you have the highest security clearance
in the administration, so I wear officially like state sanctioned
clothing up until eight PM, and then after eight I'm
(23:10):
allowed to bust out my overweight figure skater collection. So
that's basically that's basically how it works. I'm not kidding,
like I'm about to go on Fox and Friends here
in a little bit, and you'll see me on the
couch and a shirt and tie like I look like
I kind of work in television, you know. And then
a the clock rolls around and that other thing happens
(23:31):
where I'm in the Magic Mic spinoff called Tragic Mic,
and he's got a chubby mail stripper who got fat
during COVID and had to lower his rates. I mean
that's what I am. I mean, let's see. Know, we
don't have to dress it.
Speaker 1 (23:41):
Up, will do? They give you your clothes at Fox.
Speaker 5 (23:45):
This is what happens. Yes, you get a wardrobe budget
for the things you'll see me wearing an hour from
now on Fox and Friends. They do not session or
financed anything with a rhinestone or heaven. Okay, Larry, it's
a cry for help, pal, I'm looking for help.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
No, you look good. I like the way they dress
you on Fox News. You look good and by the
way you do all that, and then you come on
and you are on here at wo R nine to midnight.
And I know for a fact, like a lot of
people might think, well he works all the time that
a lot of that must be taped. It's not you
(24:26):
do all that live. When do you.
Speaker 5 (24:27):
Sleep when I'm driving usually that's the problem.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
You know, my best.
Speaker 5 (24:34):
Sleep at eighty one miles an hour. Unfortunately I've got
a record to back it up. But no, you know,
I think, and it's about intensity of sleep. A lot
of people. I don't know if you've ever discussed this.
You know, some people try to get their eight hours.
They're nine hours, but if you're rolling over all night,
you wake up three times, you didn't really get good sleep.
So it's really about intensity of sleep. Like you can
(24:54):
knock me out for five or six hours and I'm
clinically dead, and then I wake up pretty well. But
it's like my five or six is like somebody else's
eight or nine. That's the key.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
I will tell you this, and I believe in what
you're saying. And I know for a fact it's true.
One time I did a test and they kept me up.
They had a producer with me. When I was working
at NBC. They had a producer and they kept me
up with for a little bit over forty eight hours,
and I wasn't able to sleep. And then I had
to go. I went to a sleep lab in the
middle of it, and they put all these things on me,
(25:26):
you know, all these monitors on me, and they put
me in a dark room and I fell right to
sleep and I was asleep and they woke me up
and they said how long. How long did you sleep?
I said a few hours, and they said, you slept
for five minutes. And it's because, yeah, it's because I
went right into a deep sleep. I was so sleep deprived,
(25:48):
as you're just mentioning right there, it is the intensity
of the sleep. I went right into that zone that
rem sleep that you're looking for, and that's really all
you need. So it was. It was fascinating to me.
So I know exactly what you're talking about. If you
can train yourself to do that, it's perfect. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (26:06):
Well, it's a wild similarity between us, though, because I
went to a sleep lab ones too. It was called
The View, and a girl I knew was the warm
up comic and she took me to watch your work.
I was like, God, well shut out for me, keep talking.
Speaker 1 (26:23):
Whoopee, hey, listen to you know we're talking about you
said a second ago, you're going to sleep while you drive.
Pretty soon you'll be able to. There's a company called
way Mo. They're coming in to test self driving taxi
cabs in New York City. Would you trust that though?
Speaker 5 (26:42):
No, And let me tell you an experience. I was
just in San Francisco. They are over fifty percent of
the cars on the road in San Francisco. They are everywhere.
You might have seen them in La too. They're not
as prevalent in LA as they are in Frisco. But
here's the thing. They argue that it's safer because it
could read the other vehicles, it's less inclined to make
human error. Number one, I don't buy that because I'm
(27:05):
not sure the technology has been smoothed out between the
Weymo vehicle and the non Weymo vehicle. But number two,
everybody's missing. The whole point of a cab driver is
Number one, it's to make you sit in the back
and feel better about your own life choice. And number two,
if you've got something to get off your chest, you
shouting at a Weaimo about your axe on the way
(27:27):
back in the morning isn't gonna give you the catharsis.
It's yelling at a community polity graduate like me. About
all the dumb things that Raymond did when you thought
he was the one. You know, you need these volt
You're not gonna Wei mo your way out of therapy.
That's the point. You still got to go to therapy.
(27:48):
If you yell at me, I was saving people money
on therapy? Do they were getting some out? Why am
I doing that?
Speaker 1 (27:56):
I'll tell you what I mean. You must have a
lot of friends that this would affect, right, I'm sure
you're friendly with some of the guys that drove cabs,
so this is going to affect them horribly. I mean
they'll have to find her the jobs.
Speaker 4 (28:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (28:07):
Well, it already nuked the cost of the medallion. You know,
they did that with Uber and everything else. So most
of the guys I know already got that beat down.
But the thing about it is, and this does matter,
like cab drivers are so much more than a ride.
And that's what people.
Speaker 4 (28:22):
I mean.
Speaker 5 (28:23):
There's a story on Saturday somebody gave birth of a taxi.
That happens, you know, probably a few times a year.
Not that he delivered the baby. I've never people acting
it all the time, like have you ever delivered a
baby in your taxi? I'm like, no, but I've seen
several get made. But there are things we provide you with,
(28:45):
say you don't get from a computer. And that's the point, man,
these direction stuff like that. And somebody had mentioned this
to me. It might have been when I was filling
in for you, Larry. Somebody had said, you could revitalize
the taxi industry by just making it like niche tourism,
where people, rather than hailing a cab to go to
a meeting, you actually hail it for like the week.
(29:07):
It's going to be like your family's you know, driver
around New York City, maybe your tour guide and stuff
like that. And that might be the future of human
taxis because you're not going to want to do that
with a waimo either, you know. So I don't you know,
me being the optimist the glass half full with vodka.
You know, we're trying over here.
Speaker 1 (29:25):
That's a great idea that that would save the industry
real quick. We should talk about something that's in the news.
What about Epstein? He is tired of it?
Speaker 5 (29:33):
I mean no, I find the whole story fascinating and
I'm where I was a week ago. You know, the
whole idea that we should just shut up and stop
asking questions. Seems weird to me. Just Laine Maxwell says
she wants to talk, which also seems weird to me.
She wants to deal the history, yes exactly, Yeah, no
(29:57):
question about that. But I think they're you know, I
don't know if this is intentional or not, but there's
a lot of red meat getting handed out to the angry,
you know, Republican Twitter base right now. Because to be clear,
Trump is polling as good as ever with his party,
He's just not polling well on Twitter, you know, and
(30:17):
because they were really hung up on the Epstein thing.
So now they're getting handed at Camey investigation, an Obama investigation.
There's a lot of red meat for Twitter right now.
And I don't believe me. I don't think Obama is
going to jail. I mean, if he was going to jail,
the fashion police would have got him for that tan
suit back in twenty fourteen. You know, if they didn't
get him, he's gonna be fun.
Speaker 1 (30:38):
Jimmy Fayla WR host You can hear him Monday through
Friday from nine to midnight right here on seven to
ten WOR That wraps up Saturday morning for this week.
Thanks so much for listening. I'll be back Monday morning
from six to ten for Minty in the Morning. Hope
you join us. This has been a podcast from WR
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.