June 26, 2023 • 13 mins
The Biden family is as corrupt as they come. Jack somehow doesn't believe Joe knew what was going on with Hunter. This almost made Joe's head explode.
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):
Not a reasonable question to ask, But hows the United States?
Speaker 2 (00:03):
Who's involved as this message seems to suggest in some
sort of coercive conversation for.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Business dealing by a son.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
Is that something?
Speaker 1 (00:11):
If he wasn't, then.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
Maybe you should tell us.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
So here's the thing, and I appreciate the question. I
believe my colleague at the White House Council has answered
this question.
Speaker 4 (00:21):
He hasn't. So that's KJP on Friday, responding to reporters
who talking about the text that came out Thursday night.
We'll read to you here in just a little bit
and explain what's going on. It's all about Hunter Biden,
is the a Biden crime family and all that sort
of stuff. But the most notable thing about that is
the reporter's voice you heard is Peter Baker of the
(00:43):
New York Times. So it starts with James Rosen of Newsmax.
But then some of the reporters from the mainstream media
jump in and KJP wasn't having it. Let's hear a
little more.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
I do yes or no?
Speaker 4 (00:56):
Was the president involved in this?
Speaker 1 (00:58):
Steven Steven, I just answered the question. I just said,
I just this is It's not up to you how
I answered the question. I just answered the questions.
Speaker 4 (01:06):
Yeah, you didn't answer the question. Here what goes again?
Speaker 2 (01:08):
You've stated that the President stands by his comment from
the twenty twenty campaign that he never once discussed his
son's overseas business dealings with his son, and you stood
at that podium and you reaffirm that, do you stand
by your reality?
Speaker 1 (01:21):
What I will say is nothing has changed, Nothing has changed,
and I will leave it there.
Speaker 4 (01:26):
So that gives you an idea what it sounded like
in the press room there on Friday. We'll get to
the particular. So here's the text that came out Thursday
night from the committee that's looking into all this under
Biden stuff. And by the way, nobody's even attempted to
claim that this text is fake, which means it's real.
This is Hunter Biden talking to a group of Chinese
(01:48):
that are gonna give him a whole bunch of money.
Joe will get you to the particulars later, but I
think this is self explanatory. Hunter Biden tell the director
that I would like to resolve this now before it
gets out of hand, and now means tonight and zee
if I get a call or text from anyone involved
in this other than you, Xang or the chairman. I
will make certain that between the man sitting next to
(02:09):
me and every person he knows, and my ability to
forever hold a grudge, that you will regret not following
my direction. I'm sitting here waiting for the call with
my father. That's a heck of a thing right there.
That is pay up or else, clearly. So James Rosen
read that information that came out to John Kirby, who
(02:34):
was the first person in the press room, and ask
Kirby if the message undermines the president's claim that he
never once discussed his son's overseas business dealings with him. No,
said Kirby, and I'm not going to comment further on this.
When pressed, Kirby said, let me save you some breath.
I'm just not going to address this issue from the podium.
(02:55):
I'm just not going to do it. Why not, a
different journalist shouted as Kirby abruptly left the room. So
then kJ P is that her right initials yeah comes
on and Peter Baker of the New York Times immediately
takes up the same line of questioning now in past
(03:15):
stuff once the right wing ee journalists are done. The
other journalists go back to how big a dangerous Trump
to our society or that sort of thing.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
How great are you going to make the economy? Right?
Speaker 2 (03:30):
No.
Speaker 4 (03:30):
Peter Baker of The New York Times followed up as
soon as KJP got out there and said, Kirby wouldn't
answer James question. Are you going to answer the question?
It's not unreasonable. It's not an unreasonable question to ask
whether the President of the United States was involved, as
this message seems to suggest in some sort of a
course of conversation for business dealings by his son. If
he wasn't, then maybe you should tell us. He added,
(03:52):
that's a very pointed thing to say. From The New
York Times, Jean Pierre claimed that the White House Council
Office spokesman Ian Sam's had a rest the matter, though
journalists were unable to immediately locate Sam's response to the
text message. I believe my colleague at the White House
Council has answered this question already, has dealt with this
and made it very clear. I just don't have anything
(04:12):
to share outside of what my colleagues have shared, and
so I would refer you to him and the Dog
Daily caller reporter SO and so pressed, Sam's hasn't said
anything about the text message, specifically. When Jean Pierre repeated
her answer saying Sam's has dealt with this, a reporter
from the New York Post pressed further, yes or no?
Was the president involved in the shakedown attempt? I just
(04:34):
answered that question. It's not up to you how I
answer the question. That's what you just heard. Then a
CBS journalist jumped in, can you just remind us what
the colleague said, since you're claiming a colleague already answered.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
It, and one of the other journalists said he didn't
say anything about the text.
Speaker 4 (04:52):
Right, Can you just remind us what your colleague said.
Jean Pierre refused to say, responding, I would refer you
to them and they will share their statement with all
of you. I mean, this is the worst dodging I've
ever heard. So Rosen interjected again from Newsmax. My question
is about your statement, your statements from that podium. You've
(05:15):
stated that the president stands by his comment from the
twenty twenty campaign that he never once discussed his son's
business dealings, and you stood at the podium and reaffirmed
that do you stand by your reaffirmation. That's a good
way to ask the question, because a person should be
able to respond to their own words right without having
to refer you to someone else. What I will say
is nothing has changed. Nothing has changed, she answered. The
(05:36):
New York Post pressed, there's evidence that the first son
was at the president's home and that the president was
there two days prior, because they know the date of
the message. Jean Pierre deflected, I'm calling on your colleague
right now. So she tried to say, you know, I've
already answered your questions. I'm going to talk to somebody else.
So then that somebody else who the press secretary was
(05:57):
calling on, took up the line of questioning, which is
the way you should do it in the press room.
To follow up on my colleague, was the president there
or not? I would refer you to my colleagues at
the White House Council. They have addressed this, and I
would refer you to them. They have not, by the way. Now,
An NBC reporter tried a slightly different approach, asking Jean
Pierre if she'd ask President Biden about whether he was
(06:18):
there with his son on July thirty. This is not
a conversation that I've had with the President. Again, I
would refer you to the White House Council. So Sam's
the much cited spokesman that Jean Pierre kept referring to,
did not directly address the text message in a subsequent statement.
As we have said many times before, the President was
not in business with his son, sidestepping the central questions
(06:42):
raised by the text message about whether Biden was indeed
with his son on the date in question and whether
he spoke with his son about the message. Now, Mark
Hauprin pointed out that that's a different answer than they've
given in the past. In the past, they've always said
Joe Biden has never had any conversations with Hunter about
his business dealings. This was the President was not in
(07:04):
business with his son, which is a lawyerly different sort
of thing to say, right.
Speaker 3 (07:11):
And then Hunter's own attorney said, hey, he was a
hopeless junkie. He said, all sorts of stuff get company
under the bus Hunter.
Speaker 4 (07:19):
I think the key thing here is that the near post, CBS,
NBC and others were starting the whole feeding frenzy thing
that happens when there's an actual scandal going on, and
when they believe they're being lied to.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
Right, They've ignored this stuff for many, many months, all
the ties to China and Ukraine and Kazakhstan in Mexico
and the rest of it, and how rich the Biden
family seems to have gotten, and all their many LLC's
and all the mysterious payments to all those llsas. But
now KJP went ahead and lied to their faces, and
now they're interested out of pride. I guess.
Speaker 4 (07:57):
Well, that particular text with Hunter saying I'm sitting right
here with next to my dad, which I don't know
if you believe his dad was actually sitting there or not.
That's a good thing to claim. I mean, I've made
that sort of claim with various things in my life.
Sure I've got the boss right here, but doesn't matter.
I mean, that is worth asking questions.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
About, obviously, I would say. So, here's a little timeline
stuff that all took place on the thirtieth of July
and twenty seventeen, four days later. You got to know
that we're talking about a Chinese investment fund partially Communist
Party owned BHR Partners, and then there's the government linked
CEFC China Energy. So CFC four days later send one
(08:43):
hundred thousand dollars to Hunter's law firm less than a
week after the text, CEFC also wired five million dollars
to the firm Hudson West III four days after that. Now,
of that five million dollars, four point eight million of
it were then handed over into in consulting fees to
(09:04):
Hunter Biden's law firm over the next thirteen months, just
trickling out one two hundred thousand dollars at a time.
Years earlier, the Harvest Fund collaborated with Hunter's firm, Rosemont
Seneca Partners to launch BHR Partners. Just twelve days after,
Hunter flew with his daddy aboard Air Force two for
(09:25):
an official trip to Beijing. During that trip, Hunter introduced
Joe Biden to the CEO, and the Joe Biden later
wrote college recommendation letters for the CEO's children. So all
of that flowing from that text message in the relationships
(09:45):
he started in China when he was flying with his
dad on Air Force two, But they never had any
discussions about it whatsoever. And the dozen or more meetings
between Joe Biden and Hunter's business associates were just meet
and greets had nothing to do with business. It wasn't
influence battling or anything like that. That's what we're being
asked to believe.
Speaker 4 (10:04):
So Joe has implied that I'm a hopelessly naive poultroon
with the sense of an eight year old girl in that.
I wow, I don't necessarily, I don't necessarily I don't
believe Joe Biden is aware of what's going on in
(10:25):
necessary believe? Can you possibly we did not get it?
Speaker 3 (10:32):
Do you think Joe Biden hasn't noticed how incredibly rich
he's become.
Speaker 4 (10:37):
Boy, we sure do.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
Buy a lot of stuff and still have a lot
of money. Oh well, he thinks let's buy another house.
I wonder where the money came from. No idea, ideal.
Speaker 4 (10:46):
We got this text lmao, which wow, it's l m ao.
WTF that's way too many cursing letters. IDK, Jack, Don't
you don't think Joe was involved? You have no consistency.
You sound like doctor phill Er Ellen now just saying
words and plugging sponsors.
Speaker 3 (11:07):
Yeah, quit being like Ellen.
Speaker 4 (11:10):
The other end of it is, Come on, guys, I'm
no Biden family lover. But just because a dishonest crack
smoking kid says in an email that his father was
sitting next to him. Doesn't make it true.
Speaker 3 (11:24):
Oh that's true.
Speaker 4 (11:25):
Yeah, well absolutely, But to we've got every time we
bring up this topic, we get a fair amount of
you guys are trying to find something where there is nothing. Well,
at this point, you've got to believe that The New
York Times is being too hard on Joe Biden when
Peter Baker of The New York Times says, it's not
unreasonable to ask whether the President of the United States
(11:48):
was involved, as this message seems to suggest in some
sort of a course of conversation for business dealings by
his son. If he wasn't, then maybe you should tell us.
That's the New York Times, all right.
Speaker 3 (11:58):
Joined by NBC and CBS in the questioning, the aggressive questioning,
and then KJP reporter repeatedly says, no, ask the White
House Counsel. The White House Counsel has addressed this, and
then the White House Council puts out gobbledegook.
Speaker 4 (12:15):
I would say I listened to a I was listened
to the National Review podcast last week with all their
people on there, and none of them Joe Biden fans obviously,
if you know anything about the National Review and they
actually did a where are you on the likelihood Joe
Biden is involved in this scale of one to ten,
and all but one of them are very low. They
just can't believe that Joe Biden's actually just same as
(12:36):
I've been thinking all along, They can't believe that Joe
Biden's actually involved with this himself. I would be I
would be shocked if he is, I will be surprised.
Doesn't mean that he can.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
I would be shocked if he's not. His brother. His
brother's up to his ears in it. Plausible deniability. Nobody
has disputed a single iota of what Tony Pomelinski has
testified to. They have not disputed a single fact. He
was their business partner. He said, yeah, we knew who
the big guy was. And I asked, James Biden, why
(13:09):
do we never name him? Why don't we ever say
he's going to be at the meeting? Plausible deniability, Tony,
plausible deniability.
Speaker 4 (13:17):
If I want to be conspiracy minded, I could believe
that the reason the New York Times and others are
enthusiastic about it now is they're not enthusiastic about Joe
Biden being the nominee and they don't mind driving him
at office, so I don't know that might be a
step too far.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
But what do you thought you were going to say
they were under orders from the Illuminati.
Not a reasonable question to ask, But hows the United States?
Speaker 2 (00:03):
Who's involved as this message seems to suggest in some
sort of coercive conversation for.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Business dealing by a son.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
Is that something?
Speaker 1 (00:11):
If he wasn't, then.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
Maybe you should tell us.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
So here's the thing, and I appreciate the question. I
believe my colleague at the White House Council has answered
this question.
Speaker 4 (00:21):
He hasn't. So that's KJP on Friday, responding to reporters
who talking about the text that came out Thursday night.
We'll read to you here in just a little bit
and explain what's going on. It's all about Hunter Biden,
is the a Biden crime family and all that sort
of stuff. But the most notable thing about that is
the reporter's voice you heard is Peter Baker of the
(00:43):
New York Times. So it starts with James Rosen of Newsmax.
But then some of the reporters from the mainstream media
jump in and KJP wasn't having it. Let's hear a
little more.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
I do yes or no?
Speaker 4 (00:56):
Was the president involved in this?
Speaker 1 (00:58):
Steven Steven, I just answered the question. I just said,
I just this is It's not up to you how
I answered the question. I just answered the questions.
Speaker 4 (01:06):
Yeah, you didn't answer the question. Here what goes again?
Speaker 2 (01:08):
You've stated that the President stands by his comment from
the twenty twenty campaign that he never once discussed his
son's overseas business dealings with his son, and you stood
at that podium and you reaffirm that, do you stand
by your reality?
Speaker 1 (01:21):
What I will say is nothing has changed, Nothing has changed,
and I will leave it there.
Speaker 4 (01:26):
So that gives you an idea what it sounded like
in the press room there on Friday. We'll get to
the particular. So here's the text that came out Thursday
night from the committee that's looking into all this under
Biden stuff. And by the way, nobody's even attempted to
claim that this text is fake, which means it's real.
This is Hunter Biden talking to a group of Chinese
(01:48):
that are gonna give him a whole bunch of money.
Joe will get you to the particulars later, but I
think this is self explanatory. Hunter Biden tell the director
that I would like to resolve this now before it
gets out of hand, and now means tonight and zee
if I get a call or text from anyone involved
in this other than you, Xang or the chairman. I
will make certain that between the man sitting next to
(02:09):
me and every person he knows, and my ability to
forever hold a grudge, that you will regret not following
my direction. I'm sitting here waiting for the call with
my father. That's a heck of a thing right there.
That is pay up or else, clearly. So James Rosen
read that information that came out to John Kirby, who
(02:34):
was the first person in the press room, and ask
Kirby if the message undermines the president's claim that he
never once discussed his son's overseas business dealings with him. No,
said Kirby, and I'm not going to comment further on this.
When pressed, Kirby said, let me save you some breath.
I'm just not going to address this issue from the podium.
(02:55):
I'm just not going to do it. Why not, a
different journalist shouted as Kirby abruptly left the room. So
then kJ P is that her right initials yeah comes
on and Peter Baker of the New York Times immediately
takes up the same line of questioning now in past
(03:15):
stuff once the right wing ee journalists are done. The
other journalists go back to how big a dangerous Trump
to our society or that sort of thing.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
How great are you going to make the economy? Right?
Speaker 2 (03:30):
No.
Speaker 4 (03:30):
Peter Baker of The New York Times followed up as
soon as KJP got out there and said, Kirby wouldn't
answer James question. Are you going to answer the question?
It's not unreasonable. It's not an unreasonable question to ask
whether the President of the United States was involved, as
this message seems to suggest in some sort of a
course of conversation for business dealings by his son. If
he wasn't, then maybe you should tell us. He added,
(03:52):
that's a very pointed thing to say. From The New
York Times, Jean Pierre claimed that the White House Council
Office spokesman Ian Sam's had a rest the matter, though
journalists were unable to immediately locate Sam's response to the
text message. I believe my colleague at the White House
Council has answered this question already, has dealt with this
and made it very clear. I just don't have anything
(04:12):
to share outside of what my colleagues have shared, and
so I would refer you to him and the Dog
Daily caller reporter SO and so pressed, Sam's hasn't said
anything about the text message, specifically. When Jean Pierre repeated
her answer saying Sam's has dealt with this, a reporter
from the New York Post pressed further, yes or no?
Was the president involved in the shakedown attempt? I just
(04:34):
answered that question. It's not up to you how I
answer the question. That's what you just heard. Then a
CBS journalist jumped in, can you just remind us what
the colleague said, since you're claiming a colleague already answered.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
It, and one of the other journalists said he didn't
say anything about the text.
Speaker 4 (04:52):
Right, Can you just remind us what your colleague said.
Jean Pierre refused to say, responding, I would refer you
to them and they will share their statement with all
of you. I mean, this is the worst dodging I've
ever heard. So Rosen interjected again from Newsmax. My question
is about your statement, your statements from that podium. You've
(05:15):
stated that the president stands by his comment from the
twenty twenty campaign that he never once discussed his son's
business dealings, and you stood at the podium and reaffirmed
that do you stand by your reaffirmation. That's a good
way to ask the question, because a person should be
able to respond to their own words right without having
to refer you to someone else. What I will say
is nothing has changed. Nothing has changed, she answered. The
(05:36):
New York Post pressed, there's evidence that the first son
was at the president's home and that the president was
there two days prior, because they know the date of
the message. Jean Pierre deflected, I'm calling on your colleague
right now. So she tried to say, you know, I've
already answered your questions. I'm going to talk to somebody else.
So then that somebody else who the press secretary was
(05:57):
calling on, took up the line of questioning, which is
the way you should do it in the press room.
To follow up on my colleague, was the president there
or not? I would refer you to my colleagues at
the White House Council. They have addressed this, and I
would refer you to them. They have not, by the way. Now,
An NBC reporter tried a slightly different approach, asking Jean
Pierre if she'd ask President Biden about whether he was
(06:18):
there with his son on July thirty. This is not
a conversation that I've had with the President. Again, I
would refer you to the White House Council. So Sam's
the much cited spokesman that Jean Pierre kept referring to,
did not directly address the text message in a subsequent statement.
As we have said many times before, the President was
not in business with his son, sidestepping the central questions
(06:42):
raised by the text message about whether Biden was indeed
with his son on the date in question and whether
he spoke with his son about the message. Now, Mark
Hauprin pointed out that that's a different answer than they've
given in the past. In the past, they've always said
Joe Biden has never had any conversations with Hunter about
his business dealings. This was the President was not in
(07:04):
business with his son, which is a lawyerly different sort
of thing to say, right.
Speaker 3 (07:11):
And then Hunter's own attorney said, hey, he was a
hopeless junkie. He said, all sorts of stuff get company
under the bus Hunter.
Speaker 4 (07:19):
I think the key thing here is that the near post, CBS,
NBC and others were starting the whole feeding frenzy thing
that happens when there's an actual scandal going on, and
when they believe they're being lied to.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
Right, They've ignored this stuff for many, many months, all
the ties to China and Ukraine and Kazakhstan in Mexico
and the rest of it, and how rich the Biden
family seems to have gotten, and all their many LLC's
and all the mysterious payments to all those llsas. But
now KJP went ahead and lied to their faces, and
now they're interested out of pride. I guess.
Speaker 4 (07:57):
Well, that particular text with Hunter saying I'm sitting right
here with next to my dad, which I don't know
if you believe his dad was actually sitting there or not.
That's a good thing to claim. I mean, I've made
that sort of claim with various things in my life.
Sure I've got the boss right here, but doesn't matter.
I mean, that is worth asking questions.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
About, obviously, I would say. So, here's a little timeline
stuff that all took place on the thirtieth of July
and twenty seventeen, four days later. You got to know
that we're talking about a Chinese investment fund partially Communist
Party owned BHR Partners, and then there's the government linked
CEFC China Energy. So CFC four days later send one
(08:43):
hundred thousand dollars to Hunter's law firm less than a
week after the text, CEFC also wired five million dollars
to the firm Hudson West III four days after that. Now,
of that five million dollars, four point eight million of
it were then handed over into in consulting fees to
(09:04):
Hunter Biden's law firm over the next thirteen months, just
trickling out one two hundred thousand dollars at a time.
Years earlier, the Harvest Fund collaborated with Hunter's firm, Rosemont
Seneca Partners to launch BHR Partners. Just twelve days after,
Hunter flew with his daddy aboard Air Force two for
(09:25):
an official trip to Beijing. During that trip, Hunter introduced
Joe Biden to the CEO, and the Joe Biden later
wrote college recommendation letters for the CEO's children. So all
of that flowing from that text message in the relationships
(09:45):
he started in China when he was flying with his
dad on Air Force two, But they never had any
discussions about it whatsoever. And the dozen or more meetings
between Joe Biden and Hunter's business associates were just meet
and greets had nothing to do with business. It wasn't
influence battling or anything like that. That's what we're being
asked to believe.
Speaker 4 (10:04):
So Joe has implied that I'm a hopelessly naive poultroon
with the sense of an eight year old girl in that.
I wow, I don't necessarily, I don't necessarily I don't
believe Joe Biden is aware of what's going on in
(10:25):
necessary believe? Can you possibly we did not get it?
Speaker 3 (10:32):
Do you think Joe Biden hasn't noticed how incredibly rich
he's become.
Speaker 4 (10:37):
Boy, we sure do.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
Buy a lot of stuff and still have a lot
of money. Oh well, he thinks let's buy another house.
I wonder where the money came from. No idea, ideal.
Speaker 4 (10:46):
We got this text lmao, which wow, it's l m ao.
WTF that's way too many cursing letters. IDK, Jack, Don't
you don't think Joe was involved? You have no consistency.
You sound like doctor phill Er Ellen now just saying
words and plugging sponsors.
Speaker 3 (11:07):
Yeah, quit being like Ellen.
Speaker 4 (11:10):
The other end of it is, Come on, guys, I'm
no Biden family lover. But just because a dishonest crack
smoking kid says in an email that his father was
sitting next to him. Doesn't make it true.
Speaker 3 (11:24):
Oh that's true.
Speaker 4 (11:25):
Yeah, well absolutely, But to we've got every time we
bring up this topic, we get a fair amount of
you guys are trying to find something where there is nothing. Well,
at this point, you've got to believe that The New
York Times is being too hard on Joe Biden when
Peter Baker of The New York Times says, it's not
unreasonable to ask whether the President of the United States
(11:48):
was involved, as this message seems to suggest in some
sort of a course of conversation for business dealings by
his son. If he wasn't, then maybe you should tell us.
That's the New York Times, all right.
Speaker 3 (11:58):
Joined by NBC and CBS in the questioning, the aggressive questioning,
and then KJP reporter repeatedly says, no, ask the White
House Counsel. The White House Counsel has addressed this, and
then the White House Council puts out gobbledegook.
Speaker 4 (12:15):
I would say I listened to a I was listened
to the National Review podcast last week with all their
people on there, and none of them Joe Biden fans obviously,
if you know anything about the National Review and they
actually did a where are you on the likelihood Joe
Biden is involved in this scale of one to ten,
and all but one of them are very low. They
just can't believe that Joe Biden's actually just same as
(12:36):
I've been thinking all along, They can't believe that Joe
Biden's actually involved with this himself. I would be I
would be shocked if he is, I will be surprised.
Doesn't mean that he can.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
I would be shocked if he's not. His brother. His
brother's up to his ears in it. Plausible deniability. Nobody
has disputed a single iota of what Tony Pomelinski has
testified to. They have not disputed a single fact. He
was their business partner. He said, yeah, we knew who
the big guy was. And I asked, James Biden, why
(13:09):
do we never name him? Why don't we ever say
he's going to be at the meeting? Plausible deniability, Tony,
plausible deniability.
Speaker 4 (13:17):
If I want to be conspiracy minded, I could believe
that the reason the New York Times and others are
enthusiastic about it now is they're not enthusiastic about Joe
Biden being the nominee and they don't mind driving him
at office, so I don't know that might be a
step too far.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
But what do you thought you were going to say
they were under orders from the Illuminati.
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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