January 7, 2026 • 14 mins
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):
I'm having us through lock On northbound, out of arrow
(00:02):
Linger into the cut. Everything is new in twenty twenty six,
including our next guest coming up is the brand new
draft consultant for the New York Giants, Judge Napolitano, you're
on the clock, Chuck Ingramont fifty five kr DE Talk Station, fifty.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Five kr SE DE Talk Station. Oh, you may not
think big plans for the Bengals this year. But if
Chuck ingram is right, got big plans for the Giants
this year, I guess they're gonna do really well with
Judge of Politano helping them out. Judge of Polaitano, Welcome
back to the fifty five KRSE Morning Show. Every Wednesday.
At this time we get the Judge's sage, wisdom and insight.
Constitutional purist he may be, and maybe suffering some slings
(00:45):
and arrows as a consequence of it, but we're running out.
We're we're running out of people who are on our
side of the ledger anymore. Judge, you are happy New Year.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
And also suffering slings and arrows of it. Being a
long suffering Giant fan. If I had my drouts, I
would to hire Bill Belichick as general manager. And as
said coach, I like that, giants.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
It's nice to have a little misery loves company going
on when you're a Bengals fan. So probably, well, you know,
we understand where you're coming from, Judge Anna Politano, and
finding ourselves in a bit of a minority with the
most recent unilateral military action by a president, and this
happens with presidents of all political stripes. With this one,
of course, we're dealing with Donald Trump goes in middle
of night grabs Manuel Noriega, and already we did that before.
(01:31):
The predicate may have been Manuel Noriega, among others, Nicholas
Madur and his wife for criminal violations. And it seems
to me, Judge of Politano, if you're using, for example,
Noriega as the predicate or the legal authority, and I
know you'll have a word or two to say about that.
To grab this guy, the idea that he was indicted
(01:51):
by a federal grand jury and facing criminal charges for
work that was unrelated to his position as the president
of a nation, in other words, make money on the side,
engaging in criminal activity. That's not a presidential thing that
we can grab him. But I think that is sort
of the precondition of the predicate, the sort of the
(02:14):
thing that they're hanging their hat on in order to
engage in what they're calling this don Roe doctrine, to
try to keep the Chinese out of the hemisphere, to
try to keep the Russians out of the hemisphere, of course,
to get rid of drugs generally speaking, but to bring
about some greater pro Western stability here, I think was
the goal. But you can't go in and grab somebody
just because they disagree with you politically. Oh look, we've
(02:36):
got a federal indictment for criminal charges. We can use
the Norriega example and go grab him. And I know
you disagree with all of that, But here we are.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
Well, I do disagree with all of it because we
have this thing called the Constitution, and we have a
treaty that the United States drafted and the Senate ratified
and called the un Charter, and both prohibit this. The
President does seem to care about the Constitution, which he
took an oath to preserve, protect and defend, as we
all know, he doesn't seem to care about a treaty
(03:08):
with which he may disagree, even though under the lows
in the same category as the Constitution. This Constitution and
all treaties made pursuant to it, shall be the supreme
law of the land. I'm quoting from the Constitution itself.
But the President doesn't care and probably will get away
(03:28):
with this. The Noriega example was just as unlawful as this,
but the courts did not interfere with it. Interesting thing,
Noriega argued that all he did was look the other
way while the CIA engaged in drug trafficking, because the
(03:50):
CIA asked him to look the other way. Well, question
who was the director of the CIA and Noriega was
engaged in what he says was cooperation with them? George Bush,
the same president who invaded Panama to arrest him, George H. W. Bush.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
It's amazing how that list stars aligned on that. But
under legal theories, him looking away is a criminal act.
He is part of the broader conspiracy to involve the
involved in the drug trade, whether it's the CIA doing
the drugs or not. If it was a RICO claim
against him, he'd still be indictable and subject to prosecution
by because he helped facilitate it by looking the other
way and not doing anything.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
What about the CIA agent no, no, I'm what are
they going to be defended?
Speaker 2 (04:40):
So, which leads me to the ultimate point here. Let's
assume everyone agrees with you that right this is extra constitutional.
What is the response supposed to be in this insanely
politically divided environment. You can't get Congress to pass even
a bill if Trump wants it hated. If Trump doesn't
(05:01):
want it, then they want it.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
I don't know what the response is. I think Trump
was correct yesterday when he told the Republican caucus that
if the Democrats take the House, he'll be impeached. They
won't be convicted, It'll be impeached it we'll be going
through that nonsense of tying up the government and knots. Again,
He's already been impeached twice. There just aren't the votes
(05:22):
to convict unless some more comes out. But that's really
the only remedy there is at this point. That Congress
doesn't have an LBJ. There is no person there who
can cobble together agreements that appeal to a majority of
Republicans and a majority of Democrats. It's whoever's in charge
(05:43):
gets their way. They don't want to go shape with
or talk to the minority party. The Democrats will probably
take the House in November. Anything could happen. That's nine
months away, ten months away. They hope to take the Senate.
That's a bit of a stretch, but again, anything could happen,
(06:08):
but the government will be steinied. It will accomplish nothing.
Maybe that's a good thing if Trump's in the White
House and one or both of the Houses of Congress
are controlled by the Democrats.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
So we are left with this sort of I don't
want to call it an incentive to ignore the declaration
of war responsibility in the Constitution, the control the Congress
is supposed to have over these matters, because we run
into this brick wall that there won't be any consequences
if there is a questionable constitutional action here. So doesn't
(06:45):
that sort of facilitate presidents down the road doing the
same thing? And a suggestion I meet to you in
that email.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
It's like throwing in.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
The concepts of legal concepts of waiver and a stop
or whatever. Everybody's done it since World War Two. We
kind of like political expeeding. We don't have to put
ourselves down as voting in favor of something like this,
and it gives us an opportunity to scream and yell
about what the opposition president is doing, and yet since
they don't follow through and do anything, something suggests in
(07:12):
the back of my mind that I think they all
kind of like this cozy arrangements as well. It's by
the fact that the Constitution seems prohibited.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
I was literally interviewing the late great Congressman Charlie Wrangle
of Harlem when President Obama came a national television from
Brazil and announced that we were bombing Libya. And I
looked at the Congressman Wrangle and I said, did I
(07:44):
miss something? Did you guys declare war on Libya? I
won't try and imitate his voice yet, I remember him
a famous way of speaking, with a very scratchy sounding voice.
But he said, well, no, we didn't. We just hope
it's a successful outcome, and then it's a win win
for us. We didn't declare war, but we'll reap the
benefits for more. So we privately hope it's successful, but
(08:08):
publicly we'll say the hell are you to do this?
Follow the Constitution. The attitude is the same amongst the
Republicans today.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
It is.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
That's why I think it's going to continue. If there
isn't a political ramification or some illegal ramifies, then.
Speaker 3 (08:23):
We don't have a constitution and we don't really have
a democracy. We just have a term limited monarch in
the White House. He may not even be term limited
in his own mind.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Well, and you know, you could move over to different
areas of topics. I just had a conversation with a
gentleman who wrote a book, Ary Benoit. He's been with
the johnsh Burt Society since basically it's founding. But he
put it out a COVID nineteen and I brought up
the fact that free exercise of religion was eradicated, like
to free assembly was eradicated, all in the name of
(08:55):
all COVID. So our constitution gets trampled on. You and
I have talked many times about their they're trampling all
over the Fourth Amendment. There are right to be free
of unreasonable searches and seizures. And what's going on with
FISA courts, I mean here and there in everywhere.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
The drug war in the sixties, seventies and eighties and
then the overreaction to nine to eleven have obliterated the
Fourth Amendment, and the courts have gone along with it.
There are very few of my former colleagues in black
robes who believe that the Constitution means what it says,
(09:32):
very very few. It's hard for me to find one
on the Supreme Court of the United States. I might
have said that about Justice gors Such a year or
so ago, but he seems to have fallen in line
with his right wing colleagues, including my college debate partner
Sam Alito.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
What of? And I just I have to bring this
up because been the subject of a lot of discussion
going back to Venezuela. The Democrats, Joe Biden's wanted to
put a twenty five or fifty million dollars bounty on it.
Is there something to a bounty? Is that extra constitutional?
I mean, and I don't know what that means. If
you put a bounty out and someone's being offered millions
and millions of dollars to bring me the head of
(10:12):
Noryega or Maduro or whoever. It seems to me that
that's a suggestion that the American military is going to
do it, because who among us can go into a
foreign land and actually successfully capture somebody who's under guard.
But is there something wrong with that concept, And how
can you advocate for putting a bounty on a man's
head and then run back the next day and screaming
yell about someone actually extra or taking action on that.
Speaker 3 (10:36):
Yeah, I never looked at the constitutionality of bounties. The
American government'smen using bounties since right after the Revolutionary War.
But sometimes we put bounties on the heads of people
like the president of the current President of Syria, and
then we just take the bounty away and embrace him
(10:57):
in the oval office. So it's more political than it
is legal or financial. Who's going to get the fifty
million that the State Department put up? Is it going
to be shared amongst the guys that actually grabbed him
in his bedroom?
Speaker 2 (11:13):
Or maybe the intel that came from within the administration
that no longer exists. There probably that person or persons
that gave the intel to our American military.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
Well, the likely culprit is still a general and still
subject to the new president, Maduro's chosen vice president. It's
very interesting that unlike the Bush Cheney administration, which when
they took over Iraq through the whole government out, the
(11:45):
Trump people have decided, let's work with the people that
are in place. We can't fill the potholes, we can't
deliver the mail, we can't collect the garbage. Oh, we
can't even do that in our own country. How are
we going to do it in Venezuela.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Well, and I think the threat of the same thing
happening to those current leaders may force them or cause
them to be more inclined to work with Trump to
achieve the goals that Trump's looking for, like bringing out
fifty million barrels of oil.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
So that's just theft, that's just a schoolyard bully saying
give me your lunch money or I'll beat your face in.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Yeah, they can say no. Though it's complicated, isn't it. Hey?
Speaker 3 (12:26):
Should we need more bullies in the world to oh,
a neutralized one in the White House?
Speaker 2 (12:33):
Should I mention even the word greenland?
Speaker 3 (12:36):
Oh? God, let's not go there anyway, you.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
Know, going back to Seward's folly, the idea of buying greenland,
that's been done before. So if you write them at
check and they accept that, and that can be an
arms length negotiation, that's one thing. But this talk of
military intervention to take it over, I don't know what
planet that comes from Judge of Poltone. I kind of
feel you feel the same way on that one.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
I do feel the same way. It comes from the
President's brand. I mean, the sale of it requires a
willing seller as well as a willing fire. In this case,
the willing buyer would have to be the Congress of
the United States, right, can't be Trump and his billionaire friends,
So I don't I don't know how this could possibly happen.
I can't imagine the Senate going along with us exactly.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
So conceptually it's possible, but reality has to step in
and say no, it's not possible. Judge Editapolitano, always an
outstanding discussion with you. I appreciate your willingness to come
on the morning show, and I hope we continue to
do this throughout this calendar year.
Speaker 3 (13:33):
Sir, I hope the same, and I'm deeply grateful for
all our time together, my dear friend.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
Thank you in a wonderful bunch of years.
Speaker 3 (13:40):
Man happy hell Ingram, tell Ingram and Streker that I.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Love them you already did. Thank you, Judge. We'll talk
next Wednesday. Safe week and health for you fit eight
forty two right now, if you five cares the talk
stations got a little time to talk. The phone lines
are open. Feel fear to respond. I'd love to hear
from you. Five one, three, seven, four nine, fifty five
eight two to three Talk fifth John at and T phones,
be right back, fifty.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
Five KRC dot com.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
The New Year means new resolutions, not just for
I'm having us through lock On northbound, out of arrow
(00:02):
Linger into the cut. Everything is new in twenty twenty six,
including our next guest coming up is the brand new
draft consultant for the New York Giants, Judge Napolitano, you're
on the clock, Chuck Ingramont fifty five kr DE Talk Station, fifty.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Five kr SE DE Talk Station. Oh, you may not
think big plans for the Bengals this year. But if
Chuck ingram is right, got big plans for the Giants
this year, I guess they're gonna do really well with
Judge of Politano helping them out. Judge of Polaitano, Welcome
back to the fifty five KRSE Morning Show. Every Wednesday.
At this time we get the Judge's sage, wisdom and insight.
Constitutional purist he may be, and maybe suffering some slings
(00:45):
and arrows as a consequence of it, but we're running out.
We're we're running out of people who are on our
side of the ledger anymore. Judge, you are happy New Year.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
And also suffering slings and arrows of it. Being a
long suffering Giant fan. If I had my drouts, I
would to hire Bill Belichick as general manager. And as
said coach, I like that, giants.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
It's nice to have a little misery loves company going
on when you're a Bengals fan. So probably, well, you know,
we understand where you're coming from, Judge Anna Politano, and
finding ourselves in a bit of a minority with the
most recent unilateral military action by a president, and this
happens with presidents of all political stripes. With this one,
of course, we're dealing with Donald Trump goes in middle
of night grabs Manuel Noriega, and already we did that before.
(01:31):
The predicate may have been Manuel Noriega, among others, Nicholas
Madur and his wife for criminal violations. And it seems
to me, Judge of Politano, if you're using, for example,
Noriega as the predicate or the legal authority, and I
know you'll have a word or two to say about that.
To grab this guy, the idea that he was indicted
(01:51):
by a federal grand jury and facing criminal charges for
work that was unrelated to his position as the president
of a nation, in other words, make money on the side,
engaging in criminal activity. That's not a presidential thing that
we can grab him. But I think that is sort
of the precondition of the predicate, the sort of the
(02:14):
thing that they're hanging their hat on in order to
engage in what they're calling this don Roe doctrine, to
try to keep the Chinese out of the hemisphere, to
try to keep the Russians out of the hemisphere, of course,
to get rid of drugs generally speaking, but to bring
about some greater pro Western stability here, I think was
the goal. But you can't go in and grab somebody
just because they disagree with you politically. Oh look, we've
(02:36):
got a federal indictment for criminal charges. We can use
the Norriega example and go grab him. And I know
you disagree with all of that, But here we are.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
Well, I do disagree with all of it because we
have this thing called the Constitution, and we have a
treaty that the United States drafted and the Senate ratified
and called the un Charter, and both prohibit this. The
President does seem to care about the Constitution, which he
took an oath to preserve, protect and defend, as we
all know, he doesn't seem to care about a treaty
(03:08):
with which he may disagree, even though under the lows
in the same category as the Constitution. This Constitution and
all treaties made pursuant to it, shall be the supreme
law of the land. I'm quoting from the Constitution itself.
But the President doesn't care and probably will get away
(03:28):
with this. The Noriega example was just as unlawful as this,
but the courts did not interfere with it. Interesting thing,
Noriega argued that all he did was look the other
way while the CIA engaged in drug trafficking, because the
(03:50):
CIA asked him to look the other way. Well, question
who was the director of the CIA and Noriega was
engaged in what he says was cooperation with them? George Bush,
the same president who invaded Panama to arrest him, George H. W. Bush.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
It's amazing how that list stars aligned on that. But
under legal theories, him looking away is a criminal act.
He is part of the broader conspiracy to involve the
involved in the drug trade, whether it's the CIA doing
the drugs or not. If it was a RICO claim
against him, he'd still be indictable and subject to prosecution
by because he helped facilitate it by looking the other
way and not doing anything.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
What about the CIA agent no, no, I'm what are
they going to be defended?
Speaker 2 (04:40):
So, which leads me to the ultimate point here. Let's
assume everyone agrees with you that right this is extra constitutional.
What is the response supposed to be in this insanely
politically divided environment. You can't get Congress to pass even
a bill if Trump wants it hated. If Trump doesn't
(05:01):
want it, then they want it.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
I don't know what the response is. I think Trump
was correct yesterday when he told the Republican caucus that
if the Democrats take the House, he'll be impeached. They
won't be convicted, It'll be impeached it we'll be going
through that nonsense of tying up the government and knots. Again,
He's already been impeached twice. There just aren't the votes
(05:22):
to convict unless some more comes out. But that's really
the only remedy there is at this point. That Congress
doesn't have an LBJ. There is no person there who
can cobble together agreements that appeal to a majority of
Republicans and a majority of Democrats. It's whoever's in charge
(05:43):
gets their way. They don't want to go shape with
or talk to the minority party. The Democrats will probably
take the House in November. Anything could happen. That's nine
months away, ten months away. They hope to take the Senate.
That's a bit of a stretch, but again, anything could happen,
(06:08):
but the government will be steinied. It will accomplish nothing.
Maybe that's a good thing if Trump's in the White
House and one or both of the Houses of Congress
are controlled by the Democrats.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
So we are left with this sort of I don't
want to call it an incentive to ignore the declaration
of war responsibility in the Constitution, the control the Congress
is supposed to have over these matters, because we run
into this brick wall that there won't be any consequences
if there is a questionable constitutional action here. So doesn't
(06:45):
that sort of facilitate presidents down the road doing the
same thing? And a suggestion I meet to you in
that email.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
It's like throwing in.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
The concepts of legal concepts of waiver and a stop
or whatever. Everybody's done it since World War Two. We
kind of like political expeeding. We don't have to put
ourselves down as voting in favor of something like this,
and it gives us an opportunity to scream and yell
about what the opposition president is doing, and yet since
they don't follow through and do anything, something suggests in
(07:12):
the back of my mind that I think they all
kind of like this cozy arrangements as well. It's by
the fact that the Constitution seems prohibited.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
I was literally interviewing the late great Congressman Charlie Wrangle
of Harlem when President Obama came a national television from
Brazil and announced that we were bombing Libya. And I
looked at the Congressman Wrangle and I said, did I
(07:44):
miss something? Did you guys declare war on Libya? I
won't try and imitate his voice yet, I remember him
a famous way of speaking, with a very scratchy sounding voice.
But he said, well, no, we didn't. We just hope
it's a successful outcome, and then it's a win win
for us. We didn't declare war, but we'll reap the
benefits for more. So we privately hope it's successful, but
(08:08):
publicly we'll say the hell are you to do this?
Follow the Constitution. The attitude is the same amongst the
Republicans today.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
It is.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
That's why I think it's going to continue. If there
isn't a political ramification or some illegal ramifies, then.
Speaker 3 (08:23):
We don't have a constitution and we don't really have
a democracy. We just have a term limited monarch in
the White House. He may not even be term limited
in his own mind.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Well, and you know, you could move over to different
areas of topics. I just had a conversation with a
gentleman who wrote a book, Ary Benoit. He's been with
the johnsh Burt Society since basically it's founding. But he
put it out a COVID nineteen and I brought up
the fact that free exercise of religion was eradicated, like
to free assembly was eradicated, all in the name of
(08:55):
all COVID. So our constitution gets trampled on. You and
I have talked many times about their they're trampling all
over the Fourth Amendment. There are right to be free
of unreasonable searches and seizures. And what's going on with
FISA courts, I mean here and there in everywhere.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
The drug war in the sixties, seventies and eighties and
then the overreaction to nine to eleven have obliterated the
Fourth Amendment, and the courts have gone along with it.
There are very few of my former colleagues in black
robes who believe that the Constitution means what it says,
(09:32):
very very few. It's hard for me to find one
on the Supreme Court of the United States. I might
have said that about Justice gors Such a year or
so ago, but he seems to have fallen in line
with his right wing colleagues, including my college debate partner
Sam Alito.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
What of? And I just I have to bring this
up because been the subject of a lot of discussion
going back to Venezuela. The Democrats, Joe Biden's wanted to
put a twenty five or fifty million dollars bounty on it.
Is there something to a bounty? Is that extra constitutional?
I mean, and I don't know what that means. If
you put a bounty out and someone's being offered millions
and millions of dollars to bring me the head of
(10:12):
Noryega or Maduro or whoever. It seems to me that
that's a suggestion that the American military is going to
do it, because who among us can go into a
foreign land and actually successfully capture somebody who's under guard.
But is there something wrong with that concept, And how
can you advocate for putting a bounty on a man's
head and then run back the next day and screaming
yell about someone actually extra or taking action on that.
Speaker 3 (10:36):
Yeah, I never looked at the constitutionality of bounties. The
American government'smen using bounties since right after the Revolutionary War.
But sometimes we put bounties on the heads of people
like the president of the current President of Syria, and
then we just take the bounty away and embrace him
(10:57):
in the oval office. So it's more political than it
is legal or financial. Who's going to get the fifty
million that the State Department put up? Is it going
to be shared amongst the guys that actually grabbed him
in his bedroom?
Speaker 2 (11:13):
Or maybe the intel that came from within the administration
that no longer exists. There probably that person or persons
that gave the intel to our American military.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
Well, the likely culprit is still a general and still
subject to the new president, Maduro's chosen vice president. It's
very interesting that unlike the Bush Cheney administration, which when
they took over Iraq through the whole government out, the
(11:45):
Trump people have decided, let's work with the people that
are in place. We can't fill the potholes, we can't
deliver the mail, we can't collect the garbage. Oh, we
can't even do that in our own country. How are
we going to do it in Venezuela.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Well, and I think the threat of the same thing
happening to those current leaders may force them or cause
them to be more inclined to work with Trump to
achieve the goals that Trump's looking for, like bringing out
fifty million barrels of oil.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
So that's just theft, that's just a schoolyard bully saying
give me your lunch money or I'll beat your face in.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Yeah, they can say no. Though it's complicated, isn't it. Hey?
Speaker 3 (12:26):
Should we need more bullies in the world to oh,
a neutralized one in the White House?
Speaker 2 (12:33):
Should I mention even the word greenland?
Speaker 3 (12:36):
Oh? God, let's not go there anyway, you.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
Know, going back to Seward's folly, the idea of buying greenland,
that's been done before. So if you write them at
check and they accept that, and that can be an
arms length negotiation, that's one thing. But this talk of
military intervention to take it over, I don't know what
planet that comes from Judge of Poltone. I kind of
feel you feel the same way on that one.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
I do feel the same way. It comes from the
President's brand. I mean, the sale of it requires a
willing seller as well as a willing fire. In this case,
the willing buyer would have to be the Congress of
the United States, right, can't be Trump and his billionaire friends,
So I don't I don't know how this could possibly happen.
I can't imagine the Senate going along with us exactly.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
So conceptually it's possible, but reality has to step in
and say no, it's not possible. Judge Editapolitano, always an
outstanding discussion with you. I appreciate your willingness to come
on the morning show, and I hope we continue to
do this throughout this calendar year.
Speaker 3 (13:33):
Sir, I hope the same, and I'm deeply grateful for
all our time together, my dear friend.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
Thank you in a wonderful bunch of years.
Speaker 3 (13:40):
Man happy hell Ingram, tell Ingram and Streker that I.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Love them you already did. Thank you, Judge. We'll talk
next Wednesday. Safe week and health for you fit eight
forty two right now, if you five cares the talk
stations got a little time to talk. The phone lines
are open. Feel fear to respond. I'd love to hear
from you. Five one, three, seven, four nine, fifty five
eight two to three Talk fifth John at and T phones,
be right back, fifty.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
Five KRC dot com.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
The New Year means new resolutions, not just for
Brian Thomas News
Popular Podcasts
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.
iHeartOlympics: The Latest
Listen to the latest news from the 2026 Winter Olympics.
Milan Cortina Winter Olympics
The 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan Cortina are here and have everyone talking. iHeartPodcasts is buzzing with content in honor of the XXV Winter Olympics We’re bringing you episodes from a variety of iHeartPodcast shows to help you keep up with the action. Follow Milan Cortina Winter Olympics so you don’t miss any coverage of the 2026 Winter Olympics, and if you like what you hear, be sure to follow each Podcast in the feed for more great content from iHeartPodcasts.