September 23, 2025 • 11 mins
The episode provides a review on the excerpts from a New York Times article detailing President Donald Trump’s provocative address at the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly. This speech, noted for its departure from traditional diplomatic conventions, blended personal grievances, such as complaints about a broken escalator, with sweeping indictments of global institutions. The article captures Trump’s criticisms of environmental policies and climate science, alongside his announcements of new policy initiatives, including enforcing the biological weapons convention and issuing warnings to drug smugglers. Furthermore, the episode highlights the tension between Trump’s unilateral foreign policy approach and his unexpected social media post supporting Ukraine’s territorial recovery.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-new-york-times-review--4762002/support.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-new-york-times-review--4762002/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the deep dive. Today. We're tackling a really
fascinating mission. Actually, we want to cut through all the noise,
the spectacle to find the real substance behind a pretty
unusual moment in diplomacy. We've been looking closely at excerpts
from Luke Broadwater's piece in the New York Times. It
documented former President Trump's a very high profile address at
(00:21):
the eightieth UN General Assembly session.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Yeah, it's compelling stuff, it really is.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
The source material captures this striking departure from how things
are normally done diplomatically speaking. It wasn't just policy points.
It was this fifty six minute mix of big policy statements,
lots of rhetorical flourishes, and crucially these quite personal grievances
woven in. So our job today really is to show
you where the performance maybe ended and where the actual
(00:49):
structural policy shifts might have begun.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
And for you listening, getting a handle on this deep
dive is I think pretty essential. It shows how a
major world leader can well deliberately push against the norms
of multilateral engagement. We really need to separate the delivery,
the political showmanship from the actual policy changes that came
after you know, was it a real shift in global
(01:13):
strategy or just very loud politics.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
That's the core tension, isn't it, spectacle versus strategy. It
runs right through the article. So let's start where the
controversy really kicked off, the beginning of the speech, okay,
and the sort of fundamental challenge it through down to
the UN itself.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Yeah, the opening was definitely something.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
The speech began well confrontationally. The reporting points out, he
immediately questioned the very existence of the UN. That's more
than just you know, political critique.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Oh absolutely, it's hitting the foundations. It sets a hostile
mood for.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
The whole hour exactly. It threw all the usual expectations
right out the window from minute one.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
And what the article really highlights as particularly jarring is
weaving in those very specific personal complaints into that kind.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Of spere for that audience.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
Yeah, for the world's diplomats. Their remarks just swung wildly
between these huge critiques of global systems and then you
know what felt like settling scores over really minor personal things.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
The article gives two perfect examples, doesn't it.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
It does that tonal whiplash. First, complaining about a broken
escalator somewhere right, And second, a grievance about I think
it was a mis renovation contract in that setting.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
It's incredible. The UN General Assembly, the biggest diplomatic stage,
and the talk is about maintenance issues.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
It's almost like a distraction tactic.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Isn't that Yeah, a diplomatic headfake. Maybe it's so surprising.
It forces everyone delegates media to just lean in, even
if it's just out of shock. And that confrontational style
wasn't just about you know, building issues. It ramped up
quickly to these broader, much more controversial policy attacks that
the article says got a very muted reaction in the room.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Yeah, pretty quiet apparently. And the source spends a good
amount of time detailing the criticism aimed at environmentalists climate science.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
That was a major theme.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
It was the rhetoric seemed specifically designed to undermine that
global consensus building.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
And here's where you really see the rhetorical strategy the
article lays out. It notes the president just flatly dismissed
climate change as the greatest con job, strong words, very
but then to make it stick, he pairs it with
this this almost absurd visual, the mocking claim that environmentalists
(03:31):
wanted to what eliminate cows as part of their plan.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
Right, that's the move. You see. You take a big
policy attack like rejecting the whole scientific basis for climate action,
and wrap it in this memorable, kind of outrageous image
about cows.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
It grabs headlines, maximizes attention.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Exactly, And if you're a diplomat sitting there, you're trying
to figure out, Okay, what part of that is actual
policy direction and what's just you know, playing to the
bass back home, which.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
Brings us right to the core issue. The spectacle was loud, definitely,
but the article is very clear. We can't ignore the
actual policy proposals announced during that speech.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Absolutely crucial for anyone cracking US foreign policy. This is
the key part. So what were they Well, amidst all
the verbal fireworks, there were three pretty concrete initiatives laid
out in the source material. Okay, the first one points
to a major tech commitment, a new initiative using artificial
intelligence AI to enforce the Biological Weapons Convention the BWC.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Wow, okay, AI for Arms control.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
Yeah, and that's significant because the BWC is famously hard
to enforce, right, Yeah, because biological research.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
Can be dual use, right, peaceful or.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
Otherwise exactly so, bringing an AI suggests this huge pivot
moving arms control away from just traditional inspections towards like
high tech surveillance analyzing state activities through data.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
That sounds incredibly complex, Yeah and expensive.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Very and probably challenging to implement in a body like
the UN, which isn't always quick to adopt radical tech shifts.
It's a big.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
Promise, okay, So a huge potential shift hidden in there.
What else was on the policy list?
Speaker 2 (05:07):
The source also mentioned a call to halt nuclear weapons
development globally a halt. And third, maybe the most immediate
and unilateral action promised military intervention, specifically targeting drug smugglers
in international waters.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
Direct military action.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
Yeah, these actions really speak to a preference for let's say, direct,
measurable unilateral steps. Very different from the UN's usual slow,
consensus driven process, definitely. But if you connect this back
to the wider form policy picture the article paints, there's
an interesting wrinkle specifically about Ukraine. As the Ukraine situation,
(05:46):
the tone there seemed to shift quite dramatically, or at
least it became strategically ambiguous. Maybe this was after a
meeting with President Zelenski.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Right, the personal meeting seemed key.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
It suggests personal meetings can trump these big institute fusional
platform sometimes.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
And the source really highlights this pivot, doesn't it, saying
that right after that meeting, the president hit social media
supporting Ukraine's full territorial recovery.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
Yeah, made headlines, and it was a clear shift, especially
when you consider the earlier reluctance, which the source also
documents about funding more AID real turnaround, and apparently European
allies welcomed that shift immediately. So it creates this really
interesting duality for the diplomats, right, Well, they have to
sit through this defiant speech challenging the whole global order,
(06:32):
but then in the same day or so, they get
this major positive policy signal on a critical conflict like Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
So it blurs the lines defiance versus maybe subtle negotiation exactly.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
It makes things less predictable.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
That strategic flexibility or maybe unpredictability, leads us to the
core theme. The Times article explores that tension between unilateral
action and traditional diplomacy. The administration's overall strategy seemed defined
by a pretty clear institutional retreat.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
Yeah, and the article details that retreat very specifically, reducing foreign.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
Aid systematically pulling out of key bodies like the UN
Human Rights.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
Council, which is a big statement, not just a budget cut.
It signals a view on multilateral human rights work.
Speaker 1 (07:17):
And cutting billions in UN funding overall.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
Right, a clear pattern of stepping back from those institutions.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
But here's the paradox. The article carefully lays out this
wasn't isolationism. This stepping back from institutions happened alongside extremely
active unilateral engagement in global conflicts.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
That's the key contrast.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
The reporting shows the US inserting itself directly into peace
talks conflicts from Gaza to the CAUCUSUS.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
So definitely not stepping back from the world stage itself, No.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
Just bypassing the established global institutions to deal directly, often
in these very high stakes negotiations.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
And this fits perfectly with the president's reported view that
the UN mainly offers what was it, empty words and
strongly worded letters.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
Right, he framed his own actions brokering deals as necessary
interventions where the UN had, in his view, failed to
act decisively.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
The strategy seems clear if the institution is too slow
or ineffective in your eyes, just go around it.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
And the source adds one more potential layer. It notes
there was speculation that the pursuit of a Nobel peace
prize might have been a motivator behind some of these
high profile unilateral peace efforts.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
Interesting, whether true or not, that push for very visible
deals certainly became a signature style.
Speaker 1 (08:34):
So, okay, we have this extraordinary speech, grievances, attacks on institutions,
real policy shifts, all mixed together. How did the world
actually take it?
Speaker 2 (08:44):
Well? The source material points out an important difference compared
to previous years. Apparently, similar rhetoric in the past had
sometimes drawn actual open laughter from some delicate.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
I remember reports about.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
That, But this time polite applause. Just polite applause.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
Hmmm. That's quite a shift from laughter to polite applause.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
It suggests a big evolution in how the world was
receiving it, maybe moving from initial shock towards a kind
of reluctant normalization, or at least a strained acceptance of
this unconventional.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Style normalization, or maybe just adaptation. And the key takeaway
of the diplomacy front, according to the article, is that
despite all the rhetorical fireworks were continued. Diplomacy went on immediately.
World leaders were apparently lining up for private one oh
one meetings right after.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
The speech, which tells you a lot, doesn't it.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
It really does. It suggests that while the opening act
was unconventional, the delegates knew the core business of engaging
with the world's most powerful nation had to continue regardless
of the packaging.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Yeah, the spectacle maybe had to be endured to get
to the substance in those private meetings afterwards. Exactly So,
the overall story the source gives us is powerful because
it captures that tension perfectly. The address wasn't just a performance.
It was part of a strategy that fundamental mentally challenged
the status quo, tried to redefine the US role the world.
(10:04):
Basically had to quickly figure out the difference between what
was being said from the podium and what might actually
be achievable off stage in those meetings.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
This deep dive has really highlighted those dualities, hasn't it. Yeah,
personal complaints versus actual policy, pulling back from institutions while
diving into unilateral action, and.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
That start gap between really controversial rhetoric and the simple
fact that diplomatic engagement just carried on. The article really
documents a key moment, a leader's specific vision clashing hard
the established international framework. It forces that question, is the
system breaking or is it just showing how flexible it
can be.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
So here's a final thought for you, the listener. Given
the diplomacy did continue, that crucial lineup for meetings happened
right after that incredibly defiant norm breaking speech, what does
that really tell us? Does it mean global institutions just
tolerate unconventional rhetoric or are they maybe robust enough to
(11:02):
simply adapt to any leader, any style. What's the actual cost,
the real world cost of challenging norms if the basic
function of diplomacy just keeps rolling.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
Anyway, That's a really good question to ponder.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
It is something for you to take into your own
deep dive. Thank you for joining us as we tried
to process the substance behind the spectacle today.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
I hope it was useful.
Speaker 1 (11:19):
We hope you feel better equipped for your next meeting
or conversation on the topic.
Welcome to the deep dive. Today. We're tackling a really
fascinating mission. Actually, we want to cut through all the noise,
the spectacle to find the real substance behind a pretty
unusual moment in diplomacy. We've been looking closely at excerpts
from Luke Broadwater's piece in the New York Times. It
documented former President Trump's a very high profile address at
(00:21):
the eightieth UN General Assembly session.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Yeah, it's compelling stuff, it really is.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
The source material captures this striking departure from how things
are normally done diplomatically speaking. It wasn't just policy points.
It was this fifty six minute mix of big policy statements,
lots of rhetorical flourishes, and crucially these quite personal grievances
woven in. So our job today really is to show
you where the performance maybe ended and where the actual
(00:49):
structural policy shifts might have begun.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
And for you listening, getting a handle on this deep
dive is I think pretty essential. It shows how a
major world leader can well deliberately push against the norms
of multilateral engagement. We really need to separate the delivery,
the political showmanship from the actual policy changes that came
after you know, was it a real shift in global
(01:13):
strategy or just very loud politics.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
That's the core tension, isn't it, spectacle versus strategy. It
runs right through the article. So let's start where the
controversy really kicked off, the beginning of the speech, okay,
and the sort of fundamental challenge it through down to
the UN itself.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Yeah, the opening was definitely something.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
The speech began well confrontationally. The reporting points out, he
immediately questioned the very existence of the UN. That's more
than just you know, political critique.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Oh absolutely, it's hitting the foundations. It sets a hostile
mood for.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
The whole hour exactly. It threw all the usual expectations
right out the window from minute one.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
And what the article really highlights as particularly jarring is
weaving in those very specific personal complaints into that kind.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Of spere for that audience.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
Yeah, for the world's diplomats. Their remarks just swung wildly
between these huge critiques of global systems and then you
know what felt like settling scores over really minor personal things.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
The article gives two perfect examples, doesn't it.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
It does that tonal whiplash. First, complaining about a broken
escalator somewhere right, And second, a grievance about I think
it was a mis renovation contract in that setting.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
It's incredible. The UN General Assembly, the biggest diplomatic stage,
and the talk is about maintenance issues.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
It's almost like a distraction tactic.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Isn't that Yeah, a diplomatic headfake. Maybe it's so surprising.
It forces everyone delegates media to just lean in, even
if it's just out of shock. And that confrontational style
wasn't just about you know, building issues. It ramped up
quickly to these broader, much more controversial policy attacks that
the article says got a very muted reaction in the room.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Yeah, pretty quiet apparently. And the source spends a good
amount of time detailing the criticism aimed at environmentalists climate science.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
That was a major theme.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
It was the rhetoric seemed specifically designed to undermine that
global consensus building.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
And here's where you really see the rhetorical strategy the
article lays out. It notes the president just flatly dismissed
climate change as the greatest con job, strong words, very
but then to make it stick, he pairs it with
this this almost absurd visual, the mocking claim that environmentalists
(03:31):
wanted to what eliminate cows as part of their plan.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
Right, that's the move. You see. You take a big
policy attack like rejecting the whole scientific basis for climate action,
and wrap it in this memorable, kind of outrageous image
about cows.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
It grabs headlines, maximizes attention.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Exactly, And if you're a diplomat sitting there, you're trying
to figure out, Okay, what part of that is actual
policy direction and what's just you know, playing to the
bass back home, which.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
Brings us right to the core issue. The spectacle was loud, definitely,
but the article is very clear. We can't ignore the
actual policy proposals announced during that speech.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Absolutely crucial for anyone cracking US foreign policy. This is
the key part. So what were they Well, amidst all
the verbal fireworks, there were three pretty concrete initiatives laid
out in the source material. Okay, the first one points
to a major tech commitment, a new initiative using artificial
intelligence AI to enforce the Biological Weapons Convention the BWC.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Wow, okay, AI for Arms control.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
Yeah, and that's significant because the BWC is famously hard
to enforce, right, Yeah, because biological research.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
Can be dual use, right, peaceful or.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
Otherwise exactly so, bringing an AI suggests this huge pivot
moving arms control away from just traditional inspections towards like
high tech surveillance analyzing state activities through data.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
That sounds incredibly complex, Yeah and expensive.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Very and probably challenging to implement in a body like
the UN, which isn't always quick to adopt radical tech shifts.
It's a big.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
Promise, okay, So a huge potential shift hidden in there.
What else was on the policy list?
Speaker 2 (05:07):
The source also mentioned a call to halt nuclear weapons
development globally a halt. And third, maybe the most immediate
and unilateral action promised military intervention, specifically targeting drug smugglers
in international waters.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
Direct military action.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
Yeah, these actions really speak to a preference for let's say, direct,
measurable unilateral steps. Very different from the UN's usual slow,
consensus driven process, definitely. But if you connect this back
to the wider form policy picture the article paints, there's
an interesting wrinkle specifically about Ukraine. As the Ukraine situation,
(05:46):
the tone there seemed to shift quite dramatically, or at
least it became strategically ambiguous. Maybe this was after a
meeting with President Zelenski.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Right, the personal meeting seemed key.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
It suggests personal meetings can trump these big institute fusional
platform sometimes.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
And the source really highlights this pivot, doesn't it, saying
that right after that meeting, the president hit social media
supporting Ukraine's full territorial recovery.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
Yeah, made headlines, and it was a clear shift, especially
when you consider the earlier reluctance, which the source also
documents about funding more AID real turnaround, and apparently European
allies welcomed that shift immediately. So it creates this really
interesting duality for the diplomats, right, Well, they have to
sit through this defiant speech challenging the whole global order,
(06:32):
but then in the same day or so, they get
this major positive policy signal on a critical conflict like Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
So it blurs the lines defiance versus maybe subtle negotiation exactly.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
It makes things less predictable.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
That strategic flexibility or maybe unpredictability, leads us to the
core theme. The Times article explores that tension between unilateral
action and traditional diplomacy. The administration's overall strategy seemed defined
by a pretty clear institutional retreat.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
Yeah, and the article details that retreat very specifically, reducing foreign.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
Aid systematically pulling out of key bodies like the UN
Human Rights.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
Council, which is a big statement, not just a budget cut.
It signals a view on multilateral human rights work.
Speaker 1 (07:17):
And cutting billions in UN funding overall.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
Right, a clear pattern of stepping back from those institutions.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
But here's the paradox. The article carefully lays out this
wasn't isolationism. This stepping back from institutions happened alongside extremely
active unilateral engagement in global conflicts.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
That's the key contrast.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
The reporting shows the US inserting itself directly into peace
talks conflicts from Gaza to the CAUCUSUS.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
So definitely not stepping back from the world stage itself, No.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
Just bypassing the established global institutions to deal directly, often
in these very high stakes negotiations.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
And this fits perfectly with the president's reported view that
the UN mainly offers what was it, empty words and
strongly worded letters.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
Right, he framed his own actions brokering deals as necessary
interventions where the UN had, in his view, failed to
act decisively.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
The strategy seems clear if the institution is too slow
or ineffective in your eyes, just go around it.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
And the source adds one more potential layer. It notes
there was speculation that the pursuit of a Nobel peace
prize might have been a motivator behind some of these
high profile unilateral peace efforts.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
Interesting, whether true or not, that push for very visible
deals certainly became a signature style.
Speaker 1 (08:34):
So, okay, we have this extraordinary speech, grievances, attacks on institutions,
real policy shifts, all mixed together. How did the world
actually take it?
Speaker 2 (08:44):
Well? The source material points out an important difference compared
to previous years. Apparently, similar rhetoric in the past had
sometimes drawn actual open laughter from some delicate.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
I remember reports about.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
That, But this time polite applause. Just polite applause.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
Hmmm. That's quite a shift from laughter to polite applause.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
It suggests a big evolution in how the world was
receiving it, maybe moving from initial shock towards a kind
of reluctant normalization, or at least a strained acceptance of
this unconventional.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Style normalization, or maybe just adaptation. And the key takeaway
of the diplomacy front, according to the article, is that
despite all the rhetorical fireworks were continued. Diplomacy went on immediately.
World leaders were apparently lining up for private one oh
one meetings right after.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
The speech, which tells you a lot, doesn't it.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
It really does. It suggests that while the opening act
was unconventional, the delegates knew the core business of engaging
with the world's most powerful nation had to continue regardless
of the packaging.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Yeah, the spectacle maybe had to be endured to get
to the substance in those private meetings afterwards. Exactly So,
the overall story the source gives us is powerful because
it captures that tension perfectly. The address wasn't just a performance.
It was part of a strategy that fundamental mentally challenged
the status quo, tried to redefine the US role the world.
(10:04):
Basically had to quickly figure out the difference between what
was being said from the podium and what might actually
be achievable off stage in those meetings.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
This deep dive has really highlighted those dualities, hasn't it. Yeah,
personal complaints versus actual policy, pulling back from institutions while
diving into unilateral action, and.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
That start gap between really controversial rhetoric and the simple
fact that diplomatic engagement just carried on. The article really
documents a key moment, a leader's specific vision clashing hard
the established international framework. It forces that question, is the
system breaking or is it just showing how flexible it
can be.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
So here's a final thought for you, the listener. Given
the diplomacy did continue, that crucial lineup for meetings happened
right after that incredibly defiant norm breaking speech, what does
that really tell us? Does it mean global institutions just
tolerate unconventional rhetoric or are they maybe robust enough to
(11:02):
simply adapt to any leader, any style. What's the actual cost,
the real world cost of challenging norms if the basic
function of diplomacy just keeps rolling.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
Anyway, That's a really good question to ponder.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
It is something for you to take into your own
deep dive. Thank you for joining us as we tried
to process the substance behind the spectacle today.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
I hope it was useful.
Speaker 1 (11:19):
We hope you feel better equipped for your next meeting
or conversation on the topic.
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
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.
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.