Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 12/28/21: Biden's Media Meetings, War Crimes, Iran Nuclear Deal, CBP Spying, and More!

Episode Date: December 28, 2021

Krystal and Saagar talk about the Biden administration's meetings with reporters, Pentagon covering up war crimes, re-entry into the Iran nuclear deal, Customs & Border Protection spying on people, and more!To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and SpotifyApple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-krystal-and-saagar/id1570045623 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Kbsy61zJSzPxNZZ3PKbXl Merch: https://breaking-points.myshopify.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. is still out there. Each week, I investigate a new case. If there is a case we should hear about, call 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

I think everything that might have dropped in 95 has been labeled the golden years of hip-hop. It's Black Music Month and we need to talk is tapping in. I'm Nyla Simone

breaking down lyrics, amplifying voices and digging into the culture that shaped the soundtrack of our lives like that's what's really important and that's what stands out is that our music changes people's lives for the better let's talk about the music that moves us to hear this and more on how music and culture collide listen to we need to talk from the black effect podcast network on the iheart radio app apple podcast or wherever you get your podcast. You experienced dad guilt? I hate it.

She understands, but she's still being pissed. She's like, dude. Happy Father's Day. This show may be called Good Moms, Bad Choices, but this show isn't just for moms. We keep it real about relationships and everything in between. And yes, men are more than welcome to listen in. I knew nothing about brunch. She was a terrible girlfriend, but. I knew nothing about brunch.

She was a terrible girlfriend, but she put me on to brunch. To hear this and more, open your free iHeart app, search Good Moms, Bad Choices, and listen now. Hey guys, thanks for listening to Breaking Points with Crystal and Sagar. We're going to be totally upfront with you. We took a big risk going independent. To make this work, we need your support to beat the corporate media. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, they are ripping this country apart. We'll be right back. today, where you get to watch and listen to the entire show ad free and uncut an hour early before everyone else. You get to hear our reactions to each other's monologues. You get to participate in weekly Ask Me Anythings, and you don't need to hear our annoying voices pitching you like I am

right now. So what are you waiting for? Go to BreakingPoints.com, become a premium member today, which is available in the show notes. Enjoy the White House, who is not happy with the news media's coverage of supply chain, has been working behind the scenes trying to reshape coverage in its favor. Senior White House officials and admin officials have been briefing major newsrooms over the past week. The officials have been discussing newsroom trends pertaining to job creation, economic growth, supply chain, and more, the basic argument has been made is that the country is in much better shape than it was last year. I'm told the conversations have been productive, with anchors and reporters and producers getting to talk with

officials. Now, this type of stuff happens all the time. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I didn't participate in many of them under Trump. But here's the thing. Under those, because I was in the room, there was a lot of skepticism from many of the reporters Trump. But here's the thing. Under those, because I was in the room, there was a lot of skepticism from many of the reporters, including myself, whenever we would be told lies by the Trump officials. Here, in this case, the fact that I can't, I have no inside knowledge exactly how these go, but we know that the media is much more likely to take spin, you know, from the establishment Democrats and more. But two, at that time, every time that we would do these types of meetings, it would leak constantly to CNN and elsewhere so other people knew that it was happening. I actually support that. I think

it was a good thing. This case, there are not a lot of details about these high-level meetings between the senior White House officials and the media. And this just highlights how big of a problem it is to have a cozy media that does not have a lot of skepticism in these things. The fact that they're saying have been productive, have been healthy conversation, all this stuff, that's just code for I'm accepting your BS and possibly letting it bleed into the coverage? Well, I think that, you know, the really effective maneuver here vis-a-vis the liberal press is the column that Dana Milbank wrote that I did a monologue on that uses this opaque, magical algorithm to argue that Biden's coverage at times has been more consistently negative than Trump. Right. Ergo, you're causing democracy to end. And I think a lot of these reporters are very susceptible to that argument. Oh, absolutely.

And, you know, like they would actually buy into this notion of, oh, you shouldn't be too critical of Biden because you don't want to bring Trump back. And that is so emblematic of the rot in the media that has, it was long there, but it really was revealed by the Trump years, where they were more interested in how do we defeat Trump than how do we tell the

truth about what's going on. And oftentimes, look, there was plenty of, you know, bad things that you could say and reveal about Donald Trump. But they also always chose to focus on the things that would shore up some other power center. So it might be negative about Trump, but it would shore up some other center of power. So I do think that if the Biden people are making the case, even with a wink and a nod, that basically like, listen, your coverage is going to lead to Donald Trump coming back into the White House. I do think a lot of these journalists, sadly, will be very susceptible to that when, you know, the reality is they should be telling the truth. And Lord knows we have a million criticisms of the way that they cover the economy and, you know, foreign policy and all of these things.

But, you know, the problem with their coverage isn't that it's too mean to Biden. The problem with their coverage is that it doesn't consistently enough challenge power centers, whether it's the president of the United States or the Republican Party or Wall Street or fossil fuel industry or corporations or any of those things. That's the real issue with media coverage. And something tells me that just telling them, like, you need to cover us more nicely because otherwise you're going to get Trump

isn't going to fix that problem. No, not at all. And also, you know, that is very important to point out, the fact that they really do believe that they have to work on par with democracy and that they're very susceptible to these arguments and getting in there and getting browbeaten. I mean, under Trump, they would have scoffed at it.

They would have leaked it. They would have shown that they didn't believe it. But under Biden, they're very, very susceptible to these types of things. So pay attention. I mean, what did you point out about Katie Turr getting caught just reading Democratic spin from Andrew Cuomo's aides straight off on the air, getting texts live from Cuomo aides, and then reading that spin right there. How do you know for sure that's not happening in the coverage of the news media whenever they're meeting with the Biden admin officials? I mean, one of the ways I always know this is anytime they do a story about Kamala

Harris, they go, some people close to the vice president say that this is a reaction of sexism and racism and always like, I know who these people are. You know, that's not real. You don't have to just put that in there. You're doing it because of bullying and because you feel like you have to. That's the truth. Yep. So we'll watch the coverage, see if the tenor of it changes.

I mean, again, I would love for coverage to change in certain ways, but the problem with the coverage is not that it's being too nice to Joe Biden. That's like a ridiculous, silly way of looking at this. Absolutely. All right, guys, thanks for watching. We're gonna have more for you later. We'd reported previously, actually, I think I did a monologue on a deep dive the New York Times had done into a massacre of civilians in Syria. It's perpetrated by a group called Task Force Nine, the secretive classified group was operating in Syria that was authorizing a lot of the drone strikes with very little oversight. That particular strike had been reported to the inspector general, but nothing ever came of it. The strike zone itself was completely bulldozed and demolished. And the final report on the

incident, which watchers at the time had thought instantly was a war crime, was so whitewashed it didn't even mention the strike. So now the New York Times, and let's put this tear sheet up on the screen, has gone even further and found that that was far from a one-off isolated incident. Here the headline is civilian deaths mounted as secret unit pounded ISIS. An American strike cell alarmed its partners as it raced to defeat the enemy. So here they have more details about just how common these strikes were and how civilian deaths mounted year after year after year. So you would think that as you're operating in an area that you would gain better intelligence, that you would find more ways to protect the civilian population,

which of course is our responsibility. It was a legal war to start with, but it's our responsibility in any war zone. Instead, what they found is that every year the strike cell operated, I'm reading from the piece, the civilian casualty rate in Syria increased significantly. That's according to a former Pentagon and State Department advisor who was one of the authors of a 2018 Defense Department report on civilian harm. That individual who's viewed the Pentagon's classified civilian casualty data for Syria said the rate was 10 times that of similar operations he tracked in Afghanistan. And of course, not known for doing a great job preventing civilian harm in Afghanistan as well. But Syria, in large part because of the secret cell, Talon Anvil, which was part of this Task Force 9, because of the way that they went about doing business on a daily basis. What they found is that over the years, because there were more restrictions on actually offensive strikes,

what they would do is they would justify everything, anything they wanted to do as a defensive strike. Quote, there were far fewer restrictions for defensive strikes that were meant to protect allied forces under imminent threat of harm. So Talon Anvil began claiming that nearly every strike was in self-defense, which enabled them to move quickly with little second guessing or oversight, even if their targets were miles from any fighting, two former task force members said some of the people that they talked to here talk about like the sort of dehumanizing aspect, like people going in day in and day out on this Talon Anvil and, you know, the amount of civilians who were killed. They just became numb to it. They detail one attack in particular where they just they had almost no intelligence about who was where in terms of fighters, civilians, et cetera.

They guessed that there were probably, they came in for the day saying like, we want to drop a bunch of bombs. I mean, literally we're like, that's our goal. Let's find a lot of targets. They found one building that they guessed had a lot of fighters. They drop a gigantic bomb on it.

And in the rubble, they see children, women streaming out. And not only that, but that footage, you know, has never come out into the public. There has been no accounting for the amount of civilians killed there and no reckoning whatsoever with that one strike. So it just begs the question of how much else are they hiding? How many civilians were killed that we will absolutely never know about? And just to show you how sort of intentional this is, they would clash. The members of this Talon Anvil team would clash with Air Force intelligence teams and try to pressure them to justify a strike even when there was no evidence that it would in fact be defensive, trying to pressure them into seeing a weapon that wasn't really there or seeing some sort of indication in the footage

that could give them a fig leaf of justification for this defensive strike. And then the other thing is all of this drone strike footage, I mean, all of it is recorded. But one person who looked at a lot of this footage, every time after the strike, they would pull away the camera so that you couldn't see the fallout of who ultimately, whether it was women or children or noncombatants, who ultimately was impacted. And time and time again, it was like a wind gust would hit the camera. They would intentionally move away so that you wouldn't have a record of exactly who and what they killed. So this is just mass cover-up that we're just now learning about, even more deadly to civilians than what was done in Afghanistan. What's just so ridiculous about all of this is that it's all this infighting,

bureaucratic clashing. Nobody voted for any of this. Zero. There was zero civilian oversight, period, about what's happened. They are allowed to operate in secret because we allow them to. I mean, look, they were operating in Syria, which is a sovereign nation. Last time I checked, you're supposed to have to authorize that through the U.S. Congress. But they're operating and justifying it under the 2001 authorization of use of military force. And everyone in Congress is like, yeah, whatever. The reason that you read

this stuff is because people leak against each other. Some of it might come out in an inspector general's report. It's supposed to come out in hearings before Congress. They're supposed to have actual oversight. I mean, the lack of public interest and really just the inertia through which they've allowed to develop all of these different processes where they can do whatever the hell they want, justify it after the fact, and more has made it, A, is the war actually being fought well, period? Is it working? That's a real question. B, democracy has no input on it, and it's just empowered the green machine in terms of being able to do whatever the hell they want. They can have splinter way, you know, circuits and more. And I just, that's how I look at it. It's like, when I, when I read this stuff, I'm like, who are you to be making these massive

decisions and justifying? There's no civilian oversight whatsoever. It's very possible. The Trump administration didn't even know about what was happening. They were just like, yeah, go do it. The Obama administration before them, the Biden administration currently, unless you actively try to stop the machine when it's rolling on, then you're going to find out real quick about some of the stuff that's actually happening. And most people just want to look the other way because they don't want to get involved. And a lot of people pay the price. The real question is, did it even work? I mean, did it work all that well? That's the question, right? I mean, is ISIS gone? Yeah. I mean, who had what to do with it? They're gone for now. Will it actually have any impact in the future? Could there have been a different strategy that were

pursued? You're not going to hear any of that get debated in the public square. It just gets relegated to the back. It's also not like the media cares until after the fact. Yeah. So I want to give Biden credit for one thing, which is that drone strikes have dropped precipitously. That's right. Under the Biden administration, of course, they were very high under Obama. They escalated even further under Trump. And he has scaled them back dramatically, although those numbers don't include a picture of what's going on in Afghanistan, which is a whole other story. But yeah, I mean, what The New York Times is documenting here is first you have an illegal war that there was never any public accountability or public vote on whatsoever.

And then you have atrocities as standard operating procedure. And what appears to be an intentional cover-up by the Pentagon and the military brass who buried any evidence of wrongdoing to the point of, you know, I mean, this strike that the New York Times looked into, there's no record of that happening at all. Not in the public sphere, maybe buried somewhere, you know, that we'll never see. The other one that they dug into as well, it was the same thing. There was a process and investigation triggered. And that one, it was just happenstance because the sort of regular military operators had a drone circling as well. So they were able to observe the whole thing, which is why there was a documented record of what happened there that triggered an

investigation. And that one was also completely covered up, though, by the end. So even when there was documented footage and an investigation launched and people who were watching it thought right away this is a war crime, ultimately the area is bulldozed so you can never see what happens, and the end report doesn't even mention the strike. That's how degraded and, you know, papered over all of this was. So it's extraordinarily disturbing what's being done in your name with your taxpayer dollars and with zero oversight or accountability or, you know,

or public justification. No votes were taken. Nobody was, you know, on board with doing this. And yet here we are committing war crimes that are getting covered up and only exposed years after the fact. Yeah, that's right. All right, guys, thanks so much for watching. We'll have more for you later. Big developments between the U.S., Iran, and Israel over the potential re-entry into the Iranian nuclear deal. As always, great friend of our show, Dr. Trita Parsi, joining us to discuss. Dr. Parsi, thank you so much for coming back. We really appreciate it. Thank you.

So we've seen some new developments here, tensions between the United States and Israel. Let's put this up there on the screen in terms of squabbling over the Iranian nuclear deal and re reentry. You said on our previous show, Rising, that the U.S. really did not have a long period of time in order to enter that deal. Biden has now almost been in office for nearly a year, and we still have seen lagging developments. What are the latest, and where do you think we are in terms of our ability to get back into the Iran nuclear deal? So talks are continuing right now in Vienna, and they're apparently making enough progress

to be able to continue the talks. But we are in a bad situation. It's become increasingly difficult with the new Iranian government coming in, which is much more hard-line. Some key issues have proven to become even more difficult to resolve the longer the time has passed, because some of the sanctions relief that the Iranians are being promised will likely not have any effect economically on them, because even if sanctions are lifted, European companies are not likely

to go into the nuclear deal until they know who the president is in the United States in 2025, because they're not in the mood of going back into the Iranian economy and then being kicked out again by U.S. sanctions. That's already happened twice, and it's been extremely costly for them. And all of this comes back to the fact that perhaps it would have been much better if Biden had just moved quickly during his first couple of weeks in office, if not during his first couple of days, and just go back into the deal and then settle these details later on once the U.S. had reestablished its membership in the JCPOA and reestablished its moral authority to be able to speak on this because it was once again a member of it. But that partly did not happen because the Biden

administration decided to see if they could instead move closer to Israel and some of the GCC states and create a united front with them instead of quickly moving back into the JCPOA itself. Well, and that is, in fact, the subject of your latest piece at Responsible Statecraft. You write, Biden's efforts to appease Israel on Iran have failed on all fronts. It's not the nuclear deal that's the problem for Tel Aviv, but the very idea that Washington and Tehran would reach any detente at all? Yes, because, I mean, this is what was so surprising with Biden's earlier strategy. The Biden team should have already learned that when it comes to this issue,

thinking that there's a way of being able to square the circle in which the Israelis fear any agreement between the United States and Iran, partly because it will improve U.S.-Iran relations and the United States will shift its focus elsewhere and actually make it easier for the United States to leave the Middle East militarily, partly because they believe that they themselves will continue to have tensions with Iran, but now without the automatic support of the United States, that those issues are not easily overcome. And the United States essentially had to make up its own mind. Is it going to pursue its own interest in preventing a nuclear bomb in Iran, or is it going to be deferring to Israel and its desire to keep the United States in the Middle East

militarily? And the fact that Biden chose to do this is surprising, because we've already gone down that path before during the Obama era, and we know exactly what the outcome would be. Put this in the context of the recent Israeli visit to the UAE. This is being heralded as a big geopolitical realignment. What does this mean for the U.S.? I mean, is the U.S. actually in a better position with this new kind of tripartite alliance against Iran?

Well, it's interesting. Both the Trump administration and the Biden administration has embraced Abrams' accord and view it as a significant advancement of U.S. interests and stability in the region. I'm not convinced by that at all, to be frank with you, because if we continue to divide the region and create these different pacts, it will only actually increase the likelihood of a confrontation, whereas there is an alternative. The alternative is actually happening in Iraq with the Baghdad dialogue, in which the Iraqis

have managed to get the Iranians, the Saudis, the Emiratis, the Turks, and everyone else to come together to actually discuss and resolve their tensions diplomatically. And the fundamental difference here is one effort is about creating pacts in order to organize the region against another state. The other one in Baghdad is actually about resolving the problems for everyone. It's inclusive and it's not targeting any particular state. That's the one I think the United States should be supporting much more because it will make it much easier for the United States to leave the region militarily, whereas the Abrams Accord partly is designed to keep the United States committed to the Middle East militarily. And so you said that talks are going well enough in Vienna for them to

continue. What do you expect to happen next? What should the Biden administration do next? Well, I mean, first of all, there's problems on the Iranian side in the negotiations as well. I think they have taken very aggressive positions, perhaps as a negotiating tactic, but nevertheless, the new team doesn't seem to have the same skill sets when it comes to how do you calibrate an escalation in order to be able to use it as a negotiation tactic rather than something that actually causes the talks to collapse or at least it as a negotiation tactic rather than something that actually causes the talks to collapse or at least turn in a very negative direction. But on the U.S. front, there's also a problem.

The key thing is this. Because of internal divisions in the United States and the polarization that we have seen over the course of the last decade, this has actually undermined U.S. leverage in international negotiations because American promises do not carry the same weight as they used to before. Because no one trusts any longer that a promise that a U.S. administration gives will be kept by the subsequent administration. This is a major problem because countries do not make deals with governments. They make it with the nation, the country as a whole. There needs to be a norm that agreements that are signed are going to be kept. That norm has been completely broken in the United States and it's weakened its negotiation position. Yeah. Well, we really appreciate you joining us, sir, for the update. I think it's

very important for everybody to keep in mind in the security of the world. And we always appreciate your analysis. So thank you. Thank you so much for having me. Absolutely. Our pleasure. And thank you guys so much for watching. We'll have more for you later. Something that we try to track really hard here is the expansion of the domestic surveillance state. Since January 6th, we've seen a secretive postal unit, which has been spying on Americans. We have seen the expansion of the U.S. Capitol Police, which is not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests all across the country, obviously, in terms of what the FBI has been doing, both in terms of potentially infiltrated, staged events, but also in terms of what we know already about confidential informants. This latest one is just

another drop in the bucket of secretive divisions within the U.S. government which have wide-spanning surveillance power. So let's put it up there on the screen. Now, this Yahoo News story is called Operation Whistlepig Inside the Secret CBP Unit with No Rules that Investigates Americans. Now, a lot of this came to light because of an investigation into a journalist, Allie Watkins. Allie Watkins, you guys might remember, she was a BuzzFeed news journalist then who worked at the New York Times, who was actually revealed to have been sleeping with one of her sources on Capitol Hill and getting tip-offs of classified information in terms of Russiagate, and it majorly benefited her career.

Now, it turns out, though, that the investigation into Allie Watkins and the eventual source that she had been sleeping with was actually run by a Customs and Border Patrol Protection Division. Now, inside that division, quote, few rules and routinely using the country's most sensitive databases to obtain travel records, financial and personal information of journalists, government officials, which actually led to referrals of criminal prosecution against some of the agents that were involved in the case. Now, of course, they were never indicted and charges were never actually pursued against them. But what's fascinating to me is that the eventual referral of criminal process and a lot of the transcripts and stuff that have come out, Crystal, is that there are all sorts of these secret little divisions that we have no idea about. When you think CBP, I think the border and TSA. I'm just like, yeah, whatever. Well, they have something called the National

Targeting Center, which was created after 9-11 to, quote, identify potential threats crossing the borders, but that also gives them access to all of these different databases that they can get used once you arrive here in the United States. And then they can use their access for a lot of these things in order to pursue and get information about you without a warrant necessarily of a wide-spanning database of who exactly that you are, including your cell phone records and your emails as well. Yes, that's exactly right. And you can see in the details of this story

how dangerous it is, these aggressive leak investigations, which in this instance literally had no rules to constrain their behavior and what data they ultimately accessed. The details of this are really crazy. First of all, I should say, Allie Watkins swears that she did not get information from the man she was sleeping with, who happened to be what?

He was like a high-level committee member on the select Senate Intelligence Committee. I just want to put her side of the story out there. But according to this report, and the one dude whose last name is Rambo who they focus in on in particular who was doing most of the digging on Allie and then some of these other journalists, this started not as a leak investigation. But it started because he wanted some friendly journalist allies to focus on trafficking. Okay. Okay. So then he starts to look into Allie Watkins because she's kind of the it reporter of the moment.

And he thinks this is all according to him. He thinks she has- She was very popular. Has cachet. Yeah. Thinks she has cachet and that she could be an ally on this thing that they're working on with regard to trafficking. So he starts then just vetting her, in his words, which means pulling data on her from

every database that they keep, including ultimately some that are highly controversial that can capture not just, you know, your travel data or things that you might be able to potentially, you know, access, but things like what you're actually messaging. He sees that she's traveling to different countries alongside this guy that's the staffer. James Wolfe. He starts to put it together of like, oh, they're having a relationship. And, oh, you know, she's a journalist and he's on this committee. And then he gets the FBI involved and it turns on to this wholesale onslaught, not just with Ali but with other journalists as well. And, yeah, I mean the whole thing is extraordinarily bizarre and extraordinarily troubling. Some of the things, some of the details in here are also quite interesting,

which shows just the mental gymnastics and inconsistencies that people oftentimes hold, which is that Allie and this guy who got his last name is Rambo, he scheduled a sort of clandestine meeting with her to feel her out. At 1 a.m. in the morning. And try to figure out if he was right about this relationship. And he set it up. She thought he was a potential source.

Right. They end up going to a bar. He's drinking Whistlepig, whatever. What is that bourbon? I don't know. Anyway, that's why it ends up being. It's a very good bourbon. I haven't tried it.

It's too expensive. That's why it ends up being Operation Whistlepig. I should know this, having lived in Kentucky. But anyway, afterwards, she is freaked out because he keeps her there for like four hours. They're talking, and she's super spooked about like what the hell was that and what was going on. And she suspects he used a fake name, which he did. So she went back to the bar and was able to pull his credit card receipt that had his real name on it

and figure out who he was. And the funny part, the part that shows people's inconsistency and how they think about things, is he was so outraged by the invasion of his privacy that she had pulled this credit card slip and figured out his name. Meanwhile, he's pulling everything.

Yeah, he's pulling on her and everybody else. Her messages, her travel records, what she's doing, who she's sleeping with, her family, I mean, he pulled her family members' records, all this stuff, and yet he's super outraged and can't believe that she went

and pulled this credit card receipt to try to figure out who this creepy dude was who kept her there for four hours, pushing her for all this personal information and seemingly knowing already a lot of personal information about her. But the bigger picture here is how many other government agencies

do we not know about that have these? Like when I found out about the post office, I'm like, your job is the mail. What are you doing? And because there are very few guidelines that are put into place with this unit, then if there's no rules, then you can't break the rules.

So there was nothing, you know, that they could really do about this. The agency tried to pawn it off like this was all this one guy. He was a rogue actor, et cetera. And what he intimates and indicates with what he's saying here is that this was a larger scale operation. He wasn't the only one. It was fully sanctioned by his superiors. The FBI was brought in. They were involved. They

were aware of what was going on as well. So very ugly and very troubling story. No, I think it's absolutely 100% indicative of a much larger, bigger unit, you know, within the Customs and Border Patrol. And it's very clear that there is some really sketchy stuff going on, that they have the ability to just run anybody they want willy-nilly through their databases, even if they don't, you know, have cause necessarily. In this case, he's like vetting a reporter to see if she'd be good to leak to. And he's like, oh, let me look at her travel records.

Yeah. You know, it's like you shouldn't be able to pull all of these types of information based, you know, with nothing. And yet there's no oversight. He was referred for criminal prosecution. He was never prosecuted. Just, you know, how much of this stuff you never even hear about. Yeah. That's the real question.

That's exactly right. That's the really disturbing part. All right. All right, guys. Thanks for watching of this stuff you never even hear about. Yeah. That's a real question. That's exactly right. That's the really disturbing part. All right. All right, guys. Thanks for watching. We'll have more for you later. Over the years of making my true crime podcast, Hell and Gone, I've learned no town is too small for murder.

I'm Katherine Townsend. I've heard from hundreds of people across the country with an unsolved murder in their community. I was calling about the murder of my husband. The murderer is still out there. Each week, I investigate a new case. with an unsolved murder in their community. I was calling about the murder of my husband. The murderer is still out there. Each week, I investigate a new case. If there is a case we should hear about,

call 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I think everything that might have dropped in 95 has been labeled the golden years of hip-hop. It's Black Music Month, and We Need to Talk is tapping in. I'm Nyla Simone, breaking down lyrics, amplifying voices, and digging into the culture that shaped the soundtrack of our lives. Like, that's what's really important and that's what stands out is that our music changes people's lives for the better.

Let's talk about the music that moves us. To hear this and more on how music and culture collide, listen to We Need to Talk from the Black Effect Podcast Network on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. You experience dad guilt?

I hate it. She understands, but she still be pissed she's like that. Happy Father's Day. The show may be called Good Moms, Bad Choices, but this show

isn't just for moms. We keep it real about relationships and everything in between. And yes, men are more than welcome to listen in. I knew nothing about brunch. She was a terrible girlfriend, but she put me on to brunch.

To hear this and more, open your free iHeart app, search Good Moms, Bad Choices, and listen now. This is an iHeart podcast.