Q&A: Greenland, Venezuela & a new era of American Imperialism?

Summary

Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files

Q&A: Greenland, Venezuela & a New Era of American Imperialism?
Date: January 8, 2026
Hosts: Christiane Amanpour & Jamie Rubin

---

Episode Overview

In this candid and wide-ranging Q&A episode, world-renowned journalist Christiane Amanpour and her ex-husband, former US State Department official Jamie Rubin, tackle listener questions on some of the world’s flashpoint crises: the status of Greenland amid US interest, the implications of the US intervention in Venezuela, and the ripple effects of American foreign policy under President Trump’s second term. Drawing on decades of experience in journalism and diplomacy, Amanpour and Rubin offer forthright insights, personal anecdotes, and sharp analysis—pulling no punches about the chaos, unpredictability, and moral dilemmas defining today’s geopolitics.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Greenland & US Ambitions – The Limits of Power

Timestamps: [00:13] - [03:52]

• Listener Question: Probability of Greenland staying under Danish jurisdiction given recent American assertiveness and the precedent set in Venezuela.
• Jamie Rubin:
  • Assesses Danish sovereignty over Greenland as "very, very high" ([00:41]).
  • Sees Trump using strong-arm tactics for leverage (mineral rights, military bases), but dismisses outright US annexation:

    “…I don't see US Troops landing in Greenland and taking it over.” ([01:49])

  • Notes the erosion of traditional checks and balances under Trump’s "imperial presidency."
• Christiane Amanpour:
  • Describes provocative US political rhetoric, such as posts with Greenland emblazoned with American flags, which has sparked pushback from Nordic leaders ([01:54]).
  • Cites a Republican insider:

    “Trump doesn't really have any economic philosophy or governing philosophy or foreign policy philosophy. It's all about, I want what you have.” ([02:41])

  • Argues Trump’s approach is driven by personal and economic opportunism, targeting resource-rich countries.

---

2. Venezuela – Legality, Legitimacy, and Fallout

Timestamps: [04:37] - [08:45]

• Listener Question: Did Trump’s Venezuela intervention do good, or was it simply illegal?
• Christiane Amanpour:
  • Outlines legal gray areas—US lawyers defending Trump, but “other[s] say it’s completely illegal under UN regulations and American law” due to lack of congressional approval ([04:49]).
  • Weighs suffering Venezuelans’ hopes for change against the risks and complexities of regime change:

    “…you intervene, you remove a leader, and that's that. It takes a lot of dedication... who runs the police, what about... the food supply, all of those things, electricity, the basics that have been completely collapsed…” ([05:42])

• Jamie Rubin:
  • Emphasizes skepticism, both about legality and the wisdom for US foreign policy:

    “…these legal mumbo jumbo that comes out sometimes from both sides, frankly, is very hard for non-lawyers to get their handle on… But on its surface, it doesn't look legal to me.” ([06:31])

  • Notes long-term damage to alliances:

    “…when we do things like this, we make it almost impossible for our friends and allies to trust us…” ([07:29])

  • Stresses the risk of US losing global focus as China makes careful, methodical economic advances in Latin America.

---

3. Ukraine – American Disengagement, Russian Stubbornness

Timestamps: [08:45] - [13:51]

• Listener Question: Does the Venezuela intervention make a Ukraine peace deal in 2026 more or less likely?

• Christiane Amanpour:

  • Contrasts the administration’s rhetoric ("Ukraine is losing") with facts on the ground:

    “...the Trumpies have taken it as gospel that Ukraine is losing and will lose... And that has been their talking point... It is wrong. It is absolutely wrong...” ([10:16])

  • Laments the loss of momentum for meaningful negotiations, due to US withdrawal of support.

• Jamie Rubin:

  • Pessimistic about a peace deal in 2026:

    “I don't see a peace deal in 2026… this war is about Vladimir Putin's decision to invade and his stubborn refusal to see the fact that he cannot succeed…” ([11:02])

  • Explains support for Ukraine likely continues but will be insufficient for major change.
  • Details bandwidth issues: Key US officials, notably Rubio, are overextended ("declared the Viceroy" of Venezuela), meaning “he’s not gonna be able to do all that,” harming prospects for complex diplomacy elsewhere ([12:42]).

• Memorable Exchange:
  Amanpour: “It is tragic. It really is tragic.” ([13:51])

---

4. Epstein Files – Disclosure, Justice, and Political Fallout

Timestamps: [14:34] - [17:14]

• Listener Question: Has revealing the Epstein files harmed victims more than it’s helped?
• Christiane Amanpour:
  • Acknowledges mixed reactions among victims and advocates.
  • Argues that relentless coverage can be traumatizing, but also necessary for accountability:

    “…I just hope it ends up doing the right thing and causing the trend to go down rather than up of sexual abuse.” ([16:26])

• Jamie Rubin:
  • Notes the politicization: “It’s become biggest political football around... the victim's judgment will not be the decisive factor.” ([16:54])
  • Highlights splits among MAGA Republicans.

---

5. Press Freedom, Leaks, and Documenting Journalism

Timestamps: [18:01] - [22:25]

• Listener Question: Opinions on documentaries about reporters’ methods (Seymour Hersh), and would Amanpour participate in something similar?

• Christiane Amanpour:

  • Praises Hersh’s legacy, cautions against forced disclosure of sources.
  • Supports journalistic transparency where appropriate, but draws a line to protect investigative processes ([18:34]).

• Jamie Rubin:

  • Warns that press freedom, “the most important” of constitutional rights, is under threat from corporate and political pressure:

    “…the corporations, who unfortunately control much too much of our media, have bent the knee to the Trump administration…” ([19:20])

  • Shares personal experience as Asst. Secretary of State: Most leaks are not subversive but come from “playeritis”—people wanting to feel important ([20:08]).
  • Points out that exclusive scoops usually result from old-fashioned, relentless reporting.

• Amanpour’s Warning: The sidelining of real journalists in Washington leads to missed opportunities for critical coverage (“Did that cause us all to miss a trick about what the Pentagon was planning in Venezuela?” [22:25]).

  • Calls attention to a new breed of “influencers and sycophants” replacing seasoned press corps representatives.

---

Notable Quotes (with Timestamps)

• Jamie Rubin ([01:49]):

  “I don't see US Troops landing in Greenland and taking it over.”

• Christiane Amanpour ([02:41]):

  “Trump doesn't really have any economic philosophy or governing philosophy or foreign policy philosophy. It's all about, I want what you have.”

• Christiane Amanpour ([05:42]):

  “…it takes a lot of dedication, a lot of hard work... all the bits like who runs the police, what about the water, what about, you know, the food supply, all of those things, electricity, the basics…”

• Jamie Rubin ([07:29]):

  “...when we do things like this, we make it almost impossible for our friends and allies to trust us...”

• Christiane Amanpour ([10:16]):

  “...the Trumpies have taken it as gospel that Ukraine is losing and will lose... It is absolutely wrong because as we've seen that given the right help, Ukraine can defend itself...”

• Jamie Rubin ([11:02]):

  “I don't see a peace deal in 2026… this war is about Vladimir Putin's decision to invade and his stubborn refusal to see the fact that he cannot succeed…”

• Christiane Amanpour ([16:26]):

  “...I just hope it ends up doing the right thing and causing the trend to go down rather than up of sexual abuse.”

• Jamie Rubin ([19:20]):

  “…the corporations, who unfortunately control much too much of our media, have bent the knee to the Trump administration and affected what we read, see and hear.”

---

Other Memorable Moments

• The “Viceroy of Venezuela” riff ([12:42])—a satirical take on the ballooning titles of American officials, lampooning the chaos of US foreign policy management under the current administration.
• Amanpour’s reflection on how the removal of real journalists from the press corps may have blinded the public to Pentagon intentions in Venezuela ([22:25]).

---

Conclusion

This episode is a no-holds-barred exploration of the political and moral uncertainties gripping the global order in 2026. Amanpour and Rubin’s insider knowledge and candid style shine through as they parse the consequences of American interventionism, reflect on press freedom under siege, and offer a sobering look at potential futures in hotspots like Ukraine and Venezuela. Their dynamic—combining humor, frustration, and searing honesty—makes for both an enlightening and entertaining listen, especially for those seeking more than headlines.

---

For further queries or to submit questions, listeners are invited to connect via social media (@AmanpourPod) or email.

Transcript

[Jamie Rubin]

This is a Global Player original podcast.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Hello, everybody, and welcome to the Q and A episode of the X Files with me, Cristian Amanpour in London and.

[Jamie Rubin]

Jamie Rubin in Italy.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Italy this week, and this is where we answer your questions. So let's get started. Andrea, on email with recent events in Venezuela, what probability do you place on Greenland being under Danish jurisdiction by the end of 2026? It strikes me that if the current US government wanted to annex little to stop them, given the supine reaction from leaders in Europe to the flagrant violation of international law regarding the Venezuelan intervention.

[Jamie Rubin]

Right. I put the probability of Danish continuing sovereignty and jurisdiction over Greenland very, very high. I think what Trump is up to here is doing something where he can plausibly argue. There was Maduro, there was. He was, you know, undemocratic. He was conducting mass murder in his own people. He was a monster. Everyone knew he was a monster. Venezuela was causing huge refugee flows, you know, a real threat to the region and acting on that and then hoping that that action will give him leverage to make deals. And I think the most you could possibly imagine is that Trump would try to negotiate some leasing arrangement possibility with Greenland that didn't exist before for the minerals or the basing rights or this or that, in the hope that he could threaten something worse. But I really, you know, you never know. Under Donald Trump's presidency, imperial presidency, without congressional involvement, none of the normal checks and balances seem to apply. I don't see US Troops landing in Greenland and taking it over.

[Christiane Amanpour]

JD Vance keeps talking about it. He's the vice president. He went to Greenland shortly after the initial eruption over Greenland, which is at the beginning of the presidency almost a year ago. Stephen Miller's wife, Katie Miller. So I think Trump needs to potentially get the spouses under control. Has just, you know, written this post where she's got Greenland map, stars and stripes over it, and the word soon. And that has caused a real, you know, you can imagine, stand up and fight back, verbally at least from the Danish prime minister and from the Finnish president and the Swedish prime minister and others will, will join. I'm sure to say, look, this is a democratic, sovereign situation and don't talk about annexing. We can talk about all sorts of things, but annexing is not on the books. So we'll see. Honestly, never say never under this president. I once talked Jamie to, in fact, it was this time last year to a former congressman, a Republican, who decided no longer to run after his term was up. And so in the second Trump Term was no longer in office, but in the first Trump term, he was working very closely with Trump on legislative matters. And I'm not going to say more than that because I don't want to identify him. When I asked him then, and this is January 2025, what should we expect from Trump 2.0, you know, based on what we saw in 1.0. And he said, look, Trump doesn't really have any economic philosophy or governing philosophy or foreign policy philosophy. It's all about, I want what you have. And I think really, he's been proven to be right. That might be a simple sentence, but in the guise of America first and getting all this business for America and for his, you know, friends and people who support his party and his presidency, et cetera, he wants what they have. And the richer the countries are with, the more natural resources, the more he wants. Would you agree?

[Jamie Rubin]

Well, you can certainly draw direct lines between the Trump foreign policy and Trump Inc. That's why I believe that once the Democrats take over Congress, there are going to be congressional investigations with subpoenas that will go on for the rest of my natural life trying to figure out the connections between money making by the Trump family and foreign policymaking by the Trump administration and the, you know, the blurred lines that have taken place like never before in our history. That's one thing you can say has never ever happened before.

[Christiane Amanpour]

I will just say that I think 2026, as you say, is a benchmark. But that would be the midterm elections. And it's possible they do a whole lot of stuff before those elections. But anyway, here we go. Why don't you. The next one?

[Jamie Rubin]

Sure. With so many Venezuelans, Jenna on Instagram asks, celebrating Trump's coup in Venezuela, can it be said that Trump has actually done something good, or were his actions illegal?

[Christiane Amanpour]

Well, the legality is being questioned right now. And as Jamie has been saying and we've been talking elsewhere, the lawyers are on Trump's side, trying to, you know, beef up their indictment of him, which is on narco trafficking and corruption charges. And Maduro and his wife are going to face, you know, a court hearing. Others are saying it's completely illegal under the UN Regulations and under American law itself because it had no congressional awareness or approval. But what has he done? And could it be good? Certainly, Certainly Venezuelan exiles all over the world, and certainly Venezuelans who have been suffering deeply inside Venezuela by the levels of poverty and lack of administrative, rational governance there, are desperately seeking something different. So if it is a properly transitioned situation, it could turn out to be better for the people. But the whole thing is a giant if, and I think it depends a huge amount on what the US believes is the future for Venezuela. And as we all know, having watched Iraq, Afghanistan and many other interventions, this is not, you know, you intervene, you remove a leader, and that's that. It takes a lot of dedication, a lot of hard work, a lot of real smart policy people who can figure out all the bits like who runs the police, what about the water, what about, you know, the food supply, all of those things, electricity, the basics that have been completely collapsed for most Venezuelans over the last several decades of Chavismo.

[Jamie Rubin]

I think you answered it very well. I agree with everything you said. The legality, you know, international lawyers spent, make a lot of money, spend a lot of money, spend a lot of time and effort making a lot of arguments. And I've learned to over time, give less credence to law because those laws are manipulated. I care about the rule of law as a tenet of American democracy and the world. But these legal mumbo jumbo that comes out sometimes from both sides, frankly, is very hard for non lawyers to get their handle on. And so I just don't know what to say about the legality. But on its surface, it doesn't look legal to me. But is it good? You know, good. Good is in the eye of the beholder, as Christiane pointed out, for many Venezuelans. And they are, in a way, you know, our first question is how they feel about it. This is good. Anything that could change their situation for the better would be good for American foreign policy. I have my doubts that this will be good. And I say that because America has many, many, many interests in the world. We are an important country, I believe, an indispensable the future success of our world to have it function properly, to have a decent life for more and more people around the world. And when we do things like this, we make it almost impossible for our friends and allies to trust us and to work with us to do the hard things, the really important things. The threat we face from Chinese Communist Party takeover of Latin America, not just East Asia. They are now in South America, in Peru, in Chile, in Argentina, in country after country and dominating the minerals, dominating the economy, dominating the trade, dominating the import and export, and doing it slowly and carefully while we're stuck with our literally a huge portion of our military force focused on this one problem that's a mistake for American foreign policy.

[Christiane Amanpour]

So this is interesting because it goes into the next question. Natalie, on TikTok, with everything that's happening in Venezuela, what impact do you think this will have on Trump's half hearted efforts for a peace deal in Ukraine? Does it make it more or less likely that we'll see the end of the war in 26? Something you just said, Jamie, really makes me sit back because if anybody read, and I highly advise them to read this gigantic article that was incredibly well reported, incredibly well written about the inside story of the separation under Trump of Ukraine from the United States and the by nature, you know, closer connection to Russia by the United States, one of the reasons why the Heg Seths and the Trumps and the JD Vances and this and that were saying do not send this much weaponry and ammunition to Ukraine is because we need it to face off against China and those things. So what you've just said is that that's actually not happening. So I think that's, we should, we should understand that. And then the other thing I think is very, very difficult for me to stomach having covered the Ukraine war, especially watching the initial parts and covering the initial parts where Ukraine very swiftly, within a couple of months of the invasion of February, pushed the Russians back in a very meaningful way from outside Kiev and from Kharkiv and from Kherson and very important centers with the help of U.S. intelligence and weapons and other. But their people did it. It. But the Trumpies have taken it as gospel that Ukraine is losing and will lose and is outmanned and is outpowered and outgunned by Russia. And therefore the inevitable is that the strongest will win and the strongest will survive. And that has been their talking point, their so called foreign policy point from the beginning of this administration. And it is wrong. It is absolutely wrong because as we've seen that given the right help, Ukraine can defend itself and can at least hold the line for a meaningful negotiation and a meaningful peace deal. That in my opinion has gone out the window right now.

[Jamie Rubin]

Look, the questioner asked about 2026. I, I don't see a peace deal in 2026. I haven't thought there was going to be a peace deal because I don't believe that Vladimir Putin has changed his mind. And this war is about Vladimir Putin's decision to invade and his stubborn refusal to see the fact that he cannot succeed on the battlefield. Now saying that Russia can outgun Ukraine and saying that Ukraine has less people and less soldiers and less weaponry is not the same thing as which is factually true. And the Trumpies say this all the time is not the same as saying Russia will win. And what Vladimir Putin hasn't accepted is that they may gain small pieces of territory very slowly at huge cost of tens of thousands of lives. And now we're up over a million dead Russians and wounded Russian soldiers. That this war can go on for a long time without any meaningful change on the ground. And so Ukraine may be smaller, it may be weaker. In some sense, they have a much stronger will to fight than the Russians do. They have the support of the Europeans, which is not going to change. And I believe there will be enough support from the United States to keep them in the fight. And finally, I think there is a, what we call in government a bandwidth issue look, to do any serious business with Ukraine. They've lost their. Keith Kellogg is going to go away. They're one negotiation. He was envoy for Ukraine, special envoy. They're one, you know, super negotiator. Can't do everything. And now Rubio, who is that?

[Christiane Amanpour]

Would be Steve Witkoff.

[Jamie Rubin]

Yeah, it would be Witkoff. Rubio, you know, is going to literally spend all of his time on Venezuela because he got TR into this. He persuaded him to do this. He's been declared the Viceroy. I mean, imagine this job. The guy has National Security Adviser, Secretary of State, head of the Agency for International Development. I think he's also head of the Historian's Office and Documentation Office. And now he's the Vice President of Venezuela. He's not gonna be able to do all that. And if he does spend the time needed on Venezuela, which I think he cares about for the reasons I've suggested over and again in these discussions, he's not going to have time to be seeing the Ukraine file improved. And until the Ukraine file is improved through a conscious effort by the Europeans and the United States to persuade Putin that he cannot succeed at any acceptable cost. The war will continue because Ukraine will not stop defending its own territory. And Putin will not stop throwing his soldiers out lives away for small pieces of Ukrainian territory.

[Christiane Amanpour]

It is tragic. It really is tragic.

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

Logan Fury did something smart. He saved hundreds on auto insurance, switching to Progressive. With that money, he bought a mini treadmill. Is walking on it during video conference calls more distracting than he thought? Yes. And is that because he overestimated his foot eye coordination? Definitely. But it's Logan's savings. And if he wants to burn calories and any chance at a promotion, we say, good for you, Logan. Switch and see if you could save with Progressive and treat yourself. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates.

[Jamie Rubin]

Denise, on YouTube, I really enjoyed your Recent episode with Tina Brown. They can go back and watch and listen to it if it was missed. My question is, with the release of the Epstein files, has more harm than good been done to the victims now that everything is being made public?

[Christiane Amanpour]

So look, various victims and their advocates have had various different reactions. I think some believe that it's just all too much and others believe that every last piece of truth needs to come out so that the victims get justice, so that this doesn't happen again and so that all the perpetrators are named, shamed and held accountable. So I think it's a difficult to say more or less harm than good. I think that the drip, drip, drip nature of it is probably very, you know, harmful for, for the victims, their mental health, their ability to sustain this constant barrage. And I think that it's a, it's a very unsavory and yes, filthy story that so many people are accountable, should be accountable for and have yet to be held accountable. And I really do hope that all those who are guilty really do pay the price because this is a, you know, in my perspective, having covered so many issues of sex trafficking, sex abuse, you know, grooming, all the rest of, is an ongoing problem, a terrible problem of violence and, and death and, and rape that women all over the world are facing in, in all sorts of different ways. This happens to be a very high profile situation with a very high profile Epstein with very high profile clients and acolytes and it's getting a lot of you publicity. I just hope it ends up doing the right thing and causing the trend to go down rather than up of sexual abuse.

[Jamie Rubin]

Right, I think you've said all that extremely well. There are some people who think that this is damaging to Trump and that this shows, you know, his relationships and all that. And I just have to say that the victim's views should matter. But now it's a bit beyond that. It's become biggest political football around. It's divided the Republican maga, you know, coalition and I suspect they're going to, you know, keep this thing going, the various congressmen and it will continue. And unfortunately the victim's judgment will not be the decisive factor.

[Christiane Amanpour]

The MAGA coalition has been quite split, as you say, by Epstein and by other things. There's so far apparently we hear, you know, staying in line over Venezuela. But it's going to be interesting to see how they come down on this because they do not want their president going into foreign interventions and foreign adventures at all, especially as the economy is still not doing the majority of the American people. Any good. So here we go.

[Jamie Rubin]

Exactly. I mean if this goes beyond this one time operation and requires ground forces and the continued expenditure, literally billions of dollars of American taxpayers money keeping all naval forces there, it's a real question. And whether these America Firsters will keep their mouth shut.

[Christiane Amanpour]

So this is Jacobus on email or Jacobus. I just finished watching a Netflix documentary about Seymour Hersh and his journalistic career. I think it shows very carefully the dilemmas and obstacles for journalists to publish the truth, even in the free world. Christian, what is your opinion about films where the methods of reporters are disclosed? And would you ever participate in a documentary or movie about your career? So first, Seymour Hersh was a phenomenal investigative reporter. He exposed some of the worst atrocities in the U.S. war on Vietnam and he has had a great career. A lot of it has been quite controversial in the later years. I have to confess I have not yet seen this documentary. I will watch it. Thank you for your question. I do think that transparency is important, that we should be able to say how we report things, how we get things. I do not believe we should be forced to reveal our sources or the most important details of how we get certain stories and certain information because that would jeopardize our ability to continue doing that. And if we can't do that, we make the world poorer and information is lost, not gained. So I think that that's, that's what I believe on that. Would I ever participate in a documentary? Yep, I would.

[Jamie Rubin]

So you know, Thomas Jefferson said, of all the Bill of Rights, the freedom of the press is the most important because without a free press, a democracy can't funct. That has been sorely tested during this year of Donald Trump's second term in the way that the corporations, who unfortunately control much too much of our media, have bent the knee to the Trump administration and affected what we read, see and hear. Now, some of the great institutions have not bent the knee. The New York Times has not. Wall Street Journal has not. But there has been an effect, particularly in those owned by corporations who think their duties to the shareholders and therefore not to the people. And in a previous time, corporations thought that the news was separate from the rest of their business and that they could distinguish between making money for their regular business and news which wasn't designed to make money. And unfortunately, that distinction has been lost. But as far as journalists finding things out, I do have something I think interesting to say about this. As Assistant Secretary of State during the Clinton administration, one of my jobs was often to respond to an angry president or an angry Secretary of State about how did the journalists find this out? Where's the leaker? Who's the leaker? And I developed, I did a lot of work on it and I kind of came to the conclusion that most of the time the leakers were not intending to change policy or manipulative people who were hoping to affect some policy one way or the other. Most of the time they were people who had what I call playeritis, meaning they wanted to show they were important and to talk to journalists about information that the journalists didn't know made the journalists interested in them and they felt more important. And I concluded that 80, 90% of the so called exclusive leaks that were matters of concern for the President of the Secretary of State came from that group of people. Sometimes it was the work of journalists who are very good at their jobs. I know a lot about how investigative journalists do their jobs. They piece things together and they bluff sources and say, I know this and I don't know this or I'm going to write this whether you like it or not. I'm going to publish this whether you like it or not and get responses. We've all seen the Deep Throat in the Watergate era. You know, a lot of that is true, that there's some deep dark source, but more often than not, it's just smart reporters figuring things out by talking to people and then piecing it together slowly and carefully. And so I think it is always fun to watch and learn about journalists doing their job because as Christian says, it's a crucial thing and our world would be poorer without about it.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And actually you just mentioned the Watergate people should go back and this, Jacobus, you should go back and watch Watergate and read a lot about it because that actually did show how the journalists discovered the crimes of Richard Nixon and the imperial presidency. And all those guardrails which were then put in to make sure president couldn't do that again have now basically systematically been trampled by the second Trump administration. I would just say one more thing on this. The exile of journalists, real journalists from the Pentagon and even from the White House press corps, under pain of, you know, them having to bend the knee, they said, no, we won't. And so they've got a bunch of influencers and sycophants in the Pentagon and the White House press pool as well. I wonder, I'm just positing it now. Did that cause us all to miss a trick about what the Pentagon was planning in, in, in Venezuela I don't know, but it's what worth thinking about. And on that note, thank you for listening to this Q and A episode of the X Files with me, Christiane Amour and Jamie Rubin. If you have a question for us, and we do like answering them, keep them coming. You know that you can always catch us online at Amanpour Pod. That's social media. Or you can email us amanpodglobal.com and our next episode will be on Tuesday. Wherever you get your podcast, remember you can listen for free on Global Player. You can download from the App Store or go to globalplayer.com also watch all of our episodes on YouTube. Just search Christiana Monport presents. Subscribe to our channel so that you never miss an episode. Well, Happy New Year to you all.

[Jamie Rubin]

And goodbye from Italy.

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

Meet Matthew Preston Inside his apartment, everything he holds dear is protected by Progressives Renters insurance, like his laptop and a surprisingly valuable collection of baseball bobbleheads. Outside his apartment, his laptop is still protected, as are his bobbleheads, which he carries around with him for reasons no one knows. Renters the limits of protection aren't just the four walls of your home. When you're in Progressive's protection zone. Get a [e-mail] Progressive Casualty Insurance Company affiliates and third party insurers.

[Jamie Rubin]

This has been a Global Player Original.

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

Production Meet Matthew Preston Inside his apartment, everything he holds dear is protected by Progressives Renters insurance, like his laptop, laptop and a surprisingly valuable collection of baseball bobbleheads outside his apartment. His laptop is still protected, as are his bobbleheads, which he carries around with him for reasons no one knows. Renters. The limits of protection aren't just the four walls of your home. When you're in Progressive's protection zone. Get a [e-mail] Progressive Casualty Insurance Company affiliates and third party insurers.