November 18, 2025 • 28 mins
The lead event is the Supreme Court's announcement that it will review the Trump administrations metering policy, which limited asylum seekers at the U.S. border a major step in the ongoing immigration battle. Sean Hannity frames the discussion as a fight for American sovereignty and security, highlighting concerns over open borders under the Biden-Harris administration and emphasizing recent incidents involving known terrorists. Guest Gene Hamilton, president of America First Legal, explains the stakes: whether the federal government can control its own borders, and warns of risks to national security. This matters as the outcome could reshape U.S. border policy, impacting millions and influencing the nations approach to immigration for years to come.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Our Tollfrey telephone number its eight hundred and nine to
four one. Sean, if you want to be a part
of this extravaganza, well, the battle over illegal immigration. I
believe we are going to continue to see the fallout
of wide open borders that went on for the entire
Biden Harris administration. I blame them. I think that I've
(00:23):
said many times that they have blood on their hands.
Lake and Riley brought Joscelyn Nungary, Rachel mourn and so
many others. We learned what in the last week and
a half that known terrorists have been discovered in our country.
They came in during the Biden Harris Mayorcis open borders disaster.
We have people from over what got close to three
(00:45):
hundred countries, two hundred plus countries, and in our country,
countries that have known terror ties. All why'd somebody from
Iran make the trek to our southern border? Why does
people from Egypt make the trek to our southern border? Again?
Ties to terrorists? You know, it makes a very suspect.
And I am not against legal immigration, just the opposite.
(01:05):
I want people to come in legally. I want them
to be vetted. I want health checks in a post
pandemic world. I want to also make sure that they're
not going to be a financial burden on the American people.
I don't give a hoot where you come from. At
that point, you pay for that. You know, process yourself,
we vet you. Welcome to our country. Welcome to America.
That's how my grandparents got here. They did it, they
(01:27):
did it legally. You know, we mentioned yesterday the ICE
agents being confronted in North Carolina, you know, being cursed at,
spit at, everything else in between by these lunatics. I mean,
it's now a hostile environment. We've had ICE agents now
being harmed on the job. They're now being docks and
now being confronted and now being tipped off, have tip
(01:49):
lines that are putting their lives in danger, taking away
the element of surprise that is vital for law enforcement.
And so far everybody seems to be getting away with it,
which is beyond frustrating to me. Now we are back
in the Supreme Court, they announced yesterday that they will
review the immigration policies adopted during the first Trump administration
(02:11):
of turning away potential asylum seekers before they ever set
foot on American soil. Setting up the first major immigration
policy case of the term. Now, just as a matter
of law, federal law does require the government to process
asylum seekers who arrive at ports of entry. Donald Trump
in twenty eighteen began a policy known as metering, in
(02:34):
which border agents simply turn back potential asylum seekers the
Stay of Mexico policy, if you will, before they entered
the US, you can't enter and just say, oh, I'm
here for asylum. And if you remember, you know when
we were being told over and over and over and
over and over again, the borders closed, the border secure,
(02:55):
The borders closed, the border secure. Elon Musk put out
a post yesterday showing the Biden administration using a bulldozer
to break down the fence to allow people on the
other side to enter our country illegally and again the
big lie that went on for four years that the
border has closed, the border is secure. Here as a reminder,
(03:16):
the United States will continue to enforce our laws and
secure our border. The border is in fact secure.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
A record two hundred and twenty one thousand migrants crossed
into the US last month.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
Our border is secure.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
We believe certainly that the border is secured.
Speaker 4 (03:32):
Thirteen hundred migrants a day.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
We have taken unprecedented action over the past year and
a half to secure our border and rebuild a safer
and orderly process system.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
This year is on pace to be the deadliest year
for migrants crossing into this region of Texas in recent memory.
Speaker 5 (03:50):
The border is secure, the border is secure, and the
border is not open.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
Crossings are still at an all time high, with Border
Patrol reporting more than one one point eight million apprehensions
from October twenty twenty one through July.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
The border remains closed. It is not open.
Speaker 5 (04:07):
We are turning away the majority of adults, but were The.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
Border is secure. The border is closed.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
So we are offering solutions.
Speaker 4 (04:17):
That's what the Biden Harris administration has been doing since
day one.
Speaker 5 (04:21):
This is worse now than a worse before.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
A record number of migrants this year, and the total
colds are passed two million by the end of September.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
We're certainly doing a lot more to secure the border.
We have.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
A secure border, and.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
We have a process of place to manage migrants of
the border.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
A record serge of migrants in New York City.
Speaker 5 (04:41):
Over two million.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
The illegal immigrants crossing the southern border an all time record.
The border is secure.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
We agree that the border is secure.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
The border is secured now, but only after Donald Trump
became president and made it a priority. We estimate anywhere
between twelve and twenty million. Nobody knows the actual umber.
You know, we don't know. California, for example, sanctuary state
and city. They don't even keep statistics of crimes committed
by illegal immigrants. They protect the illegal immigrants, and by
(05:11):
the way, they offer them free taxpayer funded healthcare, to
free taxpayer funded schools for their kids and other benefits.
No wonder why the highest tax state in the country
is running massive, massive deficits because they can't afford it
because all the illegal immigrants are protected there. Anyway, this
(05:34):
case is now moving forward. Gene Hamilton is the new
president of American First Legal You might remember it was
started by Steven Miller, instrumental in the President's first administration,
making sure the abuse of the asylum system was not
going to be misused by those looking for unlawful entry
into the US, which pretty much is everybody, because they're
all trained what to say when they get the I'm
(05:55):
going to die if I go back to my home
country and you just don't know how to vet them,
and there was no vetting for the four years. Now
we're now stuck with known terrorists, murderers, rapists, other violent criminals,
cartel members, gang members, drug dealers that are in our
country and the blood is on the hands of Biden, Harris,
(06:20):
may Orcus and everyone else that lied to US. Ian Hamilton,
welcome back, Sean, Thanks for having me on. What's the status,
what's the latest? Where do you think the Supreme Court
is going to come down on this?
Speaker 4 (06:32):
Yeah, so let me set the stage for the audience
at home, Sean. We've had now for six months in
a row, zero releases into the United States of illegal
aliens at the southern border. I mean, as you pointed out,
that is precisely because Donald Trump has delivered on his
promises to the American people. But if you think that
(06:55):
it is mission accomplished and that there are not threats
to the security of our border just because Donald Trump
is in office, you would be mistaken. There are all
kinds of people who are continuing in radical court decisions,
that are continuing to do everything they can to advance
open borders insanity. And so let's talk about this case
(07:18):
let's set the stage for this case. As you pointed out,
this case is about the prior Trump administration one point
zero policy of metering. And for the audience, what this means,
if you can think of an analogy, is if you
go to the grocery store, you go to the deli counter.
You don't get to just walk behind the deli counter,
(07:40):
cut your own neat, cut your own cheese, and take
your own order. You have to take a number and
wait in line with the Ninth Circuit. The crazy radical
Ninth Circuit did below is said, no, in fact, it's
illegal for the federal government to be able to manage
the number of people who are up are approaching a
(08:01):
port of entry. So we have, according to the Ninth Circuit,
no control over our own borders, no control over our
ports of entry. We have to accept hordes of people
coming in and demanding entrance to the United States, which
is flatly contrary to the law. It's contrary to the Constitution,
(08:21):
it's contrary to what a sovereign nation believes and has.
But here we are, and so we have this case
that the Court has taken up to hear that is
going to decide a very very fundamental problem, a very
fundamental question, which is does the federal government have control
(08:46):
of its borders or does it not. The implications of
this case are significant, has carryover crossover effects, and every
American needs to be paying attention.
Speaker 1 (08:59):
Well, I agree, I have said, and if you think
I'm wrong, I want you to disagree with me that
it's a matter of when, not if, that this country
is going to be attacked from within, because you can't
have that many known terrorists. And we know that there
are terrorists in this country that got in during the
Biden administration. We know that here. We just arrested some
(09:23):
recently and we were able to stop a plot to
attack this country, and that was the case in New Jersey.
But to me, it's a matter of when, not a
matter of if. But I always add, and I'll add
again that I pray to God I'm wrong.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
Sean, I pray to God you're wrong also. But you
and I agree on this point. It For Look, I've
spent a lot of my professional career working for ICE,
working FORDHS, working for the Department of Justice, doing all
kinds of different things, and I can assure the audience
today that it is impossible. It is completely impossible to
(10:02):
thoroughly vet in screen some person who arrives at the
southern border, even if it's at a port of entry
from Tajikispan or from some Banana republic. It is impossible.
It takes a long time to thoroughly vet and screen
to determine that the person who was trying to come
into the United States is in fact not a threat
to the American people. And yet what this case represents
(10:26):
in the policies of the last administration, what they represented
as well, is this fanciful notion that you can just
let anyone into the country and hope for the best.
And the sad state of affairs is that they let millions,
millions of people come into this country under this false
premise that they knew what they were doing, that they
(10:46):
were acting to secure the border. And it is only
a matter of time until we see something even more
tragic than the murderers and the rapes and all the
crimes that have been committed. Terror strikes this country again,
and it is not going to be good for anyone.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
I know that this is really the first time that
the Court is taking this issue up. I think it
is a critical, critical decision that they will be making here.
I'm not It's never wise to interpret, you know, arguments
made before the court. But the Supreme Court did announce
(11:25):
that they will review this. But based on the current
configuration of the court and based on other factors and
past decisions, do you have any indication I actually believe
this is a case we can win.
Speaker 4 (11:40):
I agree with you, Sean. I think this is a
case where we have justices on the Supreme Court who
rightly read the Constitution, the laws of the United States
and are going to deliver a win for the federal
government in this case, for the Trump administration in affirm
that it has the right to control its own borders,
(12:03):
though that people in fact in Mexico are in Mexico
and they are not in the United States, and they
do not have the right to demand to be admitted
to apply for asylum. So I think this is going
to be a resounding win for the Trump administration. But
we have to pay attention, and we have to look
(12:25):
for these things. Your audience has to look for these
things everywhere where they raise their head, because again, the
open borders radicals are committed to their agenda and they
are going to keep trying everywhere where they can to
undermine the sovereignty of the United States, because at the
end of the day, what they want is to tear
(12:45):
down this country and what it stands for.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
Oh, I agree, all right. So do we have a timeline?
Is this just going to be a decision that could
drop any day or are they going to hear oral
arguments on it? Do we know?
Speaker 4 (12:58):
Yeah, I mean they'll hear our hum It'll be one
of these cases that's heard, you know, in the spring case.
Decision will follow several months thereafter, So we've got some time.
And of course the Trump administration, as I mentioned and
as you've mentioned in the interim, has secured the border
like no one else ever has before. So we have
(13:21):
some time. We will see what happens. But we all
collectively as American people, cannot take our eye off the
ball when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration
in protecting our own sovereignty in our own borders.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
Well, we appreciate what you're doing, We appreciate the updates.
Please keep us in the loop. You're doing a great
job at America First Legal Gene Hamilton, the President, thank
you so much for being with us. All Right, let's
get to our busy phones, New Jersey. Joel next on
the Sean Hannity Show, Hey Joel, how are you hi?
Speaker 5 (13:55):
That was call it get your point of view? Trying
to discuss the topics with loved ones, friends and family
who are only opposing side.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
Okay, so you having a problem with family members that
don't like your politics.
Speaker 3 (14:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (14:11):
The one of the big things is that, like if
you see somebody be in line about and you call
it out, like, hey, that's a lie. That person that
said this or they didn't do this. Even when you
show somebody proof, they're still believing that. No, that's fake,
that's not real proof. And they all the other parts
is But then you're lumped in with someone who is
(14:31):
supposedly filled with hatred and your everything dirty under the son.
But how do you try to have all?
Speaker 1 (14:39):
Let me ask you, is there anybody specific in your
life that you haven't a particular problem with, Because I've
lost friends, not on my end, on their end because
they don't like my politics and my attitude is kind
of like, well, I guess we really warn't friends anyway.
I'll give you one story for example, I always got
along with John Kasik. He used to be the governor
(14:59):
was a com then governor from Ohio, and I think
it was before Trump's election. I don't remember the first
or second one or the third one. I don't it
was either the first or second election that he ran in.
And I called him and I reached out to him.
I said, do you have a minute, And he goes,
is this about President Trump? Is this about Donald Trump?
I said yes. He said nope, And I said, oh,
(15:24):
so I get it. We should only have superficial conversations
about how are you doing, how is your golf game,
what's going on? Bro? I mean, you know the things
that you learn from democratic million dollar studies, and we're
not going to have a real conversation about let's see
the future of our country, national security, about the economy,
(15:46):
about things that are impacting people every single day of
the week. Okay, if that's if that's your posture, fine,
we haven't spoken again since. And that's on him, that's
not on me. If he in the end that if
we did have that conversation, he said, sewn, I just
I have this point of view, it's different than yours.
Blah blah blah blah. I wouldn't have ended my relationship
over that. But there are some people that if you
(16:09):
go there, that's on them, it's not on me. I'm
never going to beg anybody to be my friend, either friends,
a friend or not. Who's bothering you the most?
Speaker 5 (16:20):
It's my wife?
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Oh boy, that's a problem. How long you've been married?
Speaker 5 (16:25):
Seventeen years?
Speaker 1 (16:26):
Okay, Now do you think it's worth getting a divorce over.
Speaker 5 (16:31):
Well, that's already underway. But it's not only her, there's
my dad, there's multiple family members and friends. Well, you know,
friend aspect of your point of view is on that clear.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
But well, I mean it is really the main reason
for the divorce over politics? Yeah, I mean, can you
not just agree to not talk about politics?
Speaker 5 (16:53):
No?
Speaker 1 (16:54):
Do you get along in every aspect of every other
aspect of your life?
Speaker 5 (16:58):
No, Like the tickes effects fundamental belief.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
So the politics is impacting every aspect of your relationship. Yeah,
it's ruined every part of your relationship with your wife.
That's sad. Now do you care that she's a liberal Democrat?
Speaker 5 (17:16):
I don't mind that she is and who she votes for.
It's just her choice.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
Okay, And but she really is angry at your politics?
Speaker 5 (17:23):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (17:24):
Wow? You know, can I.
Speaker 2 (17:26):
Talk to them for a minute. Listen, my friend, I
gotta tell you something. Okay, there's a lot of moms
out there.
Speaker 1 (17:31):
Or you do, aren't you there for you? Wait? Wait
wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait Linda, Linda,
wait a second. I'm sorry to go here. I'm just
giving an admonition to Joel. Y'all just be very careful
what she's about to say. No, you can not be
the best advice.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
I'm giving you. Listen, you are absolutely right. It is
a fundamental difference. The problem is you are tolerant of her,
but the tolerant left is never tolerant. It's ridiculous. It's
walking and complete irony. They are ridiculous. You are a
good person who believes in family first and seventeen years
in marriage and doing all the right things, and all
(18:07):
she wants to talk about is that you're mad. She's
mad that you're a conservative. How stupid is that after
seventeen years, she doesn't know enough other wonderful things about
you than to judge you by your politics. Listen, we
all know conservative women are wonderful, beautiful people with big hearts,
great hair, their good dressers.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
You think about to try and set them up with
one of your friends, like.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
You to set them up with all my friends. We
have a beautiful audience that will happily. There are so
many momas out there it is you're going to be.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
Bringing back candidate listen, Joel. I would recommend one thing
to you, honestly, and look, there are reasons that people
have to get divorces. It's sad that this is what's
going to break up your marriage. Do you have children?
Speaker 5 (18:48):
No?
Speaker 1 (18:48):
Okay, all that actually is a plus because children or
are always impacted a little bit at least by divorce.
But this is what I'm going to advise you. I'd
give it one last shot. I would go to her
and say, can we just agree to disagree on politics
and never talk about it again? Can we just agree
and then, you know, let's rekindle our relationship what brought
(19:09):
us together in the first place, Because I doubt what
brought you together in the first place was who you
were voting for. I you know, there had to be
some spark there somewhere else that brought you together. And
if I had to guess when you were courting each other,
it probably didn't talk a whole hell of a lot
about the political scene.
Speaker 5 (19:26):
Did you no, that was back in two thousand and two.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
I'm just going to urge you give it one more shot.
Go back to her. Can we just hit the reset
button here? Agree to never talk about politics. I'm gonna
I don't. I won't ask you about your politics, don't
ask me about my politics. And let's let's just let's
talk about the things that we love about each other
and give it a shot. Now, if at that point
(19:52):
she still wants you to divorce you, what are you
gonna do?
Speaker 5 (19:55):
Well, that's the thing, Like, I haven't really given you
a really detailed picture of it all, but divorce is
a mutual, agreed thing because of the key differences, Like
it's not only politics. Politics plays a major role in it,
but not just that, like are different.
Speaker 1 (20:13):
So sorry, Well, I'm the least qualified person to give
relationship advice. What do I know? But anyway, I wish
you're the best of my friend. Sorry about that. I'm
sure it's not pleasant. Eight hundred and nine foot one, Sean,
if you want to be a part of the program,
Jill is in Maryland. Hi, Jill, how are you glad
you called?
Speaker 3 (20:32):
Hi? Sean? I have to say I think Linda gave
Jiel some great advice.
Speaker 1 (20:36):
Oh boy, well, thank you? Did I not give him
great advice? To see if they can maybe put that
aside if that's the major cause of their differences.
Speaker 3 (20:45):
I mean, it's appreciated, I'm sure, but it sounded to
me like it's, you know, kind of done. But that's
I don't know the story, so I won't weigh in
on it. And you know, I did call for two
other reasons, but I will say Linda does give really
good advice, and you've got some well deserved time off
coming up, I'm sure for the holidays. I think you
should let Linda post your show. Well you're gone.
Speaker 1 (21:05):
That's a bad idea, trust me, it's not like God, that.
Speaker 2 (21:08):
Answer was so quick. I felt no love, like at all,
not even like a little like love like a hug.
Speaker 3 (21:12):
Maybe why is it a bad idea? I mean, you
can't do the show without her, can you?
Speaker 1 (21:19):
Yeah? Actually I can wouldn't be as good. I love
her contribution, but you know, and we're great friends. Linda
is great at what she does. If Linda ever wanted
to do her own show, she could do great. And
I've offered her on many occasions to support her if
she ever wanted to do that, have I not?
Speaker 3 (21:39):
She could start by filling in for you when you're.
Speaker 1 (21:41):
Not there, right, but I have there's a whole set
of criteria that you have to have to fill in
for the show.
Speaker 2 (21:48):
Oh, do tell what is it?
Speaker 1 (21:49):
I want to I want to know more. Have a
little we have a little danger zone when it comes
to Linda.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
Oh my god, Oh my Gosh's fine, it's a safe space.
Speaker 1 (22:02):
No, you're not a safe space. There's nothing safe about Linda.
You should hear Linda unbridled off airs.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
For off AIRLANDA. She wants on AIRLANDA. It's very different.
Speaker 1 (22:11):
All right, move on, what's on your mind? What else
is on your mind? Jill?
Speaker 3 (22:14):
Okay? So I called about two things that The first
one is, I know you've been talking a lot about
AI recently, and I'm you know, I know it's here.
I'm not against it. I'm not against technology. I'm not
against progress. But I'm concerned about the rush to approve
all of these data centers that are going in everywhere
they were. I think that local I think that states
and local governments are getting blinded by the idea of
(22:38):
fast revenue from them. But they're not looking at the
long term effects. You know what, there's the short term
gains versus the long term effects. And I know that
where I am, they're selling prime farmland, prime agricultural land
to build these data centers, and we're not going to
get that back once you develop it. That agricultural land
has gone, and we can't afford to start importing our food.
(23:03):
You know, we need farmers, we need local and you know,
there's I thought for a long time the big thing
was farmed a table and locally sourced food. But if
we keep paving over everything to put data centers up,
which we don't have the infrastructure for yet, what's going
to happen. What's going to be the long term result
of this?
Speaker 5 (23:20):
I know.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
The good news is the President has opened up you know,
more sources for energy than we've ever had before, and
it's gonna it's going to take an enormous amount of
energy to build out you know, these AI the necessary
energies for AI capability. It is enormous, and thank goodness,
(23:41):
we have the right president at the right time. It's
the perfect convergence of timing for this.
Speaker 3 (23:47):
And I applaud President Trump for what he's doing here.
I just I worry that we're putting the cart before
the horse and some of these local jurisdictions. Right now,
we're running an extension court from Pennsylvania to northern Virginia
to power all the data centers, and they are to
do a forty two hundred acre campus where I live,
and it's some of the most fertile farmland in the
state of Maryland. And I'm just you know, I know,
(24:08):
we can't stop it. I just wish that the local
planners would put a little bit more thought into this
and maybe realize that data centers can go up, they
can go vertical, whereas agricultural land cannot. So's it's my thought.
I don't know. I don't know what the answer is.
I'm just I'm really concerned that they're being blinded by
(24:29):
the thought of the initial checks that they're getting, because
they're getting big checks right off the bat, and the
data centers are promising thousands of jobs, but those jobs
are for mostly for the construction.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
So listen, I am telling you you're very smart. You're
way ahead of the curve. It is imperative that everything
that you're talking about be dealt with and be dealt
with now so we don't find ourselves short.
Speaker 5 (24:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (24:54):
So I give you, I give you a lot of
credit for understanding this, But you know, I want this
audience to be super prepared for the shifting and changing
economy because it's going to be dramatic, and I don't
want anyone in this audience to be caught by surprise.
It's not the future, it's now. The changes are happening
(25:14):
now before our eyes, and I just want everyone to
be able to be to start thinking about adaptation to
new technology the economy. Some jobs will will be replaced,
other jobs will come online. Elon Musk, I know for
a fact, believes that the net plus is going to
(25:35):
be significant, meaning more jobs in the end, not less.
You know. But I'm talking to people that are telling
me in ten years, you know, we're gonna have robots
and most middle class family homes that will do the
dishes and the laundry and cut the lawn and things
that you never dreamed of before. I mean, it's going
to be that deep and that profound the changes that
(25:58):
are coming. I'm seeing can instruction robots that can build
massive buildings in a week where it would take a
year for a construction company to do it, and it's
more perfect and they do it with less waste. You know,
all of this is real, all of this is now happening,
and all of this is going to be coming online.
That's why the trillion's an investment when when you know
(26:21):
when the time is right. And the first announcement I'm
making is if you're in North Carolina, want to go
to North Carolina. Toyota announced they have begun production of
their thirteen point nine billion dollar battery manufacturing plan, all
committing an additional ten billion to bolster us manufacturing over
the next few years. It's in Liberty, North Carolina. You
(26:43):
might want to check in if you're in North Carolina
or you're interested in that industry, see if there's any
jobs available for you. I will make I will make
it a priority. So this audience is ahead of the curve.
And if you're willing to, you know, take chances in
your life. And I urge everyone to take chances. And
I would just say that you don't pay attention to
(27:04):
what's happening, okay, and we'll try to help you.
Speaker 3 (27:07):
It's definitely the way of the future. And I hope
that schools are paying attention to this and not so well.
It woul might be nice to get people trained in
some of this the other the other thing.
Speaker 1 (27:18):
Some schools are there are good schools in this country.
I would find them. You have to work to find them, right.
I'm on the clock, Jill, great call, appreciate you being
with us. Wrap things up, But today we got a
great Hannity tonight nine eastern on the Fox News Channel.
Oh turns out Democrats have themselves a little Jeffrey Epstein problem.
What a shocker. We'll check in with James Comer, Riley
(27:41):
Gains tonight, Charlie Hert, Lindsey Graham, Tommy Laren, former FBI
special agent Maren O'Connell and also former Secret Service. How
did they get this whole issue of the assassination and
Butler's so wrong and investigative reports? Say you DVR Hannity
tonight nine eastern on Fox. Will see you then back
in the tomorrow. Thank you for making the show possible.
Our Tollfrey telephone number its eight hundred and nine to
four one. Sean, if you want to be a part
of this extravaganza, well, the battle over illegal immigration. I
believe we are going to continue to see the fallout
of wide open borders that went on for the entire
Biden Harris administration. I blame them. I think that I've
(00:23):
said many times that they have blood on their hands.
Lake and Riley brought Joscelyn Nungary, Rachel mourn and so
many others. We learned what in the last week and
a half that known terrorists have been discovered in our country.
They came in during the Biden Harris Mayorcis open borders disaster.
We have people from over what got close to three
(00:45):
hundred countries, two hundred plus countries, and in our country,
countries that have known terror ties. All why'd somebody from
Iran make the trek to our southern border? Why does
people from Egypt make the trek to our southern border? Again?
Ties to terrorists? You know, it makes a very suspect.
And I am not against legal immigration, just the opposite.
(01:05):
I want people to come in legally. I want them
to be vetted. I want health checks in a post
pandemic world. I want to also make sure that they're
not going to be a financial burden on the American people.
I don't give a hoot where you come from. At
that point, you pay for that. You know, process yourself,
we vet you. Welcome to our country. Welcome to America.
That's how my grandparents got here. They did it, they
(01:27):
did it legally. You know, we mentioned yesterday the ICE
agents being confronted in North Carolina, you know, being cursed at,
spit at, everything else in between by these lunatics. I mean,
it's now a hostile environment. We've had ICE agents now
being harmed on the job. They're now being docks and
now being confronted and now being tipped off, have tip
(01:49):
lines that are putting their lives in danger, taking away
the element of surprise that is vital for law enforcement.
And so far everybody seems to be getting away with it,
which is beyond frustrating to me. Now we are back
in the Supreme Court, they announced yesterday that they will
review the immigration policies adopted during the first Trump administration
(02:11):
of turning away potential asylum seekers before they ever set
foot on American soil. Setting up the first major immigration
policy case of the term. Now, just as a matter
of law, federal law does require the government to process
asylum seekers who arrive at ports of entry. Donald Trump
in twenty eighteen began a policy known as metering, in
(02:34):
which border agents simply turn back potential asylum seekers the
Stay of Mexico policy, if you will, before they entered
the US, you can't enter and just say, oh, I'm
here for asylum. And if you remember, you know when
we were being told over and over and over and
over and over again, the borders closed, the border secure,
(02:55):
The borders closed, the border secure. Elon Musk put out
a post yesterday showing the Biden administration using a bulldozer
to break down the fence to allow people on the
other side to enter our country illegally and again the
big lie that went on for four years that the
border has closed, the border is secure. Here as a reminder,
(03:16):
the United States will continue to enforce our laws and
secure our border. The border is in fact secure.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
A record two hundred and twenty one thousand migrants crossed
into the US last month.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
Our border is secure.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
We believe certainly that the border is secured.
Speaker 4 (03:32):
Thirteen hundred migrants a day.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
We have taken unprecedented action over the past year and
a half to secure our border and rebuild a safer
and orderly process system.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
This year is on pace to be the deadliest year
for migrants crossing into this region of Texas in recent memory.
Speaker 5 (03:50):
The border is secure, the border is secure, and the
border is not open.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
Crossings are still at an all time high, with Border
Patrol reporting more than one one point eight million apprehensions
from October twenty twenty one through July.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
The border remains closed. It is not open.
Speaker 5 (04:07):
We are turning away the majority of adults, but were The.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
Border is secure. The border is closed.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
So we are offering solutions.
Speaker 4 (04:17):
That's what the Biden Harris administration has been doing since
day one.
Speaker 5 (04:21):
This is worse now than a worse before.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
A record number of migrants this year, and the total
colds are passed two million by the end of September.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
We're certainly doing a lot more to secure the border.
We have.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
A secure border, and.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
We have a process of place to manage migrants of
the border.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
A record serge of migrants in New York City.
Speaker 5 (04:41):
Over two million.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
The illegal immigrants crossing the southern border an all time record.
The border is secure.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
We agree that the border is secure.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
The border is secured now, but only after Donald Trump
became president and made it a priority. We estimate anywhere
between twelve and twenty million. Nobody knows the actual umber.
You know, we don't know. California, for example, sanctuary state
and city. They don't even keep statistics of crimes committed
by illegal immigrants. They protect the illegal immigrants, and by
(05:11):
the way, they offer them free taxpayer funded healthcare, to
free taxpayer funded schools for their kids and other benefits.
No wonder why the highest tax state in the country
is running massive, massive deficits because they can't afford it
because all the illegal immigrants are protected there. Anyway, this
(05:34):
case is now moving forward. Gene Hamilton is the new
president of American First Legal You might remember it was
started by Steven Miller, instrumental in the President's first administration,
making sure the abuse of the asylum system was not
going to be misused by those looking for unlawful entry
into the US, which pretty much is everybody, because they're
all trained what to say when they get the I'm
(05:55):
going to die if I go back to my home
country and you just don't know how to vet them,
and there was no vetting for the four years. Now
we're now stuck with known terrorists, murderers, rapists, other violent criminals,
cartel members, gang members, drug dealers that are in our
country and the blood is on the hands of Biden, Harris,
(06:20):
may Orcus and everyone else that lied to US. Ian Hamilton,
welcome back, Sean, Thanks for having me on. What's the status,
what's the latest? Where do you think the Supreme Court
is going to come down on this?
Speaker 4 (06:32):
Yeah, so let me set the stage for the audience
at home, Sean. We've had now for six months in
a row, zero releases into the United States of illegal
aliens at the southern border. I mean, as you pointed out,
that is precisely because Donald Trump has delivered on his
promises to the American people. But if you think that
(06:55):
it is mission accomplished and that there are not threats
to the security of our border just because Donald Trump
is in office, you would be mistaken. There are all
kinds of people who are continuing in radical court decisions,
that are continuing to do everything they can to advance
open borders insanity. And so let's talk about this case
(07:18):
let's set the stage for this case. As you pointed out,
this case is about the prior Trump administration one point
zero policy of metering. And for the audience, what this means,
if you can think of an analogy, is if you
go to the grocery store, you go to the deli counter.
You don't get to just walk behind the deli counter,
(07:40):
cut your own neat, cut your own cheese, and take
your own order. You have to take a number and
wait in line with the Ninth Circuit. The crazy radical
Ninth Circuit did below is said, no, in fact, it's
illegal for the federal government to be able to manage
the number of people who are up are approaching a
(08:01):
port of entry. So we have, according to the Ninth Circuit,
no control over our own borders, no control over our
ports of entry. We have to accept hordes of people
coming in and demanding entrance to the United States, which
is flatly contrary to the law. It's contrary to the Constitution,
(08:21):
it's contrary to what a sovereign nation believes and has.
But here we are, and so we have this case
that the Court has taken up to hear that is
going to decide a very very fundamental problem, a very
fundamental question, which is does the federal government have control
(08:46):
of its borders or does it not. The implications of
this case are significant, has carryover crossover effects, and every
American needs to be paying attention.
Speaker 1 (08:59):
Well, I agree, I have said, and if you think
I'm wrong, I want you to disagree with me that
it's a matter of when, not if, that this country
is going to be attacked from within, because you can't
have that many known terrorists. And we know that there
are terrorists in this country that got in during the
Biden administration. We know that here. We just arrested some
(09:23):
recently and we were able to stop a plot to
attack this country, and that was the case in New Jersey.
But to me, it's a matter of when, not a
matter of if. But I always add, and I'll add
again that I pray to God I'm wrong.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
Sean, I pray to God you're wrong also. But you
and I agree on this point. It For Look, I've
spent a lot of my professional career working for ICE,
working FORDHS, working for the Department of Justice, doing all
kinds of different things, and I can assure the audience
today that it is impossible. It is completely impossible to
(10:02):
thoroughly vet in screen some person who arrives at the
southern border, even if it's at a port of entry
from Tajikispan or from some Banana republic. It is impossible.
It takes a long time to thoroughly vet and screen
to determine that the person who was trying to come
into the United States is in fact not a threat
to the American people. And yet what this case represents
(10:26):
in the policies of the last administration, what they represented
as well, is this fanciful notion that you can just
let anyone into the country and hope for the best.
And the sad state of affairs is that they let millions,
millions of people come into this country under this false
premise that they knew what they were doing, that they
(10:46):
were acting to secure the border. And it is only
a matter of time until we see something even more
tragic than the murderers and the rapes and all the
crimes that have been committed. Terror strikes this country again,
and it is not going to be good for anyone.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
I know that this is really the first time that
the Court is taking this issue up. I think it
is a critical, critical decision that they will be making here.
I'm not It's never wise to interpret, you know, arguments
made before the court. But the Supreme Court did announce
(11:25):
that they will review this. But based on the current
configuration of the court and based on other factors and
past decisions, do you have any indication I actually believe
this is a case we can win.
Speaker 4 (11:40):
I agree with you, Sean. I think this is a
case where we have justices on the Supreme Court who
rightly read the Constitution, the laws of the United States
and are going to deliver a win for the federal
government in this case, for the Trump administration in affirm
that it has the right to control its own borders,
(12:03):
though that people in fact in Mexico are in Mexico
and they are not in the United States, and they
do not have the right to demand to be admitted
to apply for asylum. So I think this is going
to be a resounding win for the Trump administration. But
we have to pay attention, and we have to look
(12:25):
for these things. Your audience has to look for these
things everywhere where they raise their head, because again, the
open borders radicals are committed to their agenda and they
are going to keep trying everywhere where they can to
undermine the sovereignty of the United States, because at the
end of the day, what they want is to tear
(12:45):
down this country and what it stands for.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
Oh, I agree, all right. So do we have a timeline?
Is this just going to be a decision that could
drop any day or are they going to hear oral
arguments on it? Do we know?
Speaker 4 (12:58):
Yeah, I mean they'll hear our hum It'll be one
of these cases that's heard, you know, in the spring case.
Decision will follow several months thereafter, So we've got some time.
And of course the Trump administration, as I mentioned and
as you've mentioned in the interim, has secured the border
like no one else ever has before. So we have
(13:21):
some time. We will see what happens. But we all
collectively as American people, cannot take our eye off the
ball when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration
in protecting our own sovereignty in our own borders.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
Well, we appreciate what you're doing, We appreciate the updates.
Please keep us in the loop. You're doing a great
job at America First Legal Gene Hamilton, the President, thank
you so much for being with us. All Right, let's
get to our busy phones, New Jersey. Joel next on
the Sean Hannity Show, Hey Joel, how are you hi?
Speaker 5 (13:55):
That was call it get your point of view? Trying
to discuss the topics with loved ones, friends and family
who are only opposing side.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
Okay, so you having a problem with family members that
don't like your politics.
Speaker 3 (14:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (14:11):
The one of the big things is that, like if
you see somebody be in line about and you call
it out, like, hey, that's a lie. That person that
said this or they didn't do this. Even when you
show somebody proof, they're still believing that. No, that's fake,
that's not real proof. And they all the other parts
is But then you're lumped in with someone who is
(14:31):
supposedly filled with hatred and your everything dirty under the son.
But how do you try to have all?
Speaker 1 (14:39):
Let me ask you, is there anybody specific in your
life that you haven't a particular problem with, Because I've
lost friends, not on my end, on their end because
they don't like my politics and my attitude is kind
of like, well, I guess we really warn't friends anyway.
I'll give you one story for example, I always got
along with John Kasik. He used to be the governor
(14:59):
was a com then governor from Ohio, and I think
it was before Trump's election. I don't remember the first
or second one or the third one. I don't it
was either the first or second election that he ran in.
And I called him and I reached out to him.
I said, do you have a minute, And he goes,
is this about President Trump? Is this about Donald Trump?
I said yes. He said nope, And I said, oh,
(15:24):
so I get it. We should only have superficial conversations
about how are you doing, how is your golf game,
what's going on? Bro? I mean, you know the things
that you learn from democratic million dollar studies, and we're
not going to have a real conversation about let's see
the future of our country, national security, about the economy,
(15:46):
about things that are impacting people every single day of
the week. Okay, if that's if that's your posture, fine,
we haven't spoken again since. And that's on him, that's
not on me. If he in the end that if
we did have that conversation, he said, sewn, I just
I have this point of view, it's different than yours.
Blah blah blah blah. I wouldn't have ended my relationship
over that. But there are some people that if you
(16:09):
go there, that's on them, it's not on me. I'm
never going to beg anybody to be my friend, either friends,
a friend or not. Who's bothering you the most?
Speaker 5 (16:20):
It's my wife?
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Oh boy, that's a problem. How long you've been married?
Speaker 5 (16:25):
Seventeen years?
Speaker 1 (16:26):
Okay, Now do you think it's worth getting a divorce over.
Speaker 5 (16:31):
Well, that's already underway. But it's not only her, there's
my dad, there's multiple family members and friends. Well, you know,
friend aspect of your point of view is on that clear.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
But well, I mean it is really the main reason
for the divorce over politics? Yeah, I mean, can you
not just agree to not talk about politics?
Speaker 5 (16:53):
No?
Speaker 1 (16:54):
Do you get along in every aspect of every other
aspect of your life?
Speaker 5 (16:58):
No, Like the tickes effects fundamental belief.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
So the politics is impacting every aspect of your relationship. Yeah,
it's ruined every part of your relationship with your wife.
That's sad. Now do you care that she's a liberal Democrat?
Speaker 5 (17:16):
I don't mind that she is and who she votes for.
It's just her choice.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
Okay, And but she really is angry at your politics?
Speaker 5 (17:23):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (17:24):
Wow? You know, can I.
Speaker 2 (17:26):
Talk to them for a minute. Listen, my friend, I
gotta tell you something. Okay, there's a lot of moms
out there.
Speaker 1 (17:31):
Or you do, aren't you there for you? Wait? Wait
wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait Linda, Linda,
wait a second. I'm sorry to go here. I'm just
giving an admonition to Joel. Y'all just be very careful
what she's about to say. No, you can not be
the best advice.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
I'm giving you. Listen, you are absolutely right. It is
a fundamental difference. The problem is you are tolerant of her,
but the tolerant left is never tolerant. It's ridiculous. It's
walking and complete irony. They are ridiculous. You are a
good person who believes in family first and seventeen years
in marriage and doing all the right things, and all
(18:07):
she wants to talk about is that you're mad. She's
mad that you're a conservative. How stupid is that after
seventeen years, she doesn't know enough other wonderful things about
you than to judge you by your politics. Listen, we
all know conservative women are wonderful, beautiful people with big hearts,
great hair, their good dressers.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
You think about to try and set them up with
one of your friends, like.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
You to set them up with all my friends. We
have a beautiful audience that will happily. There are so
many momas out there it is you're going to be.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
Bringing back candidate listen, Joel. I would recommend one thing
to you, honestly, and look, there are reasons that people
have to get divorces. It's sad that this is what's
going to break up your marriage. Do you have children?
Speaker 5 (18:48):
No?
Speaker 1 (18:48):
Okay, all that actually is a plus because children or
are always impacted a little bit at least by divorce.
But this is what I'm going to advise you. I'd
give it one last shot. I would go to her
and say, can we just agree to disagree on politics
and never talk about it again? Can we just agree
and then, you know, let's rekindle our relationship what brought
(19:09):
us together in the first place, Because I doubt what
brought you together in the first place was who you
were voting for. I you know, there had to be
some spark there somewhere else that brought you together. And
if I had to guess when you were courting each other,
it probably didn't talk a whole hell of a lot
about the political scene.
Speaker 5 (19:26):
Did you no, that was back in two thousand and two.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
I'm just going to urge you give it one more shot.
Go back to her. Can we just hit the reset
button here? Agree to never talk about politics. I'm gonna
I don't. I won't ask you about your politics, don't
ask me about my politics. And let's let's just let's
talk about the things that we love about each other
and give it a shot. Now, if at that point
(19:52):
she still wants you to divorce you, what are you
gonna do?
Speaker 5 (19:55):
Well, that's the thing, Like, I haven't really given you
a really detailed picture of it all, but divorce is
a mutual, agreed thing because of the key differences, Like
it's not only politics. Politics plays a major role in it,
but not just that, like are different.
Speaker 1 (20:13):
So sorry, Well, I'm the least qualified person to give
relationship advice. What do I know? But anyway, I wish
you're the best of my friend. Sorry about that. I'm
sure it's not pleasant. Eight hundred and nine foot one, Sean,
if you want to be a part of the program,
Jill is in Maryland. Hi, Jill, how are you glad
you called?
Speaker 3 (20:32):
Hi? Sean? I have to say I think Linda gave
Jiel some great advice.
Speaker 1 (20:36):
Oh boy, well, thank you? Did I not give him
great advice? To see if they can maybe put that
aside if that's the major cause of their differences.
Speaker 3 (20:45):
I mean, it's appreciated, I'm sure, but it sounded to
me like it's, you know, kind of done. But that's
I don't know the story, so I won't weigh in
on it. And you know, I did call for two
other reasons, but I will say Linda does give really
good advice, and you've got some well deserved time off
coming up, I'm sure for the holidays. I think you
should let Linda post your show. Well you're gone.
Speaker 1 (21:05):
That's a bad idea, trust me, it's not like God, that.
Speaker 2 (21:08):
Answer was so quick. I felt no love, like at all,
not even like a little like love like a hug.
Speaker 3 (21:12):
Maybe why is it a bad idea? I mean, you
can't do the show without her, can you?
Speaker 1 (21:19):
Yeah? Actually I can wouldn't be as good. I love
her contribution, but you know, and we're great friends. Linda
is great at what she does. If Linda ever wanted
to do her own show, she could do great. And
I've offered her on many occasions to support her if
she ever wanted to do that, have I not?
Speaker 3 (21:39):
She could start by filling in for you when you're.
Speaker 1 (21:41):
Not there, right, but I have there's a whole set
of criteria that you have to have to fill in
for the show.
Speaker 2 (21:48):
Oh, do tell what is it?
Speaker 1 (21:49):
I want to I want to know more. Have a
little we have a little danger zone when it comes
to Linda.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
Oh my god, Oh my Gosh's fine, it's a safe space.
Speaker 1 (22:02):
No, you're not a safe space. There's nothing safe about Linda.
You should hear Linda unbridled off airs.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
For off AIRLANDA. She wants on AIRLANDA. It's very different.
Speaker 1 (22:11):
All right, move on, what's on your mind? What else
is on your mind? Jill?
Speaker 3 (22:14):
Okay? So I called about two things that The first
one is, I know you've been talking a lot about
AI recently, and I'm you know, I know it's here.
I'm not against it. I'm not against technology. I'm not
against progress. But I'm concerned about the rush to approve
all of these data centers that are going in everywhere
they were. I think that local I think that states
and local governments are getting blinded by the idea of
(22:38):
fast revenue from them. But they're not looking at the
long term effects. You know what, there's the short term
gains versus the long term effects. And I know that
where I am, they're selling prime farmland, prime agricultural land
to build these data centers, and we're not going to
get that back once you develop it. That agricultural land
has gone, and we can't afford to start importing our food.
(23:03):
You know, we need farmers, we need local and you know,
there's I thought for a long time the big thing
was farmed a table and locally sourced food. But if
we keep paving over everything to put data centers up,
which we don't have the infrastructure for yet, what's going
to happen. What's going to be the long term result
of this?
Speaker 5 (23:20):
I know.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
The good news is the President has opened up you know,
more sources for energy than we've ever had before, and
it's gonna it's going to take an enormous amount of
energy to build out you know, these AI the necessary
energies for AI capability. It is enormous, and thank goodness,
(23:41):
we have the right president at the right time. It's
the perfect convergence of timing for this.
Speaker 3 (23:47):
And I applaud President Trump for what he's doing here.
I just I worry that we're putting the cart before
the horse and some of these local jurisdictions. Right now,
we're running an extension court from Pennsylvania to northern Virginia
to power all the data centers, and they are to
do a forty two hundred acre campus where I live,
and it's some of the most fertile farmland in the
state of Maryland. And I'm just you know, I know,
(24:08):
we can't stop it. I just wish that the local
planners would put a little bit more thought into this
and maybe realize that data centers can go up, they
can go vertical, whereas agricultural land cannot. So's it's my thought.
I don't know. I don't know what the answer is.
I'm just I'm really concerned that they're being blinded by
(24:29):
the thought of the initial checks that they're getting, because
they're getting big checks right off the bat, and the
data centers are promising thousands of jobs, but those jobs
are for mostly for the construction.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
So listen, I am telling you you're very smart. You're
way ahead of the curve. It is imperative that everything
that you're talking about be dealt with and be dealt
with now so we don't find ourselves short.
Speaker 5 (24:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (24:54):
So I give you, I give you a lot of
credit for understanding this, But you know, I want this
audience to be super prepared for the shifting and changing
economy because it's going to be dramatic, and I don't
want anyone in this audience to be caught by surprise.
It's not the future, it's now. The changes are happening
(25:14):
now before our eyes, and I just want everyone to
be able to be to start thinking about adaptation to
new technology the economy. Some jobs will will be replaced,
other jobs will come online. Elon Musk, I know for
a fact, believes that the net plus is going to
(25:35):
be significant, meaning more jobs in the end, not less.
You know. But I'm talking to people that are telling
me in ten years, you know, we're gonna have robots
and most middle class family homes that will do the
dishes and the laundry and cut the lawn and things
that you never dreamed of before. I mean, it's going
to be that deep and that profound the changes that
(25:58):
are coming. I'm seeing can instruction robots that can build
massive buildings in a week where it would take a
year for a construction company to do it, and it's
more perfect and they do it with less waste. You know,
all of this is real, all of this is now happening,
and all of this is going to be coming online.
That's why the trillion's an investment when when you know
(26:21):
when the time is right. And the first announcement I'm
making is if you're in North Carolina, want to go
to North Carolina. Toyota announced they have begun production of
their thirteen point nine billion dollar battery manufacturing plan, all
committing an additional ten billion to bolster us manufacturing over
the next few years. It's in Liberty, North Carolina. You
(26:43):
might want to check in if you're in North Carolina
or you're interested in that industry, see if there's any
jobs available for you. I will make I will make
it a priority. So this audience is ahead of the curve.
And if you're willing to, you know, take chances in
your life. And I urge everyone to take chances. And
I would just say that you don't pay attention to
(27:04):
what's happening, okay, and we'll try to help you.
Speaker 3 (27:07):
It's definitely the way of the future. And I hope
that schools are paying attention to this and not so well.
It woul might be nice to get people trained in
some of this the other the other thing.
Speaker 1 (27:18):
Some schools are there are good schools in this country.
I would find them. You have to work to find them, right.
I'm on the clock, Jill, great call, appreciate you being
with us. Wrap things up, But today we got a
great Hannity tonight nine eastern on the Fox News Channel.
Oh turns out Democrats have themselves a little Jeffrey Epstein problem.
What a shocker. We'll check in with James Comer, Riley
(27:41):
Gains tonight, Charlie Hert, Lindsey Graham, Tommy Laren, former FBI
special agent Maren O'Connell and also former Secret Service. How
did they get this whole issue of the assassination and
Butler's so wrong and investigative reports? Say you DVR Hannity
tonight nine eastern on Fox. Will see you then back
in the tomorrow. Thank you for making the show possible.
The Sean Hannity Show News
Host
Sean Hannity
Popular Podcasts
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.
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com