well put on your dancing shoes, everyone, because the supreme court wants us to bogey all the way into the 2024 election. tonight on laura coates live. >> if you've paid attention to all this week you'd think it's one big tap dance, wouldn't you? ruling after ruling, appeal after appeal, and today a two

step by the supreme court itself. it rejected a request by special counsel jack smith to fast-track a decision on whether trump has immunity from federal prosecution for crimes he committed allegedly in office. the supreme court, they didn't explain why and there were no noted dissents. instead the release was a single sentence ending with the word denied. so what does all this mean? well you know that march 4th date jack smith wanted for the start of trump's election subversion trial, well that likely ain't happening. it could be much later than that now. so we are clear on that, we'll talk more on that tonight. but the question remains why kick the can down the road? it's almost a sure fire bet the scotus will have to take this up again at some point. it may be an expedited review of the cases already underway in the dc circuit court of

appeals will hear oral arguments on january 9th. it's pretty quick. and however that court may rule, either side, guess what -- you guessed it, he's likely to appeal. so why wait? don't the american people have the right to know the answer, does he have immunity or not to this right now? but i mean given the zipped lift justices, it's hard to know which way they are leaning or how they are thinking about this very important issue. but could it have something to do with the big landmine right in the middle of this dance floor? you know what i'm talking about -- the 2024 election. it's the thing that makes this critical legal question so fraught with politics. for a deeply unpopular court, you know why, in a deeply divided country, i guess we know why, it's inevitably going to anger a whole lot of people, no matter what the decision ends up being. you rule against trump and part of the country thinks it's

thumbs on the scale of justice in one direction or another. you rule in his favor and the other part c those scales tipping the other direction, giving a little nudge to the seesaw you are talking about. jack smith seems aware of the political peril because remember his findings on the dispute talked a lot about the, quote, public interest. but as my friend and colleague ellie honig points out, smith didn't mention the election specifically. >> when it comes to the question of whether it needs to be expedited it's is there a need for speed here, and because jack smith was unwilling or unable to say i'm trying to get this in before the election, all he was able to give was a bunch of generalities, and apparently the court found that unpersuasive. >> well as for trump, he wants this dance to go on. he's the one that set the landmine, in some respects. he would be in a much more favorable position if all this

were decided, let's just say after the election, and he could cut the lights and stop the music, and that's it. if he wins, of course. whether it's this case or any other, if he wins the presidency, we're talking about a federal action, he could have them all dropped, gone. as far as that landmine goes, he's still out there, trying to set more for every legal issue he's facing. he's saying this today after colorado's supreme court took him off the ballot. >> trying to take the election away from the voters and they sue any time they can. and this one is really a crazy one. if they haven't did that, it would be so bad for this country you have no idea. you understand, it would be a big problem for the country. >> though how long can we dance, as a country, before stepping on one of those landmines? or can we maybe avoid them altogether? time will tell. let's get right into all the former trump white house

attorney james scholz. he is there, and cnn legal analyst michael moore, the former u.s. attorney for the middle district of georgia. gentlemen, good to have you here, doing a whole lot of dance analogies. get ready to swim with me on this one. james, we begin with you, okay? no explanation was given, jim, no noted dissentss. the question on everyone's mind, why won't the high court just answer this question? we know it's going to get to them eventually. why not answer it now? >> as far as the expedited piece of this goes, clearly the supreme court wasn't buying what jack smith was selling you. i thought that they were going to take it up. they didn't take it up but there is a bright spot here and then we know that the dc appellate court is taking this very seriously. they already have an expedited hearing on the thing. it's

going to have an aggressive briefing schedule. this going to get before an appellate court very quickly. i don't think the former president has a strong case on this immunity. he's trying to apply something that is traditionally in the civil context to the criminal context. i don't think the dc circuit court of appeals is going to go his way on it and it will be right back in the hands of the supreme court, and they can make a decision at that point whether they want to have an expedited briefing schedule, and depending on outcomes, who knows, maybe they don't take it up at all, but that remains to be seen. >> michael, that's a good point, the idea of the why, and of course process. it's the order of things. it goes from the lower court to the appellate court and then can find its way -- i want to

hear the supreme court, hear the case at all. they tried to leapfrog all that, as you know, knowing the gravitas in this entire case. but the dc court of appeals, the circuit court is going to hear the oral arguments and it's not that long away. it's january 9th. we are showing everyone the calendar right now. it's coming up pretty quickly. it's days before the iowa republican caucuses. the trial is supposed to begin on march 4th. is this likely now the matter to take up the case to push that trial date out of march and maybe much later? >> i'm glad to be with all of you and happy holidays to you. i do think it's likely that the march trial was moved. i just can't see how that holds, given where we are. really this is a witches brew of their own concocting, if you will, and that being the department. they waited. we are right before an election. these events that we're talking about happened right after the last election. so we've had about a three-year period that this case could have been brought. instead, for whatever reasons, and no i'm not pointing fingers at anybody, we find ourselves here, heading right into an election. the department of justice is typically very low to give the appearance, at least, that they are interfering with an election. that doesn't seem to bother

them because there's all these things that have been put in place and these machinations. nobody wants to just say that this is about trying to get the case tried before the election. so we try to say well, it's an urgency and well, the people need to know, we've got to talk all around it or dance around it, as you say. >> thank you, you were listening to my analogies. all right michael, thank you. >> let's think of it as that's taking them nowhere. in the supreme court it's nothing if not a body that is concerned with process, procedure and rules. they tell you what kind of paper you can write on and how big the print can be and what you wear and all those things. so taking it out of line was a big deal. taking this out of time and out of turn and trying to leapfrog over a case that was pending already in the dc circuit i think was a bigger deal than maybe jack smith anticipated. but i also think it will push this case out. no question we're going to end up in the supreme court to make this ultimate decision but it's

going to push the case out at some point. >> jim, you're agreeing or what? >> so yeah, i think it is going to have some delay but i think there is potential that this thing goes to trial in may/june rather than march/april. given the schedule from the dc court of appeals, i do think there's an opportunity for them to get this in prior to the conventions, if you will. they have been dancing around it. it is about the election. there is no doubt about it. they want to get this in earlier rather than later so this information, when they talk about public interest, they are clearly talking about getting this information before the american public, getting a verdict in the trial, in the criminal trial against a former president who is running for president, in before the elections of the american people can make that decision one way or the other, if we have a convicted felon on the ticket, right? i think that's something that's going to be front and center. they have been dancing around it. you are absolutely right, but i do think there's an opportunity for them to get it in before hand, and as it relates to not

bringing cases around an election, doj's policy typically in those instances applies to bringing indictments. no october surprises, no september surprises in terms of indictments of elected officials or candidates who are on the ballot. this is something again that has been going on for a number of years. no surprises in terms of the fact that they have -- he's been indicted. it's going to go to trial and what happens at that trial, really the doj is prosecuting it but then it's in the hands of the judges. so i'm not sure that long- standing policy applies in this instance. >> also we are all assuming here that jack smith contemplated that it's only going to be one candidate at the time that he actually brought the case and asked for all this. obviously trump is a political front runner, but part of the entirety of this case involves whether someone is above the law, whether one is going to

simply say if i am to be president of the united states i will forever have covered or not for anything i may have done in office and beyond. there is a really vested interest in all of this, even outside of a presidential election year. but i do wonder about this point. you both raised it in different ways. do you think the supreme court, knowing full well that they are not the most popular as they were in the past, there's a lot of doubt about their objectivity and beyond. are they looking to this moment to say, we want this process, we need this process to take its absolute by the book step- by-step because we want to make sure the public thinks that we are not taking it out of their hands. are we looking for a little bit of cover here, michael, to suggest, look, it might get to us but it's got to be the proper way everything else has to. >> i think that's right.

i think they are looking at it to try to give the appearance at least, this is a legitimate process and they're not bending any rules to try to get to the former president, no matter what their dislike or disdain for him or the public, some segments of the public may be. but the reality is, we keep talking around this idea that a normal criminal defendant would often times waive their speedy trial right. they have a lengthy time period before they could go to trial. there would be discovery. there would be all these things that happen. they wouldn't be people with the gas pedal on for the prosecution side, trying to get the case, except in this circumstance they want to get to trial before the election. >> hold on michael. i don't want to cut you off but i think i want to understand something you said. you've been a prosecutor. you know that they want to slow role something, even for the average, they want to drag it out, i would think that's true, they don't want to have any waiting period. what are you really saying? >> i'm saying that typically the speedy trial rights are something that defendants are

very protective of, so when they were willing to waive those rights you don't find prosecutors very often saying there's no problem, we'll schedule the trial. there is going to be a lengthy period of discovery. there is no question here that there has been an effort, both in the federal courts and in the state court, to move this case expeditiously. we have the district attorney here in georgia try to move a rico case with 19 defendants ahead after 60 days. that's just unheard of and was illogical, frankly, to even try to get the case in there. there had been an effort to try to move the case forward and again, we've talked a lot about are we going to treat trump as a normal person, and that is that nobody is above the law and it applies to all people the same way. that may be the case except here you have people who are sort of twisting themselves into a pretzel to get things done before he happens to be in an election. >> let me get jim in this real quick. i want to get his take

on this, michael. i want to get jim on this at this point because obviously you are talking about fulton county, that is a very lengthy indictment. jack smith, though, has four counts against trump, not the number of codefendants in fulton county, does not appear to have quite the scope of the case. but point well taken about the gravatar said about the novelty of it being a former president. what do you see in terms of what michael had to say? >> so i think he's absolutely right as it relates to georgia. that case is enormous. the rico case is a big case. lots of defendants. that case in a normal course would probably happen in 2026, and i don't believe there's any chance that case is going to happen in 2024 point they can talk about it all day long, that they're going to have a trial in august on that. that's never happening in august. that's pie in the sky. as it relates to the federal case, jack smith was pretty

surgical about his indictment. he didn't go broad. he went very surgical in terms of the case he's brought. the information has been exchanged. discovery was exchanged and yeah, it's an aggressive schedule but it's a tight case. >> we'll see who is right. you guys agree on a lot of things. i wonder what the supreme court will ultimately agree on. i bet it's to take up this case but when is the question. james shields, michael moorer, thank you so much for joining me. if i don't see you, happy holidays and the best of new year's to you. >> thanks, same to you. >> you, too. it's been a very long week, long as in law ng. see what i did there? if you've got questions about what's going on with all these comp located legal cases, you are not alone. there involving trump, there involving giuliani, there involving a lot of people. guess whwhat -- we've e got tht answswer when i i go through so of your quesestions at the magi wall, nenext.

look, there are plenty of legal headlines we can sort through regarding former president donald trump's candidacy in 2024. with us now to break it all down his cnn's marshall cohen. he's been closely following every single twist and turn. i'm so glad that you're with me today at this magic wall and you match the magic wall. look at you, i see what you're doing. this is wonderful. we have a lot of questions for people over the week. there is so much to unpack so i want to go to the first question we are getting from a lot of people here and it is if the supreme court is not taking up the trump immunity dispute, then who is, marshall? >> it's a good question. in the federal system you've got the trial court, the circuit court of appeals and the supreme court. trump is on trial and asked for

immunity. the judge said absolutely not, so he's appealing to the middle court, the circuit court of appeals, but jack smith was trying to jump all the way to the supreme court. they said no today so it will go back to the regular process the way it usually works with the dc circuit court of appeals. oral arguments are scheduled for january 9th but we all know what's going to happen after that. probably go right back to the supreme court. >> take up he probably. its going back to the supreme court. why not just answer the question now? but they want the process as you layout to go forward. >> let's move onto the next one. this one is for you, laura. has any president ever been granted the immunity that trump is asking for? >> no, we're in the wild, wild west, we really are. the reason it's so important is because we have seen when it comes to maybe a civil matter with president clinton,

actually before he was in office, a different ball game, this involves a request for immunity for criminal conduct that is being alleged while one is in office. it has never been asked before in this degree and for these reasons. so that's why everyone is leaning in to figure out how the supreme court will rule. don't they want to weigh in immediately? because they got to resolve is really important issue. we're in novel territory but as you can imagine there is another question. a lot of novelty here as well. does trump have to be convicted of insurrection before getting kicked off the ballot? talking about colorado here. >> colorado, 14th amendment. i've been getting this question all week. so the answer is not necessarily. the 14th amendment, the text does not say anything about requiring a conviction of insurrection to disqualify someone because they engaged in the insurrection. look, the colorado supreme court decided that trump is disqualified even without any criminal convictions. there was a dissenting opinion. there were three dissenting opinions. one of them was all about this and he said, you know what, i don't think we can take this extraordinary step without a criminal conviction. let's be clear, trump is facing criminal charges regarding the election, but not insurrection. he was charged with conspiracy and obstruction.

jack smith did not go nuclear and hit him with the insurrection. >> there was that lower court finding of an insurrection but not a criminal, actual finding in a trial, a very different ball game. >> civil case versus the criminal. >> got to keep it all straight. >> let's wrap it up with one of the most notorious legal figures of our time, rudy giuliani. after declaring bankruptcy, as he did just a few days ago, does rudy giuliani still have to pay the $148 million defamation judgment? the back story here is that last week a judge here in dc ordered him to pay that massive bill to the two election workers that he defamed in georgia, whom he falsely accused of rigging the election. so he's bankrupt now. does he still have to pay? >> even doubled down on it as well. remember the whole question if you don't have the money, what do you do about having to pay? in some instances, in any bankruptcy court whole goal is to clear away your debt so you can't afford to pay him. not going to have them on the books except if you're talking about willful and malicious

behavior and conduct. think back to alex jones, who infamously had a very high punitive damage against him as well, had the same bankruptcy discussions there but because it was willful and malicious behavior towards people, as it was alleged and convicted, that was enough to say, no no, you still have a responsibility. now what order you get paid, a very different story. you're talking about creditors in line. i doubt they get paid right away but they will still have to have themselves in line, number one, but also for willful conduct, as is alleged here, it doesn't go away. really important conversation. marshall cohen, thank you so much for helping me today. you can always ask us your quesestions on a any s social m plplatform usising the hashtag laura. marshall c cohen, so g great to you.u. thank k you. >> next a crisis s at thehe leleading to a a rececord-setti surgrge of migrarants. is a politicalal solutioion in sight?t? we arere going to o didiscuss.

the major crisis unfolding at the southern border is leading authorities to warn the situation is at a breaking point. right now it's a complete bottleneck. federal authorities reporting a seven day average of nearly 10,000 migrant encounters along the border this month. numbers like that have not been

seen since before the lifting of a coded era restriction that allowed authorities to turn back migrants at the border, and it's got politicians in border states, both republicans and democrats, fed up. look, it's the issue everyone has long wanted to reform. needless to say, it's entirely complicated because no one can agree on the best solution. every president since dwight eisenhower has taken executive action, we know that. this is still a problem today, as the issue that has real political consequences. in fact, a recent poll shows that overall people see immigration as the second most important issue in america, that just after inflation. and among republicans it's the most important. just to show the stakes for 2024, take a look at this. back in 2020, trump and biden were neck and neck on who voters thought did a better job on the border and immigration.

now, well, trump is ahead by a whopping 23 points. now for his part, biden is trying to take action, to deal with republicans in exchange for more money for ukraine. but you think that's enough to bring on kind of a kubota type of moment where everyone is happy and braiding each other's hair? well you can think again, because democrats on biden's left flank are not having it. some progressives say they cannot defend concessions from biden on the issue of immigration. so with so many different voices, with so many different views, and one of the biggest issues in this country, the question really is can a solution even actually be found. joining me now is mark asper, the former defense secretary under president trump. secretary, good to see you this evening. thank you so much for joining. i'm sure you have been watching

the news and this surge is absolutely enormous. the seven day average of more than 9600 migrant encounters along the southern border. by the way, that's just this month, secretary. that's up from 6800 in november. why is there such a sharp increase now? >> it's great to be with you this evening. i just saw numbers come across that said november was another month where the numbers exceeded 300,000. it's the fourth month in a row. that may be an inaccurate report but it just tells you the scale of the numbers coming at us now. one of the reasons people believe in some ways is pent-up demand for covid still, people are making the track now when the weather is maybe a little more amenable to making the crossing. other factors, maybe they believe the administration is going to impose new policies. who really knows? the fact is it's out of control. certainly many republicans and many democrats now see this as a crisis on the border, it is.

the other startling numbers, too, laura, are in fy 23 alone there were over 20,000 noncriminal citizens that were caught, to include 169 people on the terror watch list. and that's not even accounting for iranians and chinese and russians and people from yemen and syria, you name it. we just don't have control of who coming across our border and into our country. >> while you were just talking, we were showing images of what is actually happened, what it looks like, and the images are quite stunning. you add that to the figures you are citing and what we've just said, and people are tuning in. they are leaning in, trying to figure out what's next. actually the white house is now considering new border restrictions, turning back migrants at the southern border without the ability to seek asylum. another one is expanding a fast- track deportation procedure. another one is raising the credible fear standard for asylum-seekers. and you look at that list of things that are the possible compromises, the possible new

border restrictions. would any of that work to try to stem what we are seeing now? >> i think so. i think that's why it's on the table between white house and republican negotiators right now, as we speak, and clearly president biden has said he's willing to make a significant compromise. so we know that's on the table. look, this isn't just the united states. i think just this week the european union began to change its rules as well, some of which looks just like what you described. i think if those items end up making the policy changes they negotiated, we probably won't see now until mid-january at the earliest, the belief is it will deter further migration and it will allow the president or require the president to push people back much more quickly and accelerate deportations and prevent them from getting in, in the first place. that should have a dramatic impact on the numbers. if you can couple that with spending on additional border agents, customs officers,

judges, et cetera, they are talking about numbers in the thousands to raise those levels, than that could have a pretty good impact . >> secretary, you know as you can imagine, i really appreciate you saying at the beginning, talking about the potential reason for why we are seeing what we are seeing, it would be on politics. it gave us information about the scope. it didn't start with this year or last year or the year before that or really the last five years. it really has been in some respects a continuation and a combination of a lot of different things that have been happening over successive presidential administrations. but it always seems like immigration, secretary, becomes this political cudgel. no long-term solution can truly be found in the immediate run, at least. is there a way to get past this without all the politics undermining the ability to move the needle?

>> you know you're right, laura. it goes back many years and multiple administrations, although we have seen a big uptick since 21 or so. but i remember working for the senate majority leader in i think it was 2005 or so, when we actually had a plan on the table that required members, senators from both parties who got together, decided to come to an agreement on this because at the end of the day it was about immigration law and congress needs to make these changes. i think the law was first passed in 1955, amended in 1993, but boy, it's well overdue for overhaul. and if you can make some of these changes, look, republicans are going to be demanding border security upfront. i'm sure for democrats they are going to be demanding action on dreamers and others. but if you can get people into the room and everybody lock

arms in one big kind of boat, share the pain and compromise, then you could get something going. but it's going to take a lot of leadership. i think it has to begin in many ways from the white house but then you got to get the house and senate leaders on board as well, very quickly. >> it is important, the immigration law is the legislative branch but as you know, the executive branch been so important in this as well. we spoke earlier this week, secretary, about this, frankly, but today the former president donald trump is now defending his use of the phrase poisoning the blood to describe illegal immigration. listen to what he's saying now. >> when you look at it, if you look at what's coming in, we have from all over the world, not one group, they are coming in from asia, from africa, from south america. they are coming from all over the world. they are coming from prisons. they are coming from mental institutions and insane asylum's. they are terrorists, absolutely that's poisoning our country, that's poisoning the blood of our country. >> i mean you've heard that so many migrants, they are fleeing sometimes life or death. asylum by its very nature sometimes contemplates those very dire conditions to flee from. i wonder what you make of comments like this and really the explanation of them. we're talking about how much humanity factors into diplomacy

and immigration law. >> that language is not defensible. it's abhorrent. i think it's un-american. we're a nation of immigrants. i'm a grandson of immigrants. i think immigrants bring a lot to this country with regard to their dynamism, their entrepreneurial spirit, hard work, et cetera, et cetera. my view is most of them are good people who just want to seek a better life. the problem is there is truth in some of what the former president says when he talks about terrorists because as i said earlier, we know last year 169 persons were on the terrorist watchlist and over 20,000 based on cbp numbers had criminal convictions or had criminal records. so it allows them to use that language because there is an element of truth into that but i just think it paints the wrong picture of who we are, who most americans are. we need immigration but we need legal immigration and we need immigration based on merit, not just on who can make their way to the southwest border and get

in and ask for asylum. >> as they say, rome wasn't built in a day. sounds like what you proposed won't be either but we will see how it all pans out. secretary mark asper, thank you so much. up next to a very special guest is here with me tonight. chef marcus samuelson is here to talk about elevating black chefs like himself. back in a moment.

well you know him from top chef masters, chopped all- stars, the taste, how about no passport required. i could really go on with this list. you know my next guest is not just an award-winning chef and restaurant tour. he is truly committed to giving back to the community, and ahead of the holidays, marcus samuelson is partnering with heinz's black kittenish initiative to launch a brand- new event series where veteran chefs like himself will open up their restaurants and share resources with up-and-coming black chefs. he joins me now in studio. marcus, i'm so happy to see you here. >> we are doing so good. we were talking food and kids and then you threw in a term i've never heard, veteran chefs. >> i said it, i heard it and i

was like, he's going to give me a lot of flack for suggesting he's old. that's not what i mean. he's seasoned. >> seasoned sounds better. >> although i feel old. my kids want to remind me that i'm old at times. i'm young. >> you are very young. >> thank you, you can stay now. what i love about you is many things but one thing i really love is that you really are intentional about using your platform to elevate, to like a rising tide lifts all boats. you embody that. why is it so important? >> first of all, as a black chef i grew up in europe and i cook in three-star michelin restaurants in france but america gave me the opportunities and i am also extremely fortunate, right? think about the civil rights law and what it did for someone like me as a black immigrants, coming in not just being a black chef, also being an immigrant, having the opportunity to live out my dream here in america.

i have to pay back. i have to give back because if that hadn't happened, the right thing wouldn't of happened, laws wouldn't have changed, i wouldn't be here. >> it's not just about the sort of illusion of access where anyone can be whatever they want to be. they actually have to have a network, a community, a tribe and someone to look at them and say i think you've got something. >> first of all i think it's very important to understand that representation matters and i just think that being a chef that has a large platform, my job is mostly to create opportunities for the next generation. you see it in music. you see it in sports. you see it in law that you had a mentor that guided you through a very, very difficult process so now i had an amazing mentor from chase. she guided me through this

process how to navigate, write, when i came up in the '90s and early 2000's. i'm forever grateful to them. >> back in 2013 you are with our beloved colleague anthony bourdain and you had a chance to take him with you on a bit of a very personal journey, and you spoke about who you are and the comfort with it. listen to this. >> when you are a black man, when you are an immigrant, when you're ethiopian, when you are swedish, i've been put in so many situations that i put myself into, so i'm actually very comfortable in being uncomfortable. >> i mean that's something that is so moving because it's a level of self-awareness some people don't have, the fact that you have grown accustomed to all aspects of your identity and comfortable in that space. when you hear that, what do you think? >> the first thing comes to mind, wow i miss that man so much and i get really emotional because he gave us so much and shared it with everybody. so rest in peace, rest in power, mr. anthony bourdain.

thank you for everything you gave us. but i think food identity matters, right? and the representation on our cooking is not seen in major media or in major print. the aspirational, why should we have different food, why should cooking be on the same level of different crafts and art forms? that's why i committed to writing because you have to document the journey. you have to actually show that whatever you need, it's hard to get access to the information, then the value proposition is not there. >> what are you most proud of? i've always wondered. >> besides my family, of course, the fact that i could stay in business in new york city, in the hospitality business, over 30 years, and navigated through pandemic, 9/11, financial crisis, and being able to do it through my

restaurants. and i haven't done it by myself. i've had an amazing team. the fact that metropolis is at the pac nyc center -- >> that's the site of the world trade center. >> where the world trade center happened, where it was. it's a privilege and every day when i walk up the steps and get ready, i think about that, and i have a certain level of pride and there's also no coincidences in life, right? you are speaking to someone that i was born in a hut, i was adopted, i came to this country as an immigrant, so i -- there is a lot of events that happened in my life that you look at, oh my god, how is this happening, and opening metropolis was one of those. >> what is so hard doing this interview is the entire time i've been salivating thinking about all the things you have made and talk about so i'm just going to end this interview because i actually have your food with me and i don't care.

i know we are supposed to be fancy. i'm eating the mac and greens from red rooster and some cornbread. now i don't know how many prime time shows will have greens during their show. >> guys, we are having them right now. >> i don't even want to offer you any. and i being rude? am i giving you any of this? we're done with the interview, probably keep eating because i'm having a great time. i want to talk to you. i know your secret recipes. in the cook book -- this is really good. >> is that smoked gouda? >> we have an inside joke now. go ahead, go to break. i'll be right here. thank you so much. bye.

the fbi is the united d states' premier law enforcement agency. >> please stand as i administer your oath. >> . >> man, that show is called the night agent. it is actually the biggest title on netflix. next on the list, season two of jenny and george. then, queen charlotte.

a bridgerton story. i want to bring in shawn ryan. show runner of the night agent on netflix. shawn, congratulations. we don't normally get this data from netflix first of all. for those of us who have seen the night agent, it is really not surprising but more than 800 million hours have been watches for this show? that's unbelievable. >> we had an idea back in march when the show premiered that the numbers were really huge. but, as time has gone onto see the list come out like this and see the wonderful company we are in is really gratifying. it is hard to make tv shows so when you make something and it resonates with the public, in this case, all across the world because netflix is global, it is pretty great. >> tells you a lot about what people are leaning into right now. obviously, we are a year before a major election here in this country.

but the idea of what it is about. a political thriller. it follows an fbi agent who works in the basin of the white house. he finds himself in the middle of a conspiracy. i wonder if that is what made people say i have to watch this show. >> i think the show has a great hook which is due to the author whose book this is based on. also called the night agent. we found an incredible fast who plays peter. they are our two leads. people really just responded o so the chemistry to the fresh faces on the show. we have some incredible stunt work. so yeah. the political climate may have had something to do with it. there is a lot of interest on what is going on in the inside. >> i will tell my husband right now, stop watching this show

without me because then he spoils everything for me. i'm telling you right now on television. stop watching it without me. shawn ryan. thanks so much. >> watch it together! >> i would, but i'm on 11:00 at night on cnn and he wants to go to bed so what am i going to do? >> the beauty of it is you can watch it any time you want. schedule yourself. >> it's like your in my head planning date night as we speak. thank you so much. congratulations. >> thank you so much. everyone, ththank you all f watchingng, our coveverage cocontinues.

you're probably not easily persuaded to switch mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? did we peak your interest? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. there are no term contracts or line activation fees. and you can bring your own device. oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide. wireless that works for you. it's not just possible, it's happening.

gh