well, put on your dancing shoes, everyone, because the supreme court wants us to boogie all the way into the 2024 election, tonight on "laura coates live." if you've paid attention to all the legal cases this week, well, 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 that he committed allegedly in office. the supreme court, now they didn't explain why, and there were no noted dissents. in fact, the release was a single sentence ending with the word "denied." so what does all this mean? well, you know that march 4th date that jack smith wanted for

the start of trump's election subversion trial? yeah, well, that likely ain't happening. it could be much later than that now. just so we're clear on that, we'll talk more about that tonight. but the question remains why kick the can down the road? it's almost a sure fire bet that scotus will have to take this up again at some point and maybe even sooner than you think. an expedited review of the case is already under way in the d.c. circuit court of appeal, which will hear oral arguments on january 9th. that's pretty quick. however that court may rule, either side, guess what? you guessed it, is likely to appeal. why wait? don't the american people have the right to know the answer? does he have immunity or not to this right now? i mean given the zip lipped with the justices, it's hard to know which way they're leaning or how they're thinking about this very important issue. but could it have something to do with a big land mine 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 sees those scales tip in the other direction. getting a little nauseous from the seesaw action? even jack smith seem as ware of the political peril because his filings on the immurnity disput talks about the public interest. but as elie 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? 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 unper unpersuasive. >> as for trump, he wants this dance to go on. he's the one that set the land mine 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 -- and we're talking about a federal action -- he could have them all dropped. poof, gone. as far as that land mine 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. >> they're trying to take the election away from the voters, and they sue anytime they can.

and this one is really a crazy one. and if they ever did that, it would be so bad for this country. you have no idea. you understand it would be -- it would be a big problem for the country. >> how long can we dance as a country before stepping on one of those land mines, or can we maybe avoid them altogether? time will tell. let's get right into all this with the former trump white house attorney james schultz. 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, so get ready to swing with me on this one. james, let me begin with you, okay? look, no explanation was given, jim. no noted dissents. the question on everyone's mind is 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? >> so as far as the expedited

piece of this goes, clearly the supreme court wasn't buying what jack smith was selling here. i thought that they were going to take it up. they didn't take it up. but there is some -- there is a bright spot here in that, you know, we know that the d.c. 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 thing is 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 d.c. circuit court of appeals is going to go his way on it. then 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 outcome, who knows? maybe they don't take it up at all. but that remains to be seen. >> michael, that's a good point on the idea of the why and, of

course, process. there's normally an order of things. it goes from the lower court to the appellate court and then can find its way. they tried to leap frog all that as you well know, knowing the gravitas in this entire case. but the d.c. court of appeals, the circuit court is going to hear the oral arguments. it's january 9th. we're showing everyone a 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 they're not going to take up the case to push that trial date out of march and maybe much later? >> yeah. well, i'm glad to be with all of you and happy holidays to you. i do think it's likely that the march trial is moved. i just can't see that holds given where we are. really this is a witch's brew of they're own concocting if you will, that being the department. they've waited. we're 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 i'm not pointing fingers at anybody, we find ourselves here heading right into an election, and the department of justice is typically very loathe to give the appearance at least that they're interfering with an election. >> of course. >> that doesn't seem to bother them at this point because there's all these things that have been put in place and these machinations, and 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 of urgency, and the people need to know, and we try to talk all around it, or dance around it as you say. >> thank you. you listened to my analogies. michael moore, thank you. >> but that's taking them nowhere, right? and the supreme court is nothing if not a body that is concerned with process, procedure, and rules. i mean they tell you what kind of paper you can write on and how big the print can be and

what you wear. i mean 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 leap frog over a case that was pending already in the d.c. circuit, i think, was a bigger deal than maybe jack smith anticipated. but i also think it will push this case out. there's no question we're going to end up in the supreme court, but it's going to pittsush thise out at some point. >> jim, you're agreeing or what? >> 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, right? g given the schedule from the d.c. 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's no doubt about it. they want to get this in earlier rather than later so that this information -- and when they talk about public interest, they're clearly talking about getting this information before

the american public, getting a verdict in the trial, in a criminal trial against the former president who's running for president, in before the election so that 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're absolutely right. i do think there's an opportunity for them to get it in beforehand. and as it relates to not bringing cases around an election, doj policy typically in those instances applies to bringing indictments, right? no october surprises. no september surprises. you know, 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 a -- he's been indicted. it's going to go to trial. and what happens at that trial really is -- you know, 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're all assuming here that jack smith contemplates that it's only going to be one candidate at the time that he actually brought the trial and 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's above the law, whether one is going to simply say by virtue of being a president of the united states, i will forever have cover or not for anything i may have done in office or beyond, there is a 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 in terms 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 they looking for a little bit of cover here, michael, to suggest it might get to us, but it's got to be the proper way that everything else has to? >> i think that's right. i think they're looking at it to try to give the appearance, at least, that 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 some segments of the public, you know, may be. but the reality is, i mean we keep talking around this idea that a normal criminal defendant would oftentimes weigh their speedy trial right to have a lengthy time period before they go to trial. there would be discovery, all these things that happen. there wouldn't be people with the gas pedal on for the prosecution side except in this circumstance, they want to get -- you know, 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. they want to slow roll something even -- i mean for the average defendant, they want to drag it out? i don't think that's true. they don't want to have a lengthing period. what are you really saying? >> i'm saying typically the speedy trial rights are something that the defendants are very protective of. so when they were willing to waive those rights, you don't find prosecutors very often saying, well, 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. i mean we had the district attorney here in georgia try to move a rico case with 19 defendants ahead after 60 days. i mean that's just unheard of and was illogical frankly to even try to get the case there. so there has 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 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. obviously you're talking about fulton county, and there's a very lengthy indictment. jack smith, though, jim, has four counts against trump, not the number of co-defendants in fulton county. does not appear to have quite the scope of a case, but point well taken about the gravitas and about the novelty of it being a former president. what do you see in terms of when michael had to say? >> so i think he's absolutely right as it relates to georgia, right? that case is enormous. the rico case is a big case, lots of defendants, very, you know -- that case in a normal

course would probably happen in 2026, and i don't believe there's any chance that that case is going to happen in 2024. you know, 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. now, as it relates to the federal case, jack smith was pretty surgical about his indictment, right? he didn't go broad. he went very surgical in terms of the case he's brought. you know, the information's been exchanged. discovery was exchanged. and, yeah, it's an aggressive schedule, but it's a tight case. >> well, 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. thank you so much for joining me. if i don't see you, happy holidays and the best of new years to you. >> thanks. same to you. >> you too. >> thank you. well, look, it's been a very long week, long as in l-a-w-n-g.

if you've got questions about what's going on with all these complicated legal cases, you're not alone. they're involving trump, giuliani, involving a lot of people. guess what? we've got answers. we're going to go through some of your r questions s at the ma wallll next.

look, there are plenty of legal headlines. with us now to break it all down is cnn's marshall cohen. he's been closely following every single twist and turn. marshall, i'm so glad you're with me today at this magic wall. and you match the magic wall. >> here it is. >> look at you. i see what you're doing. we have a lot of questions from people over the week. >> it's been a busy week. >> there's so much to unpack. i want to go to the first question we're getting from a lot of people here. it is, if the supreme court is not taking up the trump immunity

dispute, then who is, marshall? >> 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 d.c. circuit court of appeals. oral arguments are scheduled for january 9th. we all know what's going to happen after that. probably go right back to the supreme court. >> take out the probably. it's going back to the supreme court. everyone is saying why not just answer the question right now, but they want the process to go forward. >> let's move on to the next one. this 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. 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 the 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's leaning in to figure out how the supreme court rule. don't they want to weigh in immediately because they've got to resolve this really important issue. so we are in novel territory. but as you can imagine, there's another question. >> a lot of novelty. >> does trump have to be convicted of insurrection before getting kicked off the ballot? talking about colorado here. >> colorado, 14th amendment. it's a great question. 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 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. 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. >> and there was that lower court finding of an insurrection, but not a criminal actual finding in a trial. a very different ball game. >> that's right. 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. laura, 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 d.c. 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? >> he even doubled down on it as well. you think about this.

the question is if you don't have the money, what do you do about having to pay? in any bankruptcy court, the whole goal is to clear away your debts. you can't afford to pay them. not going to have them on the books, except if you're talking about willful and malicious behavior. think about to alex jones. he had the same bankruptcy discussions there. 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 because you're talking about creditors. i doubt they'll get paid right away, but they'll still have to have themselves in line, number one. but also for willful conduct as 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 questions using the hashtag

#asklaura. next, a crisis at the border leading to a record-setting surge of migrants. is a political solution in sight? we're goining to d discuss.

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.

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 are 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 covid-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 that 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. but this is still a problem today. s an 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. 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 esper, 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. i mean the seven-day average of more than 9,600 migrant encounters along the southern border. by the way, that's just this month, secretary, and that's up from 6,800 in november. why is there such a sharp increase now? >> yeah. first of all, laura, it's great to be with you this evening. in fact, 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. now, 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 it's pent-up demand from covid still.

people are making the trek now when the weather is maybe a little bit more amenable to making the crossing. maybe they believe that the administration is going to impose a new policy soon. 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, which it is. the other startling numbers too, laura, are in fy 23 alone, there were 20,000 non-criminal citizens that were caught, to include 169 people on the terror watch list. 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's coming across our border and into our country. >> wehile you were talking, we were showing images. they're quite stunning. you add those to the figures you were 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. 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're seeing right now? >> i think so. i think that's why that's on the table between white house and republican negotiators right now as we speak. clearly president biden has said, quote, 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 changing its rules as well, some of which looks much like what you described. i think if those items end up being in the policy changes that's being negotiated that we probably won't see now until mid-january at the earliest, the belief is it will deter further

migration. 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, and they're talking about numbers in the thousands to raise those levels, then 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 reasons for why we're seeing what we're seeing. it went beyond politics. it gave us information about the scope of it. it didn't start with this year or last year or the year before that or really the last five years. this really has been in some respects a continuation and a culmination 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 to truly be found in the immediate run at least. is there a way to get past this without all of 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. 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 and required members, senators from both parties, who got together and decided to come to an agreement on this because at the end of the day, it is about immigration law. congress needs to make these changes. i think the law was first passed in 1965, amended in 1993. but, boy, it's well overdue for an overhaul. if you can make some of these changes -- look, for republicans, they're going to be demanding border security up front and i'm sure for democrats, they're going to be demanding action on dreamers and others.

but if you can get people into the room and everybody lock arms and willing to both 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've got to get the house and senate leaders on board very quickly. >> it is important. as you mentioned, the executive branch being so, you know, important in this as well, you know. we spoke earlier this week about this. but today the former president, donald trump, is now defending his use of the phrase "poison the blood" to describe illegal immigration. listen to what he's saying now. >> when you look at it and you look at what's coming in from all over the world, not one group. they're coming in from asia, from africa, from south america. they're coming from all over the world. they're coming from prisons. they're coming from mental institutions and insane asylums. they're 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're fleeing sometimes life or death. i mean 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 were talking about how much humanity factors into diplomacy and immigration law. >> yeah. look, that language is not defensibility. it's abhorrent. i think it's un-american. we are a nation of immigrants. i'm a grandson of immigrants. i think immigrants bring a lot to this country with 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's truth in some of what the former president says when he talks about, you know, terrorists because as i cited earlier, we know last year alone, 169 persons were on the terrorist watch list. we know over 20,000 based on cbp

numbers had criminal convictions or had criminal records. it allows him to use that language because there is an element of truth into that. look, i just think it paints the wrong picture of who we are and 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. >> well, as they say, rome wasn't built in a day. sounds like what you propose won't be either. we'll see how it pans out. secretary mark esper, thank you so much. >> thanks, laura. up next, a very special guest is here with me tonight. chef marcus samuelsson is here to talk about elevating black chefs like himself. back in a moment.

(♪♪) (♪♪) (♪♪) get exclusive offers on select new volvo models. contact your volvo retailer to learn more.

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 restaurateur, he is truly committed to giving back to the community. ahead of the holidays, marcus samuelsson is partnering 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 were doing so good. we were talking food and kids, and then you threw in a term i've never heard. veteran chef? >> you know what? i said it. i heard it, and i was like, he's going to give me a lot of flak for suggesting that he's old. but that's not what i mean.

i mean seasoned. >> seasoned. >> although i feel old with my kids who want to remind me i'm old sometimes. you know 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. >> absolutely. >> a rising tide lifts all boats. you embody that. why is that so important? >> well, i mean, first of all, as a black chef, i grew up in europe and i cooked in restaurants in france, but america gave me the opportunities. i am also extremely fortunate, right? think about what the civil rights law changed and did for someone like me as a black immigrant. so it's not just being a black chef. it's also being an immigrant, having the opportunity to live out my dream here in america, right? i have to pay back. i have to give back because if that wouldn't have happened, if the civil rights movement

wouldn't have happened, if the laws wouldn't have changed, i wouldn't be here. >> it's not just about sort of the 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 got something. >> first of all, i think it's very important to understand that representation matters. i just think that being a chef that has a large platform, my job is also to create opportunities for the next generation. you see it in music. you see it in sports. you see it in law, right? you had a mentor that guided you through a very, very difficult process. i had an amazing mentor, leah chase. she guided me through this process, how to navigate, right, when i came up in the '90s and early 2000s, and i'm forever grateful to that. >> i went back in our files. back in 2015, you were with our beloved colleague anthony bourdain. you had a chance to take him on a bit of a personal journey. you spoke about t who you arare

the e comfort with it.t. lilisten to thisis. >> w wow. >> w when you'rere a a blalack n yoyou're an immigrgrant, whehene etethiopian, i i've been p put many situauations that i put myself into.o. so i'm actually very comfortable 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? > w well, the first t thing comes to my mind, wow, i miss that man so much. i get realally emotiononal beca hehe gave us so much and sharedt with everybody. so r rest in p peace, restst in, mr. . anthony boururdain, , tha for everything you gave us. but i think food identity matters, right?

and the representation on our cooking is not seen in majoror media or i in mamajor print.t. ththe aspiration, why should cooking be on the same level as other crafts or art forms? that's why i'm committed to writing because you have to document the journey, and you have to actually show that whatever you read, you know, if it's hard to get access to the information, then the value proposition is not there. >> so what are you most proud of? i've always wondered. >> yeah. besides my family, of course, the fact that i stay in business in new york city, in the hospitality business over 30 years, and navigated through pandemic, 9/11, financial crisis, and been able to do it through my restaurants. and obviously i haven't done it by myself. i've had an amazing team. the fact the metropolis is, you

know, at the -- >> that's the site of ththe wor trait center. >> where the world trade center happened, where it was. it's a privilege, and every day whwhen i walk up t the stepsps t ready,y, i thinknk about that. and i have a certain level of pride and there's also no coincidences in life, right? you're speaking to someone that i was born in a hut. i was adopted. i came to this country as an immigrant. so i -- you know, there's a lot of events that have happened in my life that you're like, oh, my god, how is this happening? opening metropolis is one of those. >> the entire time i've been salivating 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. >> oh, good! yes! >> can we just end because i'm going to have this. i'm eating the mac and greens?

>> mac and greens. >> from red rooster and some cornbread. >> cornbread. >> i don't know how many prime-time shows would have greens during their show. >> we're having them right now. >> i don't even want to offer you any. >> no, don't. >> am i being rude not to give you any of this? we're done with the interview but i'm going to keep eating. i'm having a good time. i want you to tell me the secret recipes. i know you gave me in the cookbook. this is really good. >> that's smoked gouda. >> we have an inside joke now. marcus samuelsson, everyone. go ahead. go to break. i'll be right here. thank you so much. bye.

the fbi is the united states premiere law enforcement agency. we have a zero fail mission to uphold, which means that we expect nothing short of perfection. >> fbi. i need everybody to exit the train right now. >> now please stand as i administer your oath. >> welcome to the white house, peter. >> man, that show is called "the night agent." it's actually the biggest title on netflix. next on the list, season 2 of ginny and georgia. i want to bring in sean ryan,

creator and showrunner of netflix's "the night agent." sean, congratulations. i mean we don't normally get this data from netflix first of all. for those of us who have seen "the night agent," it's really not surprising. but more than 800 million hours, more than 800 million hours have been watched 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 on, to see the list come out like this and to see the wonderful company that we're in, it's really gratifying. it's really hard to make tv shows. soso when you u make sometethin it resonatates with ththe publin thisis case all across the worl because nenetflix is glolobal, pretty great. >> it tetells you a lot about tt peoplele are leaning i into rig now. obviviously we'r're a year befo major election here in this country. but the idea of what it's about, a political thriller.

it follows an fbi agent who works in the basement of the white house. people are already leaning in even more. he finds himself in the middle of a conspiracy. i mean given the kind of political environment we're living in these days, i wonder if that's what made people say, i've got to watch this show. >> i think the show's got a great hook, which is due to the author, whose book this is based on, also called "the night agent." we found an incredible cass, gabriel basso. i think people really responded. the chemistry to the fresh faces on the show. i think we've got some incredible stunt work. so, yeah, the political climate may have had something to do with it. i think there's a lot of interest on what really goes on on the inside, what's really happening in the world. we tried to touch on some of that. >> i'm going to tell my husband right now through this camera stop watching this show without

me because he spoils everything for me. i'm telling you right now on television, stop watching it without me. >> watch it together. >> i would, but they've got me on at 11:00 at night on cnn, and he wants to go to bed. so what am i going to do? >> the beauty is you can watch it any time you want. >> it's like you're in my head planning date night as we speak. thank you so much. i'm so glad you stopped by, and congratulations. >> thank you so much. . everyoyone thanknk you all wawatching. our coverarage continunues.

loving this pay bump in our allowance. wonder where mom and dad got the extra money? maybe they won the lottery? maybe they inherited a fortune? maybe buried treasure? maybe it fell off a truck? maybe they heard that xfinity customers can save hundreds when they buy one unlimted line and get one free. now i can buy that electric scooter! i'm starting a private-equity fund that specializes in midcap. you do you. visit xfinitymobile.com today. kately . hello and a warm welcome to you if you're joininme