clarke: thank you.he department is here to speak to the importance of the john lewis act today and welcomes the opportunity to work with congress on other ways and other bills that might strengthen voting rights in our country. sen. klobuchar: i was listening to senator lee's questions and it made me think of my own experience going down to georgia. i took -- to talk about the voting raw which includes egregious positions. like adducing the number and availability of valid drop boxes, putting new limits on early voting, allowing politicians to fire local election officials, changing the time of the runoff to 28 days and not allowing for any weekend voting during that time. making voters put their birthdate on the outside of the envelope instead of the day they cast the ballot which is meant to so confusion. not allowing for registration during the runoff time. what is the impact of laws like the one in georgia on voter participation, especially among voters of color and urban and rural areas? ms. clarke

clark and what he did. it was sort of shocking revelation when the materials came out that there has been a referral by the committee to the d.c. bar to look into mr. clark and whether he should be disciplined as a lawyer for what he did here. i as i explained in the intro am struck by the fact that there were other senior justice department officials who were very willing to use the resources of the department to jump down the rabbit holes on trump's behalf, up to and including deputy attorney general mr. donoghue and the attorney general mr. barr, all of whom told u.s. attorneys to chase this stuff down. is that a problem for the justice department in an ongoing way? is that a matter for the inspector general? is that potentially a matter for referral to bar associations? >> possibly. not all that clear. to the extent that what they were doing was running down allegations of violations of federal law, then that's what the department of justice is there for. to the extent it would be obvious to any person

clarke: thank you, senator. so the inquiry is whether or not a particular law is discriminatory, and we won't know that until we actually look at the facts. we look at the particular law at issue. and we look at where is it being applied and are there racial disparities in terms of who has access to, for example, the limited forms of id that might be called for by a law, so the inquiry is about discriminatory purpose and intent. sen. leahy: i would note that the senator has gone considerably over his time. i did not want to interrupt, but senator klobuchar, i do that because we have people going back and forth. sen. klobuchar: thank you. in shelby county beholder, the majority -- in shelby county cannot rely on the passing of the voting rights to the supreme court's critique. you agree that is relevant to the current conditions that this year there have been rolled back of voting rights and 31 of them have been decided into law. i also think these hearings that congress has been conducting since 2019 are importa

jeffrey clark. and so they sent clark a subpoena today asking him to produce documents and appear before the committee itself on october 29th. if he does appear, it would shed a whole lot of light on what exactly happened at the justice department in the last days of the trump administration. >> obviously he's a person of interest. he's the central person in this saga, and at some point in the committee before a grand jury someplace his testimony is going to be obtained. >> now, the senate judiciary committee, you saw sheldon whitehouse talking to rachel. he's a member of that committee. they tried to get clark to sit down for a voluntary interview with him over the summer, but he did not respond. according to politico, he has yet to field questions from congressional investigators, scrutinizing trump's final weeks in office. his lawyer declined to comment on the subpoena. betsy woodruff swan reported for politico, broke the news of jeffrey rosen's testimony today, and she joins me now. it was not n

clarke: no. >> why not? gen. clarke: i have hundreds of books on my -- >> ok. without the details in that book, do any of the details that came out in that trial in terms of the larger effort you would have underway to reform culture throughout socom but in the field, particularly in the green beret, is there any lesson learned from this debacle that can help you guys with the efforts you already have underway to sort of rebalance the way that special operators are conducting themselves and the way they are seen? gen. clarke: as you know, this has been a priority for socom for several years now. i have directed a comprehensive review of sof culture, of sof actions, that i think have actually uncovered a few things for us, that we have worked specifically in ensuring we have dedicated and present leaders. they are there for the formation. but that we also are ensuring that those leaders are trained with the right skill sets. examples of mid green training for -- midgrade training for all of our forces and junior officer leader training courses that we set up, na

clarke: no. >> why not? gen.larke: i have hundreds of books on my -- >> without the details in that book, do any of the details that came out in that trial concerning you, in terms of the larger effort you have underway to reform culture threats -- socom, but the seals and green berets particularly, is there any lesson learned from this debacle that can help you guys with the efforts you have underway to rebalance the way that special operators are conducting themselves and the way they are seen? gen. clarke: as you know, this has been a priority for socom for several years now. i've directed a comprehensive review of sof culture, sof actions, that i think has uncovered a few things for us that we looked specifically to ensuring we have dedicated and present leaders for the formation. but we also are ensuring those leaders are training with the right skill sets. examples of midgrade training for all of our forces and junior officer leader training courses we set up. navy seals, specifically, picked up with naval

clarke: i don't follow the question. sen. cruz: you don't understand the question whether parents objecting to critical race theory have civil rights? ms. clarke: the first amendment is a core value in our democracy. sen. cruz: i didn't say free speech, i said civil rights. school boards are democratic. they are petitioning your local government. do they have civil rights? ms. clarke: they have the right to express their view, to challenge the school board. sen. cruz: beneficial for the attorney general to label them as domestic terrorists? ms. clarke: the memo deals with threats against public servants. threats against public servants are not only illegal, they run counter to our nation's core values. sen. cruz: do you believe parents objecting at school boards are domestic terrorists? ms. clarke: i don't. sen. cruz: do you believe antifa are domestic terrorists? ms. clarke: i don't have a view about antifa. sen. cruz: do you believe the black lives matter protesters who looted and burned shops are domestic terrorists? ms. c

without further ado, general clarke. gen. clarke: good to see you again. thank you for the intro. it is great to be here. i wouldn't say it is initially great to be in d.c., coming from tampa, but having come from the pentagon, it is somewhat like coming back home. i'm honored to be here. i'm appreciate of of this association and what you do. and for what you all do. because all of you could have chosen to take a different path in your careers and interests. but i think by being here, you are telling some of the military story that needs to be told. i know there are some students and interns that are here. i think your interest in this now, whether it is boating or fully baked in, is also important that you are considering this. i encourage you to come along on this ride with us. it has been a good one. but most of all, when you embed, and you come with our men and women, and you tell stories about what they are doing in combat, in the cold, in the wet, in the heat, the lack of sleep, the conditions. none of those stories would be told in the way they could be without your being t

clarke: no. >> why not? gen. clarke: i have hundreds of books on my -- >> without the details in that book, do any of the details that came out in that trial concerning you, in terms of the larger effort you have underway to reform culture threats -- socom, but the seals and green berets particularly, is there any lesson learned from this debacle that can help you guys with the efforts you have underway to rebalance the way that special operators are conducting themselves and the way they are seen? gen. clarke: as you know, this has been a priority for socom for several years now. i've directed a comprehensive review of sof culture, sof actions, that i think has uncovered a few things for us that we looked specifically to ensuring we have dedicated and present leaders for the formation. but we also are ensuring those leaders are training with the right skill sets. examples of midgrade training for all of our forces and junior officer leader training courses we set up. navy seals, specifically, picked up with nava

jeffrey clark. we've talked about clark before in this program. he is a key figure. clay's a lifelong republican lawyer, served in pride's practice in the george w. bush doj, nothing particular remarkable about his, career he became the acting assistant attorney general for the doj's civil division, which is a very big job, at the very end of donald trump's term, that's when a lot of people were fleeing. once trump lost the election, jeffrey clark became one of the leading voices, if not the leading voice, pushing the justice department, to play its role in trump's attempts to overturn the election. clark even reportedly plotted directly with trump, two outs the acting attorney general, jeffrey rosen at the, time and take his job. the senate judiciary committee detailed some of clark's actions in that bombshell report last week. they pointed out that he met with trump personally and then urged the department of justice leadership to interview in the georgia election. he drafted a kind of template le

in fact when tom clark came to him, when tom clark came to the oval office with a list he had a listcatholic nominees. his going to have a catholic nominee and harry truman did not even look at said no, no, no prime going to nominate you. he had it in his own mind of who was going to be the nominee to the court. they were going to be men they were all men at this time. they were men he knew and trusted. [laughter] one has got to count. it is incredible. >> throughout you leave two great narratives about how truman is the court. a couple of cases relate to unions and a couple create civil rights. we really do not have time to get too much into those. please buy the book or get it from the library, whatever. it is a fantastic read and you will learn so much. i'm wondering if you could, enclosing, summarize how truman used the supreme court to advance his civil rights agenda? >> truman was the first president to address the naacp. he became convinced particularly after the blinding of sgt isaac ordered, that something had to be done at the federal level to protect the rights of american

clark.ore complicit person in the process. at that moment two things happen which were significant. white house counsel and then to have that path to engage in this ten seconds at that point the eighth meeting officials in the department of justice all signed a letter to say they would resign en masse if there was a replacement of the acting attorney general by mr. clark. the president hesitated and decided at the last minute not to pursue that course and not to replace him. that was significant. i will tell i you because otherwise it would've been a possibility. and then with the us attorney inh georgia refused to buy the outlandish claims particularly us attorney. we know what followed and in a matter of three days and then having failed and every court case to take over the department of justice to take his cause to the street. and then three days later in january 6. now most people say we heard most ofoi the story before so what is the point? we were so close to a constitutional crisis s

jeffrey clark chief of litigation and director of strategy. kind of sounds like he's in charge right? the chief of litigation. director of strategy. to be clear this is what their website looked like yesterday. here is what it looks like today. notice who's gone? oh, where did he go? he's gone. they don't seem to have announced that he is leaving. they didn't announce that he quit or that he was fired. no press release about him leaving to match the one about him getting hired. but he does appear to be the man who tried to use the justice department to keep a president who lost an election in power as president anyway. he's been referred for disciplinary action to the d.c. bar for having done so. he got subpoenaed to testify about it tonight. apparently his job just disappeared him. just disappeared him without comment. within the past 24 hours. accountability is a many faceted thing, i know, but maybe this is part of it. maybe. stay tuned. lots to get to tonight. stay with us. eping,) (engines revving, cars hitting one another.) (sfx: continu

clark is just a key witness here. i think everyone following this closely is on pins and needles to find out what he would say. >> the difference is we heard bannon's name for years. bannon was an adviser. clark was an operative. he was in the doj. he seemed to be poised to actually take over the department of justice if trump removed his top official there is the acting attorney general. the overturning depended more on jeffrey clark? >> that is right. according to testimony of another doj official. jeff rosen. jeffrey clark said that trump told him rosen was going to be fired and clark was going to take over as acting attorney general. this was in the context of clark moving forward trump's efforts to overturn the election. it is extremely important to know what clark knows and level of detail he has about the election overturned effort. the other thing interesting about clark is most of the lawyers around trump in his final days who were pushing this effort to reverse the election outcome were not government employ

so that went out tonight to, former justice department jeff clark. based on what is already known about what's clark tried to do, with donald trump here, how we try to use the justice department to keep trump in power after he lost the elections. based on what is already known about his behavior, the judiciary committee in the senate has already referred to jeff clark to the d.c. bar administration, for potential disciplinary action against him as a lawyer. well now on top of that he's been subpoenaed to hold at hand over documents, and -- and you know, honestly who knows if he will. the ability of that investigation, to actually get records and documents. to actually get testimony from people, it's still a little hazy as to whether or not they're gonna be able to do it. and as we've been reporting, trump is trying to get his folks to defy the subpoenas. to refuse to testify, to refuse to hand over materials. a whole bunch of a trump administration officials, and people involved in the events of january six, are now having their deadlines. in the sub

jeffrey clark has lost his lawyer.rey clark's lawyer robert driscoll, quote, had dropped his representation of the former justice official because of the change the committee granted clark a brief postponement according to a committee staffer. it was not clear why driscoll and clark split but people familiar with the matter suggested that it had to do with whether clark would cooperate with the committee's requests. jeffrey clark was reportedly trying to stage a coup within the justice department and get himself promoted to acting attorney general by drafting a letter to georgia officials to urge them to investigate nonexistent voter fraud. donald trump was considering a plan to fire his acting attorney general and install jeffrey clark as attorney general so that letter could be sent. it was only when donald trump was confronted with the possibility of the immediate protest resignations of virtually everyone else at the top of the justice department if he fired the acting attorney general that donald trump then retrea

jeff clark. and the republican staff, of the senate judiciary committee, refuses to defend the constitution, against those two enemies who they found in this investigation. i know what it feels like to take that oath. i cannot imagine what it feels like to violate that oath. no committee staff, in the senate, has ever produced a more disgraceful piece of work, then the republican committee staff, in the senate judiciary committee, and we have every reason to fear, that that staff, will be doing work like that, in washington, for decades to come. leading off our discussion tonight's democratic congressman hakeem jeffries of new york. he's the chairman of the house democratic caucus, and a member of the house judiciary committee. thank you very much for joining us tonight, we really appreciate. as a member of the judiciary committee of the house, and now seeing with the senate judiciary committee has revealed, you to have jurisdiction, oversight jurisdiction of what goes on at the justice departmen

it has been reported as you said this view between clark and it's, or whether clark would cooperate withs to cooperate with the committee, he must be held in criminal contempt. so at some point, clark has to make a decision that is quite common with people in donald trump's orbit. is he more freed of donald trump, or is the more fruit of going to do? >> let's for the moment assume that attorney driscoll, who is no longer representing clark, is making honorable choices here. would it, for example, be an honorable choice if the lawyer said, i am not going to represent to if you do cooperate with the committee? >> if the lawyer thinks that that's not in the best interest of his client, then he certainly is entitled to do that, he has to get permission from the judge, and explain his reasoning to the judge, but if the judge approves it, he can quit the case. >> but, in an instance like this, where there is no judge, that would be in a courtroom in a civil case or in a criminal case in the courtroom. but there is not judge. here so that's what makes this so weird, right? we are absent to cert

. >> it reads as though as if it was written by a staff full of jeff clarks. >> wow. go, lawrence. go get it. go get it! >> thank you, rachel. the staff from the senate judiciary committee issued two reports today, and both of them are deeply disturbing. and for me the report that is actually most disturbing is the one you really haven't heard much about or haven't heard anything about at all until a moment ago. i was discussing with rachel. the democratic staff of the senate judiciary committee issued a report titled "subverting justice," giving us more detail about the coup donald trump was attempting from the oval office and the role he wanted the justice department and the attorney general to play in that coup. much of what is the in the democratic staff report has already been reported in newspapers and books covering the final days of the trump presidency. there is much more specificity on all of that in this report. the committee had the full cooperation of donald trump's last acting attorney general, jeffrey rosen and the deputy attorney general richard donegon. so we now k

this is jeff clark. mr. clark with trump hatched this scheme by which the justice department would hold a press conference after the election and declare at that press conference that there were serious fraud problems in the election in multiple states and the justice department was investigating these very serious problems. he then wanted to send a letter to swing states that biden won, a letter from the justice department, advising officials in those states that the justice department thought there were serious problems with the elections in those states, and republican state legislators should therefore, you know, start investigating the election results or whatever. they should get to work on whatever they needed to do to not send biden electorals to the electoral college even though in reality biden won those states. that was the jeff clark plan, we know from the senate judiciary committee's investigation of these matter. and we know that the plan, while it had a lot of detail in it and they took a lot

jeffrey clark is ordered to testify, in a disposition, on october 29th. that gives him about two weeks, to practice invoking the fifth amendment. the committee obtained direct incriminating evidence against jeffrey clark today. in the testimony of jeff rosen, who was shouted donald trump's final act to the attorney general -- rosen told the committee the same things that he told the judiciary committee about jeffrey clark, that junior clark is living in far of criminal charges tonight, of attempted electoral fraud and conspiracy to commit election fraud. during our discussion now, jill wine-banks, -- and matt miller, former spokesman for attorney general eric holder. both are msnbc contributors. jill, i want to begin with you, i want to begin with this key question, that is a lot a lot of us confused. why were you so effective in getting compliance to subpoenas against president nixon and his administration, during the watergate investigation? and the democrats in congress have been so ineffective in relative terms, in pursuit of the same kind of subpoena

clarke: correct. they have undertaken this work over decades. >> they are accountable to you, and you are accountable to the attorney general, who in turn reports to the president of the united states, elected by the people of our country. ms. clarke: that is correct. they undertake this work free from political interference and without any consideration of partisanship at all. >> and, as you have just said, i understand any jurisdiction it wanted to avoid the department of justice could seek preclearance directly? so that is a check and balance, if you will. ms. clarke: that is correct. mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for your continued service at the department of justice. mitch mcconnell says the john lewis voting rights advancement act is "unnecessary," so no one's rights are threatened, but georgia recently passed a law restricting voting access the targets voting by mail just after the election where, i don't think incidentally, voters of color relied on absent

i mean, what clark asked the d.o.j. to do, john eastman, the lawyer who wrote that blueprint for a coup attempt, which is what kinzinger describes it as, is in there the next day. i wonder katie benner where the intersectionity is between what the d.o.j. was supposed to do and what eastman laid out for pence to do. >> it is also one of the things we also sense from the interview asks the many, many documents and email has the committee obtained. is that the justice department was not only being pressured by trump as you saw in that list of communications. also that list of communications was in direct violation of the white house contacts policy. nobody from the white house is supposed to talk to the justice department about investigative steps and prosecutions. that is forbidden. yet we saw that happen many times. the justice department was not just pushing back on pressure from the former president. officials were pushing back on pressure from allies that came from seemingly all corners, people who trump had started t

and thank you, attorney general clark. thank you. thank you for a lifetime of dedication to the constitution to, voting, to finding a way where there seems to be now know way, to fighting for the foundation of our democracy, which is the right to vote. i have a picture on my ipad, and i'm smiling in this picture. i am with congressman john lewis. i'm at the foot of the edmund pettus bridge and i'm holding up a piece of legislation. the piece of legislation that then chairman leahy and i and our staff had worked tirelessly on over a year, and it was so fix the hole blown in the preclearance section of the voting rights act by the shelby county decision, a carefully balanced sensible other approach towards restoring the effectiveness of free clearance in the modern era the way that it is in this bill. and in a minute, i'll just ask you to walk us through what that balance is that the now john lewis voting rights act restoration act would do. but i have to say i'm sick at heart. i was smiling that day because i was so hopeful and becaus

elliott, what questions do you want to hear clark answer? >> look, i think whenever someone comes into testify, wolf, you really need to look at what incentives he has to testify in the first place. as jeffrey mentioned, the justice department -- pardon me, congress has already talked to his two supervisors. i would be curious to hear what information do they provide that puts jeffrey clark over a barrel here. he's filling in information that's probably already been put out there, number one. number two, what sanctions might come to him? the senate judiciary committee report that looked into his conduct, where might he have misrepresented facts and documents that he signed, which are very serious for any attorney who is admitted to the bar. frankly, i'm curious, number one, to fill in what we already know, but number two, what does this mean for jeffrey clark, a very senior justice department official who frankly should have known better. >> and what was he telling di donald trump? >> yeah. >> what was he whispering in his here, was he the g

he detailed it to clark. he named names of those who were going to help him overturn the election results. >> rosen is a fact witness complying with his call to come in and testify. he was there at the justice department when this subordinate official to him jeffrey clark was cooperating with in back doorway with the white house, something he is not supposed to be doing to conduct his own hair brained investigations into what had happened. he wanted to send letters to states encouraging them to not certify the election. and jeffrey rosen, the deputy attorney general, who was a longtime partner ever bill barr's. in private practice, he was brought into the justice department by bill barr was there supporting i would say some of the worst abuse of bill barr leading up to the election but in the aftermath of the election stood strong when donald trump working through subordinate jeffrey clark was trying to get the dodge to put its thumb on the scale in a way that would have been invery appropriate. he is there t

what mr clark said was i or... what mr clark said was two things. _ or...said was two things, it was gunfire i or... what mr clark said was l two things, it was gunfire here so shotspotter worked, he was shot _ so shotspotter worked, he was shot and — so shotspotter worked, he was shot and a report was right but on the — shot and a report was right but on the other hand, he is saying do not — on the other hand, he is saying do not trust our report because the shot— do not trust our report because the shot may have come from inside — the shot may have come from inside a — the shot may have come from inside a vehicle which is one potential— inside a vehicle which is one potential theory of this case and those things are contradictory. and those things are contradicto . �* :, contradictory. brendan max found something _ contradictory. brendan max found something else, i contradictory. brendan max found something else, thatj contradictory. brendan max i found something else, that the algorithm had initially classified the gunshot and michael williams�*s case is

we've talked about clark before in this program. he is a key figure.y's a lifelong republican lawyer, served in pride's practice in the george w. bush doj,ng

clark's role in all this is interesting. he, of course, was one of the main trump allies within the department of justice who was pushing for the d.o.j. to use the power of that office to try and investigate election fraud, even though there was no evidence of election fraud to be had. and clark even went so far as to reach out to some states to try and convince them to investigate fraud as well. rosen, of course, the attorney general at the time that clark was pushing a lot of this, rosen turned down clark's entries to try and make that happen. as did richard donohue, deputy attorney general, who has talked with the january 6 select committee. this promises to be a busy couple of days on capitol hill for the january 6 select committee, and we'll see just how serious they are about taking that step of criminal contempt in the days ahead. laura and christine? >> brian, thank you. this is all going to come to a head and fast because at least one witness has made clear he is not coming today. a lawyer for steve bannon, i should

the jeffrey clark is interviewing witnesses about.is a lot of pushback, white house counsel pat cipollone, called clerks note a murder suicide pacts. deputy attorney general donahue, -- all the attorney general would resign, if he replaced rosen with clark, the coup lackey. and the two white house lawyers indicated they would also resign. so everyone sitting in the room, you've got trump, and his kolasky clark who are like let's do the coup, and all the other lawyers are like, we are all resign if you do the coup. according to donahue trump did not reject the core of action, in till the final 15 minutes of the 2 to 3-hour meeting. that sounds exhausting in incredibly tedious, but i guess it worked out kind of in the end? that was just one of nine calls and meetings listed in the report. okay, this wasn't like a one-off, it wasn't casual stuff. nine calls and meetings that he held with acting attorney general rosen and donahue, pressuring, pressuring, pressuring them to overturn the election results. he told them, that sentence in the

that's true for jeffrey clark. if he wants to avoid a criminal referral and be charged with criminal contempt of congress, you know, he needs to come up and comply with the subpoena and testify because otherwise he's in blatant contempt of congress. now, to your point, if he wants to take the fifth, of course that's his right. he can do so, but he doesn't have the ability to just blow off the subpoena like he seems to want to do. >> so matt, one of the changes in the 21st century compared to the nixon era is just how breathtakingly slow the courts are, at the district court level, the appeals court level on all of these enforcement issues on congressional subpoenas. what about the justice department will now be tested when the congress refers to the justice department for criminal prosecution of contempt of congress. we don't know how quickly the merrick garland justice department will be able to move on this, and in, you know -- in the past these kinds of things have been able to be handled very, very quickly. wha

his name is jeffrey clark. a lesser known official in the department and he went full insurrectionist and plotted with trump to use the department of justice to full meant trump's coup even if that meant getting rid of his boss, jeffrey rosen. senate report provides new context and new revelations. it details a meeting on january 3rd in the oval office, in this meeting you've got rosen, right, the guy trying to get justice, deputy and clark was there and pat sipilone and his deputy. trump opened the meeting and i want to read this to you by saying, one thing we know is you, rosen, aren't going to do anything to overturn the election. over the course of the next three hours the group had a wide ranging discussion on whether he should replace leadership, send clark's proposed letter that he wanted to send to georgia officials, as well as other states, faultsly claiming the doj was aware of election fraud and inviting the states to reject the electors for biden. this came after clark revealed to the acting attorne

clark. but i can tell you we're bringing in justice department officials. we had, you know, i'm very pleased to say the cooperation of the current justice department and the white house. they're not asserting executive privilege. they understand the unique circumstances here where there was a violent attempt to overthrough the government, and appropriately, they believe that privilege concerns have to give way. >> i know you have also just subpoenaed jeffrey clark, the former high ranking justice department official who tried to actually help trump overturn the 2020 election. do you expect him to cooperate? >> very hard to say. we subpoenaed him because we couldn't get voluntary cooperation, and we were tired of waiting. and at the end of the day, we're going to move, and we're going to move fast to make sure that we get this information with the american people, and if we don't, and if they don't show up and don't cooperate, we will vote to hold them in criminal contempt in the house. we'll refer that to the justice department and expect them to be prosecu

clarke: that is correct, senator. in many respects we have turned the clock back. today, we have litigation to challenge voting discrimination. the case-by-case litigation we bring is costly, time intensive, resource intensive. section two litigation under the voting rights act has proven to be in an adequate substitute for the important prophylactic protections that have long been provided by section five. >> by 1963, on the basis of the authority the voting rights act of 1957 afforded the department of justice, the department had filed 35 suits challenging either discrimination or threats against registration applications filed by black voters, as i believe you quoted in your testimony, attorney general robert kennedy said those case-by-case suits were "a painfully slow way of providing what is after all a fundamental right of citizenship, the right to vote." ms. clarke: that is correct, senator. while we had section five in place between 1965-2013, the department blocked over 3000 voting changes. 60% of those chang

regina king and lenny clarke are here. bit first, this is a real treat.e i say poets. a man who taught us that it just doesn't matter because our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. his new movie by wes anderson called "the french dispatch" is in theaters now. from somewhere on the continent, please welcome bill murray. [ cheers and applause ] ♪ >> jimmy: oh, wow. wow. bill, are you okay? >> bill. >> yeah, i'm okay. i'm okay. >> jimmy: what are those on your legs, those things on your legs? [ speaking foreign language ] >> i don't know what the technical term for them is. they're sort of like -- they're not like stockings, they're sort of like -- they're -- they're inflatable leg things. that athletes use. >> jimmy: are you wearing them because you had an injury of some kind? >> yeah, that was -- [ speaking foreign language ] >> yeah, i'm -- >> we don't need the translator in arabic, excuse me. >> jimmy: what -- is that -- wait a minute. you have a -- there's a translator? there's a translator there? with you? why do you have

in writing that clark can testify. so the committee is on very firm ground here when it comes to getting him to talk and when or if he does, it should be extremely interesting to a lot of people. >> absolutely. sahil, i'm told you have some news about kash patel. this is the trump loyalist who was installed at the defense department in the final days of the trump administration. what do you have? >> geoff, just coming to us in the last few moments, a select committee aide telling nbc news that they have agreed to short postponement of kash patel and mark meadows in their deposition testimony. patel was scheduled to testify today. meadows is scheduled to appear before the committee tomorrow. this aide says that because these two have been engaging with the committee, that they're giving them short postponements. they don't set a date for when they ultimately will have to comply but it does indicate they're putting these two men in a different bucket than steve bannon. they say they are engaging and it sounds like they'r

trump was intrigued by clark's ideas. for a time, he wanted to make him acting attorney general in place of jeffrey rosen. rosen got on trump's bad side because he refused to use the justice department to amplify trump's big lie. and we have now learned that the committee spoke with rosen for about eight hours wednesday. i can only imagine what he said. so the committee wants to speak to jeffrey clark. they want him to get in for a deposition october 29th. one person familiar with the talks said the subpoena may make it more likely that clark will actually testify. he could try to refuse here, guys, but he will then almost certainly face contempt proceedings. since people have already testified about him, his options are pretty limited. >> very interesting. so much to develop here. we will keep an eye on it. la laura, thanks. sure. >>> were toer counsel alberto gonzales. thank you so much for being with us. the current attorney general may soon have a key decision to make, merrick garland. if there is a criminal contempt