MSNBC "The Beat with Ari Melber" - Transcript: Interview with Rep. Hakeem Jeffries

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

I`m joined now by a member of Democratic leadership, New York Congressman Hakeem Jeffries who serves on the Judiciary Committee.

Thank you for making time, Congressman.

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): Great to be with you, Ari.

MELBER: We`re at this point where I think a lot of folks know the score. We could see in response to losing in 2020 what Republicans are doing which builds on a longer set of attacks on voting rights, some of which were partisan, some of which are racist, we heard the president, we know where you stand. It seems what`s remaining is strategic and procedural.

What do you do with a Senate that continues to block and filibuster the reforms that you and the president say are needed?

JEFFRIES: There are only two options at this point. We could either allow the voter suppression epidemic that has been launched by Republicans in the aftermath of the violent insurrection and attack on the Capitol to spread like wildfire, or we could put out the fire. And the way to put out the fire has got to be through the John Robert Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act.

And the only pathway forward at this point since Republicans have demonstrated zero interest in uplifting and defending our democracy is to create a democracy exception to the filibuster that will allow these two important pieces of voter protection legislation to get an up or down vote in the Senate. That`s it. And that`s what we`ve got to do.

MELBER: Understood. I mentioned your role in the Judiciary Committee. You were questioning the attorney general today and so with that in mind, let`s look at one of the issues you drew attention to and his response. This is from today`s hearing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GARLAND: I believe that every eligible voter should be able to vote and that there should be no restrictions on voters that make it more difficult for them to vote unless they`re absolutely necessary. The Justice Department is limited in its ability to bring cases and it must find discriminatory intent or effect.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

GARLAND: Fact check, true, there are those legal requirements for what the feds. the DOJ can do in bringing those cases but do you think that this attorney general based on what you heard today is being assertive enough or not?

JEFFRIES: Well, I think that he`s a by-the-book attorney general and I truly do believe that he`s committed to making sure that we protect the right to vote. He understands and he said that at the hearing today that it`s central to the integrity of our democracy. We do have to give him additional tools. One of the things that is part of the John Robert Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act is to make it clear that the Department of Justice should be able to use Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to undermine or invalidate voting rights suppression laws that have a disparate impact on certain groups such as African-Americans, Latinos, immigrant communities.

Those that we know Republicans are systematically challenging. And so the Department of Justice needs to use the tools that are available to them under the current law with the fierce urgency of now.

[18:35:06]

But the attorney general is correct, that the Congress needs to provide the Department of Justice and the Office of Civil Rights with some additional tools to push back against the voter suppression epidemic, and that is something that we are committed to doing.

MELBER: Right. Yes. And well, I think you make that point quite elegantly legally and it`s fair for, you know, for folks trying to keep track here, you`re referring to the federal statutory baseline that the DOJ can use. The Supreme Court narrowed that under Republican appointed justices, and so it`s up to a Congress to try to update that.

Of course, that is what we`re talking about because that is what was blocked the Senate, the effort to update it, and why do we have those law on the books as you and lawyers know but people may so much forget, because of the man that the president was honoring, because of Martin Luther King is why we got the laws in the first place. So it is all related, the obstruction, the filibuster seems to stand right there.

I think we`ve covered this clearly, even if for people who care about voting rights it`s a little dispiriting. But I`d love for you to stay with me because, the congressman stays, he`s agreed to stay for something special we want to dig into, which is highlighting what is frankly the absurdity of certain Republican claims about election nearing.

Here is the backstory and then I`m going to bring back Congressman Jeffries. About a year ago the number two official in Texas, Dan Patrick, set aside up to a million dollars in cash to try to go after this phantom idea of voter fraud, anywhere. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LT. GOV. DAN PATRICK (R), TEXAS: What I did is styled this after a program that everyone is familiar with, CrimeStoppers. I`m offering a reward for people who have seen it and report it and leads to a conviction.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: Now, I want to be clear. Stopping crime is always great according to anyone in law enforcement. But the issue here was the politics of searching for particular crimes to justify the very attacks on elections we`ve been living through because actual in-person voter fraud is very rare. As for the political effort, it backfired. Dan Patrick now writing his very first check for this ever which is a reminder of how even if you incentivize the hunt for voter fraud, it`s quite rare, it doesn`t tip elections.

But he`s put out over $2,000 plus here to a poll worker who, when it came down to it, found a Republican in Pennsylvania trying to illegally vote twice. It is not the partisan outcome that official was seeking. And now joining our conversation is something a little different. This is the individual who received that check, Eric Frank, along with the congressman.

Welcome, Eric.

ERIC FRANK, PENNSYLVANIA POLL WORKER: Hey, thanks for having me.

MELBER: Tell us your story, how did you stumble across what is still I want to be clear with you is a relatively rare occurrence but what was someone trying to vote in person I guess more than once.

FRANK: So it started my father is the judge of elections and has been for the past 18 years. And he actually called me the day before saying that a poll worker had to postpone or couldn`t make it due to COVID so he asked me to fill in that day. So of course I said yes. And I went in and I was last in line at the polling place actually handing out the physical ballots to the voters. And a gentleman came in early in the morning and stated his name at the time which was Ralph Thurman (PH), and he got his ballot and then an hour or so later, I heard his -- that last name again.

But before that, we had a question and answer quickly at the -- when he got his ballot because he didn`t -- he thought he had to show his I.D. but he did not have to because he has been voting at this particular voting place for many years. But -- so then he said that he asked me, well, since I don`t have to show my I.D., can I come back and vote for my son? And I said, well, no. That would be illegal. And then his last question to me was, well, how would you know?

And I kind of ended the conversation there and he went on his merry way to vote and then an hour later I`m busy handing out ballots and I hear the last name Thurman again and I look up and lo and behold it`s Mr. Thurman in a disguise with a hat and sunglasses. So I immediately --

MELBER: Part of this is serious. But just to be clear, he just kind of made his own homemade disguise. What was it?

FRANK: It was barely even a disguise. I mean, I`ve been known not to forget a face. I`ll forget a name but not a face. But he just had a baseball cap and black like Ray-Ban sunglasses on. So -- but I knew after I processed it for a second, the last name Thurman, I looked up and was just like beside myself because we had just had a full conversation about how it wasn`t OK for him to do this. In fact it was illegal.

[18:40:06]

And I went -- my father at the time was busy doing a provisional ballot so I waited to tell my father.

MELBER: Yes.

FRANK: But by that time Mr. Thurman had already cast the second vote in the voter machine. But then we brought it to the authorities and here we are.

MELBER: Here we are. And so, Congressman, I want to get your response as I`ve emphasized we have the data, this is fairly rare. What if anything do you make of the fact that this rather political effort by a Republican found either almost no voter fraud or this one case by a Republican voter in a, as Eric mentioned, in a homemade disguise?

JEFFRIES: Well, it`s no surprise. Both because we know that voter fraud, so-called voter fraud is incredibly rare in our elections and certainly as the attorney general testified to today has had no impact on the election. Joe Biden we know is a legitimate president of the United States of America. But it also makes sense in the context of the fact that when it comes to Trump and Trumpism, right is often wrong, the sun is the moon and heaven is hell.

And when they are talking about something that allegedly is wrong in society it usually means because they are doing it. And that is in fact the case here today.

MELBER: Yes. I`m running out of time, Eric. But what are you going to spend your money on? Are you going to Disneyland?

FRANK: No Disneyland. My fiancee are I are looking to either buy or build a new home in the suburbs of Philadelphia so that`s where the money will go towards.

MELBER: Well, it`s an American story, Eric. The dream of home ownership spurred upon by finding someone in a homemade disguise trying to vote illegally. I appreciate what is an odd but real segment. This is reality.

Eric Frank and Congressman Jeffries, thanks to both of you.

JEFFRIES: Thanks, Ari.

FRANK: Thanks for letting me be on.

MELBER: Absolutely. Appreciate it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source