environment. biden is up at 50 points. people that don't seek out any political news, trump is up by 50 points. if you are getting information sort of catch all way, how do you reach the voters? >> it is tricky. biden is advertising a lot more on tiktok now. trying to get to voters, these voters where they are. so you can go after the platforms. it is tricky how you craft a message of change that will resonate with people. biden is trying to do this with his rhetoric about junk fees. corporate greed. but it is a tricky needle to thread. >> eric, thank you very much. that is all in on this wednesday night. alex wagner starts now. wednesday night. alex wagner starts now. wednesday night. >> tiktok is going t is that where we're at? >> i think it's totally

possible. in a close enough election anything can plausibly be safe to decide it. >> really the slice of electorate biden neds to reach. >> i think that's totally plausible, yes. >> the difference makers. that's where we are 2024. thank you, my friend. >> today the jurors in trump's new york hush money case began deliberating. and while we have absolutely no idea what those 12 new yorkers will ultimately decide trump himselfde and his conservative apologists are already setting their expectations. >> what didth i say from the beginning of this trial donald trump cannot get a fair trial in new york city regardless of the outcome. >> to me should be an acquittal, but i'm not a new york liberal. >> i really hope donald trump gets r acquitted, and if he doe it will be a miracle because of howau loaded this judge has bee from the start.

>> these charges are rigged. the whole thing is rigged. >> trump and his promoters are falsely claiming the whole trial is p rigged. they're priming their audience for a guilty verdict. what should we expect to happen here? well, it is common for s jurieso take days or even weeks to reach a verdict. in this case trump has been charged with 34 felony counts and the juror's verdict on each count guilty or not guilty must be unanimous. so this may take a while or maybe it won't. and trump himself has to stay in the courthouse for however long this thing f takes. he won't have to be in the courtroom itself the whole time but he will have to stay inlf t building. for most of the rest of this process the judge, jury, the prosecution, and donald trump will all be in different rooms. and everything everything the jury does from here on out until we get a verdict is behind closed doors. but there are some tea leaves we

can read ine the meantime. as the jury deliberates, the jurors may have questions or they may want to refresh their memories about certain pieces of testimony. when that happens, the jury's foreperson can submit a note. a literal bell is rung for trump's teamru to file back in court a lot like a fire drill. prosecution will have a chance to h debate whether they think e jury should be able to see everything they're asking for or not before the judge ultimately makes his decision. the first time they rang the bell is for specific parts of the transcript and get that back to them. the jury does not have that so which moments they asked to have read back those are major clues

as to what the jury is focusing on. today the jury asked to rehear three-pieceso of testimony fro former national enquirer ceo david pecker, and one piece of testimony from michael cohen. they requested cohen testimony overlaps with one of the requested piecesh of pecker testimony. both are about the august 2015 trump tower meeting in which pecker told trump and cohen that pecker would use the national enquirer to run positive stories about trump and negative stories about trump's opponents. and pivotally in that meeting pecker told trump and cohen that pecker would be the eyes and ears for the trump campaign when it came to finding and suppressing negative stories about donald trump. it appears to be a key meeting. during its closing arguments the prosecution said that the value of the corrupt bargain forged at that august 2016 trump tower t meeting, the value cannot be overstated.

the prosecution claimed the results ofos that meeting turne out to be one of the most valuable contributions ever made to the trump campaign. so the jury wants to take another look at that meeting. from the perspective of both david pecker and michael cohen, that feels important. and we're going to have some expert help unpacking what it could mean in just a moment, bu the second time we heard that bell ringwe today, the second jy note was equally important. now, the jury doesn't have a trial transcript in the deliberation room, but it also doesn't have a copy of the jury instructions. i don't know why. we were going to find out about that, too. and there are a lot of jury instructions, 55 pages worth. the jury's second note today was asking for those jury instructions tuesday be repeated again. the court wrapped the day before we could learn whether the jury wants the whole 55 pages read back or just a section. but all 55 pages are pretty

weedy particularly the part that may ultimately matter the most, which is whether donald trump ultimately committed a felony at the core are 34 counts of altering business records. what makes those misdemeanors become felonies is if they're committed in the service of another t law. the law trump broke is election section 17-152. it provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to public office by unlawful means in which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election. the key phrase in there is unlawful means.la that is the illegal way in which twoy or more people conspire t

mess with an election. the jury instructions continue although you must conclude unanimously that theco defendan donald trump, conspire today for moat or prevent the election of any person to public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means are. in other words, the way it goes from misdemeanors to a bunch of felonies is if those misdemeanors were used to break new york election law, and breaking new york election law requires another unlawful act. but the jury doesn't have to agree on which act was unlawful. they just have to agree that it occurred. and on thatth front, the unlawf acts they've got options. in the jury instructions the jury's actions are laid out for them as option one, violations of the election campaign act, option 2, falsification of other business records. option 3, a violation of tax

laws. if you'reviof eyes are glazing right now, i'm sorry. but imagine being a jury who has sat in that courtroom for more than five weeks now, who sat through more than 8no hours of closing arguments yesterday and had more than an hour of instructions read h aloud this morning butns was not actually given a copy of those instructions. imagine sitting through all of that and then being asked to make sense of it all and decide the guilt or innocence of a former president of the united states. joining me to decipher all of this ouro legal experts duncan levine and msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin. thank you for waiting for a long script that went over everybody's head other than yours. i've tried today get to the essence of what the jury needs

toha folks onto get to the felo charges here. and first of all, when i right in focusing in on this notion of choose your own adventure of unlawful acts that they don't have to agree on but they have toe agree happened in some way? >> yes because that is necessary but not sufficient. and before they get to the choose your ownge adventure par there are some other things they have to decide where they do have to be unanimous. and not just unanimous that it exists but unanimous as to the what and why of it. first they have to find that donald trump caused business records toau be falsified. then they have to find as you found or discussed that when he did that, he had an the intent to defraud that included an the intent toed commit or conceal another crime. >> yes. district attorney's office has identified only one crime that can be. that's new york election law 17-152, which is conspiracy to

promote or by unlawful means. you have to go through a decision treeou first that necessitates some anonymity on facts and evidence before you get to decide hey i think the unlawful means is tax law and duncan thinks it's the contribution to the ami campaign. >> theam boxes seem like ones either checked or unchecked. you all agree on this and then you get to go to step "b," and then the last part of it, three different things they could sort of disagree on but agree generally happened. i just wonder if this is -- is this a complicated case for a jury? >> no, it's cas actually a very simple concept i think a lot of people are confused about because it's not really different than a lot of other cases. you can imagine a murder case, for example, where there are

certain elements that have to be met to convict the defendant of murder. that is t the difference betwee element of the crime and the means of the crime. elements have to be unanimous, and if they have to be unanimous in this case like every other case, and there's two different parts of it. there's the part mr. trump calls these false business records and they have to unanimously agree it was meant to conceal the commission of this new york state election law statute. that's it. whether it was the stormy daniels payment or karen mcdougal payment or a tax crime or filing of false business records, the jury could disagree about that, but that is not the element of the crime. it'she actually a pretty simple legal concept that seems complicated because there are so options. that ise a gift to prosecutors here. it's a gift they don't need to be unanimous on that, but it does make it a bit more free

flowing for the jurors because they get to pick whatever they want. >> will that create moreha deba in the deliberation room, who could know ultimately you guys are saying as long as they agree on the big contours of the crime i would say not necessarily to answer your question. and the reason why there's no special verdict form here. there's not going to be a verdict form at least as i understand it that asks you alex and me, and you, duncan to fill out what the unlawful means are. nobody is going to pull them to ask what option they chose. they just have to agree there was one and literally check the box whether they find him guilty or not guilty to each of those 34 counts. >> they're t asking for another read through of the jury instructions.ry does that signal anything to you and why don't they get a copy of the instructions in and ikea desks come with instructions.

>> the jurors only get evidence back j there. there's really no reason for it, and maybeon it's something that should be looked at by some legislative body at some point, but they don't get it back there. and i don't know if there's anything thati can be read int about that other than the fact it was hard to follow pages of dense material read to them after they were r exhausted, an they want to have them read again to know what they are. >> i feel seen. who doesn't want them read again? they're requesting the transcript of testimony from peckert waag and cohen, both of accounts on this 2015 trump tower meeting. what does that interest suggests? >> in new york state if i'm an accomplice to a crime with you, you can't be convicted on my

testimony alone because we did it together and i might have an interest in saddling you with responsibility. therefore the jury has to find collaborative evidence that allows them to find you committed the crime. in asking for both cohen and pecker's accounts what are they doing? they're likely looking to corroborate it. similarly when their asking for pecker's testimonysi about the call trump made to him when he was on investor meeting, that's a callha they discussed karen mcdougal coming for, and that's where donald trump says to him i'm going to think about this, but i'm going to have a michael cohen call you. david pecker's testimony is the most corroborating set of facts of any like body of evidence in this case. >> you mentioned three of the four that thoifr they're asking for, duncan. they're also asking for a transcript of david pecker it was testimony on april 25th when

we don't know if this is the exact thing they're goingwh to n read, but it's when pecker describes the moment me tells michaelnt cohen he no longer was toer be reimbursed for the kare mcdougal payment because his lawyers are like that's a campaign finance violation. i said to him the agreement, the signing deal is off, it's off.t' it's a bad idea and i want you to rip up the agreement. michael cohen said the boss is going to be very angry at you. what a do you see in there? >> what the d.a.'s office can be happy about is that fact in their closing argument to the jury they urged the jurors to go look at david pecker's testimony. they said davider pecker's testimony is so crucially important. remember he was the first witness jurors heard from weeks andro weeks ago. go look at that, and there are two through lines. theo other thing they're askin for that's really important is that david pecker's testimony

puts donald trumpec right at th center of this conspiracy donald trump is there at a principal, there on his phone call with david pecker. there are instances where donald trump is at the center of this conspiracy, and that's why the jurors office is asking the jury to focus on this. they've got to be happy the jurors are focus ogen what they said to focus on. it does mean the jurors are paying attention to what the d.a.'s office laid out and suggesting how they look at evidence. >> why don't they get a copy of the transcript to take back to the deliberation room? >> the transcript could have errors in it. although it sounds crazy, the transcript is not a final

transcript until it's reviewed by the parties. and to the extent there are errors, they'll not allow it back to the jury room because it's not evidence. the only thing that's evidence is what thely witnesses say. >>e one other important reason. that's because the transcript includes sidebars. >> you could redact the sidebars. there's an editing tool now. microsoft word allows you to correct things and black them out. it's a hot tip for anybody -- this is what it is. we're all learning as we go. >> you're a lawyer. you redact now. >> thank you so much for your time and wisdom on all this. lisa, please stick around. we're not done with it you yet. coming up justice samuel alito speaks out about his flag habit saying he'll not recuse himself and anyone who suggests he should is motivated by politics. of course theyti are. but first he omneeded to give

the jury reasonable doubt so why did trump's lawyer insist on making extreme reasons. reasons hi, i'm david, and i lost 92 pounds on golo. my life partner connie and i were in really rough shape regarding our health. and our doctors told us that we needed to lose weight. i saw a golo commercial and i thought, "we really need to try this." as the weeks went by, the weight came off. we learned to make healthy choices and be supportive of each other. together, we've lost 170 pounds. golo worked for us. since losing weight on golo, i'm feeling grateful and hopeful about the future. (energizing music)

norman, bad news... i never graduated from med school. what? -but the good news is... xfinity mobile just got even better! now, you can automatically connect to wifi speeds up to a gig on the go. plus, buy one unlimited line and get one free for a year. i gotta get this deal... i know... faster wifi and savings? ...i don't want to miss that. that's amazing doc. mobile savings are calling. visit xfinitymobile.com to learn more. doc?

todd blanche, donald trump's main defense lawyer, had one job to do during closing arguments, create reasonable doubt about the government's evidence against the former president. instead blanche used a sizable chunk of his nearly three hour closing argument to go well beyond that mandate. blanche repeatedly denied trump ever had sex with stormy daniels. he insisted there was nothing criminal about catch and kill practices designed to benefit a campaign arguing many politicians work with the media to try to promote their image and that it's done all the time. and blanche told the jury that his client is innocent, that donald trump did not commit any crimes. all of which were pretty remarkable statements from someone who didn't actually need to make them.

back with me now msnbc legal correspondent and joined by kristy greenberg. that trump didn't have sex with stormy daniels, he didn't need to go that far-out on a limb. do you think it was a mistake? >> yes. again, you want to preserve your credibility with the jury and you want to have a targeted approach. and the approach in this case is attack michael cohen's credibility and make it clear so much of this depends on michael cohen. there should have been a slide in the powerpoint. here are all the conversations and calls that happened just with michael cohen and donald trump. you have to rely on just michael

cohen's word for all these pieces of evidence and focus the jury. instead it was you're throwing spaghetti against the wall because there's different pieces of testimony you can take. that was like why? don't do it. it doesn't get you anywhere. even stormy daniels all of a sudden we were hearing a conspiracy with people the jury -- >> is not familiar with. >> they're all of a sudden trying to extort donald trump, and we're going so far afield, not everybody is lying. focus on the one person you need to be lying to make your case. again, you just kind of lose -- i think you lose the story, any kind of a narrative, and the focus on reasonable doubt because i think a lot of us think david pecker was pretty

believable, hope hicks was pretty believable. so when you start attacking everybody, it just feels very unfocused. >> well, not only attacking everybody and a lot of things but not taking on probably the most damning two pieces of evidence, exhibits 35 and 36, which can we pull it up? the account statement from michael cohen's first public bank account from essential consultants he opens to effectively receive and pay out the stormy daniels money. literally with the notations on the margins from allen weisselberg talking about the sum of money grossed up for taxes, cohen's handwriting and the payments are all there, and they did not have any explanation for this. >> they didn't. and they have testimony from cohen, this is my handwriting, two of the trump organization saying that cleary is allen weisselberg's handwriting. as you noted that's the first republic bank statement that shows the wire transfer to stormy daniels of $130,000.

now, the second piece of that smoking gun evidence is jeff mcconnie's notes, being allen weisselberg's director report. again, not on a random piece of paper, on trump organization stationary and clear handwriting deliberating what the payment scheme was going to be. and they had not only no answer for it, they acted as if they didn't exist. the very documents that josh steinglass told the jury were the two smoking guns in the case. as todd blanche was concerned they just never saw that. it never happened. it was like two different cases you were watching unfold before your eyes. >> they wept on and on, kristy about this retainer agreement was absolutely for legal services because would michael cohen have done everything for free at the same time they were contending michael cohen paid stormy daniels out of his own sort of pocket because he loved donald trump and wanted to stay in his good graces. >> right. it makes no sense whatsoever.

and i think the way to deal with some of that would have been you just argued, yeah, donald trump didn't see it because the only way those documents came before donald trump was michael cohen's testimony that allen weisselberg and michael cohen showed those documents to donald trump. just say no, they didn't and focus on that piece. and instead you never got there because, again, it was so -- so unfocused. >> they were always trying to go back to trump's overall innocence in this, right? so then it's like litigating the notion of stormy daniels. they never just sort of let the sleeping dogs lie to focus on trump's role in all this. and you mentioned dave pecker. pecker, the jury is asking for more testimony from david pecker, and i wonder what that signals to you. >> it's a good day for the prosecutors is what it signals to me. so joshua steinglass in his closing said -- and just took my

notes like multiple times about each of these pieces of evidence he said for the trump tower meeting this is really the prism through which you should analyze the evidence in this case, and they asked for testimony about it. with respect to the call that they asked about in june 2016 between pecker and trump, again we're focusing on trump's role. you know, with all the evidence of documents in this case, it's easy to lose sight of the significance of this phone call. and walks them through why it's so significant, right? because this is donald trump directly talking about paying off, you know, karen mcdougal and deputizing michael cohen as the person that he should deal with after that. >> so it's the rosetta stone for the conspiracy. >> yes. and even the mcdougal life rights. in the closing steinglass says this payment to mcdougal from ami for $125,000, that is an illegal campaign contribution, full stop, period. because a corporation cannot

make a contribution to a candidate, and so you have your election fraud -- you have your election law conspiracy. with these pieces of evidence you get there. you get not only the agreements to promote a candidate, you get the unlawful means with the illegal federal campaign contribution. so you don't know that all of the jurors are convinced, but somebody in that jury was paying attention and focused on the evidence that joshua steinglass told them to. >> someone was listening. okay, all right. we're not going to read too much into it, but we're going to read a lot into it. thank you guys for making the time tonight. i appreciate it. still ahead tonight, have you ever heard of a daks it's a person who really, really, really loves flags, someone who collects them and displays them and studies their meaning. that is pretty much how justice samuel alito described his wife today in letters to congress explaining why the insurrectionists flags flown at

his house were no big deal and do notimator his recusal in any january 6th cases. that story is next. y january 6th cases. that story is next

here's what judge samuel alito had to say on the issue of judicial ethics. >> i not only complied with the

ethical rules that are binding on federal judges and they're very strict, but also that idid what i tried to do and that is going beyond the letter of the ethics rules and avoid any situation where there might be an ethical question raised. and don't just comply with ethics rules, i go above and beyond. you can see the woman silting behind samuel alito in an aquamarine top with a ruffled collar. that is martha anne alito, the person who 18 years later is a at the center of justice alito's ethics scandal. two years ago the story broke the alito had a symbol of the january 6th insurrection flying over their home days after january 6th. justice alito responded by pointing their fingers at his

wife. then another flag flying at justice alito's vacation home. alito did not immediately offer an explanation. now today justice alito has broken his silence on that second flag once again pointing to his wife and declaring he will not recuse himself from any january 6th related cases. in two letters to democrats in congress justice alito writes my wife is fond of flying flags, i am not. a reasonable person who is not motivated by political or ideological considerations or a desire to effect the outcome of supreme court cases would conclude this does not meet the applicable standard for recusal. it should be noted here that many reasonable people including ethics experts and a sitting federal judge have said, indeed, it does meet the standard for recusal. but anyway alito's defiance

comes as we're learning new details about the first insurrectionist flag incident. "the times" reports after january 6th a woman in her 30s who lived near the alitos put up signs that said trump is fascist and you are complicit. not long after the woman's mother took the signs down fearing they would attract unwanted attention. then on the day president biden was inaugurated the couple drove by the alito's home where they say martha anne alito was standing outside. here's what "the new york times" says happens next. ms. alito ran toward their car and yelled something they could not understand. as they passed again to exit the cul-de-sac ms. alito appeared to spit near their vehicle. the woman and her boyfriend were pulling in trash bins when the alitos who seemed to be on a stroll appeared. mrs. alito addressed the pair by

name, used an expletive and called them fagss. justice alito remained silent, they added. the alitos began to walk away. that is when the woman snapped, she said. she does not remember her precise words but recalls something like how dare you behave this way. you've been harassing us over signs. you represent the highest court in the land. shame on you. the woman then called marketa anne alito an expletive i cannot say on television, and the younger couple later reported the incident to police. so justice alito's wife standing alongside the justice was publicly berating neighbors over political disagreements over donald trump and january 6th. and then she flew insurrectionist flags over justice alito's house without his objection. and justice alito now says whatever, my wife loves flags, no need for me to recuse herself

from the two major cases i'm hearing about january 6th and donald trump. today republicans celebrated justice alito's refusal to recuse from this case. the man in question in all of this, donald trump congratulated alito on social media for showing the intelligence, courage, and guts not to recuse himself. in just a second i'll talk to slate's mark joseph stern about what all of this means for the future of the court. that's next. ll of this means foe future of the court. that's next.

ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

earlier this month "the new york times" was first to report in january 2021 an inverted american flag was flown at justice alito's home. "the post" says it chose not to report on it because the flag raising appeared to be the work of marketa anne alito. "the post" also notes when they visited the alitos to ask about the flag mrs. alito yelled it's an international signal of distress. justice alito intervened and entered their car parked in the driveway and said it stemmed from a neighborhood dispute. marketa anne alito got out of the car and shouted an apparent reference to the neighbors and asked them what they did. after getting back in the car she exited again and brought out from their residence a novelty flag, the type that would

typically decorate a garden. she hoisted it up the flagpole. there, is that better, she yelled? joining me now is mark joseph stern, slate writer senior writer covering the court and the laws. mark, thank you for being here. what strikes me in all these antecdotes his wife is there. i mean he knew all of this was unfolding and he seems acutely aware of the import the flag was flying over a house he owns because he goes out of his way to say the beach house was not actually owned by him but part of his wife's property. >> yes. and he bristles with hostility towards senate democrats for even asking questions about the insurrectionist flags that hung over his family's property. i think it's remarkable just alito has discovered the one woman in america who deserves

the right to privacy, and that appears to be his wife. this letter today is an escalation of the conflict. i think justice alito is very much thumbing his nose at congress. he is essentially trolling congress telling them that this business has really nothing to do with him or any matter of importance because it's just his wife, and he has no control over his wife. of course noting that these are also his properties. he claims he was unable to stop his wife from flying these flags. i think that's questionable. he's not exactly a pushover. either way this is clearly at this stage a matter of public concern, and yet he, again, sounds aggrieved the public cares. he seems to be saying in this letter the real offense here isn't the flags that flew over his house that signified an insurrection in support for january 6th but that anyone would dare to even look into this matter let alone ask for his recusal because of it. and that certainly doesn't align

with what was in his confirmation hearings as you showed in the clip. >> that 2006 confirmation tape we played in the last segment introducing this one is so remarkable because not only does he say he respect and complies with ethics but that he goes above and beyond. i wonder if you could talk about the transformation of justice alito from 2006 to the present and his sense of grievance. >> yes, i think a part of it is when he joined he and john roberts were very close, and when john roberts defected in the first it seems that broke something in alito and alito started drifting right towards the clarence thomas wing of the court and started to view i think progressives and democrats really azine enemy of the people you might say, starting to vote party line and seeming to relish sort of owning the libs. that's come through more and more in his judas prudence especially under trump. i think he's a maga justice, and

that might have some positive consequences in driving away the less extreme conservatives, but i think it's a humiliation for the supreme court. i think there's a reason john roberts is staying silent despite senate democrats begging them to meet with him or speak out because he's embarrassed about this as well. alito has become an internationally notorious symbol of flagrant lawlessness. he just seems to relish every opportunity he can to stick it to to democrats. again, not how you build confidence in a supreme court that relies exclusively on support from people in its faith and abilities to wield any power at all. >> let's talk about roberts speaking of humiliation. we haven't heard from him as you know. will we? do you have any sense of the dynamics that are unfolding behind had scenes from the chief justice as it concerns other justices from his court? >> my sense john roberts has given up here.

he's not in control. frankly he hasn't been since justice ginsburg died. he doesn't have a majority he can sort of herd towards particular position. for the last year or so he's no longer the john roberts who would sometimes kind of stand up for the supreme court as a mutual arbiter of balls and strikes you might say. he's been voting and writing like a rather extreme partisanilately. it's almost like he's gravitating back towards where alito has been now. it's really disturbing to witness because john roberts has been providing the sense hayes the adult in the room. john roberts during oral arguments even is really good at stepping up and saying let's restore some order here, let's act like adults, but that guy seems to be gone, and i'm not sure he wants to sort of circle the wagons around his colleagues because he feels he's being

unfairly targeted, but it does seem like he's completely missing in action. >> yeah, it's ginni thomas and marketa anne alito's court i guess. mark joseph stern, thanks for your time tonight. we have one more story coming up. the 2024 democratic ticket made a ticket show force in philadelphia today. we'll have more on president biden's outreach to the black voters who could decide this election right after the break. s election right after the break f. get all-day and all-night heartburn acid prevention with just one pill a day. choose acid prevention. choose nexium. why choose a sleep number smart bed? can it keep me warm when i'm cold? choose acid prevention. wait, no, i'm always hot. sleep number does that. now, save 50% on the sleep number limited edition smart bed. plus special financing. shop now at sleepnumber.com

i don't want you to move. i'm gonna miss you so much. you realize we'll have internet waiting for us at the new place, right? oh, we know. we just like making a scene. transferring your services has never been easier. get connected on the day of your move with the xfinity app.

can i sleep over at your new place? can katie sleep over tonight? sure, honey! this generation is so dramatic! move with xfinity.

and i'll be damned if i'll let donald trump take america into a place filled with anger, resentment, and hate. folks, america's always been a place where we worked toward a more perfect union, where those who were excluded in the ast are included in the promise of the country today. i still believe that. i'm still optimistic, but i need you. so my question for you is simple, a simple one. are you with me? >> that was president joe biden earlier today at a campaign rally in philadelphia. it was a rare joint appearance by president biden and vice president harris making their pitch. in 2020 biden won pennsylvania with 92% of the black vote. recent polling shows that support is now 69% among black

pennsylvaniians. joining me now is malcolm kenyatta. malcolm, great to see you. >> always great to see you. >> i know polls are but a snapshot, but it does seem like the president has lost support in the black community, and i'm wondering if you have any sort of intel on that. is it younger black voters? is it disengaged voters? where does he need to make up that support? >> listen, this president is doing something really profound. he's not saying to the campaign let's talk to black voters in october, just turn out voters. he is doing what i and black leaders have been saying we want to see a president do for a long time is make the case. and the good thing for us is he has a case to make. the vice president talked about medical debt no longer counting towards people trying to get a credit card or purchase that first home or just to destroy their credit rating in the first

place. the president spoke about what he's doing to deal with the costs of student loans but also what he's going to deal with costs cross the board, how he's lowering costs for family, talking about the need to continue to do something about gun violence. and at the end of the day i do think we're in that phase of the campaign where folks have to every single day be reminded of the stakes. and then you have to have somebody talk about what they've done and what their plans are for the future. if these are the stakes, lowering costs, making families feel safe and secure, does anyone in their right mind truly believe trump is the guy to do that for black americans? no one believes that. >> it's biden's record here and pointing to his opponent. he had some words on donald trump specifically on the issue of race. i want to play a bit of sound from the rally today. >> what do you think would happen if black america had

stormed the capitol? i don't think you'd be talking about pardons. this is the same guy who wanted to tear gas you as you peacefully protested george floyd's murder. >> the central park now known as the exonerated five, his past history not wanting to rent his property to black tenants. how critical is it voters of color be reminded of donald trump's record in this the race? >> the president is going to lay out the stakes. this is a decision we have to make, and folks have to go home, look around their house and think about the people they love most in the world and ask if they truly believe in their heart they donald trump gives one solitary damn about anybody there. he doesn't. so for me watching both my parents die by the time i was 27 because they didn't have access

to health care. watching my mom ration her insulin, i can't imagine what that would have meant for her to be alive where it's $35 or have seniors have prescription drugs capped at $2,000 a year. this is not about who's the most entertaining, about who can be the most absurd. if donald trump said, hey, i want to start a podcast, good on you. if donald trump is president again, hell no. and as the president said we're not going to let it happen. so people can underestimate black voters, but ultimately we're going to make a decision for who cares about us. it's why i'm running for auditor general statewide. it's why the president is in this fight, and i'm telling you we're going to win up and down the ballot for democrats in pennsylvania, and i can't wait for folks to run this tape and say, malcolm, you were right. we're going to do the work. >> i will replay it for you. where's the story telling happening? the president was i believe at gerard college today. he visited moore house, the hbcu. how does he tell these stories

for an audience in some ways disengaged, getting news from tiktok. >> i'm so happy to see the campaign engaging on all those different platforms. if you were not following biden hq and the tweets and the clap backs and receipts constantly coming out of that account, we have to talk to people wherever they are. philly elmo is the philadelphia icon, okay, just like in the anals of gritty of all the rest. for folks who didn't get it, if you know you know. >> this is luckily tapes we can play it back for you, and we will delight in that replay. thank you for your time tonight, sir, great to see you as always. pennsylvania state representative malcolm kenyatta. that is our show for this evening. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. america's always been a place where we worked towards a

more perfect union, where those who are ed