that the news went the other way, the people working for the president somehow got the bureau of labor statistics and played with the numbers so it's down below 8 today. how does it work from your perspective? what happened here? >> all i can talk about are some of the numbers. we had 600,000 government jobs added in the last two months. we had 873,000 jobs by a household survey, which is a total estimate, from 50,000 phone calls. of those 600,000 were temporary workers. chris, these numbers are all a series of assumptions. tons of assumptions. and it just seems somewhat coincidental that the month before the election the numbers go 0.1% below when they were when the president started, although, i don't see anything in the economy that says these surges are true. the 873,000 jobs in the household survey is the strongest economy since 1983. i don't think you can find an economist. there were 25 ever them this morning that predicted 8.1 to 8.2 but they did forget 114,000 jobs. we got 114,000 jobs and somehow, the assumptions ended up at 7.8. >> let me just get back to your tweet this morning. it mu

- fabricating jobswe've bben closely scrutinizing the &pemployment data isssed by thee bureau of labor statisticsthere was a bb the bureau of labor employmeet ddta issued closeey jobsbtt - fabbiiating scrutinizing thh employment data isssud by the bureau of labor statistics. there wassa the integrity of bls. but in 2012 funny thingssbegaa to happen. in jaauary more than one and a quarter mmllion porkers were removed from thh labor forre..it had the effect of reducing the unnmployment rate.many haae questioned the hooesty of the bls data. this summer, the ggllup polling 30,000 adults eaah month,, noted thaa bls repprts didn't matth real world dataathe 7.8% september was completely unbelievable. in a slowing economy we were told september employment gainn in us unbelievable.a ouple of weeks ago, bs reporred weekly joblees claims had fallen to 339,000, theelowest level since february 2008. anotherr questions were raised, it was llarnee the jobless numbers frommcalifornia were wrong. insteaddof a five year low, joblees claims spiked to p88,000 the highest llvel since last spring. maybe a coincidence,

went the other way, that the people working for the president somehow got the bls, the bureau of labor statisticsand played with the numbers so it would come down below 8% today. how does it work from your perspective? what happened here? >> well, chris, all i can talk about are some of the numbers. we had 600,000 government jobs added in the last two months. we had 873,000 jobs by a household survey, which is a total estimate from 50,000 phone calls. of those 600,000 were temporary workers. chris, these numbers are all a series of assumptions, tons of assumptions, and it just seems somewhat coincidental that the month before the election, the numbers go one tenth of a point below where they were when the president started, although i don't see anything in the economy that says these surges are true. the 873,000 jobs in the household survey is the strongest economy since 1983. i don't think you can find an economist, there were 25 of them this morning that predicted 8.1% to 8.2%, but they did predict 114,000 jobs. we got 114,000 jobs, and somehow the assumptions ended up at 7.8%. >> well, let me

there was a "washington post" report about the security precautions that surround this bureau of labor statisticsd this is what the quote was, and of course you have just confirmed this, essentially . . . >> jennifer: i mean really those are some precautions. >> right. right. this was -- essentially this data is incredibly important to global markets around the world, to business decision-making around the world, political outcomes around the world. it needs to be done in a secure way, where there is no question at any point of political manipulation. it is simply must too important of a number. so of course they had those kinds of procedures and they had an absolute chain of when the numbers went up at exactly what time. and there was no ability to ask questions about those numbers during this period or any other period. you didn't ask questions, you didn't give directives you waited to receive the numbers that were developed in that secure way. >> jennifer: all right. and of course if you were manipulating the numbers, you would have probably brought it down a long time ago, right? >> that's wh

back when president clinton was running for his second term, the bureau of labor statistics and bureauic affairs that comes up with the gdp number were changing the way we measure gdp growth, okay? and they were going to something that is a technical term called chain weighted gdp. >> sure. yeah. >> and the result of going to chain weighted gdp was that the gdp number would be lower than in the old methodology. the president was furious because everyone thought they were coming up with a number that was lower. he said, can't you stop this? can't you -- can't you wait until after the election? we said, no. they're an independent agency. we can't touch them. what we can do is try to explain what the numbers are. >> right. >> how they're derived, what does chain weighted do. the president then went on a campaign to try to explain -- >> the infamous chain weighted explanation tour. >> that was the high point of the presidency. but the point is no president except maybe nixon would actually try to change what the bureau of labor statistics does or the bea does. these are really independent

there is virtually no contact between the white house and the bureau of labor statistics on any matters that have to do with data integrity. it you're talking to the bureau of labor statistics it's going to be something like, when is a particular report coming out? but -- and you asked about, how would these things be manipulated? it's beyond me. i mean, you don't know how tight these data lockdowns are, and there's dozens of people involved who all have high security ratings, encrypted data. i mean, the janitors are not allowed to empty the waste baskets there until after the reports come out. >> wow. okay. >> yeah. so -- an unfounded allegation of ludicrous proportions. frankly, i don't think we should be giving it this much oxygen. >> jared, glad we did at this point, you were able to debunk it from your perspective. thank you very much. see you again. >>> for more reaction to that and new debate fallout joined by amy, white house correspondent for the hill and ed o'keefe for "the washington post." good morning to both of you. >> good morning. >> we're going to start with the unemplo

the bureau of labor statistics full screen if you can show that. there are at least two. harley frazis and stephen phillips that work at the bureau of labor statistics currently who both have been donors to the obama campaign. >> look, i don't know what the right number is but i'll tell you these numbers don't smell right when you think about where the economy is right now. >> what evidence do you have that they got to the bls? >> i don't. >> chicago guys got to the bureau of labor statistics and affected these numbers? >> i have no evidence to prove that. i just raised the question. >> you didn't raise the question. you said these chicago guys will do anything. >> yeah. >> so they changed the number. you say these chicago guys will do anything so they changed the numbers. do you want to take that back? >> no i don't want to take it back. >> this is an assertion there was corruption here and infiltration or getting to the -- it's not funny, jack. you're talking about the president of the united states playing with the bureau of labor sticks numbers. this is nixon stuff. ja

they understand how sensitive these job numbers are, and anybody who thinks that the bureau of labor statisticss sort of gaming the system not only has no idea what the system is, has no idea what bls, the bureau of labor statistics, stands for and their record, but also is sort of paranoid about everything. if things are not going their way, a lot of people on the right, they just assume there's a plot against them. >> i'm sorry to persist with you, professor reich, but you have just disparaged the great donald trump. >> oh, heavens. >> thank you. >> i'm terribly sorry. >> i'm glad you apologized. >> let me -- i don't mean to disparage anyone at all. i'm a truth teller. i'm trying to tell the truth, but listen, just getting back to this issue of who do you trust more? the fact of the matter is people see mitt romney, they see this man with gleaming white teeth, with superficial attractiveness. he seems to be very, very articulate, but he stands for absolutely nothing, and what he does stand for to the extent he stands for anything, it's a rightward drift to days before we had medicare, social

>> when you go strictly by the bureau of labor statistics numbers, there are more people on unemploymentow than when obama took office. a loss of 1.7 million jobs under president obama. those are the numbers. read 'em and weep. b.l.s..gov >> i'm not reading them and weeping. >> i'm reading the numbers see you are. i'll tell you this. right from the bureau. >> jon: one man with two conflicting points of view. of the same government bureau's numbers. co-ens dense or coincidence? we'll be right back or will we?? ( cheers and applause ) >> jon: welcome back. my guest tonight the lead guitarist and principal songwriter for the legendary band the who. his new autobiography is called "who i am." please welcome to the program pete townsend. ( cheers and applause ) how are you? >> i'm all right jon: i'm so pleased that you're here. i spent so many hours with your music >> i'm not going to help discuss american politics. >> jon: please. you'd be the only one here at the table who can. i have no idea what's going on >> i've noticed that. jon: i completely understand what you're saying. let me ask y

now folks we all know the bureau of labor statistics are cooking the books for their buddy obama. of course they vow there's no conspiracy claims before the number is ever released there is an eight day security lockdown during which confidentiality agreements are signed each morning and computers are encrypted and data locked into a safe every time one of the analysts goes even to the bathroom. but that doesn't mean they're releasing all the numbers. when those analyst goes to the bathroom is it number one or number two. america needs to know! and folks, this thing is too big for the bureau of labor statistics to have done it all alone. it has to go all the way up to the bottom. think about it. last month 114,000 unemployed moochers. the president's natural allies, suddenly yank the government teat out of their mouths, get off the couch for 40 hours a week, why? i say follow the money because i found out that right around the time those people got those jobs, they started getting paid. (laughter) and just where does that money come from? right out of the pockets of the job create

the bureau of labor statistics which has never been influenced by any white house. somehow, somehow they manipulated the numbers. but they only manipulated the numbers for the month of september instead of manipulating them for three years. okay. then of course there is every polling organization in existence. now remember all of the polls are skewed toward president obama. then there is the national media which of course includes fox news because fox polls show president obama is in the lead. and finally unemployed people. for some reason these folks, they just want to lie to the bureau of labor statistics in order to help a president who is presiding over their unemployment benefits as you see this is, my friends, all crazy talk. one person who didn't play along with the conspiracies was this guy, mitt romney. he knows better. but he did put out a statement downplaying the new numbers. he said, this is not what a real recovery looks like. so romney says the number is bad but the conspiracy kooks say the number was fixed to make president obama look good. the fact r

they're put together by two separate government entities, bureau of labor statistics, the labor department, and then the census bureau. and then the employment numbers, put together by the labor department. that tells us the number of jobs created by businesses. then there was a household survey, where field representatives go in and call a number of households, putting that number together. you combine the two and that is the report we got this morning but with 2,000 field representatives involved, and two government entities involved, it is almost impossible to manipulate these numbers. >> that is why we needed it all explained, as always, sue herrera. >>> now to breaking news out of arizona, where last night we reported the possibility that they were looking at the possibility that the u.s. border agent killed there may have been the victim of friendly fire. tonight there is more, more at the border patrol station in bisbee station there. good evening. mark, good evening >> reporter: and good evening, sources tell nbc news they expected an announcement soon that federal investigators do

that's labor secretary hilda solis, who is responsible for the bureau of labor statistics which puts out the job numbers. >> i have the highest regard for our professional staff at the bureau of labor statistics, highly trained, highly skilled ph.d.s, economists, statisticians, folks that have been working in this area for many years and this is a methodology that's been used for decades and it is insulting when you hear people just cavalierly say that somehow we are manipulating numbers. i find that very insulting. >> hilda solis. for the record, here's how the process works. the raw data comes in on wednesdays, the week before each monthly report. the bureau of labor statistics gets around -- calls around 60,000 households and asks who's working. that's where the unemployment rate comes from. for job growth or job loss, the bls gathers payroll data from businesses. everyone who touches the data signs confidentiality agreements, documents are locked in safes, computers are encrypted, windows are actually papered over, custodians don't even empty the trash until the work is done. only

jessica, you and i both know that the administration gets a look-see, an early peek at the bureau of labor statisticsumbers before the rest of us get to see them. how much of a jump do they get and how much are they able to craft what they need to craft going forward to turn that message into a speech like we just saw? >> well, the head of the council of economic advisers typically is notified the night before they come out. it would have been last night and can inform the president thursday night about the jobs numbers. so, you know, that's the window there. i would point out that, you know this is one of those situations where it is important for the white house and the obama campaign and i think you heard it too while show enthusiasm about the improvement, to be cautious, because it is an improvement, but this nation is still in economic pain. many people are hurting. i think what they're trying to do and have to do is calibrate a careful tone where it is both excitement about the improvement, but also sensitivity to what a lot of people are going through and that's why the president is trying to

president who was accused of, and where there was evidence that he tried to mess with the bureau of labor statistics was richard nixon. since then, it is a bureau full of professionals and i think that jonathan is exactly right. we would know if there was some funny business going on there. not to mention that if they were going to cook the books, wouldn't they have done it months ago when it would have more of an impact, and wouldn't they have said the unemployment rate is, i don't know, 4%. it seems extremely far fetched. i would be shocked if we eventually discovered they had played some role in it. >> jonathan allen and anne, thank you for joining us today. stick around, we'll see you later on this hour p. >>> was mitt romney really a bipartisan governor in massachusetts? one of his old political foes joins us in the next hour. >>> and who does michelle obama think should play her husband on the silver screen? >>> but first, will the real mitt romney please stand up. we'll talk to his campaign next about what's behind it. this is msnbc, the place for politics. you. we know you. we know you have

you know, of 112,000 jobs created, according to the bureau of labor statistics, in america, they are tican. you can't question them. the bureau of labor statistics says we were up a total of 400 auto jobs when you count the companies and suppliers. of the 400 jobs up, 400 is great. we are thrilled. we have a strong auto industry. we want it to be stronger. but it doesn't account for the growth of 112,000 jobs in our state. >> one out of eight jobs in your state affiliated with the auto industry. if the president had not pursued his bailout plan, do you think the state would be in the same economic condition today? >> i'm glad the auto industry is strong. i don't know anybody who didn't think it needed to be saved. i will tell you, there's no way i would support anybody that didn't support the auto industry. in the last quarter, the most significant area of growth in ohio is investment technology. i.p. we have groan financial services. we have grown health care. look, there's been significant investment by auto companies in ohio. they are reducing their footprint. i wish we could get m

. >> reporter: the numbers are crunched by the economists and the independent bureau of labor statistics, civil services, not employees. >> these are skilled people working in the bls, it is ridiculous to hear that kind of statement prominent romney supporter agrees. >> there was no w >> reporter: a prominent romney supporter agrees. >> there was no way they were manipulated for political purposes. the people that put it together were civil servants, the experts in the area. the process was one of integrity. >> reporter: while some see it as a boost, romney is trying to neutralize the attack, over his comments regarding 47% of americans not paying income tax. and see themselves as victims. a view he now disavows disavows >> >> sometimes you say something completely wrong. >> reporter: only three weeks he says the comments were not elegantly stated. now he disavows the comments, perhaps in time for the debate when president obama is expected to be ready for attack. >> thank you. >>> sue herrera has visited us from cnbc headquarters today here in our studios, by the way, the markets reacte

in fact you've got so many people working on this from all parts of the bureau of labor statistics, there is no possible way there could be a conspiracy. so, no, it's almost funny to even be talking about it, susie. >> susie: you know, the timing of this report is so critical because we're getting closer and closer to election day. does this give president obama an edge? i mean, how important is this unemployment report for the election? >> well, today's jobs numbers were friendly to the president. i mean, it does show that the economy is definitively improving. we've made a lot of progress. when you add it all up, we've created 4.5, 5 million jobs since job growth resumed just not quite three years ago. we are clearly moving in the right direction, and i do think voters when they think about who to vote for, they have had to come up with a trend line and think about where we're headed and i think these kind of numbers will, indeed, help the president. >> susie: you know, we're all so fixated on this unemployment number, and yet a number of people, whether they're economists or market str