Raw Story

President Joe Biden on Friday had a laugh at the expense of Sen. Marco Rubio after the Florida Republican claimed that numbers in the latest jobs report were "fake."

While taking questions from reporters in an impromptu White House briefing, the president was asked what he made of Rubio's comments about the purportedly "fake" jobs numbers showing that the American economy added 254,000 jobs in September, with wage gains significantly outpacing the rate of inflation.

Upon hearing the question, Biden immediately started cracking up.

ALSO READ: Trump regaled donors with jokes about rallygoer killed by would-be assassin: leaked audio

He then composed himself and delivered a response.

"Look: If you've noticed, anything the MAGA Republicans don't like, they call fake — anything!" he said. "The job numbers are the job numbers. They are. They're real. They're sincere... And by the way, just look at how the [European Union] talks about us, they'd like to have an economy like ours. Let's talk about how the rest of the world looks at us."

Multiple Republicans, including Donald Trump's running mate Sen. J.D. Vance, have tried to find fault with the jobs report even though most economists have said that it shows significant strength in the American economy.

Watch the video below or at this link.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

A newly released legal filing that dropped Wednesday in Donald Trump’s election interference case is “really powerful,” a former prosecutor argued, adding it was clear that its release came because the special counsel wanted people to know “this was a bad guy acting in bad faith.”

“This really is a two-part document,” said former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rodgers. “This is for the public, this is for us all to say, 'Well, this is a really powerful case against the former president. This is really, really bad what he did.'”

Rodgers said during an appearance Wednesday night on CNN that she believes the motivation behind the massive legal filing is to try to convince the judge in the case “and all the judges up the chain” that the new evidence should be admitted, and is not subject to the Supreme Court’s recent immunity decision that upended the case against Trump.

ALSO READ: The menstrual police are coming: Inside the GOP's plan for total control over women

“It kind of has those two things, but that is really more of an atmospheric point,” she said. “They want everyone to know this was a bad guy acting in bad faith and the case against him is really powerful.”

CNN contributor Joey Jackson said that, as a former criminal defense attorney, he is especially concerned by former Vice President Mike Pence’s possible influence over a potential future trial.

“Number one I see Mike Pence shaping up to be an all-star witness here,” Jackson told CNN host Kaitlan Collins. “So, you're going to have Mike Pence really taking the stand if it moves forward, giving damning evidence with respect to the conversations he had with his boss, concerning this fake elector scheme, concerning his presiding over the senate and ditching the real ones and putting in these other ones.”

“And so that's going to be problematic.”

Watch the clip below or at this link.

A Trump campaign adviser was on the receiving end of a forceful fact-check Wednesday night from a CNN anchor after he tried to claim the former president is being treated differently than other Americans in the justice system.

Bryan Lanza joined "NewsNight" with host Abby Phillip on Wednesday night and was asked if Trump is laying the groundwork to repeat his alleged 2020 election subversion.

In response, Lanza defended Trump and insisted Trump wants fair and free elections "unlike the last election, where rules were changed."

Not persuaded by the MAGA commentator's response, Phillip shot back that special counsel Jack Smith's massive, new briefing "pretty definitely debunks that."

"No it doesn't," Lanza insisted.

"Yes it does!" exclaimed Phillip.

Lanza doubled down and said — to the agreement of fellow panelist and former Democratic Rep. Bakari Sellers — that the filing is Smith's "interpretation without any stress test."

"There's no way it debunks anything," he said.

Phillip also dug in and insisted that the filing clearly states Trump was told he was going to lose the election and plotted before the election to say he was going to win. She noted the document pointed to recordings of former Trump strategist Steve Bannon talking about Trump's strategy in October 2020.

ALSO READ: He’s a sociopath:' J.D. Vance has Congressional Democrats freaking out

"That has nothing to do with irregularities," she insisted. "That's a strategy to lie."

Lanza noted that such documents and evidence "very rarely make it to court because when they're stress-tested they fall off," noting such evidence can come from disgruntled employees and people who misrepresent what happened.

Later in the clip, Lanza and Phillip clashed again as he tried to assert Trump "has been treated differently" in the justice system.

"How?" questions Sellers.

Lanza pointed to the federal judge who decided to hold the hearing before an election.

"Why does the judge get to make that determination?" he asked.

Before he could continue, Phillip again interjected, prompting Lanza to fire back, "You're asking me a question. You're not going to let me finish?"

Phillip noted there's only one reason prosecutors were even given the option to receive the filing.

"The Supreme Court stepped in to say Donald Trump gets to be treated differently," she said.

"No that's not true," Lanza retorted, talking over Phillip. "The reason we're having this filing is because Jack Smith said, 'Donald Trump does not deserve to be treated like everybody else, let's accelerate his case.' That's why we have this filing, Abby, let's be clear."

Phillip pushed back again, asserting that the Supreme Court's immunity ruling forced the district court to decide which of the allegations "actually get to be tried."

"Because Donald Trump has, according to the Supreme Court, some presumption of immunity for some of his actions. That is literally the definition of being treated differently. So he's actually benefitting from that."

Watch the clip below or at this link.

Former FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe smacked down Donald Trump’s claims Wednesday night that the Justice Department is violating its own rules following the release of a new, massive legal filing in the former president’s election interference case with just weeks to go until the 2024 presidential election

Emphasizing that the DOJ had nothing today do with the bombshell filing’s release earlier in the day, McCabe, now a CNN contributor, said on “Anderson Cooper 360” that he doesn’t find Trump’s arguments “particularly persuasive, as you might guess.”

“These are not decisions of the Department of Justice, these are decisions of the court, and the judge decided to release this filing today and that is not something the Department of Justice can control,” McCabe said.

ALSO READ: He’s a sociopath:' J.D. Vance has Congressional Democrats freaking out

“So, it’s really not a matter that comes within the scope of that policy whatsoever,” he said.

The rule Trump is referring to can also be waived by the attorney general, McCabe said, “anytime he sees it’s necessary to do that, or in the interest of justice.” McCabe added that the policy is specifically directed at investigators, including the FBI and U.S. attorneys, “and it’s a caution to not take any overt public actions – things that would be seen in the run-up to an election.”

“We are long past that point in this case,” McCabe argued. Cooper noted that “obviously Trump didn’t care” about the rule he is now complaining about in 2016 when then-FBI Director James Comey “informed Congress and inevitably it became public that the FBI was reopening the Clinton email investigation days before the 2016 election.”

Watch the clip below or at this link.

Former President Donald Trump's running mate, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, cannot brush off his dismissal of democracy, longtime GOP strategist and focus grouper Sarah Longwell wrote on X Wednesday.

Vance was considered by political pundits to have debated more skillfully in at least the first half of the bout with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, but polling suggests debate viewers felt Walz won on several issues and even forced Vance to a draw on many conventionally GOP-favoring issues like immigration and the economy.

One of the biggest moments, however, was when Vance refused to answer whether he believed Trump lost the 2020 presidential election — and that cannot be overlooked, said Longwell, the founder of the anti-Trump Republican Accountability Project.

ALSO READ: The secret weapon Republicans use to win elections

"Last night’s debate had two features I like very much: substance and civility," wrote Longwell. "And yet, JD Vance told us he was totally cool with Trump’s refusal to abide by the 2020 election results."

"The more *normal* one sounds when saying insane things, the more alarmed we should be," warned Longwell.

Vance has continually refused to commit to accepting election results that go against Trump, and has made clear that if he were placed in former Vice President Mike Pence's shoes in 2020, he would have done as Trump demanded and illegally blocked the certification of the electoral count on January 6.

All of this comes at a time when the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee have shifted much of their resources away from conventional voter outreach and into poll watcher training and legal buildup, with the intent to contest any election results that don't go their way in 2024.

Last night’s debate had two features I like very much: substance and civility. And yet, JD Vance told us he was totally cool with Trump’s refusal to abide by the 2020 election results. The more *normal* one sounds when saying insane things, the more alarmed we should be.
— Sarah Longwell (@SarahLongwell25) October 2, 2024

Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) revealed during the debate a surprising dislike considering his views on "sociopathic" childless cat people and the extra votes parents should be granted, a political analyst argued Wednesday morning.

Former President Donald Trump's running mate exposed Tuesday night a deep-rooted hatred of children, argued Salon columnist Amanda Marcotte.

"Vance sneered that climate change is 'weird science,'" Marcotte wrote. "With that simple answer, 'pro-baby' Vance showed he will wreak havoc on the futures of all children for his political ambitions."

This is just one of several examples Marcotte cites from the CBS News-hosted debate between Vance and Democratic vice presidential nominee Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN).

Vance's views on climate change, lies about Haitian immigrants eating pets, and attempts to soften his anti-abortion position represent a disregard for children that he would doom to deadly natural disasters, violent threats at school and more violence at home, Marcotte argued.

ALSO READ: Outrage as J.D. Vance tells rallygoers school shootings a 'fact of life'

"Research shows that when women are forced to carry pregnancies they don't want to term, they are more likely to stay in contact with men who abuse them and often their children," Marcotte wrote.

"And Vance has said he thinks women are obliged to stay with men who beat them, condemning women who leave violent marriages for shifting 'spouses like they change their underwear.'"

Marcotte argued that underneath Vance's professed "pro-baby" stance lies a deeply rooted desire to dominate women and a poorly concealed ambivalence about children's lives.

The columnist further admits this likely is not new information for voters who've read reports of podcast appearances during which Vance agreed childcare was the sole purpose of post-menopausal women and admitted he told his 7-year-old son to "shut the hell up."

But Marcotte argued it bore repeating.

"Vance made it very clear last night that children are only valuable to him if they can be used to derail women's futures," Marcotte concluded. "But when it comes to the futures of children themselves, Vance could not care less."