On Sunday morning, Thomas Beaumont and Nicholas Riccardi at the Associated Press did all they could to convince readers that the tax bill just passed by Congress and signed by Donald Trump isn't seen as a big deal and has no genuine enthusiastic support (even though they found some) among those who voted for him in 2016. They predictably claimed that the law bestows "its richest benefits on companies and wealthy individuals,' and employed a classic statistical deception to support that false contention.



In a "Fact Check" published Wednesday afternoon, the Associated Press's Thomas Beaumont insisted that Donald Trump's September 16 statement that "Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy," namely that then-candidate Barack Obama was not born in the United States, "is as untrue as his original lie." Some readers who don't get past Paragraph 3 might even believe that Trump started it all. And this is a "fact check"?

Beaumont's bluster appears to be in response to center-right bloggers and pundits who correctly refuse to let Hillary Clinton campaign and her gatekeepers in the press get away with revising history and ignoring new corroborating facts. To believe Beaumont, one has to believe that longtime Clinton aide and confidant Sidney Blumenthal's rumor-shopping to various members of the press doesn't matter, because he "was not officially part of the (Hillary Clinton 2008) campaign staff." What rubbish. The facts show that he was much more important to Hillary Clinton than that.



I heard Rush Limbaugh comment on this report from the Associated Press's Thomas Beaumont and Brian Bakst ("Romney, GOP suddenly plunging onto Democratic turf") this afternoon on his program. This evening, having read the whole, I agree with him (which of course often happens) that the AP writer are very upset that GOP presidential challenger Mitt Romney and his campaign are going after Pennsylvania and Minnesota -- so upset that they're throwing any kind of speculative nonsense they can conjure up to explain away its obvious significance, namely that Team Romney believes they can pick up even more electoral than they believe they have within their control by venturing into these two states -- oh, and Michigan too.

How upset are they? One theory the AP pair has: "Or perhaps the Republican simply has money to burn. Use it now or never." Lord have mercy, guys. The question with the answer you don't like is: Why is he "burning" it in those two states? Gee, because he apparently thinks he can win them. Several paragraphs from Beaumont's and Bakst's blubbering, which will only admit to the apparently unlikely (in their view) possibility the Romney "could" win the race for the White House, follow the jump (bolds are mine):



I noticed at lunch on Tuesday while reading the handy Washington Post commuter tabloid called "Express" that Scott Bauer at Associated Press actually wrote this sentence: "A Marquette University Law School poll released last week showed Walker with a narrow 7-percentage point lead over Barrett, 52 percent to 45 percent." That looks like a pretty accurate poll.

Is this what the 2008 race was for Obama, a "narrow 7-percentage point lead" over McCain? Is that what AP will write if Obama is leading in October by seven points? This wasn't even the only time Scott Bauer used that ludicrous passage. Let's go back to last Thursday, from the same song sheet:



The headline at Thomas Beaumont's Sunday item about the possible significance of the Scott Walker recall election in Wisconsin is "Few November clues to be found in Wisconsin recall."

Maybe, but I have a definite clue as to Beaumont's political proclivities, something which I shouldn't be able to glean from a wire service report, thanks to the paragraph which follows the jump. Let's see if readers can pick up that clue: