Wow. Bizarre and sad as it is, this is almost kind of fun.

The AP sent out a detailed response to our reporting and that of Media Matters on John Solomon’s piece on Harry Reid. Paul Kiel, over at TPMmuckraker, had intended to respond to it today. But he got so bogged down with the new distortions and bamboozlement in Solomon’s follow-up reporting that he didn’t get to it.

Now, I just noticed that Media Matters has their response to the AP, along with the AP’s original defense of its reporting, posted at their site.

So this gave me a chance to glance over some of the AP’s claims about TPMmuckraker’s reporting. And most of the assertions are so demonstrably false that it’s hard for me even to figure what sort of meltdown is going on over there.

Again, Paul’s going to address the AP’s rejoinder to TPMmuckraker tomorrow in some systematic sort of fashion. But let me just hit on some points that jumped out at me.

Here’s one example from the AP …

TPM Muckraker stated mistakenly that AP failed to report that there is an absolute exemption allowing lawmakers to take gifts from federal, state and local officials. AP, in fact, accurately reported that there is a general exemption for such gifts but that the Congressional ethics manual clearly warns members of Congress against accepting such normally permitted gifts if they are connected to efforts to influence their position on legislation.

All I can think is to be generous and assume the author of this response actually hadn’t read what Paul Kiel — who’s been covering this at TPMm — wrote.

Paul was very clear. What he said was that Solomon buried these details down in the piece in order to create a lead that made the whole ticket issue seem like a much bigger deal than it was.

Was Paul not clear enough about this?

Look at his words. In the post in question, Paul reprinted Solomon’s one sentence lead, then explained the details which significantly deflate Solomon’s story. And then he says this …

Now, Solomon puts all these facts in his piece. So he’s not covering up a key piece of information like he did last time. He seems to realize that he doesn’t have any real story. So Solomon argues that Reid, out of an abundance of caution, should have paid for the tickets to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

(ed.note: The reference to ‘last time’ is back in February when we caught Solomon bamboozling on the Reid beat the first time.)

So AP: “TPMMuckraker stated mistakenly that AP failed to report …” and TPMmuckraker: “Solomon puts all these facts in his piece. So he’s not covering up a key piece of information …”

What am I missing? If you have any question that the antecedents of ‘these facts’ includes reference to the exemption issue, I encourage you to read the post.

At another point in the AP rebuttal they write, “Contrary to TPM Muckraker assertions, Senator Reid did not vote against the legislation the Nevada commission supported. Senators Reid and McCain sponsored legislation the commission wanted to change.”

Again, bizarre. The AP says we said something we never said and then ‘rebuts’ our nonexistent-statement with what we actually said. And if you look at the point that’s actually at issue — whether Reid came down for or against the commission’s position — the distinction he’s alleging is basically a distinction without a difference.

What Kiel wrote was that Reid voted for legislation the commission opposed. I tried scanning through Kiel’s posts to see if there were any instances where he bollixed up the sentence and said Reid voted against legislation they supported (as the AP claims) as opposed to voting for legislation they opposed. But, as far as I can tell, he didn’t even do that.

(ed.note: Again, if you have any questions about what I’m asserting about our coverage, you can find every post we’ve published on this topic collected together here.)

Who says the commission opposed the legislation? Well, among others, John Solomon. As Paul quotes Solomon saying, Reid supported creating a “commission that Nevada’s agency feared might usurp its authority.”

After this response came out, Solomon tried to imply that Reid changed the legislation to be more to the commission’s liking. But late this afternoon Kiel exposed this one as yet another howler.

I mean, I think I’d be within my rights to say they’re just making it up. Like they can’t help it: ‘Stop me before I bamboozle again!’ But, again, I figure they just didn’t bother to read what we wrote before issuing their rebuttal.

What do you make of it?

Uh-oh … Sounds like it’s subpoena time for House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA).

Off the AP wire: “San Bernardino County, Calif., has been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury for records connected to House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis and a lobbying firm with strong ties to Lewis, a county official said. The subpoena asked for all records of the county’s correspondence with Lewis, R-Calif., and his staff and with the lobbying firm, Copeland, Lowery, Jacquez, Denton, & White, which employs former California Republican Congressman Bill Lowery, said San Bernardino County’s chief deputy counsel, Daniel B. Haueter.”

Never a dull moment in our new gilded age.

By busting House Speaker Hastert over the Abramoff scandal, ABC’s investigative unit may have hurt parent company Disney’s chances at winning tax breaks. . . If the Safavian trial was a round of golf, they would be on the 10th hole by now. . . Editor & Publisher makes note of the brewing brouhaha between bloggers and the AP over John Solomon’s coverage of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) attendance at boxing matches. This and more in today’s Daily Muck.

If I’m understanding this correctly, both New York City and Washington, DC had their federal homeland security grant funding cut this year in large part because their grant applications were either imcorrectly filed or poorly prepared. Doesn’t that seem like quite a coincidence? Especially since there appears to be affirmative evidence that the claim of improper filing about New York City is false.

I think we’re about through with our coverage of the AP/Solomon bamboozlement — unless Solomon comes out with yet more of the same. But I wanted to address this issue of, ‘Even if the AP wrote deceptive pieces, shouldn’t Reid still not have taken the tickets?’

I’ve knocked this around with a few readers. And I exchanged a couple emails about it this morning with TPM Reader GE. Had I written this originally for publication, I would have made it more polished and comprehensive. But I think it actually gives a candid and unrehearsed sense of where I am on this. So I’ll reprint the last round of our exchange in toto, as originally written …

TPM Reader GE …

Hey, I appreciate your taking the time to respond. I guess I’d have to say, though, that the issue is a tad more than just “Sen. Reid got to sit ringside to watch a big prizefight because he’s a U.S. Senator.” That, I think you’d have to admit, doesn’t quite capture the fact that he was a U.S Senator pushing major legislation affecting the prizefighting industry and the agency that gave him those seats.

I really don’t think that the issue is just that Senators get perks that you and I don’t get, as you state in that link. It will be ever thus. But I do expect a Senator to avoid getting special perks from the industry he’s seeking to directly affect, or, at least, I think that’s the highest ethical road to take.

But, look, maybe you don’t agree, or maybe you still feel you’ve got it covered already. That’s fine, I’m not accusing you of any kind of malfeasance, really. It’s your blog, and like I said, I appreciate
that you even took time to respond. I always enjoy reading the TPM family and I suspect I always will. Take care.

And I respond …

I think in this case I’m ambivalent about whether there’s even an appearance issue. He went to events run by an agency he was involved in legislating on. But there’s little evidence he was influenced by it and in fact he stuck with a position they opposed. It’s not quite like Verizon giving someone seats to a Knicks game, in as much as he is seeing the sport at issue, how it’s run, etc. That said, it’s still a freebie. So I don’t disagree. I guess this instance seems close to de minimis to me. A very small matter. And in the context of the AP publishing really deceptive articles trying to inflate it into something it’s just not, I feel comfortable with the tone of our reporting.

That pretty much covers it for me.

Paul will be running down the stuff AP made up in response to our reporting a bit later today.

Late Update: TPM Reader LM adds his thoughts “I think one point missed is that it is not like Reid never took tickets/seats before this recent event. It seems he was a pretty avid fan prior to this and had accepted tickets, which he paid for, for a number of events when nothing was apparently pending. To him, and to the commission, this might have been just a continuation of that relationship with neither thinking twice about it (although Reid probaby should have thought of it and turned the seats down due to the then currently pending legislation). I would think worse of Reid had he never accepted and paid for any tickets from them prior to this, as then it would really stink of some sort of attempt at “influence peddling” which the Senator should have identified immediately. But what we have here appears to be nothing that nefarious.”

Former Bush administration official and Abramoff pal David Safavian will take the stand today at his trial.

Hmmm. I hear that folks at the Associated Press are starting ask some uncomfortable questions about John Solomon’s reporting on Harry Reid and his weirdly non-factual defense of it. This may not be over.

Paul Kiel has now posted his detailed reply to the AP’s response to TPMmuckraker’s critique of John Solomon’s reporting on Harry Reid.

David Safavian has just finished the direct examination portion of his testimony. Here’s our report.

Bad news for Scooter Libby: his trial will not be about Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, the war in Iraq, etc. It will be about whether he lied or not.