PolitiFact's use of experts

I'll keep this PolitiFact criticism short and sweet, using Monday's PolitiFact Florida rating of Sen. Marco Rubio as an example of a recurrent phenomenon.

PolitiFact:

We wondered where [Rubio] got his $800 billion tax total, as well as the validity of the idea that the law does not "discriminate between rich and poor." So we decided to check it out.

Time for some experts.  PolitiFact:

We consulted several experts, who disagreed on the best way to account for the law’s tax increases.

A couple experts said Rubio’s $800 billion figure is valid, even if it is out of date and does not account for billions in tax credits.

The $800 billion figure is valid according to two experts.  Therefore it makes perfect sense for PolitiFact to rule the statement "False."

PolitiFact arbitrarily dismissed the testimony of two experts.  Now that's fact checking.

What does expert testimony mean if one obtains varying testimony and then picks one view while dismissing the others?  Not much.  It's just another layer of bias--editorial bias--that helps show that PolitiFact can't be trusted.