Montana Headlines says the press convicted Conrad Burns in the last election. Maybe his memory is better than mine, but I don't recall that happening. Obviously, questions were raised about Burns' relationship with Abramoff, and, obviously, reporters explored those questions. That's their job.
But I can't recall reading anywhere in the press that Burns was guilty of a crime. I don't have time to do the research right now (I'm still delivering papers) but I did just enter "conrad burns abramoff convicted" into Google. Glancing through the results, the only sources I see that say Burns was guilty are all bloggers. Maybe Montana Headlines was reaching for some higher metaphorical truth -- somewhere up there beyond the realm of actual facts.
One of the first things reporters learn is not to say that people who haven't been convicted of a crime are guilty of a crime. Reporters who make that mistake get sued, and fired. I would be surprised if it happened here, but perhaps someone can show me where it did.
Montana Headlines also says that Burns has now been "cleared." I guess that's true, if "cleared" means he won't be indicted. But that doesn't mean Montana voters were wrong to decide that his behavior wasn't what they wanted to see in that high office.