Even When He Claims To Be Right, He's Wrong.

Steve levels the "Gotcha" on Jay Stevens.

Jay Stevens of Left in the West thinks that he is vindicated by the Missoulian article about the Justice Department probe of Burns had been "chilled." When I saw the headline, I thought, could it be that I was wrong? But then I read the article and realized that it was the usual low quality of analysis that passes for "professional journalism" these days. The ruling that the article mentions relates to Rep. William Jefferson, D-LA who objected to the taking of documents from his office and home by the FBI. The Appeals Court ruled that under the Speech and Debate clause, those are protected and could not be seized.

And this Steve knew all along because of of his acute sense of law.  Only one problem.  He apparently didn't read the article well enough.

(Burns' Lawyer) Caccia did say that an article Friday in the Washington Post about the end of the Burns investigation summarized Justice's viewpoint on the matter. The article said that unlike others being prosecuted, Burns was not accused of accepting personal gifts from Abramoff.

It also noted that Justice lawyers said two weeks ago that an August decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could impede remaining aspects of the Abramoff investigation.

It appears the headline (and Steve's delusion of poor analysis) didn't come from Jay, was only reported by the Missoulian, and really came from an article touted by Conrad Burns' own lawyer.  Jay, in asking his hypothetical question, was precisely accurate.  So, completely ignoring the question of exactly what Jay Steven's was supposed to be 'vindicated' of,  it seems that Steve's real disagreement isn't with Jay, or the Missoulian, but with his own reading comprehension.

But then, I think we all knew this was going to happen.