Not following the ACORN example: The district court tossed out their funding cut due to Bill of Attainder and the MA-AG cleared them, complaining that the unedited videos didn't support the claims illustrated in the edited videos.
If the shoes dropped they found their way quickly back on ACORN's feet.
I'm referring entirely to the sequencing of revelations in these respective scandals.
Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com first released one taken at the Baltimore office, followed by Washington, D.C. After the first or second, the head of ACORN said "Well, yes, but we threw them out of the office at A, B, New York City, etc."
Then Breitbart released the one in NYC. Lather, rinse, repeat.
(It's a bit misleading to say "the MA-AG cleared them", seeing as how that was the execrable (Amiraults) former MA-AG Scott Harshbarger, who was hired by ACORN for an "independent" inquiry.)
If the shoes dropped they found their way quickly back on ACORN's feet.