Have we endured so many public integrity trials in Mississippi that we've lost our perspective? Consider John Reeves' opening statement, given at the beginning of the defense case in United States v. Melton. According to the Clarion-Ledger's story, Reeves said:
"A violation of the constitution, by itself, is not a crime."
The Clarion-Ledger story is here: http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20090218/NEWS/902180353/1002/news01
Is that really such a great argument? It's a head-spinner for me to hear the spokesman for a public official admitting that the official violated the Constitution but without "bad purpose." An intent to violate the Constitution IS "bad purpose." The ends, however expedient or worthy, don't justify the means. And in this case, it's not at all clear that the ends were either. Looks like a public official on a power trip to me.