Holder: DOJ Used Discretion In Bullying Swartz, Press Lacked Discretion In Quoting Facts

from the convenient dept

Fresh off of explaining why the President can use drones to kill Americans on American soil, Attorney General Eric Holder apparently feels emboldened to say just about anything to justify ridiculous government actions. The latest? Defending the Aaron Swartz prosecution at a Congressional hearing called by Sen. John Cornyn, who has already expressed his concerns over the prosecution.

As you might expect, Holder stuck with the official line that what the DOJ did in the Swartz case was perfectly reasonable. The key to his argument, as we’ve been hearing from others who defended the government’s actions: the DOJ never intended to put Swartz in jail for 35 years. Also, apparently it was unfair of the media to use that 35 year number.

As I’ve talked to the people who have looked into this matter, these news reports about what he was actually facing is not consistent with what the interaction was between the government and Mr. Swartz. A plea offer was made to him of 3 months, before the indictment. This case could have been resolved with a plea of 3 months. After the indictment, an offer was made and he could plead and serve 4 months. Even after that, a plea offer was made, of a range of zero to 6 months, that he would be able to argue for a probationary sentence. The government would be able to argue for up to a period of 6 months. There was never any intention for him to go to jail for a period longer than 3, 4, potentially 5 month range.

These claims are not only misleading, but also total and complete bullshit. First off, if you never intended for him to spend more than 6 months in jail, and you’re upset at the “media” for using the 35 year number… why is it that the DOJ’s own press release on the arrest played up the 35 years:

AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million.

I’m sorry, but you don’t get to push that number around in your own damn press release and then whine and complain about how “unfair” it is that the media uses the number you gave them.

Separately, concerning the insistence that they never wanted him to spend more than 6 months in jail, they leave out the fact that this was only if Swartz agreed to plead guilty to multiple felonies. According to various reports, the DOJ, via Assistant US Attorney Steve Heymann made it clear that if Swartz did not agree to the plea, then he would seek somewhere around seven years in jail.

Cornyn goes on to ask about why the DOJ pursued the case even after the supposed “victim,” JSTOR said it didn’t want to have anything to do with the case. Cornyn specifically asks if it makes sense to threaten someone with 35 years in prison when the victim doesn’t even seem to feel harmed by the situation. Holder than tries to spin this around and, incredibly, argue that the fact that they didn’t pursue the full 35 years is an example of good prosecutorial discretion. Seriously.

Cornyn: The subscription service didn’t support the prosecution. Does it strike you as odd that the government would indict someone for crimes that would carry penalties of up to 35 years in prison and million dollar fines and then offer him a 3 or 4 month prison sentence?

Holder: Well I think that’s a good use of prosecutorial discretion. To look at the conduct, regardless of what the statutory maximums were, and to fashion a sentence that was consistent with what the nature of the conduct was. And I think what those prosecutors did in offering 3, 4, 0 to 6 was consistent with that conduct.

In other words, the only thing Holder is really saying here is that there was perfectly reasonable prosecutorial discretion if and only if Swartz agreed to a plea bargain in which he plead guilty to all felony charges against him. Basically, it’s a “good use of prosecutorial discretion” to bully someone into pleading guilty to a crime they don’t believe they’ve committed, and as long as they accept that, go to jail, and be okay with being labelled a felon for life, then there’s no problem.

How do we let these people into positions of power?

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Holder: DOJ Used Discretion In Bullying Swartz, Press Lacked Discretion In Quoting Facts”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
99 Comments
Bengie says:

Re: Re: Re:

I think the people not only need a way to vote people in, but a way to punish them.

Say someone gets elected to power and the people don’t like the results. We can vote that person to have all of their assets forfeited to charity and banned from holding a public position ever again.

That was an extreme example, but you get the point.

crashsuit (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

There are still quite a number of important differences between the parties, such as their opinions on gun regulation, reproductive rights, separation of church and state, LGBT rights, taxes on the rich, corporate rights, environmental protections, and clean energy. The Dems haven’t had such a great record on some important things lately, but I still wouldn’t be so hasty to lump both parties together.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

There are still quite a number of important differences between the parties

Yeah, but not so different on civil liberties, privacy, transparency (except with the current administration being maybe the least transparent ever), campaign finance reform, corruption, gerrymandering, concentration of executive power… did I miss any? And I’m not sure they’re so far apart on corporate rights either. What do you see either party doing to curtail corporate power?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

“Yeah, but not so different on civil liberties, privacy, transparency (except with the current administration being maybe the least transparent ever), campaign finance reform, corruption, gerrymandering, concentration of executive power… did I miss any?”

Yeah, the ones Republicans are responsible for trying to curtail…women’s reproductive rights, voting rights, and equal rights regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation.
Stuff like that, boy.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

The left/right axis is a poor axis for evaluating modern politicians. A much more useful axis is one from anarchist to totalitarian; with most modern politicians much too close to the totalitarian end for comfort. Unfortunately power attracts those on the big government to totalitarian end of the spectrum, and repels many on the libertarian to small government end. The latter group generally have to be dragged kicking and screaming into power.

PT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Right, who can forget Attorney General Ashcroft, appointed after losing an election to a dead man? If that expression of public disapproval couldn’t stop his appointment, nothing could. Oddly enough, Ashcroft appears to have had more integrity than his successor, Gonzalez. We’ll have to wait a while for history to assign Holder a level of odium in relation to those two, but it’s not looking good for him.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“So many people wonder why several Southern states wanted to secede from the current union…..”

If they do, who’s going to pay Social Security and Medicaid to their over-65s, Medicare, workman’s comp, and welfare to the mostly white-trash sorts who collect it in those states, and, of course, billions in subsidies to farmers?

gorehound (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The system has been broken for at least 4 Decades.I could see that the Future was going to suck and that was back in the 1970’s.
We are still going downhill and it takes years to end a good thing.Took rome a long time to die as well.All Empires have their Rise, Their Plateau, and Their Fall………….Everyone one of them have done this in the past.

PT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

We may have a problem breaking Britain’s speed record. The state of the US today is strangely reminiscent of the state of the British empire in 1900. Britain was at its peak economically, and militarily invincible. Less than twenty years later it was in full decline.

A lot of that reversal was due to the Boer War, which Britain entered out of pride and “won”, sort of, but at colossal expense, ending up looking a lot less invincible to challengers like Germany. Today the US has the Afghan war. Hmmm.

Not an Electronic Rodent (profile) says:

Re: Re:

How do we let these people into positions of power?

Good question. A better one would be How do we let these people STAY in power?

Easiest answer to either is Douglas Adams, who was completely correct when he said:

It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it…
anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

I think all the various international interpretations of “democracy” and “justice” are fundamentally flawed, having completely failed to evolve to cope with modern society and especially the advent of modern media

Ben (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Now that is a call to fix the distribution issues of the entertainment industry! Make Game of Thrones easily streamable! Give people the opportunity to watch it at their own pace and the way they want to! It isn’t just CwF — it is a civic duty!

Get that hurdle out of the way so we can watch this chow and then pay the appropriate amount of attention to the government!

Wally (profile) says:

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Accordingt ot the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which admittedly Aaron Swartz had actually violated (I’ll explain how in a bit), a first time offense on unauthorized access to non-government material and/or computer was a maximum of 5 years in a regular minimum security prison and a fine of $5,000.

Aaron Swartz had gained unauthorized access to MIT’s JSTR computer system in 2011 by patching via a wired connection. He was not authorized to do so. This explains the DOJ’s phtoto’s that they had found of him in 2011. Aaron Swartz’s first initial charges were actually dropped when the prosecutors over at the FBI had agreed that there was no crime committed by Swartz in 2008.

The DOJ has had its budget cut continually over the years and had quite a lot less funding than the FBI. This case against Swartz by the DOJ was nothing more than a money grab. From a psychological standpoint, while I cannot justify the reasoning the DOJ had, I can honestly tell you all that the DOJ acted out to not only to save face, but to get more funding. The DOJ gets money for each successful conviction after an arrest.

What the FBI offered Aaron Swartz was an Alford Plea at best.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Your comment makes absolutely no sense. MIT does not run JSTOR. The 2008 FBI investigation was for PACER, not JSTOR, which had not even happened yet. And no charges were dropped because there were none. Aaron was never even arrested let alone charged with anything for PACER.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

As someone else already pointed out, your comment makes no sense. It’s like you get the basic information and mash it together to spin it into something else entirely that to the uninformed might be factual and true, but isn’t.

Aaron Schwartz gained access to JSTOR via the access granted to it through MIT. Access which anyone on MIT’s open network automatically had.

He gained access via WiFi, which is open to anyone on the campus, with the campus itself being an open campus. There was nothing preventing him from gaining access either to the campus or the network itself.

The only thing, as has been repeatedly pointed out elsewhere, that he was definitely not authorized to do was access the network via an attached cable in the “closet” where he left his laptop. As such, the only thing he could have been charged with was trespassing for accessing said closet, which was not locked in any way.

Wally, I’ve seen numerous people question/challenge you on numerous points, and lately I’ve seen it happening more often. In this case, your misstating facts and conflating issues with something else entirely (DOJ budget cuts) and attempting to spin that into something else (that he was now being prosecuted not because he did something wrong, but because the DOJ needed the prosecution and potential conviction to increase their budget which had been drastically reduced). I’m sorry to say but that is pretty ridiculous and if you really want to earn some respect around here you need to either clarify your comment or admit that you’re in the wrong regarding almost everything you stated above and are trying to spin the facts to suit your own preconceived notions about what actually transpired and why.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

My last sentence usually carries the point of my messages. I do not mind being called out and proficiently corrected as the AC above you had, but your statement only rubs it the belief that you have a right to point out my mistakes (especially when others have already corrected me while you simultaneously miss my point) and then proceed to tell me how stupid I am or how I have to earn respect in the community your way. So for you pleasure I’ll highlight my point.

“From a psychological standpoint, while I cannot justify the reasoning the DOJ had, I can honestly tell you all that the DOJ acted out to not only to save face, but to get more funding . The DOJ gets money for each successful conviction after an arrest.”

Amazing how anyone smart enough to read could miss that

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

The DOJ gets money for each successful conviction after an arrest.”

What are you talking about here, Wally?

I can’t find anything that resembles “cash for convictions” in the DOJ’s Current Budget.

Please provide a citation to back up this assertion or otherwise I will have to regard it as you pulling random facts from your ass, again.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Gwiz, I wouldn’t know where to start in trying to cite where I got that bit of knowledge from. I have Asperger’s Syndrome and absorb information a lot quicker when it makes sense to me. Based on that alone I can only cite the fact that in my local school district in Ohio, it was a requirement to take a Social Studies Course based on how the US government works. Their budget, like any other gvt. agency, is tightly controlled. The reason we have budget cuts every fiscal year in the US is to try to trim the fat within the various government agencies. The less the agency has to do, the less they need extra funding. The more arrests the DOJ makes the more funding they can request to spend on resources to continue their “job” (the quotes are there because quite frankly, they aren’t).

So I believe it is safe to say that, like good little pundits, they have to look like they are doing something in order to get more money. Otherwise, they get their funding cut.

My assertion on what he was trying to access is only based on every single news story I have read on the internet, in the news paper and on TV news broadcasts….I am bound to mix things up a little. I can assure you that the assertions I made about the US Government (specifically the DOJ’s motives)are correct, even if I was wrong about how the case went down.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

So I believe it is safe to say that, like good little pundits, they have to look like they are doing something in order to get more money. Otherwise, they get their funding cut.

I’m not sure it’s safe to say that at all.

I am marginally aware of how government budget funding works. The most important thing is to make sure you spend (waste?) the current budget in order to justify an equal or greater amount in the next fiscal year.

I’ve just never much seen them tied to actual results of anything. The amount of successful convictions doesn’t really mean all that much as long as the budget allocation gets used up. At least that’s the way I understand it.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

“The most important thing is to make sure you spend (waste?) the current budget in order to justify an equal or greater amount in the next fiscal year.”

To be fare…it is a waste of money to wrongfully convict people. The DOJ has made a habit of it knowing full well that they will get extra funding. They had to use all those resources to make Aaron Swartz’s charges bigger than what they were. Maybe that was the goal outside of saving face.

“I’ve just never much seen them tied to actual results of anything.”

Oh dear God I think you nailed it. They still get funding no matter what that way. The conviction bit may just be the bonus like a drug bust for local law enforcement.

I think between the two of us, you and I might have accidentally stumbled upon the criminal motif of the DOJ.

I am glad we are working this out like adults 🙂

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

So I believe it is safe to say

So you’re speculating. That is perfectly fine, but look again at your original statement: “I can honestly tell you all that the DOJ acted out to not only to save face, but to get more funding.” That reads very much like a factual claim. This is the pattern I was talking about, of basically making stuff up and passing it off as fact.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

*
“I can honestly tell you all that the DOJ acted out to not only to save face, but to get more funding .”

Narrowed yet again for someone missing the point and ignoring the logic behind my speculation. Do I really have to refer you and that AC to my discussion with Gwiz? Yes? Oh well here goes links to each comment between Gwiz and I in order:

My response to the AC above me:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130306/13444122220/holder-doj-used-discretion-bullying-swartz-press-lacked-discretion-quoting-facts.shtml#c372

Gwiz’s response (likely asking for clarification on what I was thinking):
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130306/13444122220/holder-doj-used-discretion-bullying-swartz-press-lacked-discretion-quoting-facts.shtml#c471

My response to his comment:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130306/13444122220/holder-doj-used-discretion-bullying-swartz-press-lacked-discretion-quoting-facts.shtml#c549

Gwiz’s next response:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130306/13444122220/holder-doj-used-discretion-bullying-swartz-press-lacked-discretion-quoting-facts.shtml#c580

My response knowing full well Gwiz pointed something out that I missed (whether he/she liked it or not):

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130306/13444122220/holder-doj-used-discretion-bullying-swartz-press-lacked-discretion-quoting-facts.shtml#c656

That wasn’t so bad was it?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

I don’t think it’s that you lack social graces. I think it’s that you get defensive when questioned. nasch got the same thing from your comment as I did. You were taking a handful of facts, mixing in your opinion and then spinning that into something else entirely.

If you want to state your beliefs that’s fine, but don’t try and present them as fact. And if you have no citations for what you read just say so. Don’t use “I have Asberger’s” as an excuse for not being able to present evidence to backup your assertions (a.k.a. your opinion).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

“I don’t think it’s that you lack social graces. I think it’s that you get defensive when questioned. nasch got the same thing from your comment as I did. You were taking a handful of facts, mixing in your opinion and then spinning that into something else entirely.”

It should be noted that there may be a reason why he gets so defensive. He keeps getting harassed by trolls. Asperger’s Syndrome is sort of like Autism, once you loose their trust or completely countermand or betray their trust…it looses trust for those in the first place. Besides, why point out that he might not have Asperger’s Syndrome….he does…that doesn’t make him less human, just makes him think outside the box.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

“He gained access via WiFi, which is open to anyone on the campus, with the campus itself being an open campus. There was nothing preventing him from gaining access either to the campus or the network itself.”

I should point out that almost every story I’ve read about this simply stated that after he was denied wireless access, he patched in using an Ethernet cable.

First off, I never mentioned how Aaron Swartz might have gained connection in the first place. What makes you so certain you are correct about the claim you made that I quoted above? Could it be that since I might have gotten something wrong that you automatically “know” that I am wrong and then state the opposite, even if I had gotten the part where you thought I was wrong correct…isn’t that a form of trolling??….

Initially, I only mentioned what I thought he gained illegal access to. That is quite a blatant assertion you make there. As he did in fact violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in this time around, it should also be noted that the system he was trying to patch into (which was JSTR) was not at all a government computer and the works stored inside it were in fact public domain. Which, at maximum, is a 5 year prison sentence…for a Government computer system..in which case the system he tried to tap into wasn’t which would have lead to lesser charges including 6 months probation. All major college campuses have a JSTR server or a number of JSTR servers. That is how it operates. The Ohio State University alone has 3 itself for several different departments. It is not a government database.

Two ways Aaron Swartz could have used a laptop hidden in a box in a network closet or a server in a small room:

1. He patched in using a wired connection through a laptop …connected the laptop to a hub or switch or router or directly to the server via Ethernet Cable….and wirelessly connected to the laptop to download the information there in.

2. He set the Laptop to automatically backup the data he was looking for.

Video evidence shows the latter though I would not be surprised with the former either. Both of which fit in because they blocked his wireless MAC address (Setup number one) and he probably had to go back and retrieve the data after he got blocked from the wireless network.

I am not saying what he did was punishable by what the DOJ stacked up against him, but since the JSTR server he was trying to gain access to was that of a private institute, it was not at all agreeable as to what the DOJ did.

I’ve got news for you, the MPAA and RIAA sue people for hundred of thousands of dollars over backing up DVD’s and CD’s and strong said backups on File Storage Lockers…the DOJ’s overreach is partly the same shit. Their losing money with each false arrest and they don’t even realize that their own actions are the cause of their lack of funding. I have sounding reason to believe that it was not just a way to save face, but also a money grab for funding. That doesn’t make there actions humanly justifiable, or legally for that matter. It just makes them greedy sons of bitches who wine if they don’t get there way. We don’t need an attorney general who will do that.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

“…a first time offense on unauthorized access to non-government material and/or computer was a maximum of 5 years in a regular minimum security prison and a fine of $5,000.”

If the affected party (in this case, the univeristy) chooses to press charges.
The university declined to press charges, boy.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Which is why the charges concerning PACER were dropped by the FBI. Actually it was the FBI who was after him after the University pressed charges. While you tried showing that I failed you missed the fact that the reason why Aaron Swartz was not charged was because he gave the data he collected back.

As for your comment:
“”…a first time offense on unauthorized access to non-government material and/or computer was a maximum of 5 years in a regular minimum security prison and a fine of $5,000.”

If the affected party (in this case, the univeristy) chooses to press charges.
The university declined to press charges, boy.”

Seriously….”… ,boy,”???? I mean do you strive to be rude or something?

Anonymous Coward says:

Plea bargaining, coupled with a need to win mentality, has converted the prosecution into judge and jury. Remove plea bargaining from the prosecution, and allow judges to exercise discretion on a guilty plea when the matter is brought to court. As it is now, the ramping up ofcharges allows the DOJ to look more effective, by bullying people into a guilty plea.

DannyB (profile) says:

Re: Why not cover THIS, Mike:

First, there is a Submit Story button. Use it. Don’t cry (too much) if your story isn’t covered. There are lots of other sites on them intarwebs that cover this story. In fact, the link you supply is such a site, by definitinon.

Second, how is it tech related?

Out of the blue just hates it when copyright maximalists go too far and the public reacts with outrage (SOPA, Aaron Swartz, DMCA phone unlocking) or secret overreaching treaties fizzle and die instead of getting signed (ACTA, coming soon: TPP).

Anonymous Coward says:

and we all know that Holder would never lie, dont we? he has never lied before about anything to do with what he or a law enforcement agency did on behalf of the government, has he? after all, look at the position he holds! the man’s a lying arse hole. he deserves to get the same treatment as that which he or those doing the same/similar job dish out! he probably only got the job because of his ability to spread the bullshit so thick over so many things!!

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: How do we let these people into positions of power?

Yeah, because the republicans show much better restraint when it’s their turn at the wheel. /s

Look, I’ll make it simple, the whole ‘It’s the democrats fault!’ vs. ‘It’s the republicans fault!’ is nothing more than a distraction from the real problems.

When you’ve got people that have almost no accountability whatsoever in positions of great power, individuals, groups or companies with influence vastly greater than their numbers would suggest, an election system that is gamed to both require massive amounts of funding to have any chance of winning, setting up a system with politicians owing favors to whoever ‘donated’ the most to them, as well as set up to basically exclude any competition from the two main parties…

The list goes on, but suffice it to say claiming that it’s a single political party responsible for the troubles in the country is nothing more than useless finger pointing, ignoring the root cause of the problem, and instead trying to find a nice, easy to blame ‘bad guy’, rather than having to realize that it’s not even close to that simple.

dennis deems (profile) says:

Re: How do we let these people into positions of power?

It is very simple: the American electorate voted in the Democrats into power into both houses of Congress and the White House. Elections have consequences, people.

Because in Republican administrations, the Attorneys General have been paragons of incorruptibility?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashcroft#Political_issues
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales#Achievements_and_controversies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedtech_scandal

Anonymous Coward says:

In other words, the only thing Holder is really saying here is that there was perfectly reasonable prosecutorial discretion if and only if Swartz agreed to a plea bargain in which he plead guilty to all felony charges against him. Basically, it’s a “good use of prosecutorial discretion” to bully someone into pleading guilty to a crime they don’t believe they’ve committed, and as long as they accept that, go to jail, and be okay with being labelled a felon for life, then there’s no problem.

That’s the way it works. Plea bargain = certainty. Trial = risk. Why would anyone accept a plea bargain if they’d get the same penalty if they lost at trial?

If he really didn’t think he was guilty (conduct notwithstanding) he should have gone to trial. Again, no one but Swartz put himself in this position. After his PACER episode he should have known he was playing pi?ata with a hornet’s nest. But he carries forth his manifesto knowing the risk and bemoans the penalty he brought upon himself.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re:

If he really didn’t think he was guilty (conduct notwithstanding) he should have gone to trial

That was his plan.

But, in general, what you say isn’t precisely true. I think the average person, if falsely accused of a serious crime, would seriously consider accepting a plea bargain regardless of their innocence.

A trial is uncertain, as you say, and trials also have a nasty tendency to seriously harm a person’s life even if they are found not guilty in the end. This what allows the government to use plea bargains as a means of extorting people.

That plea bargains are allowed at all is one of the most visible indications that our justice system is seriously corrupt and untrustworthy.

Nick Dynice (profile) says:

It is important to note that Swartz wanted to fight the charges because he wanted to work in politics and be able to vote, as was noted in Quinn Norton’s harrowing and heartbreaking account of the entire saga. Read that and tell me Heymann used discretion, Holder. As Norton revealed, this man would go to unethical extremes to get a guilty plea.

NA Protector says:

Re: Re: If we are going to go that route...

Poor parenting you say. So, who are the parents of the people in the DoJ?

Your argument is based on that the system is perfect. If that were true, we wouldn’t be complaining at all.

This can be argued in another whay: What is the difference between a criminal killing someone and a vigilanty killing someone?

Your answer would be: None, they killed someone and that is illegal.

The better answer is: Motive.

Anonymous Coward says:

“Aaron asked me if I could think of anything nice he’d done, someone that could give an affidavit about some orphans he’d adopted or something. Apparently, “That sort of thing helps,” he said. The best thing I could think of off the top of my head was the crime they are accusing him of. That probably wouldn’t help. Instead, I told him, “I’ll think about it.””

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...