511
Laws only matter if you're not rich. (s3.eu-central-2.wasabisys.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M] to c/anticorporate@lemmy.giftedmc.com
34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/55039106

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

I've got plenty to do aside from have a detailed discussion.

She is an extreme example of the exact issues being brought up. She chose to make this a case, local prosecutors intended to just drop it. JSTOR and MIT were going to drop it. She historically has pushed extreme narratives around evidence. There are plenty of cases out there showcasing her behavior, you're welcome to look them up. You can even find a few more references in another comment I made here

My opinion remains the same - I dont know that it would have made a difference. She wanted to make a name for herself, the people never mattered to her.

You can look up motel caswell. How she went after teamsters for picketing top chef WITH RACKETEERING charges. How federal judges have pointed out this was prosecutorial discretion, and how she wanted to make a name for herself.

But I have zero interest in a back and forth over my opinion of Ortiz and her role in Swartz's death. All to gain higher status for her political goals, what actually happened be damned.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I never asked for a detailed discussion. You said, "Carmen Ortiz, the US AG overseeing, has arranged plea deals with leniency and then gone for harsher punishment with the judge." and I asked for details, and you went all the way to Timbuktu in the ensuing discussion trying to avoid giving an additional example beyond Donald Gonczy. I didn't make you do that.

    Of course the prosecution team fucked him. I'm not trying to stick up for them, they basically harassed him to death and fuck them for doing it. I just like the truth, and just because the "bad guys" you're presenting line up with who the bad guys are supposed to be, doesn't give you the right to be slanty about what happened. They offered him a six-month plea deal with flexibility for the judge to give less, but not more. That's what happened. Trying to lie about what happened because it lines up with how you want to perceive the outcome isn't doing Swartz any favors.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    At no point did I lie about what happened, you can fuck right off with that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You said:

    The prosecutor has a history of agreeing to leniency in plea deals then going for incredibly harsh penalties after.

    When I asked for details, you listed one case. She didn't go for incredibly harsh penalties in the case. She recommended what she agreed to recommend, but also criticized the defendant mercilessly in a statement, so much that the judge decided to go with something like 20% more than the recommended sentence. If there's only that one example (which, I'm going to assume after asking several times and getting subject-changes, is what there is), and it doesn't actually match what you said she "has a history of" in multiple plea deals, that's an inaccurate presentation of what happened to match your narrative. I.e. a lie. You might not like hearing that's what it is, and maybe I am unaware of more of the history that you just don't want to give me, but that's what it looks like to me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •