Is Kerr being dismissive of the case, or is he stipulating things to make his two points (that prosecutors didn't stretch the CFAA or wire fraud statutes to make a case against Swartz, and that they weren't unusually vindictive with Swartz in negotiating a plea)? It was up to a jury, not Kerr, to decide actual guilt or innocence.
>that prosecutors didn't stretch the CFAA or wire fraud statutes to make a case against Swartz, and that they weren't unusually vindictive with Swartz in negotiating a plea
Yes, he was definitely doing that and he was right to. I am not saying he ought to play jury, just address some of the counterarguments.
