The point that they gun for everyone is no defense. (That everyone gets shaken down for protection money does not mitigate the immorality of that act in individ

The point that they gun for everyone is no defense. (That everyone gets shaken down for protection money does not mitigate the immorality of that act in individual cases.) Such a defense would not only be an admission that the original criticisms against the office were 100% correct, but that the 'problem' of their unethical and immoral behavior is, in fact, much deeper than just Swartz. Which is, in fact, why Ortiz won't go anywhere near a claim that they treat everyone the way they treat Swartz, with similar disregard for the particulars of their case or any human sense of justice or proportionality. Attempting that argument would concede that the Swartz case is but today's face on the larger issue of proescutors run amok. [1] [1] A subject well covered in a blog post by Charles Pierce, that I previously linked to in a thread on this topic: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Case_Of_Aaron_Swartz http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Case_Of_Aaron_Swar... I'm well aware that they treat everyone this way. That's not a different issue. It is the issue.