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.
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.
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.
At no point did I lie about what happened, you can fuck right off with that.
You said:
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.
You called me a liar, and at no point did I lie.
I dont have any interest in the kind of person that you are.
Goodbye.