I'll give you that. Ortiz's statement is impersonal. But on the flipside, any acknowledgement of any impact that the prosecution may have had in Aaron's suicide could be instrumental in a suit, so her hands are somewhat tied.
Certainly, though, I'm not disputing that the default mode of many in law (when acting as an attorney) is CYA.
> But on the flipside, any acknowledgement of any impact that the prosecution may have had in Aaron's suicide could be instrumental in a suit, so her hands are somewhat tied.
I fully agree with that and noted exactly that earlier in another thread. And because that risk exists it would be a real breath of fresh air if she had accepted the possibility of responsibility. At a minimum she could have asked for an external party to investigate if this was all done properly. Categoric denial was exactly the wrong thing to do.
There is not the slightest chance that the U.S. government would be held liable for Swartz's death in any fashion. Prosecuting someone is not going to be held illegal in any U.S. court, ever.
Even if that zero chance somehow came true, Ms. Ortiz has absolute immunity from personal consequences, as she was acting as an agent for the government in the course of her employment.
She can write whatever she wants with absolutely zero fear of any adverse legal consequences against her, and you should not make excuses for her on that fictitious basis.
Certainly, though, I'm not disputing that the default mode of many in law (when acting as an attorney) is CYA.