SIMPLE JUSTICE: Did Loretta Lynch Dig Herself Into The Swartz Hole?

Had Lynch given a response like this to a judge, I would hope the judge would have ripped her a new one for being outrageously non-responsive. This was a politician’s answer, not a lawyer’s. I reject the proposition that she didn’t appreciate the question; she knew. She chose to string together all those words for the sole purpose of saying nothing. And nothing is exactly what she said. . . .

We may accept such circumvention from politicians, but the office of Attorney General demands a lawyer, and as such, confirmation should demand a lawyer’s response.

While the Aaron Swartz case, ending in his tragic suicide, was not, as the Hacktivists mistakenly thought, a singular attack on a beloved geek, it did offer an important example of the failure of the CFAA and the improper use of prosecutorial discretion in enforcing this absurdly out-dated mutt of a law.

Sen. Franken’s raising this question, raising the Aaron Swartz case, raising the CFAA which may be one of the most important criminal laws going forward in the development of a technological future, was critically important. Lynch’s response to it reflected something far more disturbing than the fact that she did her job in EDNY as one would typically expect her to. If she’s to be the Attorney General, then she should be expected to deal with the tough questions, the massive legal failures of outdated laws, the issues that arise in significant cases because they have come to represent the failure of law to reflect what the public expects and demands of it.

Lynch’s response tells us only one thing: she’s more interested in being a politician than a lawyer, and she’s perfectly willing to deflect responsibility with non-responsive responses to get there. While it may be a truism that the choices range from bad to worse when it comes to the appointment of an Attorney General, Lynch’s response moved her toward the deep and ugly hole of worse.

Ouch.