U.S. Senator Questions Attorney General about Aaron Swartz

It's also worth pointing out that Texas (at least until recently) had some of the best open-records laws in the country. Cornyn argued that the Feds should emulate Texas in this regard -- during the Bush administration: http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2005/03/cornyn-foia-sh...

I'm proud to have him as a Senator.

Politicians play politics. News at 11

The Democrats with the firing of U.S. Attorneys by the Bush administration. Before that it was the Republicans over Elián González in the Clinton Administration.

Maybe once she comes back she can fight for those habeas corpus rights the US DOJ says gitmo prisoners don't have.

This is poisoning the well. There are some good questions in the posted letter. Unfortunately, we are unlikely to get good answers. Whatever their political stripes or past failings, at least someone is willing to press the issue instead of dropping it.

Of the asked questions, the ones with veiled accusations of retaliation demand an especially compelling answer. The DoJ should definitely be on the spot for their prior entanglements with Schwartz. Their conduct in this case could easily be construed as retaliatory (we couldn't get you then, so we'll slam you now).

The only question that seems silly to me is the last one. Of course a DoJ prosecutor is aware of the concept of prosecutorial discretion. To be fair, it's also a good counterpoint to the current silly "Congress made us be mean" line the prosecution is taking. It's just more of a statement than a question.

> Expect to see lots of superficial genuflection from Republicans towards the Swartz case; the GOP is in a constant low-grade conflict with the Democratic DoJ.

One of the nice things about an adversarial system is that you can benefit from the conduct of parties whose views don't align with your own.

I'm not saying we should act ignorant of the Senator's motivations here. We just shouldn't dismiss his concerns outright because of them.

The Entitled Party had complete control of the House and a 60 senator supermajority in the Senate for the first year of Obama's presidency, not to mention near complete control of the "news" media, Hollywood, television, the arts, the unions, etc, etc. If they wanted to introduce habeas rights for prisoners of war for the first time in US (or most any other country's) history, Obama et al could have done it anytime they wanted. State-run news media would have dutifully reported the wonderfulness of it all. Television programs and Hollywood movies would have exclaimed over the Nobel Peace Prize winner's greatness in their plot dialogue. They didn't do any of it.

Remember, it's Cornyn that's being "hyperpartisan", not you.

I'm not sure I understand why the "clown" scoring political points is so bad. Where in the rulebook does it state that doing the right thing must be completely devoid of agenda or beneficial byproducts?

Take, for example, volunteering. There are many who "volunteer" because they have to - whether it be for school, punishment, whatever. Do you think the volunteer organizations care why the volunteers are there as long as they work and do their jobs? No. They're just happy they've got people to help.

I think the same thing applies here. I never met Aaron nor do I know how he would react, but I know many folks who care deeply about this issue. They really only care that someone is asking the pointed questions and holding the DoJ accountable. They don't much care who it is or why he's doing it. If the end result is the same, what does it matter anyways?

Ortiz has been talked about as a candidate for senator. With Kerry moving to Sec of State, there's a senate seat in Mass. opening up. Scott Brown just lost the seat for the Republicans and will probably be running for the new opening to gain it back. By taking on Ortiz, Cornyn is removing a potentially strong competitor to Brown.

But really, who cares what games are going on in the background?

Ortiz shouldn't have a career in politics, and it's not going to be people in her own party that stop her.

Also, worth pointing out is how SOPA didn't really "die" until Paul Ryan and congressional Republicans abandoned it en masse. (and surprisingly, neither he nor they made scant, if any use of this fact for political purposes during the election)

As a self-identified center-left progressive, you can imagine this creates some strong cognitive dissonance for me, but the pragmatist in me can accept the strange bedfellows and opportunism for what it is. Superficial or not, is Mr. Cornyn acting in your interests or against them?

[1] http://www.justice.gov/dag/iptaskforce/ [2] http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/intellectualproperty [3] http://www.iprcenter.gov/

So what? Does it mean that he is "wrong" about everything else?

You are doing the same thing that Carmen Ortiz did to Aaron. You are attacking this guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Research_Public_Access_...

The act has not yet passed. It was re-proposed in 2010 and 2012, each time with increased support from a bi-partisan group of sponsors, in both Houses. Cornyn is still a sponsor.

My understanding is that Cornyn was instrumental in the passage of the 2008 NIH public access policy, which makes NIH-funded research available within 6 months of publication:

http://publicaccess.nih.gov/

This is by far the largest victory for open access to date. It would, however, be eclipsed by FRPAA, should it pass.

Given all this, I believe it is natural that Cornyn has an interest in the case, and questions.

Re: what Swartz would think, he wasn't exactly a fan of Obama's DOJ or drone strikes either.

A Senator involved in a wiretapping scandal?

You mean the one where the government has been illegally reading every email for a decade? Or the one where the Obama Administration has done everything in its power to evade constitutional protections on privacy? Or the one where the government is illegally storing as much private communication data as they can?

You're going to have to indict nearly every politician in DC, including the President, if that's your standard. And I think that you should (indict them all), but it's ridiculous to use that as some kind of example of terrible behavior: it's the sad status quo in Washington, where privacy violations are now 'legal' and illegal torture is now legal 'enhanced interrogation' etc etc etc etc.

It would be nice if progressives were up-in-arms about overreach in the Justice Department of a Democratic president, but it's not to be expected. Even if it's just republican point scoring, it's still someone holding the Justice department to account.

Here we have a Senator who is at least drawing attention to the situation, but that isn't welcome because he comes from the wrong side of the aisle?

I'm sure Cornyn is using this for political gain. Of course he is. But if you think there is anyone in Washington who isn't motivated by political gain then your being very naive.

If they don't at first, the internet will make sure they do.

I think she could definitely replace Martha Coakley as state Attorney General, at minimum (Coakley also did many odious things as a prosecutor and has never, to my knowledge, paid a political price for it). And a decade from now, long after Aaron has disappeared from the press cycle, she'll make a run for Senate or Governor and his prosecution will likely be nothing more than a subsection of her Wikipedia bio. These are the sad realities of politics in Massachusetts.