The author's point is pretty clearly made: CFAA is too vague. If your interpretation was "yeah but what about the democrat appointed prosecutor?", then you're not wrong, what Ortiz did is definitely reprehensible and part of the problem. But you're missing the point: the problem is with the law as it was written under Reagan.
And to be honest, this kind of whataboutism feels motivated by partisanship more than anything else, which makes it unlikely that anyone will want to engage with you.
I understand your sentiment but it also feels like it comes from a position of sheltered privilege. As an extreme example, I'm reminded of most of Europe's general detachment during the rise of Nazism.
And to be honest, this kind of whataboutism feels motivated by partisanship more than anything else, which makes it unlikely that anyone will want to engage with you.