The hyperbole isn’t helping your argument here. Weev spent time brute-forcing collection of personal information which they discussed using for phishing, manipulating AT&T’s stock price, and potentially shorting the stock:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/01/goatse-security-trol...

They were too bumbling to actually do anything that serious but being too broke to run a stock scam isn’t exactly a great character testimonial, and all of that is well outside of professional ethical boundaries in the infosec community.

Its not hyperbole, you're just using misguided rhetoric of the prosecution. Weev has escaped to Ukraine in any case, those same bumbling idiots making your argument had their conviction dropped on appeal.

His appeal was decided on a technicality over where the case was brought:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/appeals-court-re...

It’s certainly possible that a court might have found his actions did not violate the relevant laws, but that was not the case in the first trial where he had full opportunity to challenge the prosecution’s claims. You might characterize that as “misguided rhetoric” but that should be your cue to ask whether it’s really true that you understand the situation better than his real legal team.

The "real" prosecuting legal team didn't even prosecute in the right venue. That's how far off the mark they were.

The main reason the Feds’ conviction rate is so high is they’re lazy cowards who only try cases that are extremely easy to convict. It’s not that they do nothing but there are shitty incentives in place to only put cases in front of judges that are certain.

Since they are using your money to do this work, is this not what a taxpayer would want? How long are you gonna keep that gig if you are a coin flippin kind of prosecutor, and when your boss runs for whatever office, he gets crucified for wasting taxpayer money on uncertain cases?