The report finds MIT was never involved in plea negotiations, and was never asked—by either the prosecution or the defense—to approve or disapprove any plea agreement.

It's neutrality position:

MIT’s neutrality position had two dimensions:

1. With regard to substance, MIT would make no statements, whether in support or in opposition, about the government’s decision to prosecute Aaron Swartz, the government’s decisions about charges in an indictment, or any possible plea bargain stances of the prosecution or the defense.

2. With regard to legal procedure, MIT would treat both federal law enforcement and Aaron Swartz’s defense team similarly for the purpose of providing documents and making employees available for interviews ...MIT took no stand on whether there should be prosecution. Similarly, while MIT was not seeking a felony charge, neither was it opposing one. And MIT took no position on any proposed plea bargains. MIT maintained this neutrality position in its response to requests to make public statements or to intercede with the prosecution on behalf of Aaron Swartz(citations omitted.) In each case, MIT was willing to say that it was not advocating prosecution or jail.

History of Plea Offers

According to the USAO, the earliest plea offer mad