You state: "You may post as many replies on this thread that "threat" doesn't mean what we think it means but the law, common sense, and understanding of English, proves you wrong." however...
From United States v. Kelner (1975) -
"... the threat on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution..."
The "threat" made by the prosecutor in Swartz's case wouldn't meet the conditions of unequivocal, unconditional, or immediate thereby rendering it not a threat. A layman may feel that they were threatened or that someone else would feel threatened by the statement in the press release, but the law does not consider it one.
I think you should read what that case was about (and that the US won and on appeal).
If I go on TV and make threats, then sure, the prosecution would have to meet that standard. If I meet you in dark alley with what you believe to be a gun (but aren't sure) and I make implied remarks about what might happen to you if you get caught wearing that watch, and maybe you can leave it with me and I'll be sure to return it to you when you're safe, then I'm going to jail. I don't have to say "Give me that watch or I will shoot you". If I imply that sleeping with me might get you that promotion, even without saying so, and I'm in a position to make it happen, then I'm guilty of sexual harassment. I don't have to say "If you fuck me I'll promote you".
Lets be clear. I'm not expecting Ortiz to be drawn up on extortion or racketeering charges. The examples were to demonstrate that a "true threat" does not require the defendant to say "I intend to X on date Y" for it to be taken as a threat or proof of intent.
I did read the case, and I do understand that the circumstances are different. The piece I wanted to draw attention to is that there are criterion for what constitutes a threat.
The examples you have provided in both of your posts include ominous characters and "dark alleys." More importantly, both of those situations involve an agent telling the other person they should take some action or there will be some consequence, implying that if the action is not taken, then there is a risk of the consequence. In the press release by the prosecutor, there was simply a statement of consequence, not a prescribed set of choices or a consequence if Swartz didn't take a certain action. There may have been threatening outside of the press release, but those facts are still murky and it is outside of the scope of what I am talking about.
If you are picking a bone with plea bargaining and how it is used to threaten people and coerce them into guilty pleas, then that is fine, I'm not arguing with you there - just with the perception that the prosecutor's statement was threatening.
From United States v. Kelner (1975) -
"... the threat on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution..."
The "threat" made by the prosecutor in Swartz's case wouldn't meet the conditions of unequivocal, unconditional, or immediate thereby rendering it not a threat. A layman may feel that they were threatened or that someone else would feel threatened by the statement in the press release, but the law does not consider it one.