Crows argument is largely, "you did it too, hypocrite". Let's look at one assertion: "Rosenblum joined those same attorneys general in declaring that “climate change deniers” should be prosecuted for daring to disagree with liberal orthodoxy."
Crow is likely referring to the Exxon case "where it [is claimed] that executives executives were aware of the climate risks associated with carbon dioxide emissions in the 1980s, but funded research to cover up those risks and block solutions. " Crow is claiming the this investigating is over being a climate change denier (one legal tactic advanced) while prosecutors are claiming Exxon willfully misled the public by providing false information about climate change. The prosecution is under NY's "Martin Act, arguably the most potent securities-fraud statute in the country. ...the law forbids “any fraud, deception, concealment, suppression, [or] false pretense” that defrauds investors. 
Crow had room to detail his assertion. Was it misleading?