31-12-2010, 08:21 PM
My emphasis in bold:
If the allegations are true, Ritter is a sleazeball.
However, the dates suggest that we are seeing deep state machinations here.
Assuming for the purposes of this hypothesis that the allegations are not totally fabricated, then it seems that Ritter was known to be a sleazeball by his masters, and whilst he was useful (eg in providing "expert" support for the claim that Saddam had WMD) he was a protected sleazeball.
Indeed, his sleaziness doubtless provided his masters with additional blackmail leverage.
It can be hypothesized that, back in 2001, his masters put pressure on a local prosecutor to free Ritter (effectively) - presumably arguing that it was for "the greater good". The decision by the prosecutor was so demonstrably poor that she was later fired.
Now of course, having publicly denounced the Saddam-was-a-threat-to-civilization-as-we-know-it case as patent rubbish, Ritter is no longer protected.
Such is the way of the world....
Quote:In the spring of 2001, Colonie police say Ritter twice showed up for meetings with what he believed would be teenage girls. The first time, Ritter was questioned but let go by police who had been posing as a curious 14-year-old girl.
Two months later, Ritter turned up at a fast-food restaurant, where police said they had set up a sexual meeting while posing as a 15-year-old girl. Ritter was arrested on a misdemeanor charge of soliciting a minor. Despite his national prominence, Ritter's arrest was not publicly announced.
Several months later an Albany County prosecutor agreed to classify Ritter's case as an "Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal" (ACOD), an outcome in New York state's criminal law in which a prosecutor agrees to excuse a defendant's behavior in exchange for six months to one year of good behavior. After that time, the case is legally dismissed and the records are sealed from the public as though the incident never occurred. With an ACOD, a defendant becomes legally allowed to deny the arrest occurred, except in special circumstances, such as applying for a job as a police officer or a teacher.
In Ritter's case, his prosecutor was later fired for her decision.
If the allegations are true, Ritter is a sleazeball.
However, the dates suggest that we are seeing deep state machinations here.
Assuming for the purposes of this hypothesis that the allegations are not totally fabricated, then it seems that Ritter was known to be a sleazeball by his masters, and whilst he was useful (eg in providing "expert" support for the claim that Saddam had WMD) he was a protected sleazeball.
Indeed, his sleaziness doubtless provided his masters with additional blackmail leverage.
It can be hypothesized that, back in 2001, his masters put pressure on a local prosecutor to free Ritter (effectively) - presumably arguing that it was for "the greater good". The decision by the prosecutor was so demonstrably poor that she was later fired.
Now of course, having publicly denounced the Saddam-was-a-threat-to-civilization-as-we-know-it case as patent rubbish, Ritter is no longer protected.
Such is the way of the world....
"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War."
Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon
"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta."
The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War."
Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon
"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta."
The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war