bttt...
Posted on 01/19/2003 1:15:49 AM PST by kattracks
ALBANY - Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter was secretly prosecuted in Albany County in 2001 after he was snared in an Internet sex sting operation, law enforcement sources told the Daily News.Ritter, who lives in the Albany suburb of Delmar, is now a high-profile critic of President Bush's war preparations.
He was arrested by Colonie Police in June 2001 on a misdemeanor charge after he allegedly had a sexual discussion on the Internet with an undercover investigator he thought was an underage girl, law enforcement sources disclosed on condition of anonymity.
The case was sealed, and Colonie officials declined to release the arrest records, explaining the matter was adjourned in local court in contemplation of dismissal.
The Schenectady Daily Gazette reported yesterday that Albany District Attorney Paul Clyne fired veteran Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Preiser last week for failing to inform him of the case against Ritter.
Clyne said that as a "sensitive" case, it should have been brought to his attention.
Ritter, who has made frequent appearances on network television after speaking to the Iraq National Assembly last year, could not be reached for comment.
Joe Mahoney
Nonsense. You are naive if you don't understand how incestuous the relations between government officials is. They will cover for other party members if asked, and given sufficient motivation.
And why would the CIA/FBI involve more people than necessary? Perhaps her boss could not be trusted to cooperate. Perhaps her boss has a mistress and blabs. Perhaps her boss has a drinking problem.
You don't realize that they they know all this, do you?
Why allow a loose cannon to go around attacking the administration? It is far more likely to me that someone wanted to discredit the administration, and therefore blackmailed Ritter into attacking Bush in the media.
Especially because Ritter was VERY anti-Clinton in his testimony before Biden.
BTW, most police departments from small cities on up have sex crimes units, with a cop or two in the department having had training (see, they have seminars for such things) in sex stings like the one Ritter got ensnared in. All it takes is a cop with a computer, a modem (although most departments have broadband these days), an AOL account(or other internet provider, but AOL is the most popular), a cute screen name and training. The reason the local cops kept jurisdiction is that the crime occurred in their jurisdiction and/or Ritter offered to meet the underaged person (the cop) in that jurisdiction. Had he gone outside that jurisdiction, he may have been charged in that jurisdiction.
Who appoints Federal judges?
I like logic problems.
Work hard to get better at them.
If so, then surely the FBI/CIA would know and would have known.
The makes the case even easier. All you have to do is set up a LOCAL sting (less press, easier to keep quiet for blackmail purposes).
Since you KNOW Ritter is going to be looking for sex online, entrapment is a piece of cake.
This scenario gives you both :
He's guilty.
The Government set him up as political blackmail.
Perfectly feasible scenario.
Right quote, wrong show. It was on Rowan & Martin's Laugh In and done by comedian Arte(sp?) Johnson. He would say it in a German accent wearing a Nazi uniform and generally holding a cigarette 'European-style'.
I'm not sure just what years Laugh In aired but it was sometime in the 70s. (Geez, I guess I just showed how old I am.)
Personally, I think you are overly cynical, and are becoming perilously close to sounding like Grimma Wormtongue..
I choose to believe that there are more good people than bad, that there are men who serve our nation with honor, and that many of those people are currently in Washington.
I suppose your way of looking at things means you are never disappointed, but it is such an unhappy way to go through life. Of course, it does allow you to feel superior to everyone, doesn't it?
You're kidding?!?!
Thanks for the correction. I didn't realize that it had started as early as the 60's. I'm gonna have to go google it. I loved that show.
Man, you're as naive as Marple.
"Ok - we'll let you off, and keep this quiet to not embarass your family. You're going to do what we say (or not) in exchange for this.
If you don't agree, this girl you allegedly were talking to will be 12 years old. If you do agree, she's 17. If you don't agree, we'll leak the records to the press."
They could make it a lot worse for him.
But hey, you're already screaming SET-UP and CONSPIRACY THEORY for your hero, aren't you?
Illogical. When have I claimed him my hero? (Don't act like Dane, et al. )
Explain how the evidence makes sense:
a LOCAL sting operation, and a local prosecution for an INTERNET chat.
The likelyhood of cathcing ANYONE locally on a chat room.
The cover up and sealing of the court case.
The concealment of the records ALONE is a conspiracy. Since court records don't automatically seal themselves, it takes a PERSON to do so. And she didn't ANNOUNCE that she was doing so, and required cooperation of a judge = Conspiracy.
So you're saying Ritter went online looking for sex with an underage girl IN HIS OWN TOWN? And cops just happened to be ready for him? And he happened to go to the one place on the internet where they happened to be? You do realize how many chat rooms there are on the Internet, right?
Spokane Washington has arrested more than a dozen perverts this last year. An undercover female vice officer poses as a 13 year old girl in chat rooms. When an adult comes on to her, and she lets him know that she is "13 years old", a meeting is set up at a local motel. When the pervert arrives expecting a 13 year old girl he is arrested on the spot and charged with solicitation of sex with a minor. Happens every week.
Sure there is. Produce evidence. Your speculation is just as much speculation as my speculation is.
Yet you credit your speculation as fact because it agrees with a news report. And further, you ignore evidence contrary to your assertions, and you ignore when your speculation has errors (Who appoints federal judges? - The reward could EASILY come from the Executive.)
I am trying to look for actual logical holes in a story. Critical thinking. This story doesn't look right.
All you're doing is trying to find a way to blame democrats for something. (Covering up the records) I am not interested in speculation/logic for the sake of supporting one partisan power over another. You are.
It is not illogical to conclude that one can go to a LOCAL chat room and engage is discourse with someone they think is 13 but is in fact a police officer who is part of a LOCAL sting operation.
Still in all, your amphetamine logic is humorous. Thanks for helping me to a good laugh this bright Sunday morning.
bttt...
Agreed. Established fact based on observational evidence.
Critical to this might be determining when he first took the "Iraq is not a threat" stance
Precisely. I have stated so.
But,if this thing was being held over his head,by whom do the known facts suggest this was done?
There are multiple possibilities:
Ritter is guilty, and unlucky, no frame up.
Ritter is innocent, and framed.
Ritter is guilty, and framed.
Now, to the state Ritters innocence/guilt frame/noframe, we have to add the goals of the government.
The most interesting piece of information is the sealing of the records.
If Ritter is guilty and unlucky, why seal the records?
If Ritter is innocent and framed, it could make sense to seal the records - blackmail for cooperations.
If Ritter is guilty and framed, it could make sense to seal the records. (Same as above).
Next we have to add the motivations of the actors.
What exactly (if he is being framed) do the government actors want him to do?
Do they want him to be silent?
Do they want him to criticize Bush?
Do they want him to pre Pro-Iraq invasion?
It's not nearly as simple as some would lay the case out.
The guilty, but framed aspect is particularly possible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.