Scott75

There is NOTHING in your Guardian link about the US opposing the impeachment of Yanukovych nor their independence from Russia after Maidan. Ofcourse the U.S. wouldn't oppose the impeachment of Yanukovych. There's strong evidence that they were integral in making it come to pass. From the Off Guardian I suspect you only skimmed through: ** FEBRUARY 7/2/2014 – A recorded phone call between [US Deputy Secretary of State] Nuland and [US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt] Pyatt is leaked to the press, famously dubbed the “f*ck the EU” call. In the conversation, dated January 28th, Nuland and Pyatt discuss at length the structure of the Ukrainian cabinet once Yanukovych is gone. This is still 25 days before Yanukovych was removed from power ** Clicking on the provided link above, one gets to the following BBC article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26079957 I'll quote that article in my following post.

Yeah, some others on this forum made this same stupid argument already. Once again, James Baker has ZERO authority to dictate any terms of any finalized agreement. For starters, it wasn't just U.S. Secretary of State James Baker that assured Gorbachev that the U.S. wouldn't take advantage of the Soviet Union's willingness to let go of east Germany. I gotta hand it to that NATO article of DUI posted though- through misdirection and distortion, they managed to really do a number on the truth. Quoting from it: ** The myth that there was a promise by Western leaders not to allow new members to join has been circulating for many years, and is actively used in disinformation campaigns by the Kremlin since the start of the Russian war against Ukraine. ** Source: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm The thing is, Mr. Baker never made a promise that NATO wouldn't allow new members to join NATO. He promised that they wouldn't allow new members if they were -east- of East Germany. The NATO article, building on this half truth, then goes on to say that Mr. Baker "floated" this idea, when he in fact -assured- Gorbachev that NATO wouldn't expand one in eastward. It's all there in the article I quoted and that you keep on snipping in its entirety. So, once more, from the top: ** Documents show Gorbachev was assured US wouldn't expand NATO into Central and Eastern Europe U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu). The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels. The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.” President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2] The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO.[3] ... Read entire article at National Security Archive ** Source: https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/documents-show-gorbachev-was-assured-us-wouldnt-ex

Ukraine gave up their nukes in return for the Budapest Memorandum security GUARANTEE from Russia AND the US. Putin RENEGED leaving the US to make good on that GUARANTEE IN WRITING. No, it was the US that reneged on it. Article 1 of the Budapest Memorandum: ** Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act).[7] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum The U.S. stopped respecting Ukraine's sovereignty when it supported the Euromaidan coup back in 2014: https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/

Myth: NATO promised Russia it would not enlarge after the Cold War FACT The myth that there was a promise by Western leaders not to allow new members to join has been circulating for many years, and is actively used in disinformation campaigns by the Kremlin since the start of the Russian war against Ukraine. While records show that in the initial stages of discussions about German reunification, US Secretary of State James Baker and his West German counterpart, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, floated such an idea with each other and with Soviet leaders in 1990, but diplomatic negotiations quickly moved on and the idea was dropped. [snip] source: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm I have to chuckle at your source. Surely you can see how NATO itself might be a little biased here? In any case, NATO can say whatever it likes- the truth is what I already quoted in my previous post. I'm guessing you never read it, so once more: ** Documents show Gorbachev was assured US wouldn't expand NATO into Central and Eastern Europe U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu). The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels. The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.” President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2] The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO.[3] ... Read entire article at National Security Archive ** Source: https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/documents-show-gorbachev-was-assured-us-wouldnt-ex

You seem to think that my question to you was whether or not there was a miscarriage of justice in Mr. Ritter's case. You are mistaken. My question was whether the the heart of our debate here is whether or not there -was- a miscarriage of justice. Obviously, we take different sides on this issue. Do you agree to this at least? "whether or not there was a miscarriage of justice in Mr. Ritter's case" vs "whether the the heart of our debate here is whether or not there -was- a miscarriage of justice. Did you honestly just try to say there is some kind of difference here? Yes, clearly we disagree here, as you are defending Ritters actions that led him to be guilty here, while I am not. Right, we clearly disagree on whether Mr Ritter's verdict was a miscarriage of justice. What I'm arguing is that this disagreement is a very important part of our debate. Do you disagree?

Again, all irrelevant. No, I think they're all relevant, though I think the third one is the most important for the actual trial. I imagine it may all have hinged on whether or not they believed Mr. Ritter's testimony that he never believed he was interacting with a minor.

Nope. The criminal charges he was found guilty of did not require him to have any premeditated intent to seek out a minor or to actually be with a minor. If this is your big argument, go find the actual law he was found guilty of and point out the problem with the charges. You actually make a very good point here. You're right, he ddn't have to have any premeditated intent to seek out a minor or to actually engage with a minor. Looking at his case vs. the other one I brought up, I think the main difference may have been whether the jury believed Mr. Ritter's testimony that he never believed he was interacting with a minor. I think it's possible that he was convicted because the jury didn't believe him. As you may recall, in the other case I brought up, where the court decided the other defendant was innocent, it's possible that they decided that he never believed the undercover officer was a minor. So it may all come down to what the jury believes. The other issue is whether undercover officers should be spending their time trying to lure men into engaging with people they are told are minors if said men have never shown an inclination to look for minors to begin with. There's a good article on the tragedy these convictions have on many men here: Convicted of Sex Crimes, but With No Victims | The New York Times

And yet, you keep on doing it. No, I've never done it. Try reading my whole post to understand why.

I am not confused here. Perhaps, but you didn't answer my question. Do you agree with what I said in the nested quote above? The answer was clearly implied in my response and all my others here. There was no miscarriage of justice here, that is your schtick, not mine. You seem to think that my question to you was whether or not there was a miscarriage of justice in Mr. Ritter's case. You are mistaken. My question was whether the the heart of our debate here is whether or not there -was- a miscarriage of justice. Obviously, we take different sides on this issue. Do you agree to this at least?

Horseshit. Pure horseshit. I agree with your sentiment, but I think we may be able to agree that your statement may be a conversation stopper to those who don't share your point of view :-p. I think that had you not been so frustrated with Hodad's reasoning, you might have said something like "NATO didn't purely seek defensive aid and alliance". I think most people know that the U.S. has been supporting anti-Russian elements in Ukraine for a while, with perhaps the most blatant example being the Euromaidan coup. During Trump's first term, the Trump Administration began giving Ukraine weapons. I'm not sure what Trump's reasoning was, but I suspect he might have been pressured into it with all the Russiagate BS. A good article on those times was written by a well known journalist shortly after Russia's war with Ukraine began. It can be seen here: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/18/siding-with-ukraines-far-right-us-sabotaged-zelenskys-peace-mandate/

Prove it. Provide some concrete evidence that the United States promised Gorbachev or Yeltsin they would not expand NATO to former Eastern Bloc countries.. I imagine you never clicked on the link embedded in Nationalist's quote. From said link: ** Documents show Gorbachev was assured US wouldn't expand NATO into Central and Eastern Europe U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu). The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels. The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.” President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2] The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO.[3] ... Read entire article at National Security Archive ** Source: https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/documents-show-gorbachev-was-assured-us-wouldnt-ex

Technically, it was put in writing, in the sense that it was recorded in writing: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early What people really mean when they say it wasn't put into writing was that it wasn't put into a written agreement. I see that Black Dog also pointed out that the deal was made with the Soviet Union, not with Russia in post #212. But we all know that Russia was the heart of the Soviet Union, and they also retained all the Soviet Union's nukes. I think a good analogy is if Alaska became independent and Russia said any deals with the U.S. were now moot because the U.S. just wasn't the same. You could do it, but I think in both cases, it's basically like punching a bear when it's wounded. I think we can can agree it's not the best idea. More importantly, the U.S. wouldn't take a break of any previous agreements lying down, whether formal or not. Why would anyone expect Russia to? This whole debacle in Ukraine is one that was predicted a decade ago. I got into this with DUI back in post #102. Quoting: ** It is not as if no one knew about the dangers. From Henry Kissinger to Zbigniew Brzezinski to George Kennan, experienced American statesmen have warned that even talking about Westernizing Ukraine through NATO might be fatal to peace. As John Mearsheimer cautioned us in September 2015, “the West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path, and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.” Mearsheimer’s prescient speech has received 21 million views on YouTube, almost half in the last few weeks, with Washington insiders and media poohbahs excoriating him as a Putin apologist, even as a petition campaign was launched to get Mearsheimer fired from the University of Chicago. We would have better off heeding his warning. Compounding the damage, Washington’s loud championing of the Ukrainian cause has recently been accompanied by contrary signs of weakness and appeasement, from the humiliating botch of the NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan last summer to President Biden’s hint that a “minor incursion” into Ukraine might not occasion a decisive response. Like Chamberlain veering between irrational extremes in 1938-1939, the West’s Ukraine policy has blatantly provoked Russian anxieties and offered Ukrainians the false promise of an American security umbrella, while doing nowhere near enough to actually deter Russia. Ukraine may not suffer as badly as Poland did from 1939 to 1945, but much of the country has already gotten wrecked. ** Source: https://americanmind.org/salvo/the-primrose-path-to-catastrophe/ ** West commended my post in his post #104. As to DUI, I'm still not sure if he ever read it. I suspect he likes short posts better.

Just listen to what Putin SAID: Putin: Soviet collapse a 'genuine tragedy' NBC News https://www.nbcnews.com › wbna7632057 Apr 25, 2005 — Russian President Vladimir Putin told the nation Monday that the collapse of the Soviet empire “was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” Putin rues Soviet collapse as demise of 'historical Russia' Reuters https://www.reuters.com › world › europe › putin-rues-... Dec 12, 2021 — President Vladimir Putin has lamented the collapse of the Soviet Union three decades ago as the demise of what he called "historical Russia". Did Vladimir Putin call the breakup of the USSR ... PolitiFact https://www.politifact.com › mar › john-bolton › did-vl... Mar 6, 2014 — Vladimir Putin once said, "The breakup of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century." I've listened to a lot of what Putin has said since it started its military operation in Ukraine. But I'll humour you and quote from the first article in your list: ** Russian President Vladimir Putin told the nation Monday that the collapse of the Soviet empire “was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century” and had fostered separatist movements inside Russia. In his annual state of the nation address to parliament and the country’s top political leaders, Putin said the Soviet collapse also was a tragedy for Russians. “First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” Putin said. “As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory. “The epidemic of collapse has spilled over to Russia itself,” he said, referring to separatist movements such as those in Chechnya. Putin’s statements were some of his strongest language to date about the Soviet collapse and come a month before the nation celebrates the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe, a conflict Russians call the “Great Patriotic War.” ** Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7632057 Now, where in that text does it support your contention that Putin "aims to dominate the world"? Now here's something he -has- said, and it certainly applies to much of what became eastern Ukraine in 1991: ** “It was a disintegration of historical Russia under the name of the Soviet Union,” Putin said of the 1991 breakup, in comments aired on Sunday as part of a documentary film called “Russia. New History,” the RIA state news agency reported. “We turned into a completely different country. And what had been built up over 1,000 years was largely lost,” said Putin, saying 25 million Russian people in newly independent countries suddenly found themselves cut off from Russia, part of what he called “a major humanitarian tragedy.” ** Source: https://nationalpost.com/news/world/putin-laments-end-of-historical-russia-decrying-hardships-that-resulted-after-fall-of-u-s-s-r Most prominent in regards to Ukraine was Crimea, which had been part of Russia a lot longer than it had been part of Ukraine. Canadian American journalist Eva Bartlett wrote a good article on this reality and the feelings of Crimeans she spoke to when she visited Crimea back in 2019: https://www.mintpressnews.com/return-russia-crimea-story-referendum-lives-since/262247/

In summation, you completely ignored my comment and tried to obfuscate. Not only did I not ignore your comment, I first asked you to clarify what you meant, and when you refused to do so, I tried to -guess- what you meant, whereupon you somehow jumped to the conclusion that this meant I was trying to "obfuscate to defender Ritter". I suggest you consider that you are the one who is trying to obfuscate the fact that Mr. Ritter experienced a miscarriage of justice and has been unfairly maligned ever since.

I am not confused here. Perhaps, but you didn't answer my question. Do you agree with what I said in the nested quote above?

Guess what: these tactics are still used today, still work today [snip] This is true. Fortunately, juries are finally exonerating some of the victims of these stings. Here's a good website on this issue: https://ladyjusticemyth.blog/ Quoting from the website: ** Illegal Police ICAC proactive stings circumvent laws and steal taxpayer money, by manipulating our emotional, instinctual fear of child abuse. Police run ILLEGAL proactive stings where they are supposed to be looking for pedophiles. Yet each prosecution nets the state a lot of money. So instead of following the rules in the contract signed by each police division of ICAC (Internet Crimes Against Children), they break the rules creating ‘criminals’ out of law abiding citizens. You see, these proactive stings are NOT ALLOWED to post to consenting adult only websites, but they do. Why? because unsuspecting men, looking for companionship in the right places would have no reason to doubt an adult was really corresponding with them. Additionally, police will send out photos of the ‘minor’ using an actual photo of an adult police officer. If that’s not enough to make you think you are talking with a consenting adult, when you get to the agreed location, the adult from the photo will come out to greet you. When you enter the home you are ARRESTED FOR ATTEMPTED RAPE OF A CHILD! You might not believe this is true, that police would be so dishonest. My son didn’t believe it either and he is about to be sentenced to six years to life. BELIEVE IT. Please read my blog as I unfurl this cultural atrocity. Having first hand knowledge I will expose these truths in the hope of educating people and creating change. At some point I will want to start a petition with our concerns to pass to my local representatives. I hope you will continue to read, forward to friends and family, and eventually assist me in my outcry of injustice. Thank you for your interest. **

Well, as I pointed out before, your attempts to relitigate this case here will not work. For the audience, I've already pointed out to User that I have never tried to relitigate this case multiple times. I first did so in post #50. He keeps on ignoring the material in that post though, so once more: ** Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of relitigating. I can help with that: ** verb transitive, intransitive To litigate again; to sue or pursue legal remedy a second or further time. ** Source: https://www.wordnik.com/words/relitigate As I've already stated, I'm not a lawyer and I'm certainly not pursuing "legal remedy a second or further time". I'm just pointing out the facts in regards to some of Mr. Ritter's actions. **

You spamming the thread is not an argument. There's a difference between spamming a thread and providing relevant information that one party is reluctant to look at.

Which has nothing to do with this. On the contrary, it's an incredibly important point, as it establishes that just because Mr. Ritter was found guilty by a jury doesn't mean that he was actually guilty. With that established, the next step is to point out a similar case wherein the defendant was found to be innocent. I've done that in previous posts.

He was found guilty already. Yes, he was found guilty in a court of law. You apparently believe that the trial was fair. I've pointed to evidence strongly suggesting it wasn't. I think the primary evidence that his trial was a miscarriage of justice can be broken down into 3 parts: 1- There is no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever acted sexually inapropriately with a minor 2- There is no evidence that Mr. Ritter was looking to do so. 3- There is no solid evidence that he even believed he was doing so at any point in time.

Unlike Ritter though, what did he do differently? Nothing that mattered. As I said, his main benefit was that his case was tried 7 years after Mr. Ritter's. I think times have simply changed. That and he probably got a more reasonable jury and judge.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "them"? And what minors are you referring to? No. My point was made. Your point seems to be assuming that Mr. Ritter wanted to engage in sex acts with minors. If this is the case, do you have any evidence for this assertion? Your point seems to be to obfuscate to defend Ritter. No, I'm simply trying to understand what your point (or points) were. Let's get back to where this line of conversation started, with the assertion you made back in post #106. Quoting: ** Good people do not go to chat rooms wanting to engage in sex acts with them and then completely disregard their being minors when they do. ** I responded to this assertion of yours in post #108 with the following: ** Could you elaborate on what you mean by "them"? And what minors are you referring to? ** Your responded with this in post #111: ** No. My point was made. ** Still not sure what point (or points) you were trying to make, I tried a different tack in my response in post #118: ** Your point seems to be assuming that Mr. Ritter wanted to engage in sex acts with minors. If this is the case, do you have any evidence for this assertion? ** Whereupon we finally get to the statement you made in post #120: ** Your point seems to be to obfuscate to defend Ritter. ** So in summation, when I tried to get clarification for what you meant in post #106 in my post #108, you refused to do so, supposedly because your "point was made" (to who?) and then, when I continued to try to understand your internal logic for your assertion in post #118, you accuse -me- of obfuscation?

I don't respond to spam. The first time you responded to the last 2 lines in post #110, (in post #111), your response was a bit different. To whit: ** I am still waiting for your argument. Stop spamming. ** I responded in post #113 that I didn't know what "argument" you were waiting for, but that far from "spamming", the points you were skipping over were the heart of my actual arguments that Scott Ritter has been unfairly maligned. You skipped over quoting that and simply quoted something I'd originally written way back in post #83. That being the following: ** I -am- pointing out that I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever had a sexual interaction with a minor as an adult. If you have found evidence of this nature, by all means, present it. ** Your response to these 2 sentences was simply "Irrelevant" in post #114, whereupon I said the following in post #122: ** No, this point is at the very heart of this debate. Note the date of what you're responding to. We've been going around and around on this point for 4 days now. To date, I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter engaged in anything other than a little sexual role play with some consenting adults. Let me know if you ever find any evidence that demonstrates that Mr. Ritter actually engaged in any innapropriate behaviour with a minor. ** As you frequently do, in your response in post #123, you snipped out everything but the first sentence from my post above and simply said: At this point, I think it's clear that we have to try to come to an agreement as to what, precisely, this debate is about. You have certainly spent a great deal of time focusing on the fact that Mr. Ritter was found guilty in 2009 of various charges. If this is so important to you, then clearly, whether the verdict was fair or a miscarriage of justice should be of immense importance. Do you agree on this at least?

Yes, this is where I keep asking you to make the argument as to how Ritter's case has anything to do with the one you keep spamming when there are clear and obvious differences here. There are some differences, but I'd say there is only one that really mattered. Both Mr. Ritter and Mr. Kim testified that they never believed that the undercover officers that they interacted with were minors. In both cases, the undercover officers were indeed not minors. The clear difference is that Mr. Ritter was found guilty of various inane charges, such as "unlawful contact with a minor", despite no evidence ever being presented that he did, in fact, have any such contact with a minor. So, why was Mr. Ritter found guilty, while Mr. Kim was found to be innocent? I think the crucial thing here may well be the time of the verdicts. Mr. Ritter's case was decided in 2011, while Mr. Kim's case was decided in 2018. What a difference 7 years can make sometimes. The story is here if you're interested: https://floridaactioncommittee.org/defendant-wins-in-federal-internet-sting-prosecution/

Irrelevant. No, this point is at the very heart of this debate. Note the date of what you're responding to. We've been going around and around on this point for 4 days now. To date, I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter engaged in anything other than a little sexual role play with some consenting adults. Let me know if you ever find any evidence that demonstrates that Mr. Ritter actually engaged in any innapropriate behaviour with a minor.