Scott75

Yet more unsubstantiated assertions, you really make a lot of those. Yes, like the assertion Scott Ritter is a paedophile. Yes, that would indeed be another of your unsubstantiated assertions. Give it up, @phoenyx75 Why, because I point out the fact that you make a lot of unsubstantiated assertions? If you'd like to provide evidence that Tucker Carlson "has definitely proven to have ties to Russian oligarchs", by all means do so. As to your unsubstantiated assertions on Mr. Ritter, I'll deal with those in the thread I've made for that purpose.

I most definitely would not. You're clearly someone who's very quick to jump to false conclusions.

Yet more unsubstantiated assertions, you really make a lot of those. Yes, like the assertion Scott Ritter is a paedophile. Yes, that would indeed be another of your unsubstantiated assertions.

Ah yes....FOX News. The same network that ran with Tucker Carlson for years, who has definitely proven to have ties to Russian oligarchs. Yet more unsubstantiated assertions, you really make a lot of those. Not forced, Dominion and Fox News agreed to a settlement out of court: https://apnews.com/article/fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-trial-trump-2020-0ac71f75acfacc52ea80b3e747fb0afe There were some vulnerabilities in Dominion voting machines, but they were apparently fixed: https://news.engin.umich.edu/2024/10/four-election-vulnerabilities-uncovered-by-a-michigan-engineer/ In any case, if we were talking about certain Fox News host's claims on Domininion Voting Systems, that'd be one thing, but the subject here is the Russiagate hoax, of which there is plenty of evidence: https://nypost.com/2022/02/20/the-absurd-russiagate-pulitzer-of-the-ny-times-and-washington-post/ Not at all. He's done great work when it comes to things like exposing the terrible dangers that vaccines pose, especially to children. He help found a great website that covers this and other health issues called Children's Health Defense that I have relied on extensively when it comes to these subjects. But to get back to the subject of the Ukraine war, here's a good article that gets into his fairly well informed views on the subject: RFK Jr. says US role in war ‘terrible for the Ukrainian people’ | The Hill Quoting from the above article: ** Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Wednesday said the United States’ role in the Russia-Ukraine war is “terrible for the Ukrainian people.” “We have neglected many, many opportunities to settle this war peacefully,” Kennedy said in a live town hall event with NewsNation, moderated by Elizabeth Vargas. “I think the way that we have conducted the war is bad … is terrible for the Ukrainian people.” The 2024 presidential candidate said he doesn’t know exactly what a negotiated peace would look like, or whether it would mean ceding Ukrainian territory to Russia. But he blamed decades of U.S. and NATO policy toward Ukraine and Russia for creating conditions for the war. “We’ve turned that nation into a proxy war between — a pawn in a proxy war between Russia and the United States,” Kennedy said. “We were told this was a humanitarian exercise. … But when President Biden was asked why are we over there, he said for regime change of [Russian President] Vladimir Putin,” Kennedy said. **

Agreed on the hope that Trump can brake this momentum into madness. I'm generally not a fan of Trump, but when it comes to Ukraine, he's always seemed to be far wiser than his democrat opponents. I -am- a fan of RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard, hopefully he can get them in his cabinet. I'm not sure about Gaetz, but I think he may be good, I just don't know enough about him yet. That tends to happen, when Putin is pulling on Trump's puppet strings. Ah, more of the Russiagate canard. Matt Taibi covered this zombie "Russiagate" back in September in a Fox News clip: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/09/05/taibbi_this_russiagate_story_will_not_die_every_time_it_turns_out_to_be_less_than_meets_the_eye_or_a_hoax.html The Neocons and Neoliberals just use this stuff to peddle their wars, unfortunately: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/18/siding-with-ukraines-far-right-us-sabotaged-zelenskys-peace-mandate/ I think they all have their flaws, but I also think their strengths more then make up for them. You do have to look past the mainstream media's take on them though, and I suspect that this is simply beyond your capabilities.

Your quoted text lacks certain crucial details. For one, the type of chat room Mr. Ritter and undercover officer Venneman were in. Fortunately, Matt Bai from the New York Times clarifies: ** Venneman entered a Yahoo chat room, where the minimum legal age is supposed be 18, and passed himself off as a teenager named Emily. ** Source: Scott Ritter’s Other War | The New York Times Had Mr. Ritter truly been looking to sext a minor, it doesn't make sense that he'd be in an adult chat room where minors aren't supposed to be. Furthermore, Venneman's "Emily" profile stated that she was 24. What relevance does this detail have to anything? Well, if a person says they're 24 and then says they're 15, I can understand why Mr. Ritter might believe they're lying about being 15, especially considering the chat room was only supposed to have people who were 18+ in it. First of all, I'm not relitigating the case. I'm not a lawyer. We're having a debate on what Mr. Ritter did and/or didn't do. If you think that's "disgusting", by all means explain why. If true, that text clearly left out the rather important detail that that same officer presented themselves as 24 years old on their fake profile. Good that I'm here to point out where you get it wrong or who knows where you'd end up. True. It's a good thing Mr. Ritter didn't take advantage of any minors.

Yeah, you stated he was convicted for sexting with an undercover officer. That's right. You're mistaken, that's -exactly- why he was convicted. That same undercover officer pretending to be a minor named "Emily" stated in his profile that he was 24 years old. No, I keep on pointing out what actually happened. But I know the mainstream media is telling you to believe something else, so if that's what you gotta do, I guess that's what you gotta do.

It's been well known that Scott Ritter has been parroting Russian propaganda for years. I'd say that it's been well known that Mr. Ritter has resisted parroting western mainstream propaganda for years. You, on the other hand...

It's a real shame that the justice who gave Mr. Ritter that designation did that, especially considering the fact that she had no good reason to. Matt Bai, writing for the New York Times, explains: ** After hearing testimony from dueling psychologists, Judge Sibum decided that Ritter met the state standard for being classified as a violent predator — despite having never displayed a sexually violent tendency. This meant that he would have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. ** Full article: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/magazine/scott-ritter.html

It's sad how little you know of this recent raid on Mr. Ritter's family home. For anyone who's actually interested in why the U.S. Justice Department raided Mr. Ritter's home, I highly recommend the following article from Mr. Ritter himself: https://consortiumnews.com/2024/08/16/scott-ritter-a-farewell-to-truth/ Quoting from his article: ** SCOTT RITTER: A Farewell to Truth August 16, 2024 The F.B.I. agents did more than seize my personal electronics when they searched my home on Aug. 7, the author writes. They stole the truth. [snip] As wielded by me, my UNSCOM archive literally fulfilled its duty of helping me “bare the secrets of the government and inform the people” to prevent the government from “deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.” By seizing this archive, the F.B.I. literally engaged in an act of censorship. In seizing my archive, the F.B.I. invoked the notion of “national security.” But, as Justice Black noted, There can be no doubt that my UNSCOM archive did more than any other source of documented information to apprise the American people about the lies of their government when it came to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. And now it is gone. ** Full article: https://consortiumnews.com/2024/08/16/scott-ritter-a-farewell-to-truth/

Well you are failing to convince anyone that Scott Ritter is not a sex offender. If true, that's a real shame, considering the fact there's no evidence that he is one. I agree that he was arrested in sting operations, but as I've pointed out many times, there's no indication that he had "intentions of having sex with underage girls". You make it sound like no one's ever been wrongfully convicted. As I've pointed out before, the government actually has a website dedicated to reducing the amount of wrongful convictions. For anyone who hasn't seen it, it's here: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/justice-system-reform/wrongful-convictions

Yet another unsubstantiated assertion -.- Yes, because as we know, all persons convicted of crimes by a judge and jury, are 100% innocent of their crimes....*rolls eyes* Your assertion was that "Scott Ritter is an unrepentant sexual predator", an assertion you have yet to provide any evidence for.

No, it's you that's ignorant of the fact that there's been no evidence that he was ever arrested for "soliciting sex from underage girls". Here's what he was arrested for the first and second times: ** Ritter was the subject of two law enforcement sting operations in 2001.[44] He was charged in June 2001 with trying to set up a meeting with an undercover police officer posing as a 16-year-old girl.[45][46] [snip] Ritter was arrested again in November 2009[47] over communications with a police decoy he met on an Internet chat site. Police said that he exposed himself, via a web camera, after the officer repeatedly identified himself as a 15-year-old girl.[5] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter Even those reasons for his arrests ring false, as no minor was ever involved.

People often confuse terms like being found guilty and actual guilt. I know that Mr. Ritter expressed remorse for what he did, but it also seems that he doesn't believe he should have been sent to prison for it, especially since, as he himself put it, no one was harmed but himself and his family, and I agree with him on that count. Another important point- being found guilty doesn't mean one actually -is- guilty of the alleged offense. There's actually an entire government website dedicated to wrongful convictions: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/justice-system-reform/wrongful-convictions

You've made a few unsubstantiated and erroneous assertions already, I suspect this is just one more. But if you actually have -evidence- for your assertion, by all means present it. I do not think you understand the law. Ritter was found guilty in a court of law. Once one is convicted of a crime such as soliciting sex from (what Ritter thought were) underage girls, you cannot claim it was unsubstantiated. I'm not claiming the claims leading to his conviction didn't have some evidence behind them, but it's important to understand what he was -really- convicted of, which is simply of engaging in a sexual interaction with an adult undercover officer -pretending- to be a minor. What I -am- claiming is that -your- claim that Mr. Ritter was "trying to meet up with underage girls for sex" was unsubstantiated. Here's some things I imagine you didn't know: 1- Undercover cop Venneman's "Emily" profile stated that her age was 24 years of age in his online profile. Furthermore, "Emily" met Mr. Ritter in an -adult- chat room. 2- I've seen absolutely no evidence that Mr. Ritter has ever gone to a chat room that was for people below the age of 18. Both of these facts strongly suggest that Mr. Ritter was never looking to engage in any sexual way with minors and that, instead, he was lured by Mr. Venneman into breaking the law. Even then, he -still- didn't do anything with a minor, as Mr. Venneman certaily wasn't a minor.

Putin, and Russia in general, never wanted to start their military operation in Ukraine. From the start, his goal was essentially on protecting Russians and ethnic Russians. A good starting point for those who have little idea of what caused Russia to start its military operation is the following article from former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/

If I were American, I wouldn't have voted for either Trump or Kamala. But from the start, it seemed that Trump would at least be better at getting out of the Ukraine war. I'm happy to say that with his nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to head National Intelligence, he's cemented this view for me.

I -definitely- prefer Tulsi over Trump, but I'm happy that he's at least nominating her for Director of National Intelligence. I admit I was overly pessimistic of Trump and didn't think he'd actually nominate anyone good. Just finished what I believe is a very good article on the potentially very good effects of having Tulsi as Trumps DNI: Scott Ritter: Tulsi Gabbard & the Trump Revolution | Scheerpost Just read another article I really liked on Tulsi's nomination for DNI: JOHN KIRIAKOU: Gabbard Could Help Change US Foreign Policy | Consortium News

Great video. Here's to hoping RFK Jr. gets approved into Trump's cabinet.

Agreed on the hope that Trump can brake this momentum into madness. I'm generally not a fan of Trump, but when it comes to Ukraine, he's always seemed to be far wiser than his democrat opponents. I -am- a fan of RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard, hopefully he can get them in his cabinet. I'm not sure about Gaetz, but I think he may be good, I just don't know enough about him yet.

It's like most people have forgot about the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD for short. Takes some Russian TV commentator to remind people and even then, some people just dismiss it as "propaganda".

That's obviously not true. For starters, there's the fact that I hold him in high regard when it comes to his articles on various subjects, such as Ukraine and the Israel/Palestine war. It's certainly not just me either- some online news sites I like publish articles from him regularly, such as Consortium News. He's even been praised by Seymour Hersh, who called his downfall after resigning as U.N. Weapons Inspector tragic. In case you haven't heard of the fellow: ** Seymour Myron Hersh (born April 8, 1937) is an American investigative journalist and political writer. He gained recognition in 1969 for exposing the My Lai massacre and its cover-up during the Vietnam War, for which he received the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. During the 1970s, Hersh covered the Watergate scandal for The New York Times, also reporting on the secret U.S. bombing of Cambodia and the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) program of domestic spying. ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh

I certainly agree that using children as bait is wrong, though I have read that LOEs have done this in the past, though I've only heard of this rarely, and generally not in the U.S. That doesn't mean they should entrap men by pretending to be minors themselves though. I know that Florida police have made a money making scheme out of doing it: To Entrap an Innocent | The Atlantic

Are you kidding me? I am not. Minors, but as we both know, they were not. Mr. Ritter has testified that he never believed they were minors as well. Had these undercover officers not been pretending to be minors, Mr. Ritter wouldn't have even been charged, let alone convicted. Furthermore, there's a strong case that these stings were essentially entrapment. For anyone who doesn't know the definition of the term: ** Entrapment is a practice in which a law enforcement agent or an agent of the state induces a person to commit a crime that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit.[1] In US law, it is defined as "the conception and planning of an offense by an officer or agent, and the procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the officer or state agent".[2] Police conduct rising to the level of entrapment is broadly discouraged and thus, in many jurisdictions, is available as a defense against criminal liability. Sting operations, through which police officers or agents engage in deception to try to catch persons who are committing crimes, raise concerns about possible entrapment.[3] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment

Looking for a minor? Its comical how you keep playing these dishonest games. "On February 7, 2009, Detective Ryan Venneman of the Barrett Township Police Department was conducting undercover operations investigating the crime of internet sexual exploitation of children in a Yahoo Instant Messenger chat room. Detective Venneman was acting as a young female named “Emily” when he was contacted online by Ritter, posing as “delmarm4fun,” a 44-year-old male from Albany, New York. At the onset of the online chat, “Emily” specifically identified herself to Ritter as a 15-year-old female from the Poconos." https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/superior-court/2013/975-eda-2012.html Your quoted text lacks certain crucial details. For one, the type of chat room Mr. Ritter and undercover officer Venneman were in. Fortunately, Matt Bai from the New York Times clarifies: ** Venneman entered a Yahoo chat room, where the minimum legal age is supposed be 18, and passed himself off as a teenager named Emily. ** Source: Scott Ritter’s Other War | The New York Times Had Mr. Ritter truly been looking to sext a minor, it doesn't make sense that he'd be in an adult chat room where minors aren't supposed to be. Furthermore, Venneman's "Emily" profile stated that she was 24.