CNN NEWSNIGHT AARON BROWN (Transcript - Ritter Inerview)

CNN ^ | 1/22/03

[evad]

One word...
GUILTY

[Dante3]

I noticed he did NOT deny when asked about an underaged girl. Any innocent person would have blurted out that that was a lie. Didn't Ritter also deny to Brit Hume that it was him? I think a Russian connection could not be ruled out because of his wife Marina.

[mewzilla]

You know what I took away from this interview? How horribly disappointed that Brown was that Scottie (Pervs For Peace) Ritter was no longer a useful spokesman for the anti-war crowd. Not that Brown was po'ed at what Ritter could have done to that girl. Not even that Ritter could be screwing his country by submitting to blackmail. Brown never even asked Ritter if he was submitting to blackmail. Brown seemed more exercised about the leak.

This interview said more about Aaron Brown, IMHO. And none of it is nice.

[mombonn]

I was supposed to be on an airplane yesterday flying to Baghdad on a personal initiative that could have had great ramifications in regards to issues of war and peace.

What a smug, self-important creep. Who arranged the mission - Badhdad Bonior?

[evad]

I think a Russian connection could not be ruled out because of his wife Marina.

I'm not sure what the reason and you may be right. One thing is for certain...this character is DIRTY.

The court of "public opinion" has a much more sensitive bull sh*t detector that the court of "law".

This guy can't come close to passing the sniff test

GUILTY as sniffed.

[BlueLancer]

Have it YOUR way!

[syriacus]

I followed your link to the interview and read that William Scott Ritter said this:

You know there is a tremendous constituent out there that is urging me to go forward. 

Would that tremendous constituent be someone who is overly large because of eating at Burger King or because of eating at McDonald's?

[mewzilla]

Ritter still has his speaking engagements. Evidently the peace movement (now there's an oxymoron) is so morally bankrupt that they're happy to have a pedophile and (to my mind) a traitor as their spokesman. Says a lot about the anti-war crowd.

[Pinch]

>Set him up at a Burger King? ROFLMAO.

I suppose setting him up at a Toys R Us would be a bit over the top.

Wonder if he was offering a kid's meal along with the other "offerings" he had in mind.

[Pinch]

>And, of course, the obligatory Barbara Walters/Diane >Sawyer question... What's your favorite meal at Burger >
>King?

The obligatory Baba-wawa question would be:

"If you were a perverted early teenage girl molesting tree, what sort of perverted early teen girl molesting tree would you be?"

[syriacus]

Brown seemed more exercised about the leak.

I'll bet the source of the leak was some poor little kid who kept seeing Ritter's face on TV a month ago and said to her Mom.

Look, Mommy, look!!!

There's that man that they arrested at Burger King when we were there for my birthday party.

Did they arrest him because he kept cursing at my friends who had to "go" and were knocking on the bathroom door?

Do you think so, Mommy? Huh?

[Cincinatus]

But in any case, nobody cares what you think about Iraq.

For me, this was true before his arrest history came out.

[CatoRenasci]

I am convinced that the reason Ritter did his 180 on Iraq is directly related to these arrests. Whether it was a problem for him before, or whether he was tricked into an underage 'honey trap' by the Iraqi intelligence services, I'd be willing to bet that the Iraqis have ample audio and video footage of Ritter in flagrante delicto with one or more cuties (female and/or male) whose ages are close to that of the prophet's young wife Aisha (married age 6, consummated age 9). Hey, it's not a sin over there, but if they can exploit it against the West....

[spectre]

"Evidently he does not own a mirror"

BAWHAHAHAHA! I was thinking the same thing, he could watch himself doing the big nasty if he owned a mirror. Simple solution..

Aaron Brown is good enough to be on FOX. He's done more than one interview that he's slam-dunked. Great watch.

[Catspaw]

There are at least two "legal" reasons he can't talk about this.

1. If he talks about it without admitting he was wrong, then he violates the sealed order that said he had to get counseling and demonstrate repentance. (IOW, the judge said, "Son, you've done this before, so you've got a problem you need to deal with. Go to counseling and prove to me that you realize this and that you won't do it again, or I'll have you back in my court in the blink of an eye. When I get a report from the counselor to that effect, I'll expunge the record of this case.")

Nope. Ritter said he couldn't talk because he was bound legally and ethically not to talk about it. He's not bound by any code of ethics, as Brown pointed out. Ritter says he's not a lawyer. The judge, the prosecutor and lawyer ARE bound by the Bar's code of ethics, but Ritter is the defendant in the case. All he has to do is say the word and the case is unsealed.

2. If he says anything that amounts to a public admission of guilt, his wife will file for divorce.

If she didn't file for divorce when this came down (Ritter said she was in court with him so she had to know about it), she's not going to file for divorce now. Can you spell C-O-D-E-P-E-N-D-E-N-T? I knew you could.

[DB]

E.D. on Fox and Friends just tore up Ritter big time.

Well done E.D!

[ontos-on]

In NYS, an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal usually includes an admission to the charges by the defendant. The ACOD is a sentencing device, but usually the prosecutor achieves an admission to the charges so that the DA does not have to retry the case if the --stay out of trouble for 6 months or 1 year porvision is violated. That provides the basis for restoring the original charges to the calendar together with the admission. At that time, all that usually woul dhave to be done is an different sentencing-- not a trial as to whether the defendant committed the orignal offense charged. [He would have already admitted that he did it --that's why those records are sealed if he satisfied the avoid any further vilation of the law for 6 months or 1 year.]

[anniegetyourgun]

Good for her....wish I had seen it. Another left-leaning perv out of the way. They (eventually) all show their true colors.

[Catspaw]

And we should never forget that, when a case is dismissed, what the law says is that, by dismissing the case, it brings with it the presumption of innocence. And by sealing the file, it's designed to prevent the stigma attached with any unsubstantiated allegations from arising. So, as far as I'm concerned, as far as everyone should be concerned, this is a dead issue.

And that's why this is a lie.