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.
Could you outline the third scenario in greater detail? I always thought the definition of the verb "to frame" was "To make up evidence or contrive events so as to incriminate falsely".