Clear and Present Danger - Robert Ritter - part 3

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 17 янв 2025

Комментарии • 36

  • @jessehamm3573
    @jessehamm3573 2 года назад +30

    "Wrong again! I have an autographed 'Get Out of Jail Free' Card!"
    One of my favorite lines.

  • @Malambrizzle
    @Malambrizzle Год назад +25

    Say what you will about Ritter, but "Cutter couldn't tie his shoes without permission" is a badass line.

    • @Tee24-r9j
      @Tee24-r9j 3 месяца назад +1

      Which means he wouldn't move without his Superiors word

  • @Jgriffin0808081
    @Jgriffin0808081 5 месяцев назад +5

    I loved 90s movies like this, 👍 👌

    • @dontbugme7362
      @dontbugme7362 3 месяца назад

      Interesting how today people don't understand THAT was reality TV,

  • @matthewgallagher1761
    @matthewgallagher1761 5 месяцев назад +10

    "You don't ... HAVE ... one of these ... do you, Jack?" This guy played a superb villain. Top notch movie. We need more intelligent and entertaining movies like this about politics and the clear difference between good and evil.

    • @CheerfullyCynical829
      @CheerfullyCynical829 5 месяцев назад

      Nerdy keyboard warrior villain. Does all the scandalous s hit from his safe computer. He'd soil his britches and faint if he ever encountered a man pointing a gun at him. He's not 1/100th the man Jack Ryan is.

    • @Swarm509
      @Swarm509 2 месяца назад

      @@CheerfullyCynical829 This is true, but he can play that keyboard warrior game extremely well. He had all the angles covered.

    • @CheerfullyCynical829
      @CheerfullyCynical829 2 месяца назад

      @@Swarm509 I like this movie a lot, but I hate super convenient coincidences. Ritter deletes his files at the EXACT same time Jack gets the code to break into his terminal? Cmon now, give me a break.....

    • @TomWilliams-z4e
      @TomWilliams-z4e Месяц назад

      RIP Tom Clancy

  • @benjaminperez7328
    @benjaminperez7328 6 месяцев назад +15

    Henry Czerny plays a great DC government scumbag.
    He’s basically the same guy in Mission Impossible movies.

  • @avae5343
    @avae5343 Год назад +8

    Surely since Ritter had the authorization letter then why would Ryan go to prison? It Ritter had to use the letter then it would exonerate Ryan.

    • @igorlobkovenko9480
      @igorlobkovenko9480 11 месяцев назад

      Maybe because Ryan convinced Congress to provide funding and guaranteed that troops would not be involved. That's the kind of stuff that government lawyers live for.

    • @igorlobkovenko9480
      @igorlobkovenko9480 11 месяцев назад +2

      However, the document would lead back to the oval office. It's the paper trail.

    • @BrettsBlueDepths
      @BrettsBlueDepths 10 месяцев назад +3

      Exactly. He should have taken the letter, it’s the smoking gun implicating the president

    • @madeconomist458
      @madeconomist458 6 месяцев назад +2

      It's all about executive immunity

  • @benadams4807
    @benadams4807 9 месяцев назад +4

    3:47 I go down, you’re going with me.

  • @alphakky
    @alphakky 6 месяцев назад +6

    Actually, "Deleting" the files only changes the directory. The files are still there as long as they're not overwritten. 😁

    • @Elthenar
      @Elthenar 3 месяца назад

      It would not surprise me if a CIA computer used a file shredder to delete stuff.

  • @arifqureshi3706
    @arifqureshi3706 Год назад +3

    Hi

  • @MarcusHardyDJDirtyOne
    @MarcusHardyDJDirtyOne 5 месяцев назад +3

    GAWDDAMN i miss good scripts, and direction.

  • @davidsheets8932
    @davidsheets8932 2 года назад +4

    So Ritter and President are lovers? 0:58

  • @1532JJ
    @1532JJ Месяц назад

    The whole plot of them trying to pin Reciprocity on Jack and Greer never made any sense to me, especially once Ritter handed Ryan the signed note from Cutter admitting the President was in on it. They couldn't prove Ryan knew about it and lied to congress. But they gave Ryan proof that the President authorised it and Cutter and Ritter were involved. So how was Ryan in any danger of prosecution?

    • @davidbutler1857
      @davidbutler1857 Месяц назад +1

      I think the issue was that there wasn't much in terms of the operation to tie to Ritter. The bombing could be tossed off as drug violence and not part of the operation. Ryan would have to separately make a case for that. It's more about the internal quid pro quo on being willing to testify against each other that matters. Ritter is just proving that he's guilt free and without him admitting to knowledge of the bombing, there's nothing Ryan can do.

  • @spikeep6141
    @spikeep6141 5 месяцев назад +1

    ….anyone for Tennis?

  • @TomWilliams-z4e
    @TomWilliams-z4e Месяц назад

    This scene is BS. The files were only marked for deletion. To destroy them Ritter would need to reformat the hard drive. Never mind any backups that may be elsewhere. Someone else is always watching the watchers.

  • @jadocastor5118
    @jadocastor5118 2 месяца назад

    That stuff's legal now... essentially. Presidential immunity. Do what evah you want.

  • @ChrisFoxDurayParish
    @ChrisFoxDurayParish 11 месяцев назад

    #

  • @ChrisFoxDurayParish
    @ChrisFoxDurayParish 11 месяцев назад

    #D:

  • @jackbryan4676
    @jackbryan4676 6 месяцев назад +1

    Paper abuse.

  • @charleslamont2963
    @charleslamont2963 6 месяцев назад +5

    Ritter, in this scene exudes the arrogance and flippancy we see in operatives for the current administration

    • @benjaminperez7328
      @benjaminperez7328 6 месяцев назад +1

      You didn’t have to shoehorn in your politics very hard on that one, did ya?
      Hurt your wrist?

    • @charleslamont2963
      @charleslamont2963 6 месяцев назад +1

      @@benjaminperez7328 Apparently you aren't aware of the back and forth in Congressional hearings. You also are unaware of what former administration officials have said on the record. If facts bother you, go back to cartoons. Leave the rest for grownups.

    • @benjaminperez7328
      @benjaminperez7328 6 месяцев назад

      @@charleslamont2963
      Gee whiz, Chuck…..
      Care to show your work?
      Cite a source?
      Gimme a “for instance?”