It all depends on what really happened.

First off, he may have had no involvement with intelligence whatsoever, or beyond being interrogated after his arrest.

If the intelligence agencies did set all of this up and told him to get real underaged girls (rather than actors pretending to be underaged) to blackmail people, or knew this was happening and allowed it to continue for so long, that'd actually be big. That's state-sponsored child sex trafficking and rape. But there are so many other possibilities in between that and "no involvement".

We've literally toppled free governments, administered LSD to vulnerable people without their consent, and started purposeful rumors about important people being <insert bad thing here>. What makes you think the CIA wouldn't run a child sex trafficking ring for "the greater good"?

Well, for one, it's [current year], and ethical standards within the CIA seem to have shifted a little. But also, I do actually think operating a child sex trafficking ring would probably be a lot more objectionable for most intelligence handlers than toppling governments.

If someone asked you right now "you have two options: topple a government and replace them with a puppet, or run a child sex trafficking ring", and you had to pick one, which would you choose? If I had to choose, I'd definitely choose the former.

> Well, for one, it's [current year], and ethical standards within the CIA seem to have shifted a little.

The current head of the CIA is a torturer who illegally destroyed evidence. “Shifted a little” is awfully generous.

Torture is heinous, of course. But, I have to admit, the torture tactics employed by the CIA in the past two decades against alleged terrorists still seem to be quite an ethical leap compared to what they used to be doing.