George Nader, witness to 2 secret Trump transition meetings, faced child porn charges in 1985


#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/03/08/nader-businessman-who-witness.html


#2

The pee tapes are reel.


#3

32%20AM


#5

The White house probably knew and didn’t care. Trump was friends with Jeff Epstein.


#6

“I’ll hire only the best people.”

OK, best at what?


#7

I am shocked, shocked, that a man who has sexualized his daughter more than once on national TV would turn out to have pedophiles in his inner circle.


#8

I am SO FUCKING CLOSE to winning Trump bingo now.


#9

I hope you’ve not got “Nuclear War” on your card.


#10

So an aide of the OB is a pedophile.
The worst part is that I´m not even suprised.


#11

Sorry, but I expect higher standards from who opposes Trump on “moral/ethical” grounds. Nader has not been found guilty. He is innocent until proven otherwise.
The phrasing of the article suggests he is guilty and was discharged on “technicalities”. Even if that would be true, those technicalities are in reality the essence of the rule of law, designed to protect the innocent. Sometimes they are not enough, sometimes they let the bad guy you escape, but we can’t never surrender them to punish someone. They are the greater good that must be protected, any weakening of those rights will be a tool used against innocents.


#12

In 1985, he was 25, no Internet, computers were DOS PCs or original Macs, child porn was through the mail.

From the Atlantic story, a customs inspector opened the package, inventoried the contents, and then sent it on. Later they got a warrant to search for those materials and anything else they can find, but that was too general.

I was wondering why they sent the package on after finding that stuff, but I guess that’s the point: use it as the justification to get a search warrant. I imagine Customs was experienced in drafting those search warrant requests, so I’d guess that he had a pretty good lawyer.


#13

The original opinion is worth reading.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/621/1076/1368341/

My guess is that even though the government was entitled to sever the envelope from the invalidated warrant, the fact that the package was signed for by the defendant’s landlord might have created reasonable doubt…

So what would have been a slam dunk, by the book case, with evidence that Nader had ordered the material, evidence of previously obtained material of a similar nature, and so on was turned into something that could be plausibly described as “entrapment”, “mistaken identity” and any other seed of reasonable doubt that his attorney might decide to plant in the jury’s mind.


#14

See also: Roy Moore


#15

Fast forward to 2018. Everything is on line and everyone is watching. I’d be surprised if Mr Mueller doesn’t have more recent evidence that Mr Nader has continued his predilection for kiddy porn.


#16

The first thing I’d check would be for sex tourism. However, would that be within Mueller’s mandate? I’m happy to see him roll-over the small fry, but he doesn’t have an unlimited inquisitor license.

It is something that security-vetting should check, if he’s applied.


#17

So now OJ gets to look for the real killer. Sounds to me that if there was a civil case involved with this it would be a slam dunk.


#18

The important take-away is the creep is cooperating. Trumps pants are down and its not going to end well for him - the sooner the better.


#19

Neither has Roy Moore (on the child molesting stuff, anyway). That doesn’t mean everyone should just ignore the allegations and evidence against him.

“Innocent until proven guilty” is for courts of law, not for deciding who we want to associate with.


#20

Der Gropenfuhrer would never associate with anyone who wasn’t at least as slimy as he is.


#21

Absolutely but that doesn’t change the fact that everyone still is pretty well convinced that OJ killed his wife. You don’t really hear too much about random customs agents setting up white guys with kiddie porn.

Drilling down a little into the case, it is pretty clear that he got off on a technicality. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/621/1076/1368341/

Whoops I see this has already been posted.