Uh Oh!!! Key Mueller Witness Has Been Indicted For Child Sex-Trafficking… Again. Was Cozy With Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein

Opinion| George Nader is a Lebanese-American businessman who was one of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s key witnesses.  

Mueller had attempted to establish that a January 2017 meeting in the Seychelles islands between Nader, Trump associate Erik Prince, and Kremlin ally Kirill Dmitriev, was proof that Donald Trump had been colluding with Russia.

On July 3rd, a three-count indictment was handed down charging Nader with possessing child pornography and traveling with a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity. 

Nader had been arrested a month earlier on charges that he transported images of child sex abuse victims. Investigators found 12 videos on Nader’s cell phone allegedly showed children between the ages of three and 14 being sexually abused.

Shockingly, Mueller’s key witness has a four-decade long history of possessing child pornography and pedophilia:

  • In the 1980’s he was found to possess magazines depicting images of child pornography but the case fell apart on a technicality.
  • In the early 1990 he was convicted and served a six-month sentence after being caught in Virginia with videos of child pornography.
  • In 2003 Nader served one year in a Czech prison for 10 counts of sexually abusing boys.
  • Curiously, the current indictment alleges he transported a 14-y/o boy from Europe to his home in the U.S.for the purpose of prostitution and sex, in 2000.

The timing of this indictment at least raises the specter that Nader lost his freedom when he was no longer able to help Mueller take down President Trump.

Nader has also been linked to former President Bill Clinton and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Nader, who is alleged to have set up the meeting in the Seychelles, later became a frequent visitor to the Trump White House and eventually paid $189,000 for a photo with President Trump.

All of this has sent my spidey senses into high alert.  Was Nader working for elements of the Deep State?

Why did prosecutors wait until now to bring charges for a crime that was committed in 2000?  

Why would anyone, especially a person with regular access to the president, pay $189,000 for a picture?  Was it to memorialize the relationship for a later sensationalized accounting of that relationship.  

If Nader was as close to Trump as reported, why did the president charge him anything to take a picture with him?  Was it to create a financial trail with which to incriminate President Trump at a later date?

Why did Special Counsel Mueller mention Nader 120 times in his final report but never once mention his history of child pornography and pedophilia – either to provide possible exculpatory evidence or to suggest Donald Trump, or those close to the president, were guilty of similar crimes?

Similar questions surround the inexplicable leniency that prosecutors showed Jeffrey Epstein in and around 2002 and 2003.

All of this raises the question; is there an existing pedophile network that the Clintons were using as leverage to control, both, their allies and adversaries in order to advance their political agenda?  

Was George Nader given a pass for the past 20 years for his participation in“dirtying up” targets in a fashion similar to the way Joseph Mifsud was used to “brush” George Papadopoulos and other Trump associates in order to “dirty” them?

All of this would’ve been unthinkable prior to uncovering the Obama administration’s weaponization of the State Department, CIA, FBI, and DOJ.  That’s no longer the case.

Consider how, with virtually every mention of Epstein or Nader, the media has also deliberately linked President Trump to them in the same article.  Don’t you think if there was something to that, Mueller would have found it?

There’s also this for those wondering how Hillary Clinton ever rose to the top of the Democratic Party’s power structure, Dan Bongino offered this assessment of her:

Looking back to early in Bill Clinton’s first term, when 900 FBI files were found in Hillary’s possession, it should’ve been clear what her game was.  

Did she take the next step from there to actually “creating” incriminating evidence against opponents and allies alike to guarantee their fealty to her?

Unlike the three-year long investigation into Donald Trump, actual crimes have been committed here.  Whether what I’m suggesting is true or not shouldn’t we be wanting to know how many politicians, journalists, and high-profile scions of business would be implicated if anyone had the balls to investigate this?