Creepy in Politics

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Creepy in Politics

Pedophilia in politics.

So many politicians...

So many...

I'll start the thread with this case.

George Nader, a convicted pedophile, was called by Robert Mueller as a witness in the Trump probe in March.

Nader was allowed to flee the country immediately

Haven’t heard anything since

Why is that?

What do you think is going on here? https://t.co/AwScPYk1AF

— An Open Secret (@AnOpenSecret) August 18, 2018

In case something happens and Twitter takes this down, here is the direct link to the Daily Mail article from last March:

EXCLUSIVE: The indictment that reveals the pedophile past of a key Robert Mueller witness who met with Trump, Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush

George Nader is a 'co-operating witness' in the investigation into Donald Trump's alleged collusion with Russia – 
Nader was thrust into the limelight after giving evidence to the special counsel as part of his probe into Russian meddling in the US election
Nader is known to have met Trump at least once and had a close relationship with a key fundraisers for the president
DailyMail.com has unearthed a 30-year-old document alleging Nader was found with a stash of child pornography while living in Washington DC in 1984
It states that Nader was brought up on two charges - mailing obscene matter and the importation of obscene matter

How's that for a political fundraiser?

Makes you wonder how fundraising in politics works, at least with some donors.

I wonder why Mueller let him leave the country. He had to have known about this problem. After all, Mueller was the G Man of G Men in his time, the very image of FBI integrity. The most moral of the moral. Mixing sainthood with cunning. Nothing got past him, huh?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And there's this, of course...

Did You Know:

In 2008, records show Jeffrey Epstein got a sweetheart deal with the FBI

He spent 13 mos in a private wing of the Palm Beach jail and was granted a 16-hour-per-day free pass to leave for "work"

In 2008 the Director of the FBI was Robert Mueller

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) August 18, 2018

Mueller was the one who gave sex offender Jeffrey Epstein a sweetheart deal?

What's going on with Mueller?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just keeping this topic alive...

 

Michael

[Peter]

A pedophile who does not act on his desire to molest kids is sick. If he acts on his desire then it is a crime. The storing of "pictures" is a bit more in need of explanation but I also think that should be a crime, because people along the supply chain are profiting from the crimes against children.

For admitted or supposed  pedophiles like Michael Jackson there should be action on the state and federal level to keep them away, or restrained from being near children.      

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is one of the more thorough videos on Epstein.

Apparently, Mike Cernovich was warned off going after Epstein in the courts (to get documents unsealed) when he started until a mainstream media outfit (Miami Herald) signed on to his case. The warning was that bad things were going to happen to him (and probably his family) if he kept going. Mike even quipped that the Miami Herald saved his life by doing that.

The reason why he was threatened--to me--is obvious and I even discussed it much earlier somewhere around here on OL. Epstein is apparently running a blackmail operation on the rich and powerful. It works like this if that is what he does: He sets people up with illicit sex, documents the encounters, then blackmails them to keep silent.

I mean, how can a guy have a sex paradise with a continually renewed supply of underage kids on a tropical island, and constantly fly rich and famous people there, and not have hidden cameras with mics all over the friggin' place? Come on, folks...  

In fact, both Stefan and Mike wonder where Epstein's enormous wealth came from. Any guesses anyone? They actually looked into it and nobody seems to know fact-wise.

If anyone wants a quick place to learn what the fuss is all about with Epstein and his trouble in sex trafficking with minors, this video is one of the best places I have seen so far.

Michael

[Peter]

I saw that Patton Oswald is still working in Hollywood and on TV. IF he freely admits to being a pedophile how is this possible? It makes me wonder if the "confession" was really him bragging or someone pretending to be him on the internet, which should be a prosecutable crime. Anyone who calls someone else a prosecutable crime like pedophile, and it is a lie, they should be sued for defamation of character. And what would Tony Soprano do? "Take me out to the ballgame. Hey Hun, where's my bat?" Perhaps Patten not speaking about this incident may be because he is trying not to glorify his accusers or give them airtime. If anyone has anything verifiable on the Oswald case, I would be interested.

I hope OL's management makes sure no one is called something they are not, here on OL. Were those messages from Patton Oswald that were posted on OL, or were they made up?   

If Smollett loses his job with Fox for alleged crimes which are now NOT be prosecuted can he get his old job back . . . or can he sue Fox? So why did Jussie pay two immigrants to attack him? I saw copies of the checks and they were real. Was it for gay sex? Damned if I can figure it out now that Smollett, if not exonerated, is still crying about his innocence. Are the two African brothers ashamed of the "possible," "rough" sex acts?  That's just a theory.  Peter

[Jon Letendre]

Still haven’t quite wrapped your mind around the fact that criminal perversions are celebrated in Hollywood and that Patton and many others throughout our society are above the law, utterly untouchable, huh, Peter? Keep pulling! Your head will eventually pop out yo ass.

[Jon Letendre]

And, shit–for–brains, the OL pedophile knows how to make it stop 100%. He likes it, evidenced in his steadfast refusal to stop it, which would literally be effortless.

[Peter]

56 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

And, shit–for–brains, the OL pedophile knows how to make it stop 100%. He likes it, evidenced in his steadfast refusal to stop it, which would literally be effortless.

Are you talking about William? What concerns me is that IF OL knowingly publishes scandalous or libelous material, like you calling someone a pedophile, as you routinely do, then this site and its management could be sued. I have not looked over the "rules" here on OL but I think your remarks are not only hurtful to people like William Shirk but could also be worthy of a suit, or  . . . . who knows? And mea culpa, I routinely jokingly call William, "Shrek."

I like your letters with links, Jon, but I think you cross the line. I officially now ask the management of OL to use their censorship rights to stop you from slandering and libeling anyone here on OL. Who's next?

And I think the same MAY BE happening with Patton Oswald. He keeps gettin' hired. Who can verify those supposed "posts" glorifying pedophilia were from him? When I first went on the internet there were sites that routinely mimicked real sites. They would add a period, like objectivist.living.com and claim to be "the" objectivistliving. com for instance.

I still think the death penalty should be on the table for pedophilia. It causes life long trauma, physically and emotionally. In Africa, the rape of children is much more common than here in America and I remember reading that young girls were so damaged they could not urinate in a normal fashion for the rest of their lives.  

Jon wrote: "He likes it, evidenced in his steadfast refusal to stop it, which would literally be effortless." You are one sick bastard, Jon. 

[Peter]

Extinguished was spelled incorrectly in the following Michael.

From the Objectivist living bylaws:  . . . . For the detractors of the Brandens, please be advised that Objectivist Living is a haven for them. People can get a positive image of them here. They can learn about the Brandens and learn from them. The Brandens were fundamental to the creation of Objectivism and we feel lucky to be able to interact with them. Disagreements with them on specific issues are OK, but Branden bashing is not tolerated. Instead, we wish to honor them.

Also, flame wars will be extinguished the moment they erupt. We will try to be as diplomatic as possible about this but gratuitous insults are not tolerated. We hold good manners as a value in exchanging ideas.

On an emotional level, we nurture positive emotions like love, admiration, curiosity, etc., and not negative ones like hatred, contempt, rage, etc. This is not an exclusive policy, since some things must be condemned, but predominance is on the positive side.

Objectivist Living is not a movement, merely a place to discuss important ideas in peace with highly intelligent people and create works. We are a place for Ayn Rand's "silent contingency" to appear, should such individuals care to do so, or they can simply read. These are people who admire Rand's works but do not admire the behavior of the Objectivists they have encountered, so they stay home. We aim to be an oasis from the bickering for them . . . .

[Peter]

Calling someone a horrible name, and then saying, "Since the person doesn't deny it, then it must be true," is a fallacy of some sort but I forget the Latin term for it. Using this false logic is the product of a deranged or fill in the blank mind. Something is wrong in O'ville and it is Jon Letendre. I am not sure of William's sexual leanings but that is his business and does not invite ridicule if he is or is not homosexual.   

[Jon Letendre]

12 minutes ago, Peter said:

Are you talking about William? What concerns me is that IF OL knowingly publishes scandalous or libelous material, like you calling someone a pedophile, as you routinely do, then this site and its management could be sued. I have not looked over the "rules" here on OL but I think your remarks are not only hurtful to people like William Shirk but could also be worthy of a suit, or  . . . . who knows? And mea culpa, I routinely jokingly call William, "Shrek."

I like your letters with links, Jon, but I you cross the line. I officially now ask the management of OL to use their censorship rights to stop you from slandering and libeling anyone here on OL. Who's next?

And I think the same MAY BE happening with Patton Oswald. He keeps gettin' hired. Who can verify those supposed "posts" glorifying pedophilia were from him? When I first went on the internet there were sites that routinely mimicked real sites. They would add a period, like objectivist.living.com and claim to be "the" objectivistliving. com for instance.

I still think the death penalty should be on the table for pedophilia. It causes life long trauma, physically and emotionally. In Africa, the rape of children is much more common than here in America and I remember reading that young girls were so damaged they could not urinate in a normal fashion for the rest of their lives.  

Jon wrote: "He likes it, evidenced in his steadfast refusal to stop it, which would literally be effortless." You are one sick bastard, Jon. 

I don’t know it to be false, I wouldn’t say it if I knew it was false. I believe it to the bottom of my heart. He has made fun of child trafficking, denied factual reports, etc. for years, just like a pedophile would. Did I miss Billy denying it? He has registered his displeasure at it, but has he denied it? Maybe I missed it, but I don’t think he has. Nor has he asked me to stop. Nor will he simply stop engaging me and reacting to me, which I have promised will result in my stopping.

And Patton is exactly what he has repeatedly said he is, moron. Your lingering doubt is arbitrary and pathological.

Why cant you muster the discipline to mind your own fucking business, you pathetic,  pearl–clutching imbecile?

[Jon Letendre]

4 minutes ago, Peter said:

Calling someone a horrible name, and then saying, "Since the person doesn't deny it, then it must be true," is a fallacy of some sort but I forget the Latin term for it. Using this false logic is the product of a deranged or fill in the blank mind. Something is wrong in O'ville and it is Jon Letendre. I am not sure of William's sexual leanings but that is his business and does not invite ridicule if he is or is not homosexual.   

You lie, Peter. I have never and would never, ridicule him for being homosexual.

[Peter]

Is there any tape of Patton saying it? If there is link it. Fake sites are used all the time on the internet. I think it is a crime to call or accuse someone of a crime and then claim since they don't deny it, then it must be true. OL is my business and you will stop with the un-objective insults. 

[Jon Letendre]

7 minutes ago, Peter said:

Is there any tape of Patton saying it? If there is link it. Fake sites are used all the time on the internet. I think it is a crime to call or accuse someone of a crime and then claim since they don't deny it, then it must be true. OL is my business and you will stop with the un-objective insults. 

Fuck your links, imbecile. Pull your head out of your ass and go find the truth.

And, no, I won’t stop. Stupid little girl.

[Peter]

5 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

You lie, Peter. I have never and would never, ridicule him for being homosexual.

So, then you are saying his desire to "debunk" crimes is a crime deserving of slander and libel? 

[Jon Letendre]

Just now, Peter said:

So, then you are saying his desire to "debunk" crimes is a crime deserving of slander and libel? 

He does not debunk them. He only laughs at them. My evidence–based conclusions and opinions are not slander or libel. Go play with your dolls.

[Peter]

1 minute ago, Jon Letendre said:

Fuck your links, imbecile. Pull your head out of your ass and go find the truth.

And, no, I won’t. Stupid little girl.

'Little girl?" That's a new one. I think having Letendre around is going to cause some people to stop supporting OL. I enjoy this site but what would Barbara Branden think of his behavior? It is despicable. 

[Peter]

2 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

He does not debunk them. He only laughs at them. My evidence–based conclusions and opinions are not slander or libel. Go play with your dolls.

What IS your evidence based conclusion to call William a pedophile? 

[Peter]

Sometimes, those who accuse others of a crime or a psychological aberration are diverting attention from those very faults in themselves. So for instance calling someone a girl, or a homo, an asshole, or a pedophile is because of the thoughts of their crimes or aberrations MUST REMAIN HIDDEN! Is that the case with Letendre? edit. What a rotten human being.

[Peter]

22 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

I don’t know it to be false, I wouldn’t say it if I knew it was false. I believe it to the bottom of my heart. He has made fun of child trafficking, denied factual reports, etc. for years, just like a pedophile would. Did I miss Billy denying it? He has registered his displeasure at it, but has he denied it? Maybe I missed it, but I don’t think he has. Nor has he asked me to stop. Nor will he simply stop engaging me and reacting to me, which I have promised will result in my stopping.

And Patton is exactly what he has repeatedly said he is, moron. Your lingering doubt is arbitrary and pathological.

Why cant you muster the discipline to mind your own fucking business, you pathetic,  pearl–clutching imbecile?

I don't go on William's blog or at least rarely, sometimes by accident, and I don't pay that much attention to him anyway, so I have no clue about him "not denying it" or somehow making light of pedophilia.  

[Peter]

Letendre is frequently trying to incite a "flame war." He should not be allowed to continue doing it, Michael and Kat.

[Jon Letendre]

3 minutes ago, Peter said:

What IS your evidence based conclusion to call William a pedophile? 

Billy, is this you??? Same tactics. Ignore, deny, ask for it again, repeat.

The evidence is all over this website. Go find the many posts of mine that are definitely not funny and that he laughed at without any debunking or comment at all.

A pedophile, by the way, is a person with certain sexual attractions. It is not criminal, as you falsely asserted earlier. Adult sexual contact with children is criminal.

Likewise, rape is a crime. You’ll notice I have often pointed out that he has “the soul of a rapist.”

I have never called him a rapist or accused him of any other crime.

If we had a poster here who could always be counted on to defend and uphold rationalists and rationalism, would you be upset at the conclusion that it’s likely due to a certain ideo–orientation/affiliation that leans rationalist? Seems a natural conclusion to me, and certainly nothing to get dramatic about.

[Jon Letendre]

13 minutes ago, Peter said:

I don't go on William's blog or at least rarely, sometimes by accident, and I don't pay that much attention to him anyway, so I have no clue about him "not denying it" or somehow making light of pedophilia.  

Thank you for that frank admission of ignorance on the subject.

You should be minding your own business.

[Peter]

Port-a-pottie mouth Jon wrote, "Billy, is this you???"  No. It was a ghost, Pepe Letendre, and you are a skunk. You have the soul of everything you have accused others of being. At the least you are psychologizing others and deliberately trying to initiative violence or coercion against others here on OL.