Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, March 17, 2018

The Lebanese-American businessman who features prominently in special counsel Robert Mueller's inquiry was once sentenced to six months on child pornography charges in Virginia, Newsweek has learned. George Nader, 58, has emerged as a key player in the investigation. An adviser to the Emirati crown prince, Nader is believed to have represented the kingdom's interests in White House meetings, and frequently met with Jared Kushner during the early months of the Trump administration to discuss U.S. policies toward Persian Gulf states.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Stop me if you've heard this one. A child pornagrapher and a sexist conman walk into a teen beauty pageant dressing room...

#1 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2018-03-18 07:47 PM | Reply

Remember all those Russian agents, wife beaters and child porn criminals Obama hired.
Me neither.

#2 | Posted by bored at 2018-03-18 08:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Rule 609. Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction

(a) In General. The following rules apply to attacking a witness's character for truthfulness by evidence of a criminal conviction:

(1) for a crime that, in the convicting jurisdiction, was punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year, the evidence:

(A) must be admitted, subject to Rule 403, in a civil case or in a criminal case in which the witness is not a defendant; and

(B) must be admitted in a criminal case in which the witness is a defendant, if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to that defendant; and

(2) for any crime regardless of the punishment, the evidence must be admitted if the court can readily determine that establishing the elements of the crime required proving -- or the witness's admitting -- a dishonest act or false statement.

(b) Limit on Using the Evidence After 10 Years. This subdivision (b) applies if more than 10 years have passed since the witness's conviction or release from confinement for it, whichever is later. Evidence of the conviction is admissible only if:

(1) its probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances, substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect; and

(2) the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to use it so that the party has a fair opportunity to contest its use.

In short, court's generally don't care about criminal convictions more than ten years ago.

#3 | Posted by et_al at 2018-03-18 09:41 PM | Reply

Just one more low level coffee boy in a thousand coffee boys in the Trump administration.

#4 | Posted by 726 at 2018-03-19 01:07 PM | Reply

Does he have the video of the orange blob forcing himself on a 13 year old?

#5 | Posted by Reinheitsgebot at 2018-03-19 02:30 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort