Mueller has evidence that Trump supporter's meeting with Putin ally may not have been a chance encounter

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has obtained evidence that calls into question Congressional testimony given by Trump supporter and Blackwater founder Erik Prince last year, when he described a meeting in Seychelles with a Russian financier close to Vladimir Putin as a casual chance encounter “over a beer,” sources told ABC News.

Well-connected Lebanese-American businessman George Nader, a key witness given limited immunity by Mueller, has been interviewed seven times by prosecutors on a wide range of subjects. He told investigators that he set up a meeting in the Seychelles between Prince and Russian sovereign wealth fund CEO Kirill Dmitriev, mere days before Trump was inaugurated, sources familiar with the investigation said this week.

Nader has submitted to three interviews with special counsel investigators and four appearances before a federal grand jury in Washington since agents stopped him at Dulles International Airport in January, served him with a grand jury subpoena and seized his electronic devices, including his cell phone. Documents obtained by Mueller suggest that before and after Prince met Nader in New York a week before the trip to the Seychelles, Nader shared information with Prince about Dmitriev, sources familiar with the investigation told ABC News, which appears to be inconsistent with Prince’s sworn testimony before a U.S. House of Representatives investigative panel.

“I didn’t fly there to meet any Russian guy,” Prince told the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in November. He testified that he travelled to the Seychelles for a meeting with United Arab Emirates officials about possible business opportunities, and they introduced him – unexpectedly – to Dmitriev.


Sources tell ABC News Nader met with Prince at New York’s Pierre Hotel a week before the Jan. 11, 2017 meeting in the Seychelles, and later sent Prince biographical information about Dmitriev, which, according to those sources, noted that Dmitriev had been appointed by Putin to oversee the state-run sovereign wealth fund.

Nader says he then facilitated and personally attended the meetings, including one between Prince and Dmitriev, at a resort owned by MBZ off the coast of East Africa, the sources told ABC News. One of the primary goals of the meeting, Nader told investigators, was to discuss foreign policy and to establish a line of communication between the Russian government and the incoming Trump administration, sources told ABC News.

Interestingly, the Pierre Hotel is really close to Trump tower. I think a block away from each other.

(I’m a self described New York City geography buff in my spare time :wink:)

1 Like

Probably a “perjury trap” set up to allow Mueller to call another person a liar; Prince in this case. Obviously, Mueller has something on Nader or Nader would not need immunity.

Possibly Prince lied in testimony to Congress and maybe Nader is lying in order to get Mueller off his back about something else. But as with everything else in this “Russia collusion” fantasyland, such a meeting would not have been illegal at all.

And, besides being a “Trump supporter” why would such a meeting in any manner be something negative about Trump or that no supporter of Trump should have been doing? Trump himself would have had every right to countenance such a meeting if he did.

Sooner or later, Mueller will be indicting taxi drivers to get them to say they heard Putin and Trump talking in a taxi.


Careful, or YOU might be indicted next for what you might know about taxi drivers overhearing someone in a taxi speaking about Putin and Trump in the same breath.

In saner times the sheer lunacy of this entire episode in American history would have been correctly snickered at as insane. Clearly, we do not live in saner times.

We live in a post-rational world.

1 Like

Why did they take Nader’s computer? Last time, law enforcement found inappropriate pictures of young boys and convicted Nader.

Note: on Politico, not Breitbart (which I don’t read anyway).

Ya know, there used to be a time in American history whereas those who called themselves “conservatives” and “Republicans” used to not like the Soviets and the likes of former KGB agent Vladimir Putin, but now they just seem to adore the bromance between he and Trump. My, how times have changed.

BTW, do notice that is those who blindly support Trump who are the ones that are spouting off as if they know what’s really happening in Mueller’s world, but I guess that’s because they actually do fear underneath that maybe the team that the Donald put together may not have been all too honest or bright.

Now, whether the Donald is guilty of anything criminal, i don’t know as I’m not willing to jump the gun, but he sure behaves like the boy who just got caught with his hands in the cookie jar, let me tell ya.

Three or four blocks. But yes, they’re really close.

On the other hand, pretty much all of Manhattan is pretty close. I’m not sure the proximity of one to the other means anything.

I’m not sure there is a “bromance” between Putin and Trump, but for sure Dems have decided the old KGB tactics of criminalizing your political opponents is now to be the Dem strategy in case they don’t win a particular election.

No. I’m with Alan Dershowitz, a libertarian who usually votes Democratic. Dershowitz compares the Mueller “investigation” to the NKVD/KGB days of old in which Beria told Stalin “Give me the man and I’ll find the crime.”

Such police state tactics are inappropriate for a country that purports to be governed by the rule of law. I thought so in the Clinton prosecution, in the prosecution of Scooter Libby and now in the Mueller witch hunt.

Annie’s guess is probably right. Nader was charged before for importing child porn. Mueller had the FBI grab Nader’s “electronic equipment” at the airport, then granted him immunity for “something” in order to testify (undoubtedly to lie) against Prince.


The world magically becomes such a secure place when all the scary people who don’t think like “us” can be assigned and confined to tiny little boxes, each with their own neat little label.

This is especially conducive to feelings of safety when the conditions that made them “different” have been properly diagnosed as blindness, ignorance and passivity.

1 Like

The 10 Different Reasons the Mueller Investigation is Unconstitutional!

Seems like it depends on what “high crimes and misdemeanors” means to them.

I know. I just wanted to share a bit of geography information, because I’m a nerd :nerd_face:.

I like how prosecutors doing the extremely normal thing of asking yes or no questions to people giving statements under oath is suddenly some nefarious thing.

It’s very odd to me that so many Trump aides and surrogates doing supposedly normal and legal things feel the need to lie about them under oath with such frequency.


Lock her up! Lock her up!

“Undoubtedly”? Why is there no doubt Nader would lie or that Mueller and his team wouldn’t verify his statements?

Well, it convicted Scooter Libby. The witness who said he lied later recanted because she was led into telling a false version by the “special counsel”'s people.

Mueller’s chief “investigator”, Weinstein, destroyed Arthur Anderson Co, the nation’s largest accounting firm with false information. It was later overturned, but the company was destroyed long before that happened. Thousands of people lost their jobs.

Not odd at all. Again, see the Scooter Libby example above. Furthermore, even Strzot has opined that Flynn did not lie to the FBI, but other investigators say he did, so Flynn pleaded guilty even though he is almost certainly innocent. And why? Because Mueller threatened to prosecute Flynn’s son if Flynn didn’t say he was guilty. In his case, the judge took the unprecedented move of ordering Mueller to give him, personally, all exculpatory evidence in Flynn’s case before accepting Flynn’s plea (very unusual), and why? Because Mueller’s chief operative was previously found by the supreme court to have hidden exculpatory evidence from defendants, imprisoning innocent people.

And Mueller and Weinstein convicted four people in the investigation of organized crime in Boston; an “investigation” in which they collaborated with Whitey Bolger to eliminate his competitors in crime. Those four were later exonerated by the courts. Unfortunately two of them had, by then, died in prison. Their families sued the government and received a judgment for $100 million dollars for what Mueller and Weinstein did.

Don’t be too proud of these “anti-Trump heroes”. They’re dirtier than Trump ever dreamed of being on his worst day.

1 Like

None in my mind, at least. Mueller gave Nader immunity from prosecution. From what prosecution? You don’t give immunity unless there is something to give immunity for. Mueller has Nader on something pretty bad and has agreed to give him immunity in that if he will say Prince lied to congress. If Nader was willing to say it on his own, he would not have demanded immunity.

And it isn’t as if Prince talking to some Russians was against the law somehow. It wasn’t. It’s Mueller’s specialty, the “perjury trap”. When you can’t convict someone of a crime because there was no crime, you manufacture a perjury charge.


I’m glad you understand how prosecution works.

Depends what they were talking about. Prince feeling the need to lie about the meeting is a pretty strong hint what kind of thing they were talking about.

“Manufacture a perjury charge,” i.e. pulling the Jedi mind trick and forcing Prince to perjure himself. I wish I had magical powers like Mueller.

Hey, I’m a nerd too. Also, years back, I drove a yellow cab in NYC. I know where everything is.

And you’ve probably seen everything as well. :flushed:

Oh, yes. And I drove a cab back in the bad old days of NYC (the early 80s). At night (5PM to 5AM, which means I really did see everything). It’s much more peaceful now, thank God.

1 Like
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit