Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Donald Trump builds strange alliance with Alabama "prostitute" Jeff Sessions and Bill Pryor, the U.S. judge who avoids questions about his ties to 1990s gay porn

Bill Pryor at

After yesterday's Super Tuesday results, Donald Trump took several major steps toward securing the Republican Party presidential nomination. Trump handily won the Alabama vote, and that has interest on a variety of levels. "The Donald" already seems to have formed an alliance with two of Alabama's most oily right-wing politicos--U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions and U.S. Circuit Judge Bill Pryor.

Sessions endorsed Trump on Sunday, a move that inspired National Review to call Alabama's junior senator "a prostitute." We don't agree with National Review on much, but we think the storied conservative periodical is on target here. And we think NR used an interesting term, given the reported skeletons that Sessions and his acolyte, Judge Pryor, have in their respective closets.

Speaking of Pryor, how did the Birmingham-based federal judge respond to questions about his possible nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, an idea Donald Trump floated, apparently without realizing Pryor has ties to 1990s gay pornography?

How did Pryor respond to questions about his possible role in my unlawful arrest and five-month incarceration, events that came suspiciously close in time to initial reports here about the nude photos of Pryor that appeared at

How did Pryor respond to questions about his knowledge of a scheme--possibly involving Alabama lawyers and GOP operatives Rob Riley and Jessica Medeiros Garrison--to have me falsely imprisoned and to have the house my wife, Carol, and I had owned for 25 years forced into a foreclosure that likely was wrongful?

Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump
In the wake of Trump's recent announcement that he would consider Pryor as a possible nominee to the nation's highest court, I sent Pryor an e-mail seeking an interview or comment about that--and other issues noted above. Pryor apparently wanted no part of such a discussion because he did not respond to my query.

Such cowardice reminds me of Sessions--and another Trump supporter, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Here are a few of the harsh words NR's Ian Tuttle had for those two:

Presumably, Christie thinks an endorsement will increase the likelihood of his securing a position in a Trump administration (and given Trump’s financial history, that is a likelier prospect than his receiving 30 pieces of silver). But he has agreed to be, for the next several months, willingly at the end of Trump’s leash, evidence of which was Trump and Christie’s brief exchange after Christie’s speech in Arkansas: “Get on the plane and go home,” Trump said, caught on a hot mic. “It’s over. Go home.” There are pimps and prostitutes with more equitable relationships.

Speaking of prostitutes: On Sunday, Alabama senator Jeff Sessions offered Trump his own endorsement. Sessions is, of course, the Republican party’s famous immigration hawk — a fierce, and fiercely intelligent, opponent of unchecked immigration, of amnesty, and of the various abuses of visa programs that large businesses use to undermine American labor. So, naturally, he endorsed the candidate who has proposed a de facto amnesty in which the federal government would first expend astronomical quantities of money and labor to round up 11 million illegal immigrants residing in the country, escort them to their home countries — and then let them back in (provided, of course, that they’re sufficiently “terrific”); he endorsed the candidate who has abused the H-2B visa system to import foreign workers to do “jobs Americans won’t do” — like model fashion; and he endorsed the candidate who has employed illegal immigrants on his building projects as recently as July of last year. Perhaps the senator thinks that Donald Trump, having touted his promises so publicly, will be made to go through with them. If so, he should consult with Trump’s business associates, employees, and two ex-wives about the reliability of Mr. Trump’s promises.

As for Pryor, I'm not surprised he would ignore tough questions about topics that likely make him more than a little uncomfortable. But I wanted to share my query with readers, to help give an idea of just how dirty Pryor might be. As you probably can tell from the tone of my questions, I did not try to disguise the contempt I feel for Pryor and his compatriots, Riley and Garrison. Given the prominent role Pryor played in the bogus investigation of former Alabama Democratic Governor Don Siegelman, I did not try to hide my suspicion that Pryor is capable of some extremely lowdown actions.

Bill Pryor, the federal judge
Here is the e-mail I sent on February 16 to Pryor. Even though he holds a lifetime appointment, one funded by taxpayer dollars, Pryor apparently feels it is beneath him to answer tough questions. But I think it's important for the citizens who fund Pryor's cushy job on the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to know of serious and ugly issues that seem to rest on the judge's plate.

The tagline on the e-mail is "Inquiry about Donald Trump comments re: your possible nomination to U.S. Supreme Court." Here is the body of the e-mail:

Judge Pryor:

I am a reporter from Birmingham, with more than 30 years of professional experience in the field and a bachelor's degree in journalism. I write the blog Legal Schnauzer, which focuses on justice issues in Alabama, the Deep South, and beyond. My reporting was cited in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee's hearing in fall 2007 on political prosecutions under the George W. Bush administration.

I would like to request an interview about Donald Trump's recent statement that, if elected president, he would consider nominating you to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump's statements seem to have particular significance in light of my reports in fall 2013 that photos of you appeared on a gay pornography site,, in 1997. Multiple sources told me then that you posed for these full-frontal nude photographs while a student at Northeastern Louisiana University (now University of Louisiana Monroe) in the 1980s. I further understand they originally appeared in a four-color magazine, and surfaced again at the Bad Puppy Web site.

A few questions I would like to address in an interview:

* Would it be appropriate for you to consider a SCOTUS nomination, given the gay-porn photos in your background--and your public statements indicating you oppose gay rights. Multiple sources say you were confronted about the photographs in roughly 1997, long before your nomination to the federal bench. Did you disclose information about these photos to the FBI and U.S. Senate when going through confirmation for your current position?

* What does the presence of such photographs say about your judgment and your suitability for a position on the federal bench?

* Were you asked about these photographs--or other potentially embarrassing and/or corrupting background information--during the confirmation process for your position on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals? If so, did you answer truthfully? If you failed to disclose this information, what does that say about your suitability for a role on the federal bench? Did you effectively lie to Congress and is that a crime?

* On a personal note, I was unlawfully arrested--kidnapped, actually, because no warrant ever has been presented--and sent to jail for five months not long after I began investigating your ties to gay pornography. My kidnapping was conducted under the guise of a defamation lawsuit brought by Rob Riley, and at about the same time, I also faced a lawsuit from Jessica Medeiros Garrison. I understand that both Rob Riley and Jessica Garrison are long-time political allies of yours. It should be noted that, by law, my reporting never has been found defamatory at trial in either the Riley or Garrison cases. Some related questions:

A. Did you order my unlawful arrest (kidnapping) and imprisonment?

B. Did you participate in any way in a scheme to have me (and my wife, Carol) kidnapped and imprisoned? If so, what kind of deviant person are you?

C. Would you turn over all of your communications--e-mails, text messages, phone records, etc.--from Sept. 2013 until the present? Would you allow me and/or law enforcement to review these records? Would you request that Rob Riley, Jessica Garrison, Luther Strange and Liberty Duke also turn over similar records? Would you turn over all of this information to the Trump campaign?

D. Do you have any knowledge about the likely unlawful foreclosure, in spring 2014, on the house my wife and I had owned for 25 years? This foreclosure started while I was in jail and could not help defend our property rights. The imprisonment and foreclosure appear to be connected. Were you involved in both?

If nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, would you be the kind of justice who has journalists beaten and kidnapped from their own homes, and sent to jail, while their homes are essentially stolen via dubious foreclosures? Is that the kind of judge you are now? Does that reflect your view of the First Amendment?

Trump's comments represent a breaking story, so I ask that you respond to this e-mail by 5 p.m. on 2/17/15 (Wednesday).


Roger Shuler

(205) 381-5673


Anonymous said...

"Prostitute" Jeff Sessions? Isn't that an insult to streetwalkers everywhere?

Anonymous said...

The date is June 22. The HMS Victoria is taking on water. Pryor,Riley and his 2 children are on deck. There are only 2 seats left in the life boat. Riley Sr will push Pryor overboard and get in the life boat with his daughter.

legalschnauzer said...

Why, again, is June 22 significant? Not sure I've figured that one out yet.

Anonymous said...

Trump must have his gaydar turned off.

Anonymous said...

Oboma and Rollins got snookered by these good ole boys in Alabama. To make himself look better,he has to make someone look worse.(see Donald v Watkins accusing George W Bush of covering up a murder.)Oboma has to straighten out his mess before he leaves office and still leave time to recieve credit for correcting what happened to Siegelman. Judge Thompson removed 8 months from Ronnie Gilley's sentence last week.It is a sealed motion but it was probably count 4 of the indictment.There is alot of house cleaning going on in Alabama Goverment.June 22 leaves enough time and the HMS Victoria sank June 22 1893.

Anonymous said...

The Pryor question will only be answer when the court orders a "EPMO" The EPMO {emergency penis measurement order}has become common in todays world. Just a few days ago the question was put to the public by Sen. Marco Rubio about Trump's small hands, saying you know what they say about men with small hands don't you? Penis size is very important in the GOP race and you can bet that if they are in the white house no one with a short penis will set on the supreme court. So get out the gun lube and a measuring stick and get down to business. Let's make American great again. Home of the free, land of brave men with long Johnsons'. Does this man measures up for supreme court duty? Only a EPMO can answer that question. Get it done:-)

Anonymous said...

Hah, great comment, @1:20. Here's my two cents . . . If I were a prostitute, I would sue National Review for defamation after comparing me to Jeff Sessions.

Anonymous said...

Pryor has only one shortcoming and only two people complain.Paaaaaaaaauuuuuusssseeee
His wife and his shoe repairman.

Robby Scott Hill said...

Question to conservative, closeted gay government officials who persecute their fellow gay men: If I washed my penis real good & disinfected it, would you suck it? Answer: No. Jesus teaches we should not suck penises.
Retort: Y'all are some dirty dick suckers!

e.a.f. said...

I couldn't stop laughing, Pryor on the Supreme Court of the U.S.A. That ought to go well with Trump as president. No wonder there have been over 300K visits to the website on how to immigrate to Canada.

Watched the debates, up here in Canada, I don't know if its comedy hour or if this is for real. then I switch channels and its for real.

If Trump is elected some do expect a few American's to immigrate to Canada.

if Cruz is elected I expect several million Americans may claim refugee status in Canada.

Just check your guns at the border, and pick up a medical card in exchange. Oh, you can have rifles for hunting, but not AKs, etc. We ought to have "legalized" weed within the next few years. If you want to avoid political corruption, don't come to British Columbia. We're not quite as bad as Alabama, but we're getting there.

Anonymous said...

But what is Trumo getting out of this?

Have you explored the connection to Tom Davis -- chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee from 1999 to 2003? I can't say too much more...

Anonymous said...

Guess who got their degree in s**king c**k?

legalschnauzer said...

Trump University has a degree program in s**king c**k?

Is that why you went there? I'm guessing you graduated with honors?

Anonymous said...

I can't see a large enough demographic to offset minority and youth voters - currently only 2% of his voters are the under 30 demographic - this group will galvanize their friends to register and vote Democratic, as will more women - Trump's big demographic is the LEAST educated, and 2012 election stats from the Census Bureau show a direct correlation between higher levels of education that result in higher %s of voters, the least educated vote the least (35%) while college degrees are over 50%, and beyond that in education, over 60%..

Exactly where is his extra support coming from? Anti-corporate Sanders voters aren't gonna vote for a billionaire that has "lots of companies", the very antithesis of what they want in office.. when it comes to wealth, we have a billionaire vs a couple with 130 mil, 50 of it Hillary's.. not great for the "no corporate influence" movement, which I strongly support to the level of BANNING corporate lobbying, fining companies that make overseas moves, etc..

GOOD LUCK, I see Hillary getting 60% of the popular vote and 70% of the electoral vote, about 10% more than Obama in each one in 2012, or an overall gain of Dem. voters.. you can't gain voters by angering the entire world either, the President is our representative face TO the world, and the Duck has only 30% approval, and 63% disapproval - how's he going to change that without losing his rabid supporters, who will feel betrayed by any change in rhetoric?