Pryor appeared to be Donald Trump's No. 1 choice to fill the late Antonin Scalia's seat on the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), but he finished no higher than No. 3 as the nomination went to Neil Gorsuch, of Colorado. Pryor saw his political booster, former U.S. senator and Trump Attorney General Jeff Sessions, become ensnared in KremlinGate for lying to Congress about meetings with a Russian ambassador -- and Sessions could face criminal prosecution on at least three counts, according to a bar complaint by Boston attorney J. Whitfield Larrabee.
Now, two additional nude photos of Pryor, from a gallery that appeared at the gay-porn super site badpuppy.com in 1997, have surfaced. Did our reporting on the first gay-porn Pryor photo help cause his SCOTUS chances to implode? I know a number of smart people who think the answer is yes. If that's the case, the two new photos are likely to have Pryor's judicial career floating like a corpse in a slow-moving river.
A strategically blurred version of gay-porn photo No. 2 is at the top, right corner of this post. (You can view the full-blown, NSFW version by clicking on a link at the end of this post.) As you can see, this photo appears to be taken in the same setting, with the same primitive "techniques," as No. 1. This time, Pryor appears to be sitting on, or straddling, a block of wood. Not sure what that is supposed to signify. (Not sure I want to think about what that is supposed to signify.)
Photo No. 2 has surfaced at Tumblr and a number of Europe-based porn sites. The same goes for Photo No. 3, which we will reveal in an upcoming post. According to multiple sources, the original Pryor gallery included eight to 12 images. Alert Legal Schnauzer readers now are scouring various Web sites for the remaining images. We hope to have the full collection within the next two or three months. It's sort of like collecting baseball cards, without the chewing gum.
How could 2017 get tougher for Pryor? Multiple news sites have reported that Pryor's gay-porn past actually has helped his judicial career. The photos, our sources say, likely surfaced via Republican political operatives, who knew they could be used as blackmail against Pryor. That made Pryor an attractive candidate to be a compromised judicial nominee, who could make sure certain cases turned out the way Karl Rove GOPers desired. In blunt terms, Pryor is known as a case fixer, and that could get him into a heap of trouble in 2017.
 |
| Robed Bill Pryor and disrobed Bill Pryor from gay-porn photo No. 1 |
But Jeff Sessions appears to be in deep doo-doo, especially if some form of wiretap captured his conversations with Russian officials at Trump Tower. I know of a number of individuals, fed up with courtroom corruption in Alabama, who are gathering information for the FBI about judges who issue orders that run contrary to actual law.
Will the FBI, already investigating the actions of Trump insiders in KremlinGate (and that almost certainly includes Jeff Sessions), look at judges and others who have benefited from Sessions' crooked political clout -- especially those who, at this moment, appear to be fixing court cases? If the answer to that one is yes, it could unleash a torrent of intriguing information, especially as it relates to an Alabama "justice system" that has been hopelessly dysfunctional since at least 1995 -- and probably much earlier than that.
It's well established that judges cannot be sued for acts in their official capacity, no matter how corrupt they might be, because of a judge-created concept called "judicial immunity." (Note: We never will have an honest court system until judicial immunity winds up in the trash bin of history.) But it's also well established that judges can be criminally prosecuted, just like the rest of us. And there is little doubt Pryor, Proctor, and Hopkins (plus many others in Alabama) have engaged in criminal activity.
Corrupt judges in Alabama have been acting for years like they are beyond the long arm of the law. They might discover soon that they were wrong about that.
We sought comment from Pryor for this post, but he has not responded to our queries. The timing of a recent court order, however, suggests he might have responded in a different way -- by helping to fix a case. We will explain in an upcoming post.
Bill Pryor NSFW No. 2
(To be continued)
45 comments:
Great work, Schnauzer. Expose this hypocrite!
Oh man, time to break out the Orville Redenbacher!
Warning: Anyone who dares to click on the NSFW link at the end of this post, had better brace him/her self. It's a doozy.
He's sitting on a block of wood. I guess that's supposed to mean something.
I'll give Pryor credit for being well hung. That's about all he's got to be proud of.
This is real journalism.
Pryor is a raving madman.
Kid in this photo looks real young. Think I would rather not click on the link just in case.
@10:14 --
I think it means there happened to be a block of wood nearby. Not sure a whole lot of thought went into this.
This must be Pryor's contribution to the "National Endowment."
I've published this before, but it probably bears repeating. The photos of Pryor were taken while he was a student at NE Louisiana (now Louisiana Monroe). He was in 18-22 age range. It originated at a print publication in the 1980s, which probably required an age certification. It later landed at the badpuppy.com, one of the largest gay-porn collections on the planet. Pryor looks young for his age now; he looked young for his age then. My original story about gay-porn photo No. 1 was republished at dozens of sites around the Web. The child-porn question is not an issue. He was a college student, and no one snuck up on him in the shower to take these photos. He clearly knew what he was doing.
Don't let this get to Clarence Thomas. He'll go, "It's a white-boy version of Long Dong Silver."
Those of us who have followed Pryor's career know he's a legal mediocrity. Now, we know for sure the one asset he's had all these years -- and it ain't between his ears; it's between his legs.
So, that's the schlong that made Jeff Sessions fall in love.
I think you've revealed the foundation of Bill Pryor's legal career. It was built on his dick, and his willingness to show it off. He was a short little dude, with acne and crossed eyes, who had nothing going for him -- except that God had given him a wanker that looks good in a locker room.
That's how a non-talent almost winds up on the U.S. Supreme Court -- and if Trump doesn't get indicted soon, I suppose Pryor still could wind up at SCOTUS. Scary.
Maybe Pryor needs to challenge Neil Gorsuch to a "long dick" contest. Pryor probably would win that one!
@11:00 --- I don't think we have to worry about Pryor's name being mentioned for SCOTUS again. I believe Mr. Schnauzer has taken that possibility out of play, even for a president as bad as Trump.
Nothing like seeing a hypocrite exposed, really exposed. I love it!
@11:05 -
Hah! That's how all great intellectual debates should be decided. It's the ultimate tie-breaker for men of great intellect.
Here's the thought that went into these photos:
Photog: Hey, Billy, come on over for your photo shoot.
Pryor: Do I need to bring anything?
Photog: Nope, just your schlong, We'll figure out everything else from there.
Wouldn't it be nice if Pryor wound up in prison near the end of 2017 or in early 2018? Maybe he and Sessions can be cell mates.
If I have a case before a court, I certainly want a judge with a big dick to decide it.
Something tells me Pryor did not disclose these photos in his Senate confirmation hearings.
@11:20 --
Something tells me the same thing, and that's really the important issue here. As I've reported before, it's a standard question during confirmation (I believe it's usually in the written part): "Is there anything in your past that could bring embarrassment to you or the president who nominated you?"
If Pryor said no, he committed a crime and almost certainly an impeachable offense. It's high time that someone in authority scour his confirmation documents because they likely will reveal a crime that could remove Pryor from the bench.
As some background, here is a post about Pryor's reported role as a fixer for Karl Rove & Co.
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2014/12/judge-bill-pryors-ties-to-gay.html
In fact, our sources say conservative forces pushed George W. Bush to make the appointment not because of any legal expertise on Pryor's part, but because his secrets make him controllable. Madsen calls Pryor a "gatekeeper" for Republican interests. Others have called him a "fixer," that he protects Karl Rove's agenda on the bench. Rove once served as Pryor's campaign manager in a race for Alabama attorney general.
Here is a post about Pryor's likely failure to disclose information to Congress:
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2015/03/resignation-of-us-rep-aaron-schock.html
That brings us to Pryor's Senate confirmation hearing. It is standard for a federal nominee to be asked, under oath, if there is anything in his background that might embarrass him or the president who nominated him. Pryor has known the nude photos were public since at least September 1997, and our sources say he likely did not disclose their existence to FBI and Senate investigators.
What are the possible implications of that? Here is how we answered that question in an earlier post:
Could Pryor face serious consequences if it is shown he made false statements to officials looking into his background? Based on the impeachment and removal of Louisiana federal judge Thomas Porteous in 2010, the answer might be yes.
One of the articles of impeachment against Porteous involved his failure to disclose information to investigators--and his false statements during pre-confirmation regarding any background information that might prove embarrassing to him and the president who nominated him, Bill Clinton.
Did Pryor withhold information that would embarrass him and George W. Bush? We don't have a certain answer at the moment, but it appears likely.
Porteous probably went down because he had been nominated by Clinton. Not sure if Porteous was black, but it will help Pryor that he's a white "conservative." What a phony.
I find it hard to believe that Pryor would limit himself to nude modeling. I'm betting he's had numerous gay encounters, probably of the quickie variety, where neither party even knows the other guy's name. Such a party, however, might recognize these photos of Pryor. Wouldn't that be the cat's pajamas.
@11:55 --
Yes, it would be the cat's pajamas. I've heard from just such a person, and he says he had at least one quickie encounter with the guy in the photo. This fellow still lives near Monroe, LA, and in the conservative environment down there, he is concerned about the blow back from coming forward. But he is thinking about making his story public. If he does, you will read about here at Legal Schnauzer.
Weren't you arrested last time you wrote about Pryor's nude pics? Do you think he had something to do with that?
Yes, I was arrested last time I wrote about Pryor photos. And yes, there is no doubt Pryor was involved in that, along with Rob Riley and probably several other GOP thugs.
Do you have a photo of Pryor from his college yearbooks? I know you argue it is him based upon certain comparisons to current day photos, but seems like there would be earlier photos of him available for better comparison.
I've got more than just pictures from his college yearbooks. I've got multiple individuals who knew Pryor in college at Monroe, LA, and say that is him. One said he had a brief sexual encounter with the guy in the picture, Pryor. I've interviewed the AL law enforcement officer who tracked down the photos to Louisiana. I've talked to people who have seen the original print photos under the name Bill Pryor. You're a little behind the curve with this one.
As an aside, why don't you call Pryor at his Birmingham, AL, office and ask why I was arrested and the target of a bogus Rob Riley lawsuit roughly a month after my first story about his nudie past. Ask him why cop thugs started showing up on our property within days of my first report on the gay-porn pics. If that's not him, why was I arrested and thrown in jail for five months within days of writing about his sorry, corrupt ass?
It's him, and Pryor never has granted an interview on the subject because he knows it's him.
Roger, regarding record keeping and age requirements of nude models, 18 U.S.C. 2257 (Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988) didn't become law until 1988, well past the years the nude photographs of BadPuppy Bill were taken, and likewise the same years Bill attended NLU/ULM. Pryor to 1988, there were no federal laws regarding photographers or studios to keep records of ID checks.
Tim
Tim:
What's your point?
My point is in response to your statement:
"It originated at a print publication in the 1980s, which probably required an age certification."
When the BadPuppy Bill photos were taken, there were no federal laws requiring studios/photographers (manufacturers, as they're called in the biz) to check IDs or to keep records of such. And yes, I believe the original publication was BadPuppy Magazine, as it was known prior to the internet, before morphing into BadPuppy.com. Back then they solicited models through the magazine, prompting young college boys to send in nude photos, and a release. BadPuppy Magazine used the "Bill Pryor" moniker, the model's real name, probably in error.
I think he is saying that the youth in the picture may not be of legal age and it might open you up to child pornography distribution charges by linking to the site if it is ever revealed who the person is and at what age they had the picture take. I find this doubtful because I believe a legitimate modern-day commercial porn site would still have to verify the age of the individual in the pictures which means they would know if it is Pryor or not but I do not think they have to disclose it. This is why I doubt it is him. When he was being vetted for SCOTUS that would have been found and he would never have made it to the top 3 candidates. I could be wrong though. People have done dumber things before.
Tim:
Thanks for elaborating on that.
@9:28 --
You might want to check out Tim's response above. I think you are off target re: vetting for SCOTUS. Pryor wasn't nominated, apparently was not even invited to Trump's announcement event, so I see no reason why he would be vetted for SCOTUS. He surely was vetted when he was nominated to the federal bench (2003?), and the gay-porn pix should have been discovered then, but I have no problem believing that Pryor stayed quiet about it on his written disclosures, and investigators missed it. All you have to do is take a visit to badpuppy.com to see that the gay-porn presence on the Web is voluminous, with huge numbers of images. It truly is a "needle in the haystack" situation and tracking down 8-12 images out of millions would be quite a chore. As for the age ID issue, I know photo No. 2 is on at least 4-5 Web sites now, including Tumblr, so execs at those sites seem convinced there is no "child porn" issue, and multiple sources have told me he was in 18-22 age range when photo was taken at ULM.
"Is there anything in your past that could bring embarrassment to you or the president who nominated you?"
That is a very vague question. What if the person in question does not believe that the picture are an embarrassment to them? What defines embarrassment in this day and age? I know the dictionary definition is "a feeling of self-consciousness, shame, or awkwardness."
It feels like you are crossing a line trying to shame people who disagree with you. Makes me feel like you are Richard Dreyfuss's Senator Bob Rumson trying shame Sidney Ellen Wade for burning a flag in order to attack the President.
@11:42 --
You and I might have an honest disagreement here. I don't see the question as vague at all. I see what you are saying about the first part of the question (how Pryor might view it), but I don't think there is any lack of clarity in the second part (how George W. Bush or any other president would view it). Plus, Pryor's own actions -- refusing to take questions about it, etc. -- show he knows it's an embarrassment.
As for your last paragraph, I'm not familiar with that show or movie. But Bill Pryor has a lifetime, taxpayer-funded position, and that comes with big-time responsibilities and scrutiny. No one forced him to take this position and no one is forcing him to keep it. It's a position of supreme public trust, and he's proven he's not up for it. Plus, I have zero doubt that he fixes cases, and that goes to criminality that is a wrong committed against all of us.
In response to Anonymous' question: "What defines embarrassment in this day and age?"
Posing for a gay porn magazine would define embarrassment and shame to an anti LGBT, ultra-Right wing, bigoted homophobe such as Pryor, especially if he has engaged in sex with men. What is particularly embarrassing to me, is to see people betray their own kind, especially when their true motive is financial gain.
So let's see the face photos from his college years you claim prove it is Pryor in the nude photos. And who are your "sources?" Anonomys?
Send me your full name, DOB, address, and contact information, and I will be glad to take your request.
Dying to see photo number 3, which I sent you, and others that you have, as I understand your article.
Thank you.
No. 3 will be published soon. So far, Nos. 1-3 are the only ones I have. Based on my sources' estimation of 8 to 12 total, that means there are several more out there.
Post a Comment