Fogbow

Might as well get his own thread going, he's going to be a handful, especially if he continues to be his own lawyer

DOJ is asking Judge Mehta to quickly enter a protective order to guard against disclosure of evidence in Peter NAVARRO’s case. They say his “extrajudicial” statements to press and on Tucker Carlson’s show reveal his intent to litigate his case through the media.

Thank you! My new favorite train wreck.

Me too. I'm not a fan of Ari Melber, but dang what timing to get him on for that recent interview.

He certainly seems to be fulfilling the "Spoiled Brat" food group.

JUST IN: Navarro, in a letter to Judge Mehta, says he still does not have legal representation.

He also wants the judge to review his civil suit, claiming that the criminal action is intended to prevent him from exercising his constitutional rights. I've heard of judges putting off civil claims until the criminal process is completed, but not the other way around. But I've been wrong about such matters before.

Happy to see you, Maybenaut!

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 4:40 pm Happy to see you, Maybenaut!

Grifting, grifting, grifting

If what he says about requesting a delay so he can retain counsel is true, I actually don’t think this is a grift. I think he really is looking at blowing his retirement on legal fees, and I can understand why he wouldn’t want to do that.

Of course, it could have all been avoided so I don’t really have any sympathy.

Happy to see you!

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 1:12 am If what he says about requesting a delay so he can retain counsel is true, I actually don’t think this is a grift. I think he really is looking at blowing his retirement on legal fees, and I can understand why he wouldn’t want to do that.

Of course, it could have all been avoided so I don’t really have any sympathy.

Hi Maybenaut!!

Agree with you about no sympathy, but I do think it’s a grift. Lots of people have to use retirement funds for children’s education, parents’ long/term care costs, etc. Are we all supposed to go online and ask others to pay for it?

My initial thought was I'm supposed to send my retirement money* to schmoes like him so he doesn't have to spend his retirement money? And I didn't even try to overthrow the government!

*cuz every year we hear about some sucker mark who sent their life savings to a pastor/politician/snake oil salesman/trump because of some ridiculous promise or perceived injustice.

If he didn't want to spend his retirement savings on lawyers, he could have considered not committing crimes. Unlike him, the lawyers will be earning the money honestly.

Navarro is a multimillionaire. I get that a good defense is going to cost him, but pleading poverty and referencing his retirement savings is hardly the same for someone worth $5M as it would be for a regular Joe. And he’s brought this on himself anyway through his own decisions at every point along the way where HE could have made it turn out differently. Which is to say,

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 10:14 am Navarro is a multimillionaire. I get that a good defense is going to cost him, but pleading poverty and referencing his retirement savings is hardly the same for someone worth $5M as it would be for a regular Joe. And he’s brought this on himself anyway through his own decisions at every point along the way where HE could have made it turn out differently. Which is to say,

:yeah:

I think after the J6 thread, this is going to be my favorite one to follow for the daily drama. Glad I started it

I listened to Navarro on Charlie Kirk’s show yesterday. Well, the show was yesterday, my listening was today. Anyway. The Committee is illegal and unconstitutional. Therefore, the subpoena is illegal and unconstitutional. Navarro is standing up for George Washington and the Constitution. Even if things were legal, his testimony is protected under executive privilege, which is solely tfg’s to waive. Not Biden. He didn’t address that multiple courts have ruled differently . He did state that there is a DOJ opinion written in the 70s that clearly explains this, and that the DOJ is going against their own rules in pursuing him. Navarro estimates that his defense will cost $300-400k. Buy his book. The latest one, that is, he has over a dozen published. They took his phone when he was taken into custody and didn’t allow him to call people with it. That is against the fourth amendment. This is the last gasp of a dying regime, and they are desperately trying to retain power. It won’t work. The end.

June bug wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 9:06 am

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 1:12 am If what he says about requesting a delay so he can retain counsel is true, I actually don’t think this is a grift. I think he really is looking at blowing his retirement on legal fees, and I can understand why he wouldn’t want to do that.

Of course, it could have all been avoided so I don’t really have any sympathy.

Hi Maybenaut!!

Agree with you about no sympathy, but I do think it’s a grift. Lots of people have to use retirement funds for children’s education, parents’ long/term care costs, etc. Are we all supposed to go online and ask others to pay for it?

i’m not saying you’re wrong, I just see it a little differently. I think grift has an element of fraud. Assuming he’s telling the truth and he’s going to spend the money on lawyers, I don’t really see that as a grift. It’s not like Lin Wood collecting all that bail money for Kyle Rittenhouse, and then putting it in his pocket when Rittenhouse was released.

YMMV, and that’s OK.

I imagine one of the legal hurdles he is facing is lawyers telling him "You confessed to the crime on Live television. I'd rather represent OJ Simpson, you daft nitwit."

JUST IN: DOJ says in court filing that Peter Navarro has repeatedly lied about the conditions of his arrest — says he was not denied a call to counsel, was not denied food and water.

An FBI 302 suggests he called arresting agents "Nazis."

https://politico.com/f/?id=00000181-49b ... be514c0000

Peter Navarro has repeatedly lied about the conditions of his arrest

There's a shocker!

This guy has a PhD in economics.

I think I am a reasonably intelligent dude, but between guns and butter and professors whose first language was anything but English, I flailed miserably in economics in college. It made no sense to me, and the abstract thinking was just beyond my comprehension. Mr. Gregg will have to enlighten us about the long and winding road to receive such a lofty degree in such a complex field.

Anyway, it sounds to me that he does not wish to part with any of his personal funds for legal representation. I recall the Red Panda once wrote that most criminal defense attorneys have an initial hefty minimum fee for their services--well into six figures--with additional cash calls if the situation warrants. Well, too damn bad, Petey boy. He was born in 1949, which makes him 72 or 73. He must start taking RMDs from his IRA at age 72 if he did not start earlier under the old law. The 401(k) rules are similar, but there are exceptions if he is still employed, if I remember them correctly. Start taking funds from your personal retirement accounts. Your buddy boy changed the income tax rules in 2017, so the sting from the taxes won't be so bad.

I think Maybenaut has a decent argument that his begging for funds to pay his lawyers is not grifting if it is spent as such. On the other hand, if someone is more than flush, and he resorts to begging for money for something of his own doing, it smells like a grift. My personal views are that if anonymous people reached out and voluntarily gave money to him without prompting or solicitation, then is is a GIFT, not a GRIFT. He is free to use that money as he sees fit.

But when funds are actively solicited for a specific purpose, I would argue that this is now a form of an emolument (in the vulgar sense, not the Constitutional sense.) They are not gifts (transfers of property without full and adequate consideration.) Therefore, any money received from his entreaties would be taxable income to him. But then, I ain't no tax lawyer. But that is what I would suggest to a client if they were embarking down that road. Then consult an expert before taking that first step.

To put a couple numbers to it, Navarro is worth ~$5M, he is soliciting people to buy his latest book (he has many published) in order to fund his defense, which he estimates will cost $300-400k. IANAL, but based on what I've learned here and elsewhere, that estimate is probably fair for what he has in mind.