@rparloff
While on break, here's some news: Peter Navarro's motion to dismiss his criminal contempt case was just denied by Judge Mehta. Mehta finds that Navarro has come forward with no evidence Trump ever invoked the privileges he asserted. https://bit.ly/3XuGHRa
US v Peter Navarro
US v Peter Navarro
- northland10
- Posts: 6547
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
- Location: Northeast Illinois
- Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
- Verified: ✅ I'm me.
US v Peter Navarro
Have not read it yet so I am sorry if I mention something the judge already mentioned, but it seems like making an argument that a former president can grant executive privilege is rather mute if he did not even try to make the grant of privilege.
101010
- pipistrelle
- Posts: 7897
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am
US v Peter Navarro
Beating Foggy to it.northland10 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 2:07 pm Have not read it yet so I am sorry if I mention something the judge already mentioned, but it seems like making an argument that a former president can grant executive privilege is rather mute moot if he did not even try to make the grant of privilege.
Except they are pronounced differently so not quite a homophone.
- Luke
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
- Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA
US v Peter Navarro
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 0.68.0.pdf is a fun read if you're not Peter Navarro.
Boom.
Boom.
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
- northland10
- Posts: 6547
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
- Location: Northeast Illinois
- Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
- Verified: ✅ I'm me.
US v Peter Navarro
It can also be called a "hey bonehead, pay attention to what you're typing" alert.pipistrelle wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 6:17 pmBeating Foggy to it.northland10 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 2:07 pm Have not read it yet so I am sorry if I mention something the judge already mentioned, but it seems like making an argument that a former president can grant executive privilege is rather mute moot if he did not even try to make the grant of privilege.
Except they are pronounced differently so not quite a homophone.
101010
- northland10
- Posts: 6547
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
- Location: Northeast Illinois
- Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
- Verified: ✅ I'm me.
US v Peter Navarro
Given his earlier whining about how he was arrested, which found its way into the MTD, I enjoyed this:
Defendant also points to the circumstances of his arrest as evidence of “selective animus,” which, he thinks, could be “the result of communications between the Department of Justice, the Select Committee, and/or the White House.” Id. at 37. Defendant argues that individuals charged with non-violent offenses “normally” are allowed to “self-report to court after being charged,” and the fact that he was publicly arrested at an airport is evidence of discriminatory motive. Id. This, too, is mere speculation. The court acknowledges that there are times when the government permits non-violent misdemeanants to self-surrender after being charged. But the government has provided at least a plausible explanation for why it took a different course here. See United States’ Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Comp., ECF No. 33, at 16–17 (explaining that only a few days before his indictment, when case agents attempted to interview and serve Defendant with a subpoena, he initially refused to open the door and later told the agents to “get the f*** out of here”).
101010
- Gregg
- Posts: 5502
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
- Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
- Occupation: We build cars
US v Peter Navarro
northland10 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 10:59 pm Given his earlier whining about how he was arrested, which found its way into the MTD, I enjoyed this:
Defendant also points to the circumstances of his arrest as evidence of “selective animus,” which, he thinks, could be “the result of communications between the Department of Justice, the Select Committee, and/or the White House.” Id. at 37. Defendant argues that individuals charged with non-violent offenses “normally” are allowed to “self-report to court after being charged,” and the fact that he was publicly arrested at an airport is evidence of discriminatory motive. Id. This, too, is mere speculation. The court acknowledges that there are times when the government permits non-violent misdemeanants to self-surrender after being charged. But the government has provided at least a plausible explanation for why it took a different course here. See United States’ Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Comp., ECF No. 33, at 16–17 (explaining that only a few days before his indictment, when case agents attempted to interview and serve Defendant with a subpoena, he initially refused to open the door and later told the agents to “get the f*** out of here”).
FA, allow me to introduce you to FO.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
US v Peter Navarro
“This argument relies on trump having invoked executive privilege for Pete. Trump didn't.”
He has now. Didn’t work for Bannon, won’t work now.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000185 ... bd6d820000
What's the Frequency, Kenneth?
- RTH10260
- Posts: 16998
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
- Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
- Verified: ✔️ Eurobot
US v Peter Navarro
Consider, signed only be some lawyer, but not the impotus himself.
US v Peter Navarro
Not just “some lawyer”, that’s Trump’s $3million guy.
What's the Frequency, Kenneth?
US v Peter Navarro
The lawyer who insisted on a $3 million retainer was former Florida Solicitor General Chris Kise. IIRC Evan Corcoran, who signed the recent letter, has been representing Trump in the classified document theft investigation all along, while Kise's role seemed to diminish a month or two after he was retained to great fanfare late last summer.
US v Peter Navarro
Well in my defense I’ll just say it’s really hard to keep up with the lawyer situation. Seems like every overhyped piece of crap lawyer on the East Coast is involved.chancery wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:58 pmThe lawyer who insisted on a $3 million retainer was former Florida Solicitor General Chris Kise. IIRC Evan Corcoran, who signed the recent letter, has been representing Trump in the classified document theft investigation all along, while Kise's role seemed to diminish a month or two after he was retained to great fanfare late last summer.
What's the Frequency, Kenneth?
US v Peter Navarro
That's for sure. And I suspect that there are several dozen, or more, working for Trump behind the scenes.
-
- Posts: 1091
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
- Occupation: Dude
- Verified: ✅
US v Peter Navarro
We're gonna need a flowchart to match the lawyers with the cases they are working on, complete with push pins and colorful string to link the players with the cases.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
US v Peter Navarro
I thought Kise was the $3million guy.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
- raison de arizona
- Posts: 20219
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
- Location: Nothing, Arizona
- Occupation: bit twiddler
- Verified: ✔️ he/him/his
US v Peter Navarro
Yes, Kise was the $3M guy.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
- Gregg
- Posts: 5502
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
- Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
- Occupation: We build cars
US v Peter Navarro
For that $3 million he got Trump's case in front of a bent Judge who then went on to demonstrate, at some length, that she was about as qualified to be a Federal Judge as the average three bean salad.
And then she got to the stupid part.
And then she got to the stupid part.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
- noblepa
- Posts: 2612
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
- Location: Bay Village, Ohio
- Occupation: Retired IT Nerd
US v Peter Navarro
I believe that, contrary to what Trump supporters are saying, it is well established that Executive Priviledge can only be invoked by a sitting President, not a former one.
My question is: if Trump had, indeed, invoked EP in this case, while he was still in office, could now-President Biden, withdraw the assertion of EP?
My question is: if Trump had, indeed, invoked EP in this case, while he was still in office, could now-President Biden, withdraw the assertion of EP?
- RTH10260
- Posts: 16998
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
- Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
- Verified: ✔️ Eurobot
US v Peter Navarro
In which case I have this followup questions: Is EP a blanket statement, does it cover everything past and future, or is it case by case. Does EP carry over administrations?
US v Peter Navarro
Justice Dept responds to request from Peter Navarro to dismiss his Contempt of Congress case
"Without any legal or factual basis, defendant now asks this
Court to reconsider its decision.. Defendant’s efforts to dismiss the Indictment continue to be
meritless..court should deny"
US v Peter Navarro
BREAKING: Judge MEHTA has postponed Peter NAVARRO's trial as the parties reopen complex debates about potential immunity and executive privilege.
NO trial next week.
US v Peter Navarro
Watching a democracy fall, seeing the day to day events, big and small, is a fascinating experience. Eye-opening at more or less the end of life; must be horrifying at the beginning of life.