Page 5 of 19
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2022 6:30 pm
by RTH10260
His lawyers know something that the other lawyers in contempt cases re J6 did not know?
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2022 2:26 am
by Phoenix520
ME ME ME LOOK AT MEEEEEE
WHEEEEEE
LOOK AT MEEEEEE!
I know I’m tiny but you can still see me… can’t you? WELL, CAN’T YOU!?!
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2022 4:05 am
by Kriselda Gray
raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 10:33 am
Navarro’s attorneys want to delay trial due to his upcoming book publicity tour. Trial date set for November 17th.
I hope the prosecutors object to that. It sounds like a nifty way for him to convince everyone he's innocent before anyone gets the chance to make the case he's not. I know it wouldn't be jury tampering in the legal sense, but it could easily have a similar effect...
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2022 4:09 am
by Kriselda Gray
Kendra wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 10:37 am
raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 10:33 am
Navarro’s attorneys want to delay trial due to his upcoming book publicity tour. Trial date set for November 17th.
How many times can he do the same book spin on Fox, Newsmax, etc? He shirley won't go on CNN/MSNBC/ABC, etc.?
He seems to enjoy talking to Ari on MSNBC...
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:18 am
by raison de arizona
And why this is bad news for Peter Navarro...
Elie Mystal @ElieNYC wrote:
Good lord, we have Vega v. Tekoh. The Supreme Court just gutted Miranda, ruling that a person who did NOT receive the warning has NO RIGHT to sue the government for the constitutional violation.
6-3. By the people you'd expect. Jesus Christ.
Folks, this basically overturns "the right to remain silent." It means that you can't sue the state if a cop fails to tell you your rights.
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:57 pm
by bob
With due respect for Mystal, that's a bit of a reach.
The statements are still inadmissible in court;
Miranda remains intact.
Vega v. Tekoh, however, essentially will incentivize bad-faith omissions of the warnings, as in some instances the officer's goal isn't to win in court, but to inflict punishment by gearing up the criminal justice system to target a person without sufficient means to defend in court.
But, yes, this ruling will make it more difficult for Navarro to sue the officers to whom he spoke. Not like such a suit was going to win before today's ruling.
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:08 am
by Kendra
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:25 pm
by RTH10260
"There’s a sucker born every minute” — P.T. Barnum
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:45 pm
by Gregg
Too bad its only the rich and famous who get to crowdfund their legal defense when they get into trouble.
Poor people charged with crimes should sure use that.
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2022 9:51 am
by pipistrelle
Are we fascist bastards or communist bastards or socialist bastards or what? I can’t keep it straight.
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2022 1:50 pm
by tek
"fascist bastards" are his buddies. Projection all around.
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:22 pm
by Gregg
I'm a Socialist but I know who my daddy was.
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2022 9:07 pm
by Kendra
Navarro: The reason why I think the Pence is guilty of treason to at least Trump and perhaps in this country is that he acted on the basis of a flawed legal opinion
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2022 9:58 pm
by RTH10260
"treason to at least T"
Doesn't he know that treason applies against the US, the country, only?
"that he acted on the basis of a flawed legal opinion"
The laws of the land are now flawed opinion?
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2022 10:25 pm
by Gregg
James Madison wrote:Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:49 pm
by bob
Remember when he whined that the police didn't sufficiently tell him about his privilege to STFU?
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
by northland10
bob wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:49 pm
Remember when he whined that the police didn't sufficiently tell him about his privilege to STFU?
I envision one of them saying... "you have a right to remain silent.. use it, dammit."
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2022 10:39 am
by Kendra
Send money.
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2022 10:43 am
by pipistrelle
Kendra wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 10:39 am
Send money.
Recently I gave to Ukraine, a local cat thing, a local dog thing, a raptor rehab place, and the internet archive. Please make a case for why a wealthy guy’s legal defense grift is as worthy. I’ll wait.
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2022 10:48 am
by Kendra
Oh dear, I went to the grifting site, it's worth it at least to read his about me
I has a sad, maybe I'll pull my monthly $25 donation to Purrfect pals and send it to Peter instead. Nah.
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2022 10:59 am
by Phoenix520
Off Topic
is that FosterDadJohn’s place?
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2022 11:00 am
by Kendra
Phoenix520 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 10:59 am
Off Topic
is that FosterDadJohn’s place?
Yes.
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2022 11:06 am
by Phoenix520
The hours I’ve spent watching him roll around on the floor with those babies…
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2022 11:15 am
by Kendra
Phoenix520 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 11:06 am
The hours I’ve spent watching him roll around on the floor with those babies…
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2022 10:29 am
by Kendra
ALERT: US Justice Dept made plea agreement offer to Peter Navarro in Contempt of Congress case
Offer -- rejected