Page 6 of 20

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2022 10:29 am
by Volkonski

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2022 10:46 am
by Kendra

Peter Navarro's defense attorney is openly questioning in court why Navarro is being prosecuted, yet Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino are not

Defense alleges feds have animosity toward Navarro

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2022 10:47 am
by Gregg
Doesn't look like Pete is gonna be legally allowed to own firearms pretty soon.

:guntootin:

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2022 10:49 am
by Suranis
Some people just want to watch themselves burn.

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2022 10:56 am
by Gregg
and I am so totally here for that.

Go ahead, Pete, jump.

Image

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2022 11:42 am
by Foggy
Suranis wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 10:49 am Some people just want to watch themselves burn.
I enjoy watching bad people burn :blackeye: so I'm down with that.

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2022 11:54 am
by roadscholar
Simple retort to that allegation:

“Why yes, Mr.Navarro, you are correct. We do have animosity toward people we believe broke the laws of the United States.”

:boxing:

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2022 2:09 pm
by Kendra

Peter Navarro has rejected the government’s plea offer that he serve no more than 30 days in jail if he agrees to honor his subpoena. Let’s see what he says after his best pal Steve Bannon goes to trial next week.

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2022 7:21 am
by Foggy
Hahaha, 30 days, he's looking at an unbelievable nightmare. Sadly (hahaha) he's just not tough enough for jail. They don't feed you great food in jail. The maid doesn't put a chocolate on your pillow at bedtime. They order you around and make you wear bad clothes. They treat you with no respect whatsoever. They're mean to you, and there isn't a goddamned thing you can do about it.

Jail isn't for spoiled babies, pal.

THIRTY DAYS. :twisted:

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2022 11:01 am
by Kendra


I didn't originally post this link here, since in theory it wasn't about the Navarro contempt charges, but for anyone who might have missed this, I think Petey's might have more troubles coming down the pike. Unless maybe he didn't know what his aide was doing? :liar:

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2022 6:59 pm
by Kendra
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 8e41324172
NEW YORK (AP) — The Justice Department filed suit Wednesday against Peter Navarro, claiming the former adviser to Donald Trump used an unofficial email account while working in the White House and wrongfully retained presidential records.

The lawsuit in federal court in Washington claims Navarro used at least one “non-official" email account — a ProtonMail account — to send and receive emails. The legal action comes just weeks after Navarro was indicted on criminal charges after refusing to cooperate with a congressional investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

The civil cases alleges that by using the unofficial email account, Navarro failed to turn over presidential records to the National Archives and Records Administration.

The Justice Department is asking a federal judge for an order “authorizing the recovery of any Presidential records in the possession, custody, and/or control of Mr. Navarro.” The suit also seeks unspecified damages.

“Mr. Navarro is wrongfully retaining Presidential records that are the property of the United States, and which constitute part of the permanent historical record of the prior administration,” the suit states.

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2022 7:29 pm
by Gregg
"I accidently wiped my phone... honest, Your Honor."

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2022 7:35 pm
by Kendra
I so hope one of the news stations can find some old video of Navarro complaining about Hillary's emails :whistle:

So much cray-cray this week and it's only Wednesday. Lots of material of Acosta's block on CNN Saturday afternoon, but how will the prime time lineup on Fox spin all this stuff?

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2022 7:58 pm
by northland10
After all the Hilary screaming, you'd think these folks would have been more careful about things like email and records.

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2022 9:41 pm
by Phoenix520
Kendra wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 7:35 pm I so hope one of the news stations can find some old video of Navarro complaining about Hillary's emails :whistle:

So much cray-cray this week and it's only Wednesday. Lots of material of Acosta's block on CNN Saturday afternoon, but how will the prime time lineup on Fox spin all this stuff?
It feels like Karma has reached our sector on her millennial rounds. Here’s hoping she hangs around for a while. ;)

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2022 9:48 pm
by Tiredretiredlawyer
northland10 wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 7:58 pm After all the Hilary screaming, you'd think these folks would have been more careful about things like email and records.
The rules don't apply to them, only to everyone else.

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:03 am
by raison de arizona
Peter Navarro trashes Jared Kushner, saying he is lying about thyroid cancer in his book for sympathy, and cost Trump re-election: “Mismanagement of the campaign .. the pandemic .. the guy was just a one-man wrecking crew. His only qualification was he was the boss’s son-in-law.”

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2022 2:48 am
by Gregg
Well, he hired you, so that tends to support your thesis.

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:29 am
by Foggy
"Daddy? Jared says ..."
:rotflmao:

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2022 10:27 am
by Kendra

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:16 am
by RTH10260
Back to jail 5pm :?: :twisted:

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:39 pm
by Ben-Prime
Kendra wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 10:27 am
Any news yet?

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:49 pm
by Kendra
Not here, I haven't found anyone live tweeting, dangit.

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2022 2:51 pm
by Luke
Here's what Petey filed on August 4th now that he has counsel (44 pages). He had plenty of money for lawyers, it was his choice to not be represented. Lots of whining, "I didn't knows" & complaining. Sample footnote:
3 / Dr. Navarro, a layman who at the time was not represented by counsel, understood President
Trump’s instructions to be equivalent to an assertion of testimonial immunity. He advised the
Coronavirus Subcommittee that he could not comply with its subpoena and suggested that it
resolve the privilege issues directly with President Trump. The Subcommittee did not pursue the
matter, which confirmed to Dr. Navarro his understanding that, in the absence of agreement
between the Executive and Legislative branches, he was not obligated to comply with the
subpoena.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... compel.pdf

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2022 1:11 pm
by Kendra

Peter Navarro claims that he has “circumstantial evidence” that Liz Cheney is going to try and steal her election tomorrow with fraudulent absentee ballots.