I don't think we've talked about this, Navarro's opposition to the US House filing a AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF. It's a hoot.
Put simply, the House here is no friend of
the Court. Rather, the House, in the politicization of the criminal contempt process, seeks to jail
Dr. Navarro for asserting former President Donald J. Trump’s executive privilege in response to
a subpoena from the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States
Capitol.
"Standing up some control centers" sounds way different than "standing up a blind date." They don't give awards for that.
Off Topic
In fact that's pretty much a Britishism, isn't it? I mean, "standing up" rather than "standing up at or in"
Off Topic
Probably a Britishism, but my guess was something closer to "starting up" or "setting up" based on the context.
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2022 5:15 am
by Uninformed
“Stand up”, “stand to”, and “stand by” (as used by tfg no less), have long been used to refer to the mobilisation/activation/readying of military forces. No idea of its original use.
Fav headline of the week from MSNBC.com: "Judge pooh-poohs Peter Navarro's bid to delay contempt prosecution"
But in striking down Navarro’s request, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta let him know he's not in the same boat as Meadows and Scavino, from a legal perspective. Mehta wrote that there are “valid differences between Meadows, Scavino, and Defendant that could have led to their different treatment.” The judge explained that Navarro “failed to meet his heavy burden” needed to justify a demand for the DOJ records.
According to Mehta, a key distinction between the three men is that Navarro — unlike Meadows and Scavino — never received formal instruction from Trump or his lawyers not to testify. Meadows and Scavino, however, were directed by Trump's legal team to invoke immunities or privileges that might allow them to avoid testifying.
Another distinction, Mehta said, was in the three men’s approaches to the committee. While Meadows’ and Scavino’s lawyers “engaged” and “negotiated” with the committee (and Meadows turned over some documents), Navarro “communicated with the Select Committee over a three-week period largely through terse emails and public statements,” Mehta said.
“He made no apparent effort to accommodate the Select Committee, let alone produce records as Meadows did,” the judge wrote.
Sep 13, 2022 MINUTE ORDER granting United States House of Representative's 49 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief. The court accepts the House's amicus brief pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(o). The amicus brief will be helpful to the court insofar as Defendant has moved to dismiss the indictment based on alleged flaws in both the composition of the Select Committee, Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss Indictment, ECF No. 35-2, at 17-27, and the subpoena issued to him by the Committee, id. at 30-31. Importantly, Defendant's arguments cite to and criticize positions taken by the House in an amicus brief accepted in United States v. Bannon (21-cr-670). See id. 22, 25. The court would benefit from the House's response to these arguments. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 9/13/2022. (lcapm2)
The end of the Ruling was, "For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to compel is denied. The United States shall make its submission to the court concerning the immunity order by September 20, 2022." Didn't see any other scheduling but might have missed it, the full docket is at: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63 ... v-navarro/
"Standing up some control centers" sounds way different than "standing up a blind date." They don't give awards for that.
Off Topic
In fact that's pretty much a Britishism, isn't it? I mean, "standing up" rather than "standing up at or in"
Off Topic
More like provisioning? Or commissioning?
Off Topic
Often in my IT work we will "stand up" an instance of an EC2 or other computing machine to add to a farm processing data. Also "spin up". fwiw
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2022 4:02 pm
by Kendra
Peter Navarro appears remotely at Eric Trump and Michael Flynn’s event today to ask people to buy his book to pay for his legal fees. He says he has paid $500k in legal bills so far, and the host asks people to buy them so people can give them to friends that are Democrats.
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:45 am
by RTH10260
Judge mocks Peter Navarro’s complaint in contempt of Congress case
David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement
September 12, 2022
A federal judge on Monday denied former top Trump White House advisor and conspiracy theorist Peter Navarro‘s claims in his contempt of Congress case, highlighting several including his claim of selective prosecution and “unlawful political interference.”
Navarro was arrested in June for failing to comply “in any way” with a subpoena issued by the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack and indicted by a grand jury on two contempt charges.
The Court ruled Navarro “has not made a ‘colorable claim,'” meaning, valid, “as to either element of the selection prosecution defense.” At one point the judge calls Navarro’s claims “speculative.”
The DOJ will need to get the password from Navarro personally. ProtonMail does not have access to the encryped accounts on their mail server. With the password the DOJ can login to his mailbox. ProtonMail falls under what is called mail privacy, in general noone can divulge what is in the snail mail nor in electronic communications. DOJ would have to approach the Swiss legal authorities with a search warrant, for that Navarro would already be under indictment, another stumbling block is that "use of private device for government communication" is not a thing under Swiss law.There has to be an equivalent criminal law in Switzerland to have a search warrant approved. As he used a foreign service the US alphabet agencies can get a try on cracking the problem.
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2022 6:42 pm
by Gregg
I am not opposed to water boarding him, or using any other punishment he would have no problem with using on anyone held at Gitmo.
Something involving a battery charger and nipple clamps, maybe?
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2022 6:50 pm
by RTH10260
commentary by MaidasTouch
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:35 pm
by Kendra
New Justice Dept court filing in the Contempt of Congress case of Peter Navarro includes this excerpt
The court filing says this was a Feb. 2022 email from Navarro to a Trump spokesperson ... a statement about his subpoena to share with "The Boss"
===>
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:21 am
by Kendra
A proposed defense witness list in the Contempt of Congress trial of Peter Navarro later this month
Noting: Witness number 10
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2022 6:35 pm
by Gregg
I dunno about #10 but I think we found #11
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2022 4:23 am
by Kriselda Gray
He may have just cooked his goose with trump, though. In item #11 he actually refers to trump as "former President."
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2022 11:13 am
by Kendra
Ahead of his trial for Contempt of Congress, former Trump trade advisor Peter Navarro appears in court at 2:30pm in Washington for a motion hearing today
Navarro is listed on a projected defense witness list at trial
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2022 4:36 pm
by raison de arizona
Kyle Cheney @kyledcheney wrote:
HAPPENING NOW: Peter Navarro's lawyers are arguing in court that Trump privately told him to assert executive privilge to the Jan. 6 committee.
Judge Mehta wants some sort of proof. Navarro's attorneys say they don't want to call Trump as a witness. So... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
More TK
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2022 9:28 pm
by Kendra
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2022 10:03 am
by Kendra
Court has scratched today's pretrial conference in Contempt of Congress case of Peter Navarro. Trial is set for later this month.
And Navarro's name is on the witness list.
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2022 7:01 pm
by Kendra
New trial date.
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2023 3:27 pm
by Kendra
Pretrial conference set for Jan 26 in Peter Navarro's Contempt of Congress case
