Page 2 of 20

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2022 4:14 pm
by AndyinPA
Every time I land on this thread, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime," comes into my head.

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2022 4:25 pm
by Phoenix520
Eggsackly, Andy!

And too also, if you weren’t such an unpleasant fellow to deal with you might have been treated with more respect. As it is, sir, you got the respect you deserve. Asshat.

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2022 4:53 pm
by tek
Didn't we already see this bullshite on The Roger Stone Show?

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:45 pm
by Gregg
raison de arizona wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 3:22 pm 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.
He could have paid $5k and spent an afternoon playing "I don't recall" and "Plead the 5th" and been done with it. What really burns me about it is he is a wealthy man more or less, he has a decent income from book royalties and I'm betting he pulls down as much as the rubes make a week for doing an appearance on Fox News etc... Half the suckers he's begging money from probably don't have squat saved are are still counting on Social Security. I dunno about you, but if I was gonna have to figure out how to get by on $1400 a month when I retired I wouldn't be giving it away to an asshole who didn't just ask to be where he ended up, he got down on his knees and begged.

TL;DR Phuck him

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2022 8:30 pm
by raison de arizona
Gregg wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:45 pm He could have paid $5k and spent an afternoon playing "I don't recall" and "Plead the 5th" and been done with it.
Yeah, that's why it's hard for me to garner any sympathy. He didn't HAVE to tell them crap, but he HAD to appear. He had months upon months just get it done, and instead he played stupid games and now he's winning stupid prizes. I only wish Meadows was a winner too.

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2022 1:24 am
by keith
tek wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 3:08 pm
Peter Navarro has repeatedly lied about the conditions of his arrest
There's a shocker!
And what else would the arresting officers do with a fugitive that attempting to escape apprehension and with obvious means to escape jurisdiction.

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2022 2:28 am
by MN-Skeptic

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2022 3:15 pm
by Kendra

DC Judge cracks back at Peter Navarro:

"In the last 2 days, Defendant has twice communicated with the court by emailing the courtroom deputy, without copying government counsel. This is not proper. Defendant is not permitted to have ex-parte communications with the court"

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2022 11:25 am
by Suranis
Image

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2022 1:55 pm
by Reality Check
Navarro is the perfect example of the kind of morons Trump attracts like flies to :shit:

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2022 4:18 pm
by raison de arizona
Speaking of dumb assed economists, tfg is quoting Art Laffer as proof of how bad Biden's inflation is, "These inflation numbers are catastrophic!" Laffer says.

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2022 7:45 am
by tek
Off Topic
The other major plan was proposed by President Reagan, who made tax reform the cornerstone of his second term, similar to the way he made tax reduction the cornerstone of his first term. Remember that? It was back when everybody was talking about supply-side economics, which was based on the Laffer Curve, which is this mysterious curve that became famous when an economist named Arthur Laffer drew it, at a party, on a napkin belonging to Rep. Jack Kemp. I'm not making this up.
...
What the Laffer Curve allegedly showed, when you held it in a certain light, was that if the government reduced everybody's taxes, it would make MORE MONEY, and the federal budget deficit would go away. I admit that, as I look back on it, this theory seems even stupider than throwing beverages into Boston Harbor, but, at the time, it had a very strong appeal. Kemp started showing his napkin around Washington, and soon many people were excited about supply-side economics. It was similar to those stories you sometimes see in the newspaper about how some Third World village gets all riled up when a peasant woman discovers a yam shaped exactly like the Virgin Mary.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... 4dc14403d/

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2022 7:51 am
by Suranis
Everyone remember the biggest tax cut in history in 81, but everyone forgets that Reagan proposed the biggest tax hike in history in 82.

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2022 8:55 am
by Kendra

Peter Navarro's arraignment in Contempt of Congress criminal case is set for Friday

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:07 pm
by Kendra

In new court filing, Peter Navarro has complaints about day of his arrest, saying he "spent several hours in that jail cell out of communication w/ anyone & was surprised when just minutes before his appearance before a magistrate, he was told he could meet w/ a public defender"

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:55 pm
by RTH10260
Worked for a government and totally ignorant on judicial procedures?

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2022 4:20 pm
by Gregg
tek wrote: Sun Jun 12, 2022 7:45 am
Off Topic
The other major plan was proposed by President Reagan, who made tax reform the cornerstone of his second term, similar to the way he made tax reduction the cornerstone of his first term. Remember that? It was back when everybody was talking about supply-side economics, which was based on the Laffer Curve, which is this mysterious curve that became famous when an economist named Arthur Laffer drew it, at a party, on a napkin belonging to Rep. Jack Kemp. I'm not making this up.
...
What the Laffer Curve allegedly showed, when you held it in a certain light, was that if the government reduced everybody's taxes, it would make MORE MONEY, and the federal budget deficit would go away. I admit that, as I look back on it, this theory seems even stupider than throwing beverages into Boston Harbor, but, at the time, it had a very strong appeal. Kemp started showing his napkin around Washington, and soon many people were excited about supply-side economics. It was similar to those stories you sometimes see in the newspaper about how some Third World village gets all riled up when a peasant woman discovers a yam shaped exactly like the Virgin Mary.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... 4dc14403d/

Start showing Republicans a plan where they can convince the rubes to let them cut taxes for the rich and they get so many boners that Viagra sales fall off a cliff.

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2022 4:23 pm
by Gregg
RTH10260 wrote: Sun Jun 12, 2022 3:55 pm Worked for a government and totally ignorant on judicial procedures?
Black kids who survive getting pulled over for expired tags get a free phone and press agent when they get arrested as well as access to the finest legal talent in the jurisdiction. They are freed immediately and spend days in consultation with their legal team before araignment,


Don't they?

:shrug:

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2022 10:19 am
by Kendra

JUST IN: DOJ says it does not have any video of Navarro’s arrest on the jetway of Reagan National Airport

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2022 10:30 am
by Suranis
Translation "Go bug the airport if you want video recordings, Navarro. Some of us have actual work to do, beanbag-head"

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2022 12:03 pm
by RTH10260
A bit unusual that police would not wear body cams. Was it perhaps the Marshal law Service that put him in handcuffs?

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2022 12:09 pm
by raison de arizona
RTH10260 wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 12:03 pm A bit unusual that police would not wear body cams. Was it perhaps the Marshal law Service that put him in handcuffs?
Federal agents are required to wear body cams when making pre-planned arrests.
Federal agents will now be required to wear body cameras when executing search warrants or making pre-planned arrests, according to a new policy outlined Monday by the Justice Department's second highest-ranking official.
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/08/10044725 ... ody-camera

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2022 4:09 pm
by MN-Skeptic

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2022 4:25 pm
by Gregg
Pro se it is then.

Re: US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2022 6:18 pm
by jcolvin2
Gregg wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 4:25 pm Pro se it is then.
I hear Ron Varo is avaiable.