Page 11 of 20
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:38 pm
by humblescribe
Maybe I am the stupid one here. I got a resounding D in economics. I do not have his bona fides in this arcane art.
Contempt of Congress is some low-level felony, amirite? That fount of all information, Wikipedia, says that Contempt of Congress carries a minimum one-month sentence with a maximum of twelve months' incarceration. The fine is set at a minimum of $100 and a maximum of $100,000.
To my knowledge, he is a first-time offender. So, he is spending upwards of a half a mil to fight what would likely be a 30-day sentence and a modest fine (let's just say $25,000 for laughs) if he pleads guilty to one count. I would suspect that the DOJ would drop the second count if he pleads guilty.
He could serve his 30 days standing on his head, pony up the $25K, (plus minimal legal fees for a quick and dirty deal) and then make four times that through speaking engagements and television appearances and other means.
Why does he throw good money after bad? Cut your losses, pal. Move on with your life. Move to Merde-a-lago and play gin rummy with your former boss every day to try to win back some of your money when the speaking engagements dry up.
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2023 1:53 am
by Gregg
He could have just shown up, pleaded the Fifth for 2 hours and been done with it, for the cost of parking in DC. (Does Congress validate?)
But you know, ruins the Fox News Grift Tour when you do that.
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2023 11:25 am
by Kendra
Are we ever going to see a trial?
Navarrro wants to speak to the manager.
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2023 10:07 am
by Kendra
NEW: A federal district court judge said Navarro must turn over 200-250 emails held in his private ProtonMail account to the National Archives, rejecting a series of arguments he made against returning the presidential records.
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2023 10:41 am
by RTH10260
![Surprised :o](./images/smilies/icon_e_surprised.gif)
a US governmental emplyee (former) holding presidential documents on a mail server in a foreign country
(at least it's a service that is still considered 'safe' and not a Russian one)
![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2023 2:53 pm
by northland10
I have not finished reading but this bit from the judge's initial summary is interesting.
By email dated July 22, 2022, Dr. Navarro’s counsel represented that their application of the search parameters that NARA provided had generated over 1,700 documents. Thereafter, on July 25, 2022, Dr. Navarro’s counsel estimated that, based on their review of these documents, between 200 and 250 of these 1,700 documents were PRA records. Bosanko Decl. ¶ 9. By letter dated July 29, 2022, Dr. Navarro’s counsel refused to produce any PRA records to NARA absent a grant of immunity for the act of returning such records. Bosanko Decl. ¶ 9.
That makes me wonder, are some of the emails involving no-nos or possibly containing some sort of classified material?
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2023 3:06 pm
by RTH10260
Is Navarro stupid enough to risk contempt of court and getting locked up for denying access to the electronic documents?
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2023 3:27 pm
by Phoenix520
He seems to get more stubborn ( stupider) ever day.
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2023 5:53 pm
by Gregg
RTH10260 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 3:06 pm
Is Navarro stupid enough to risk contempt of court and getting locked up for denying access to the electronic documents?
Is that a rhetorical question?
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2023 5:57 pm
by RTH10260
Gregg wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 5:53 pm
RTH10260 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 3:06 pm
Is Navarro stupid enough to risk contempt of court and getting locked up for denying access to the electronic documents?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I am waiting for it to turn factual. Together with the jail sentence for not following a subpoena (one or more)
![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2023 5:39 pm
by raison de arizona
https://twitter.com/joshgerstein/status ... 4062178304
Josh Gerstein @joshgerstein wrote: JUST IN: Judge Kollar-Kotelly dings former Trump aide Navarro for slowwalking compliance with her order in civil suit for his White- House-work-related emails, then asking for a stay
![Image](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fr6PPMqX0AISoDC.jpg)
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2023 11:01 pm
by northland10
Navarro: stupid is as stupid does.
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:45 pm
by Phoenix520
See Also: Arrogant
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2023 1:47 pm
by MN-Skeptic
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2023 1:51 pm
by bob
Executive summary: "I said
forthwith, and I didn't stutter. Pony up."
Navarro can now ask the D.C. Cir. for a stay (and even a stay pending a stay request), but I doubt the D.C. Cir. will indulge him (much).
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2023 3:38 pm
by chancery
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2023 7:30 pm
by Kendra
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Thu May 11, 2023 7:32 pm
by Kendra
@MacFarlaneNews
Peter Navarro returns to DC federal court for status hearing in his (aging) Contempt of Congress case on May 30
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Tue May 30, 2023 12:31 pm
by Kendra
@kyledcheney
JUST IN: Judge Mehta sets Sept. 5 trial date for Peter Navarro’s contempt of Congress case.
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2023 7:27 pm
by Kendra
Pass.
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:13 pm
by Slim Cognito
Did Dollar Tree say no?
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2023 3:52 am
by RTH10260
Clearing stock - fire sale
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2023 2:09 pm
by Kendra
Scott MacFarlane
@MacFarlaneNews
Per my teammate
@RobLegare
- DC federal judge Amit Mehta has denied an attempt by Peter Navarro to have criminal Contempt of Congress case dismissed.
Case remains on a trajectory toward a trial
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2023 7:46 pm
by raison de arizona
In this episode, Navarro struggles with how criminal law works.
Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski wrote:
Peter Navarro says Trump’s closest aides and advisors have been threatened with prison if they don’t cooperate with investigators prosecuting Trump.
US v Peter Navarro
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2023 7:57 pm
by curmudgeon
I'm guessing it's his way of saying that they are likely to be convicted, but have been offered some deals if they cooperate, which is standard practice, I hear.