Page 13 of 20

US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 10:34 am
by raison de arizona
Kendra wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 10:31 am
Stanley Woodward, an attorney representing Navarro, assailed federal prosecutors for “failing to use Navarro’s preferred honorific,” Mother Jones reports.

“Dr. Navarro, not ‘Mr. Navarro’ as the government has referred to him, is a PhD economist with a degree from Harvard,” Woodward said, according to the report.
I'm certain they all refer to FLOTUS as "Dr." as well...

US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 3:51 pm
by raison de arizona
Peter Navarro @RealPNavarro wrote: Jury in deliberations now. We're in God's hands now. The only thing certain are more legal bills. That's the Democrat's lawfare game.
Will have more once verdict is in. In the meantime,
you can help me fight these weaponized partisan bastards at http://defendpeter.com
Peter Navarro @RealPNavarro wrote: Weaponized doj starts case by waving the J6 bloody shirt rather than arguing the case. No scruples. No surprise.
Fight back at http://defendpeter.com

US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 4:03 pm
by raison de arizona
Drumroll please...
Kyle Cheney @kyledcheney wrote: UPDATE: Navarro and the lawyers have returned to the courtroom. Not immediately clear if it’s a verdict or a jury question.

My understanding is a *verdict* is incoming. The judge has not entered courtroom yet.

US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 4:09 pm
by MN-Skeptic
Guilty!


US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 4:14 pm
by raison de arizona
:bunny:

Sentencing Jan. 12, 2024.

US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 4:17 pm
by MN-Skeptic
I didn’t look, but wasn’t the jury out for just a little bit of time?

US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 4:17 pm
by Dr. Ken
Waiting for the anarchy princess video

US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 4:22 pm
by MN-Skeptic
I think the jury was out for about 5 hours. And now Navarro’s lawyer wants a mistrial.


US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 4:23 pm
by raison de arizona
MN-Skeptic wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 4:17 pm I didn’t look, but wasn’t the jury out for just a little bit of time?
One day trial, four hours of deliberation.

Another bozo ready to serve time for tfg.

US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 4:24 pm
by Luke
I expect no whining from Peter... he clearly said he was leaving it in God's Hands. God decided: GUILTY.
Luke Johnson 🇺🇸 @Orly_licious

Just as you said, Peter, it was in God's Hands.

God made his decision: GUILTY.

This was God's Will and must be respected.

A jury has found Peter Navarro *guilty* of two counts of criminal contempt of Congress for defying the Jan. 6 select committee.
4:21 PM · Sep 7, 2023





US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 4:26 pm
by Flatpoint High
It's only "God's Will" when they are acquitted. anything else is "two-tier justice", or "kangaroo court" Witch hunt...

US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 4:42 pm
by Phoenix520
Mistrial? Of course he does, the little baby.

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 5:34 pm
by MichaelJ
Apparently God didn't get it right the first time. :violin: :roll:

US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 5:41 pm
by chancery
Phoenix520 wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 4:42 pm Mistrial? Of course he does, the little baby.

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Meh. That's routine. As Maybenaut aptly said,
Maybenaut wrote: Sat Jul 15, 2023 11:08 am Defense counsel knock on a seemingly closed door all of the time. Sometimes it opens.

US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 6:30 pm
by pipistrelle
So much drama for two misdemeanor counts.

US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 7:01 pm
by raison de arizona
pipistrelle wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 6:30 pm So much drama for two misdemeanor counts.
Yeahbut MANDATORY MINIMUM OF 30 DAYS IN THE POKEY! :mrgreen:

US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 7:29 pm
by Frater I*I
pipistrelle wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 6:30 pm So much drama for two misdemeanor counts.
But an endless opportunity to grift....

US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 7:41 pm
by Maybenaut
pipistrelle wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 6:30 pm So much drama for two misdemeanor counts.
Perhaps. But the message is (or ought to be) contempt of Congress is a thing, and it’s expensive.

US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 7:49 pm
by pipistrelle
Maybenaut wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 7:41 pm
pipistrelle wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 6:30 pm So much drama for two misdemeanor counts.
Perhaps. But the message is (or ought to be) contempt of Congress is a thing, and it’s expensive.
No argument from me. But the drama. You either did or you didn't. And you clearly didn't, so guilty.

US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 9:16 pm
by NewMexGirl
Hey, Pete:

How did it work out for you using Stan Woodward, the lawyer who is representing eleventy gazillion former (and current) Trump associates, with Trump footing the bill? Did ol’ Stan spend a lotta time on your own little case? Unless your interests and Trump’s are in alignment, I would be wondering about that if I were you. :shrug:

US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 10:57 pm
by northland10
MichaelJ wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 5:34 pm Apparently God didn't get it right the first time. :violin: :roll:
MichaelJ!!! :wave:

Their God has problems with doing what they want. Their god seems to getting it wrong all the time. Funny that.

They need to learn the secret. Play some lovely organ music and God becomes an old softy. Some Bach, Durufle, Frank, Mendelssohn, or Vaughan Williams and God is putty in your hands.

Choral music is also God's great love.

US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 11:51 pm
by MichaelJ
northland10 wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 10:57 pm
MichaelJ wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 5:34 pm Apparently God didn't get it right the first time. :violin: :roll:
MichaelJ!!! :wave:

Their God has problems with doing what they want. Their god seems to getting it wrong all the time. Funny that.

They need to learn the secret. Play some lovely organ music and God becomes an old softy. Some Bach, Durufle, Frank, Mendelssohn, or Vaughan Williams and God is putty in your hands.

Choral music is also God's great love.
Hi there northland10! :wave:

US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2023 2:22 am
by Kriselda Gray
Kendra wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 10:31 am
Stanley Woodward, an attorney representing Navarro, assailed federal prosecutors for “failing to use Navarro’s preferred honorific,” Mother Jones reports.

“Dr. Navarro, not ‘Mr. Navarro’ as the government has referred to him, is a PhD economist with a degree from Harvard,” Woodward said, according to the report.
Not that I like being in the position of defending Navarro on ANYTHING, but... IF he actually earned the doctoral degree, I can see being a bit upset to not have it recognized. People were upset when someone suggested that the Jill Biden shouldn't use the "Dr." honorific despite her having earned a doctorate in education. If it's an honorary degree? Fuck him.

US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2023 7:15 am
by Ben-Prime
Kriselda Gray wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 2:22 am
Kendra wrote: Thu Sep 07, 2023 10:31 am
Stanley Woodward, an attorney representing Navarro, assailed federal prosecutors for “failing to use Navarro’s preferred honorific,” Mother Jones reports.

“Dr. Navarro, not ‘Mr. Navarro’ as the government has referred to him, is a PhD economist with a degree from Harvard,” Woodward said, according to the report.
Not that I like being in the position of defending Navarro on ANYTHING, but... IF he actually earned the doctoral degree, I can see being a bit upset to not have it recognized. People were upset when someone suggested that the Jill Biden shouldn't use the "Dr." honorific despite her having earned a doctorate in education. If it's an honorary degree? Fuck him.
He does apparently have both his MPA and his PHD in Economics from Hah-vahd.

US v Peter Navarro

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2023 7:54 am
by Volkonski
I have no problem with using earned doctorate titles in nonmedical academic environments.

However I see no reason why a defendant's academic degrees should be a consideration when evaluating guilt in a contempt of Congress trial.