Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

US v Peter Navarro

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

US v Peter Navarro

#226

Post by Kendra »

@rparloff
While on break, here's some news: Peter Navarro's motion to dismiss his criminal contempt case was just denied by Judge Mehta. Mehta finds that Navarro has come forward with no evidence Trump ever invoked the privileges he asserted. https://bit.ly/3XuGHRa
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5598
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

US v Peter Navarro

#227

Post by northland10 »

Have not read it yet so I am sorry if I mention something the judge already mentioned, but it seems like making an argument that a former president can grant executive privilege is rather mute if he did not even try to make the grant of privilege.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6695
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

US v Peter Navarro

#228

Post by pipistrelle »

northland10 wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 2:07 pm Have not read it yet so I am sorry if I mention something the judge already mentioned, but it seems like making an argument that a former president can grant executive privilege is rather mute moot if he did not even try to make the grant of privilege.
Beating Foggy to it.
:homophone:

Except they are pronounced differently so not quite a homophone.
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5589
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

US v Peter Navarro

#229

Post by Luke »

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 0.68.0.pdf is a fun read if you're not Peter Navarro.


Pete 1.JPG
Pete 1.JPG (144.52 KiB) Viewed 1119 times


Boom.


Pete 2.JPG
Pete 2.JPG (72.93 KiB) Viewed 1119 times
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5387
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

US v Peter Navarro

#230

Post by bob »

Image ImageImage
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5598
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

US v Peter Navarro

#231

Post by northland10 »

pipistrelle wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 6:17 pm
northland10 wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 2:07 pm Have not read it yet so I am sorry if I mention something the judge already mentioned, but it seems like making an argument that a former president can grant executive privilege is rather mute moot if he did not even try to make the grant of privilege.
Beating Foggy to it.
:homophone:

Except they are pronounced differently so not quite a homophone.
It can also be called a "hey bonehead, pay attention to what you're typing" alert. :doh:
101010 :towel:
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5598
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

US v Peter Navarro

#232

Post by northland10 »

Given his earlier whining about how he was arrested, which found its way into the MTD, I enjoyed this:
Defendant also points to the circumstances of his arrest as evidence of “selective animus,” which, he thinks, could be “the result of communications between the Department of Justice, the Select Committee, and/or the White House.” Id. at 37. Defendant argues that individuals charged with non-violent offenses “normally” are allowed to “self-report to court after being charged,” and the fact that he was publicly arrested at an airport is evidence of discriminatory motive. Id. This, too, is mere speculation. The court acknowledges that there are times when the government permits non-violent misdemeanants to self-surrender after being charged. But the government has provided at least a plausible explanation for why it took a different course here. See United States’ Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Comp., ECF No. 33, at 16–17 (explaining that only a few days before his indictment, when case agents attempted to interview and serve Defendant with a subpoena, he initially refused to open the door and later told the agents to “get the f*** out of here).
101010 :towel:
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

US v Peter Navarro

#233

Post by Gregg »

northland10 wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 10:59 pm Given his earlier whining about how he was arrested, which found its way into the MTD, I enjoyed this:
Defendant also points to the circumstances of his arrest as evidence of “selective animus,” which, he thinks, could be “the result of communications between the Department of Justice, the Select Committee, and/or the White House.” Id. at 37. Defendant argues that individuals charged with non-violent offenses “normally” are allowed to “self-report to court after being charged,” and the fact that he was publicly arrested at an airport is evidence of discriminatory motive. Id. This, too, is mere speculation. The court acknowledges that there are times when the government permits non-violent misdemeanants to self-surrender after being charged. But the government has provided at least a plausible explanation for why it took a different course here. See United States’ Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Comp., ECF No. 33, at 16–17 (explaining that only a few days before his indictment, when case agents attempted to interview and serve Defendant with a subpoena, he initially refused to open the door and later told the agents to “get the f*** out of here).

FA, allow me to introduce you to FO.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
Greatgrey
Posts: 893
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:53 am
Location: Unimatrix Zero
Verified: 💲8️⃣

US v Peter Navarro

#234

Post by Greatgrey »

bob wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 6:28 pm
“This argument relies on trump having invoked executive privilege for Pete. Trump didn't.”

He has now. Didn’t work for Bannon, won’t work now.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000185 ... bd6d820000
6002328A-59DE-4F81-B9A0-CBA609D17BC4.jpeg
6002328A-59DE-4F81-B9A0-CBA609D17BC4.jpeg (451.99 KiB) Viewed 967 times
What's the Frequency, Kenneth?
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14356
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

US v Peter Navarro

#235

Post by RTH10260 »

Consider, signed only be some lawyer, but not the impotus himself.
User avatar
Greatgrey
Posts: 893
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:53 am
Location: Unimatrix Zero
Verified: 💲8️⃣

US v Peter Navarro

#236

Post by Greatgrey »

RTH10260 wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:54 pm Consider, signed only be some lawyer, but not the impotus himself.
Not just “some lawyer”, that’s Trump’s $3million guy.
What's the Frequency, Kenneth?
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14356
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

US v Peter Navarro

#237

Post by RTH10260 »

Greatgrey wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:10 pm
RTH10260 wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:54 pm Consider, signed only be some lawyer, but not the impotus himself.
Not just “some lawyer”, that’s Trump’s $3million guy.
At least Navarro can build up his autograph collection of famous people :lol:
chancery
Posts: 1315
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:24 pm
Verified:

US v Peter Navarro

#238

Post by chancery »

Greatgrey wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:10 pm
RTH10260 wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:54 pm Consider, signed only be some lawyer, but not the impotus himself.
Not just “some lawyer”, that’s Trump’s $3million guy.
The lawyer who insisted on a $3 million retainer was former Florida Solicitor General Chris Kise. IIRC Evan Corcoran, who signed the recent letter, has been representing Trump in the classified document theft investigation all along, while Kise's role seemed to diminish a month or two after he was retained to great fanfare late last summer.
User avatar
Greatgrey
Posts: 893
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:53 am
Location: Unimatrix Zero
Verified: 💲8️⃣

US v Peter Navarro

#239

Post by Greatgrey »

chancery wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:58 pm
Greatgrey wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:10 pm
RTH10260 wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:54 pm Consider, signed only be some lawyer, but not the impotus himself.
Not just “some lawyer”, that’s Trump’s $3million guy.
The lawyer who insisted on a $3 million retainer was former Florida Solicitor General Chris Kise. IIRC Evan Corcoran, who signed the recent letter, has been representing Trump in the classified document theft investigation all along, while Kise's role seemed to diminish a month or two after he was retained to great fanfare late last summer.
Well in my defense I’ll just say it’s really hard to keep up with the lawyer situation. Seems like every overhyped piece of crap lawyer on the East Coast is involved.
What's the Frequency, Kenneth?
chancery
Posts: 1315
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:24 pm
Verified:

US v Peter Navarro

#240

Post by chancery »

:thumbsup: That's for sure. And I suspect that there are several dozen, or more, working for Trump behind the scenes.
humblescribe
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
Occupation: Dude
Verified:

US v Peter Navarro

#241

Post by humblescribe »

We're gonna need a flowchart to match the lawyers with the cases they are working on, complete with push pins and colorful string to link the players with the cases.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

US v Peter Navarro

#242

Post by Maybenaut »

Greatgrey wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:10 pm
RTH10260 wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:54 pm Consider, signed only be some lawyer, but not the impotus himself.
Not just “some lawyer”, that’s Trump’s $3million guy.
I thought Kise was the $3million guy.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17657
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

US v Peter Navarro

#243

Post by raison de arizona »

Maybenaut wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:28 pm
Greatgrey wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:10 pm
RTH10260 wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:54 pm Consider, signed only be some lawyer, but not the impotus himself.
Not just “some lawyer”, that’s Trump’s $3million guy.
I thought Kise was the $3million guy.
Yes, Kise was the $3M guy.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

US v Peter Navarro

#244

Post by Gregg »

For that $3 million he got Trump's case in front of a bent Judge who then went on to demonstrate, at some length, that she was about as qualified to be a Federal Judge as the average three bean salad.

And then she got to the stupid part.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

US v Peter Navarro

#245

Post by noblepa »

I believe that, contrary to what Trump supporters are saying, it is well established that Executive Priviledge can only be invoked by a sitting President, not a former one.

My question is: if Trump had, indeed, invoked EP in this case, while he was still in office, could now-President Biden, withdraw the assertion of EP?
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14356
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

US v Peter Navarro

#246

Post by RTH10260 »

In which case I have this followup questions: Is EP a blanket statement, does it cover everything past and future, or is it case by case. Does EP carry over administrations?
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

US v Peter Navarro

#247

Post by Kendra »


Justice Dept responds to request from Peter Navarro to dismiss his Contempt of Congress case

"Without any legal or factual basis, defendant now asks this
Court to reconsider its decision.. Defendant’s efforts to dismiss the Indictment continue to be
meritless..court should deny"
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

US v Peter Navarro

#248

Post by Kendra »


BREAKING: Judge MEHTA has postponed Peter NAVARRO's trial as the parties reopen complex debates about potential immunity and executive privilege.

NO trial next week.
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4918
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

US v Peter Navarro

#249

Post by p0rtia »

Watching a democracy fall, seeing the day to day events, big and small, is a fascinating experience. Eye-opening at more or less the end of life; must be horrifying at the beginning of life.
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

US v Peter Navarro

#250

Post by Kendra »



:crybaby: :crybaby: :crybaby:
Post Reply

Return to “The January 6 Insurrection, including Criminal Cases”