Peter Navarro, Esq.

@coolspeech.bsky.social

394

Posts

Legal disclaimer: This account is not run by nor associated with Peter Navarro, who is and always will be a ridiculous man.

Posts Replies Media

Reposted by

Peter Navarro, Esq.

Le Pen's party (RN) got 143 seats. While a record, that's far (very far) from the 289 they hoped for to govern. How?! Hundreds of Left & Macronist candidates dropped out to help each other block the RN. And millions of voters then voted strategically to get that job done.

Trump has been able to tamp down interest in his batshit ideas and behavior by doing so much out in the open, normalizing it. Project 2025 seemed to be another example of that. But now that he’s disingenuously disavowing P 2025, I wonder if that’ll increase interest in his plans. Hope so.

Reposted by

Peter Navarro, Esq.

I'd be shocked if data came back showing a new desire for Biden to step down is a top down phenomenon. Every relatively normal (non political junkie) Dem I talk to, every one, thinks the debate showed Biden needs to step aside. NY Times coverage is annoying, but the debate created this.

What Democrats have wanted to see post-debate is whether Biden has the chops to be the nominee. In that context, it is especially disappointing that his campaign pre-approved the questions for his interviews on Black radio. whyy.org/articles/bid...

The Biden campaign approved questions for the president's interview on Philly's WURDwhyy.org The Biden campaign plans to refrain from offering suggested questions to hosts moving forward, according to a person familiar with the booking process.

Reposted by

Peter Navarro, Esq.

I get that this is a bad piece and give 'em all their lumps for it. But I do think the strength of "convicted felon" as a talking point has been generally overestimated. The term you should use, that's more specific and packs more of a punch, is to call him a convicted fraud. That's the crime here.

News Analysis: When Donald Trump was found guilty of 34 felonies, the U.S. was confronted with a historical novelty: a felon who once held the highest office in the land. Will the label actually tarnish Trump, as it has so many people over the centuries?

A Mark of Shame for 900 Years. Until Now?www.nytimes.com “Felon” carries an ancient stigma — one that falls on millions of Americans today. Trump might well redefine it.

Reposted by

Peter Navarro, Esq.

Reply to

Peter Navarro, Esq.

That’s my problem. It was a better performance than the debate, but considering it was under the best possible circumstances it wasn’t better enough to convince anyone that the debate was an outlier.

If Biden steps aside this summer, I will be eternally grateful for all he has done. If Biden remains in the race and wins, I will be relieved but also anxious for him to pass the torch. If Biden loses, I will *never* forgive him or those others responsible for remaining in office. Never.

This is shockingly solipsistic. And dangerous.

I’m as dug-in that Biden should step aside after that interview. On the one hand, he didn’t level with us, and on the other his dodging and parrying didn’t seem very effective. There were moments—I’d have to rewatch to pinpoint—where he seemed to lose the thread just a little.

Reposted by

Peter Navarro, Esq.

Ok I just moved from “unsure” to “dump Biden”

Aw that’s nice 🙂

Chase Bank playing hardball and determined to keep soaking its customers one way out another. Chase customers should be aware that credit unions and community banks often have very favorable terms, and be lack of branches doesn’t much matter in Venmo era. www.businessinsider.com/chase-warns-...

Why your checking account may no longer be freewww.businessinsider.com Chase Bank boss Marianne Lake warns that the pain of making up lost profits may be passed on to consumers if regulations go through.

This is all pretty damn good. And the reporters aren’t so much asking him questions as they are begging him to validate the calls for him to step aside. I say this as someone who continues to hope he passes the torch to Harris, but this is heartening about Biden’s ability to remain in it.

Here’s Biden competently answering hostile questions. x.com/riegerreport...

x.comx.com

Reposted by

Peter Navarro, Esq.

if the media could go ahead and treat this claim the way they treat Biden saying "I'm fine" - aka, as a lie that requires days on end of front page stories to debunk - that would be great we'll be over here waiting

Trump is trying to get ahead of the reality that he and the heritage foundation are working to destroy America and institute a fascist dictatorship. He is lying and expecting the media to gaslight America for him.

Reposted by

Peter Navarro, Esq.

This 4th of July, take a little time to think about how the Left can try to reclaim patriotism from conservatives. Seems like the story of a country that cast off a king and fought a civil war to free the slaves is fertile ground given our present moment.

It’s as if Dean Phillips made a wish on a cursed monkey’s paw.

As I’ve been saying…but don’t listen to me. Listen to an actual election law expert. Careful out there. The rightwing is trying to make us chase our tails.

No, States Would Not Be Forced to Keep Biden on the Ballot If He’s Not the Democratic Party’s Nominee from the DNC electionlawblog.org?p=144245

No, States Would Not Be Forced to Keep Biden on the Ballot If He's Not the Democratic Party's Nominee from the DNC #ELBelectionlawblog.org I have been seeing stories like this and this citing to a Heritage memo saying that in some states it would be hard for Democrats to list someone other than Biden on the ballot if Democrats nominate s...

Reposted by

Peter Navarro, Esq.

No, States Would Not Be Forced to Keep Biden on the Ballot If He’s Not the Democratic Party’s Nominee from the DNC electionlawblog.org?p=144245

Reposted by

Peter Navarro, Esq.

Honestly still in shock that the most crooked American President in history said "I need immunity" and the GOP Supreme Court said "well, it's nowhere in the constitution, but sure, why not? Whats the worst that could happen?"

Reposted by

Peter Navarro, Esq.

Thinking Kamala should be the nominee doesn’t make you a member of the #KHive; It makes you a realist in an emergency situation. Read my case for why it should be her:

The case for candidate Kamala Harriswww.thehandbasket.co She has name recognition, experience, and perhaps most importantly, money.

Reposted by

Peter Navarro, Esq.

Don't forget the Sharpie.

So many of the Court’s decisions this term were table-setting for a second Trump term: -The APA cases and Relentless case priming basically every regulation to be completely gutted -Trump v United States giving Trump carte blanche to do what he pleases with no consequences

Reposted by

Peter Navarro, Esq.

Julian Castro has now called for Biden to withdraw from the race.

The funny (not funny) thing is, the actual ruling goes much further than this.

"Whether it be bribery, fraud, assassination, or a coup, the president is entitled to immunity for all offenses committed during working hours Monday through Friday."

Supreme Court Rules Trump Has Immunity For Any Crime Committed Between 9 And 5www.theonion.com WASHINGTON—In a partial victory for the former president, the Supreme Court ruled this week that Donald Trump has immunity for any crime committed between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. during his tim...

Let’s go with that, people.

While we talk about the boom as encompassing 1946 to 1964, demographers note that it really began mid-1946 and ended mid-1964. Harris, born in Oct 1964, can therefore fairly be described as Gen X.

The resurgent emails story late in the campaign was a major factor in Trump’s 2016 victory, but there was an earlier moment that shook things up: Hillary Clinton fainting at a 9/11 memorial. Fair or not, physical health and stamina play a big role in how voters perceive candidates.

Reposted by

Peter Navarro, Esq.

If Harris is outpolling Biden then IMO the case for passing the baton is strong

Reposted by

Peter Navarro, Esq.

If Trump were to personally shoot someone on Fifth Avenue: Not immune. (Probably. Maybe.) If he were to order the army to massacre thousands on Fifth Avenue: Immune. (Very clearly, under the decision.) But from a constitutional perspective, the latter is the grave danger to guard against.

Reposted by

Peter Navarro, Esq.

well in a second term trump can just drone strike lorne michaels

…further while he was in office. So to the writers room… I apologize? www.thedailybeast.com/trump-wanted...

Trump Wanted His Justice Department to Stop ‘SNL’ From Teasing Himwww.thedailybeast.com “SNL” amounted to “nothing less than unfair news coverage and Dem commercials,” Trump tweeted in 2018, pondering whether his thought “should be tested in courts, can’t be legal?”

Reposted by

Peter Navarro, Esq.

A short list - releasing Trump’s tax returns that he has refused to release voluntarily, and his actual medical reports from his time in office - arresting John Roberts without cause for a just day so he knows what unlawful detention feels like - order FAA to ground trumps personal plane

Okay, folks, who is putting together the list of the funniest crimes that Biden should be committing between now and election day to highlight the absurdity of today's immunity ruling? Not the stuff like assassinations. Just stuff to make a point.

Please Democratic National Committee or Dem SuperPAC: Create a well organized library of Trump oppo. There’s so much; too much for mere mortals to track. This could fall under the Child Sexual Abuse sub-category.

Trump later appointed this federal prosecutor as his first U.S. Secretary of Labor. www.kare11.com/article/news...

Florida prosecutors knew Epstein raped teenage girls 2 years before cutting deal, transcript showswww.kare11.com Florida prosecutors heard graphic testimony about how Epstein sexually assaulted teenage girls two years before they cut a plea deal, according to transcripts.

Reposted by

Peter Navarro, Esq.

Not that anyone particularly cares about original meaning, but think folks should still say it out loud: For all of the things that are unclear in the founding documents and unknowabilities of what the Founders intended, "the President can kill anyone or commit a coup" was *never* legally arguable