Speaker 1: Top Ink Club Pod.
Speaker 2: Good evening, everybody, good evening, and everybody it so hold
you your fortune and were tuning in for this top
INC World news and we actually got updates from our
reporters from ABC newscasts about the actual troops being deployed
in the California situation. We're keeping y'all updated on what's
going on and what Donald Trump and his administration is doing.
So we're gonna get into this top INC World news
and then on the follow up, I got some exclusive
Top INC celeb Baikiki t for y'all tonight. Let's get
into this news scheit now.
Speaker 3: As we await the arrival of those seven hundred Marines,
California's top leaders are going to court to block what
they call Trump's unlawful militarization of Los Angeles. Hearing is
actually set for this afternoon on California's emergency request to
block the administration from expanding the mission of the Marines,
and California's National Guard DOJ lawyers calling the lawsuit a
crass political stunt. My next guest will be in that
courtroom arguing for the State of California. Joining me now,
California Attorney General Rob Bonta Rob. Good to see you again.
The last time we talked was during the wildfires. Now
you are dealing with this, You are getting ready to
go to court this afternoon. Give me a preview. What
will you argue? How will you argue?
Speaker 4: Well, great to see you again and thank you for
having me. We have a hearing at one thirty pm
in San Francisco in the Federal Courthouse, and we'll be
making the case we've been making since day one, since
we filed our complaint on Monday and our temporary restraining
order request on Tuesday. We argue that the President is
engaged in an unlawful power grab, that he's trying to
exercise authority that he doesn't have. The commander in chief
for the National Guard, the California National Guard under these
circumstances is Gavin Newsom, and there was no authority or
statue that triggers the President to deploy the National Guard
to Los Angeles. So we argue that his deployment of
the National Guard to La is unlawful and thus invalid.
We also argue that the Marines, of course, as a
military entity, are subject to the Posse comment Tatis Act
and cannot gauge as engage as a military entity in
civilian law enforcement and must be restricted so that they're
not involved in civilian law enforcement.
Speaker 1: So we think we have the better of the facts
and the law.
Speaker 4: We've seen the opposition filed by the federal government, and
we think will prevail today.
Speaker 3: What happens if the court doesn't agree with you today, rob?
Speaker 4: Our case continues today's request for a temporary restraining order,
so all the arguments in on our complaint continue. We
might be able to seek a preliminary injunction or seek
an order at the end of the litigation.
Speaker 1: So today is one step along the way.
Speaker 4: But we do believe, as we have in a supermajority
of the twenty five cases that we've brought against the
Trump administration, we believe will prevail and secure the order
that we're seeking.
Speaker 3: Bear with me for a minute, Rob, I want to
give a little historical perspective here. The other time last
time in history that the president deployed the National Guard
against the wishes of the governor of a state was
nineteen sixty five. President Johnson deployed the National Guard, as
well as active duty military to Alabama to enforce desegregation
citing the quote likelihood of domestic violence and obstruction of
the execution and enforcement of federal laws end quote. President
Trump says that these protesters are obstructing federal law enforcement
and committing violence. Does precedent exist here, even though they
are very different situations.
Speaker 4: There's no precedent or what the comp administration is trying
to do here. The example that you cite is based
on a different law entirely, and the concern was about
the deprivation of rights to those who were peacefully protesting
and the civil rights not being enforced, that they had
protections for.
Speaker 1: That attached to them. Here. The citation that the President
refers to is ten USC.
Speaker 4: Twelve four h six to authorize, purportedly his deployment of
the National Guard to Los Angeles, and it requires one
of three things. An invasion there is absolutely no invasion.
No one can credibly say that. A rebellion.
Speaker 1: There's no rebellion either. No one can credibly say that.
Speaker 4: Or the inability of the federal government to execute the
laws of the United States didn't exist either. And even
if you have one of those elements which do not exist,
you also have to have the cooperation or consent of
the governor of the state, Governor Gavin Newsom, he has
strenuously objected to the National Guard coming. And so if
you just look at the plain, unambiguous language in black
and white in the citation in the law that is
cited to by the President, they fail and they do
not have the authority to call in the National Guard.
The one time this statute in the history of the
United States was used to call in the National Guard
was during the United States Post Office strike when the
constitutional requirement and federal statutes requiring a mail to be
moved through the US Postal Service when they weren't able
to be executed, so the National Guard came in and
moved the mail. Very different circumstances then here. And by
the way, the local law enforcement, the LA Sheriff's Department,
largest sheriff's department in the nation, the LAPD third largest
police department in the nation, are very well resourced, highly trained,
have men and women that do exactly this. They tackle crime,
they confront crime, they quill situations, and they've done it
well here. And they have a whole set of mutual
aid that they can request if needed. And then at
the end of that they can ask for the National
Guard from the governor if they need that. But you
heard the police chief of La last night saying they're
nowhere near needing to call it a national guard and
haven't even come close to depleting the mutual aid resources.
Speaker 1: So things are well in hand on the ground.
Speaker 4: Of course, there are challenges, and that's what law enforcement
agencies do.
Speaker 1: They tackle the challenges when they arrive.
Speaker 3: Attorney General, appreciate your time today and we'll continue to
follow what happens in court. I hope you'll come back
and speak to me after you make arguments.
Speaker 1: Happy too great to see you again.