Speaker 1: You're listening to Later with Moe Kelly on demand from
Speaker 1: KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 2: AM six forty. I'm Mo Kelly. We're live everywhere on
Speaker 2: the iHeartRadio app. And joining me right now on the
Speaker 2: line as we talk about not only the issues of
Speaker 2: Los Angeles but the legalities which are being argued in
Speaker 2: federal court right now is Loyal Law Professor Jessica Levinson,
Speaker 2: friend of the show, personal friend, Professor Levinson, How are.
Speaker 3: You this evening.
Speaker 4: I'm so happy to be here with you.
Speaker 2: Thank you for coming on under short notice. You know this,
Speaker 2: but let me just set this up for the audience.
Speaker 2: Earlier this afternoon, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed and
Speaker 2: the emergency motion asking for a temporary restraining order quote,
Speaker 2: which will prevent the use of federalized National Guard and
Speaker 2: active duty Marines for law enforcement purposes on the streets
Speaker 2: of a civilian city. The motion does not seek to
Speaker 2: prevent any of those forces from protecting the saale, the
Speaker 2: federal buildings, and other real property owned or least by
Speaker 2: the federal government or federal personnel on such property. Close quote,
Speaker 2: Professor Levinson, give us some sense of what this is about.
Speaker 2: And what does that stake with this lawsuit.
Speaker 4: Okay, because you're one of the smartest people I know,
Speaker 4: let's really get into it here. As we know, over
Speaker 4: the weekend, the President issued an executive order and he said,
Speaker 4: let's federalize the National Guard, and he did so under
Speaker 4: a part of federal law that I'm going to refer
Speaker 4: to as Title ten. And Title ten, in my view,
Speaker 4: does give the president the power to say, I'm going
Speaker 4: to call in the National Guard, even if it's against
Speaker 4: the wishes of the governor, but only for limited circumstances,
Speaker 4: only for support, only to help protect federal agents or
Speaker 4: to protect federal property. If you want the National Guard
Speaker 4: to do more than and you have to invoke, in
Speaker 4: my view, something called the Insurrection Act. And that's because
Speaker 4: the Insurrection Act, a different part of federal law, would
Speaker 4: suspend pose comatatis, the Posse Commatatas Act. That's the act
Speaker 4: that says members of the military cannot directly enforce domestic law.
Speaker 4: You cannot have marines executing search warrants and executing arrest warrants.
Speaker 4: And so I think what the Attorney General is saying
Speaker 4: here is a number of things. But the part that
Speaker 4: you read to me, mo is, national Guard, stay in
Speaker 4: your lane. You can only under the Presidence Directive Act
Speaker 4: in a support capacity.
Speaker 2: I'm not the legal expert or the constitutional law professor
Speaker 2: you are, But on its face, I'm reminded that at
Speaker 2: least as far as federalizing the National Guard without the
Speaker 2: consent or approval of the governor, there is precedent for that,
Speaker 2: going back to Lyndon Baines Johnson in nineteen sixty five
Speaker 2: and what was going on with civil rights during that time.
Speaker 2: But it's slightly different or is it the same here?
Speaker 4: So it's slightly different. You're exactly right, like that is
Speaker 4: the historic precedent, right, That's what we point to when
Speaker 4: people say, but how can it be that a president
Speaker 4: can call in the National Guard and he can do
Speaker 4: so over the wishes, desires, hope's dreams of a governor,
Speaker 4: And we point to lbj or Ike where they were
Speaker 4: sending in the National Guard over the over the displeasure
Speaker 4: of segregationist governors who said, no, I don't want to
Speaker 4: enforce these desegregation orders. Now this is somewhat different because
Speaker 4: we are talking about a different federal statute. We're instead
Speaker 4: talking about Section twelve four oh six, not the Insurrection Act,
Speaker 4: but in my view, the same kind of structural concerns hold,
Speaker 4: which is, you don't have a federal law that grants
Speaker 4: the president power on the one hand, but then would
Speaker 4: allow a single governor to veto that power and take
Speaker 4: it away.
Speaker 2: I don't know how quickly the courts would move on this.
Speaker 2: Is there any real likelihood that Governor Newsom would prevail
Speaker 2: with some sort of stay or an injunction or what
Speaker 2: is the likely outcome?
Speaker 3: From where you sit.
Speaker 4: So I tend to think no. What's really interesting I
Speaker 4: know this will interest you MO as a scholar, is
Speaker 4: that the judge here is the brother of retired Supreme
Speaker 4: Court Justice Stephen Bryer.
Speaker 2: I was wondering if there was any relationship because I
Speaker 2: heard Briar as I wondered, okay, go ahead.
Speaker 4: It's two brothers on a federal bench. And this is
Speaker 4: a judge who was appointed by President Clint steeped in
Speaker 4: the law has been a judge for decades. My analysis
Speaker 4: is that again, the two big hurdles here for California
Speaker 4: would be proving that the president doesn't have the power
Speaker 4: to to say I think we're in danger of a rebellion,
Speaker 4: and that the flip side of that is that federal
Speaker 4: judges do have the power to second guess the president.
Speaker 4: You and I know that when it comes to national security,
Speaker 4: when it comes to issues of safety, federal judges give
Speaker 4: a lot of deference to elected officials, to the president.
Speaker 4: And then I think it's hard for California to try
Speaker 4: and prove that the governor has to consent, because that's
Speaker 4: not how I read the statue. That's not the plane
Speaker 4: language of the statue. In my view, really smart people
Speaker 4: disagree with me.
Speaker 2: You use words like deference and the phrase Insurrection Act.
Speaker 2: Does that also apply if we were to move further
Speaker 2: down this road and there's a wider conflagration. Let's say
Speaker 2: there are protests which happen in New York or Dallas,
Speaker 2: and there are a number of cities. How much difference
Speaker 2: historically or maybe presently would be given to the president
Speaker 2: if President Trump were to then invote the Insurrection Act?
Speaker 3: What how level? What's what's the height of the bar here?
Speaker 4: Oh my gosh, you asked me the question that I
Speaker 4: actually haven't gotten in the last what it is forty
Speaker 4: eight seventy two hours? And so no, it's a great question.
Speaker 4: So I will tell you not confidentially, because I know
Speaker 4: we're on the air that I've been having discussions about
Speaker 4: what will the standard be right when it comes to
Speaker 4: we're looking at a president and you know you didn't
Speaker 4: get let me get away with as you should. And
Speaker 4: I use kind of general language, and I said, I
Speaker 4: think federal judges will be wary. But what does that mean?
Speaker 4: I mean, does it mean that it's just there's no
Speaker 4: judicial review at all, that it's viewed as something called
Speaker 4: a political question where federal judges can even be there.
Speaker 4: I don't think so. Does it mean that there's a
Speaker 4: very low standard, something like clear aerror, like there's no
Speaker 4: rational basis for the president to conclude that this is
Speaker 4: a rebellion? Maybe it's a really low star like that.
Speaker 4: I think the answer is that under this particular federal statute,
Speaker 4: we don't have a lot of case law to indicate
Speaker 4: what the standard is. When it comes to the Insurrection Act,
Speaker 4: we would ask similar but different questions, because that is
Speaker 4: a pretty significant escalation.
Speaker 2: My time is running short with you, Professor Levinson a
Speaker 2: Loyola Law School, but I have to ask you this,
Speaker 2: and it's a dark question. I want to preface it,
Speaker 2: because I think we're in a dark period in American
Speaker 2: history looking at what we've been through in the past.
Speaker 2: But if we should proceed down this track and the
Speaker 2: Insurrection Act is invoked, how much daylight is there between
Speaker 2: the Insurrection Act and martial law? Is there a lot
Speaker 2: in between or is it a small step?
Speaker 4: So in my view, the Insurrection Act would be a
Speaker 4: significant step towards martial law. I don't think it gets
Speaker 4: us there, but I think there is a big deal
Speaker 4: between where we are today with Title ten and where
Speaker 4: we would be under the Insurrection Act. There's a big
Speaker 4: difference between seeing the National Guard in your city but
Speaker 4: knowing that really all they're there to do is to
Speaker 4: protect a federal building or to provide logistical support for
Speaker 4: a federal agent, and seeing a marine go into offices,
Speaker 4: go into places of employment, and start arresting people, for instance.
Speaker 4: So I will say I think there are a few
Speaker 4: big gulfs. You're right, there's a dark question, and I
Speaker 4: don't know the answer. All we can look at is
Speaker 4: public statements that the President can make has made, and
Speaker 4: try and figure out where we're going.
Speaker 2: I honestly don't know where the hell we're going, Professor Levinson,
Speaker 2: I hope we don't go to that dark place, but
Speaker 2: we'll have to see what the future holds in the
Speaker 2: short term and long term. My guest has been Loyola
Speaker 2: Law Professor Jessica Levinson. You've heard around that show any
Speaker 2: number of times. I appreciate you and all your expertise,
Speaker 2: Professor Levinson. Hopefully we get to talk again soon.
Speaker 4: I would love that. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Have a great evening. It's KFI AM six forty. I'm
Speaker 2: Mo Kelly. We'll have more in just a moment.
Speaker 1: You're listening to later with Mo Kelly on demand from
Speaker 1: KFI AM six.
Speaker 2: Forty KFI AM sixty Kelly here. We're live everywhere on
Speaker 2: the iHeartRadio app and YouTube. And the word that keeps
Speaker 2: getting thrown around protests protesters. I if you don't know,
Speaker 2: I am a serious student of the civil rights movement,
Speaker 2: understanding why it worked, the strategy employed in advance of protests,
Speaker 2: and some of the thoughts and considerations made. Did you
Speaker 2: know the whole idea of nonviolence did not come from
Speaker 2: doctor King. It came from Koretis got King. His wife,
Speaker 2: Doctor Martin Luther King Junior used to carry a gun.
Speaker 3: At all times.
Speaker 2: And part of the reason he stopped carrying the gun
Speaker 2: was Kreta Scott King said, you can't do that while
Speaker 2: also espousing nonviolence. Now, doctor King was of the mind like, look,
Speaker 2: if if we're going to be attacked, I need to
Speaker 2: protect myself. But Coreta Scott King understood, understood this was
Speaker 2: about the optics and retaining the moral authority in the
Speaker 2: face of what was going to be shown in the media.
Speaker 2: That's how prescient she was back in the nineteen fifties
Speaker 2: and nineteen sixties, understanding that if there were going to
Speaker 2: be black marches like in Selma, the video that goes
Speaker 2: out can't be black people fighting with white people. Though
Speaker 2: the idea was not any different of gaining equality civil
Speaker 2: rights the Voting Rights Act Civil Rights Act first in
Speaker 2: sixty four and the Voting Rights Act in sixty five.
Speaker 2: The goal was to show America in a very naked form.
Speaker 3: The goal was to.
Speaker 2: Have an organized march and if they were attacked, let
Speaker 2: America see that they were not fighting back because the
Speaker 2: optics were more important than anything. And those are some
Speaker 2: of the small lessons that protests since never understood.
Speaker 3: We can talk about it with Occupy wall Street.
Speaker 2: We can talk about it with BLM, we can talk
Speaker 2: about it with the pink pea hats, we can talk
Speaker 2: about it with any number of quote unquote protests. And
Speaker 2: to Wallow, I always clown folks because it's always about awareness.
Speaker 3: No, it's about strategy.
Speaker 2: It has always been about a strategy and a specific
Speaker 2: goal which can be articulated and understood. And going back
Speaker 2: to the Civil Rights movement, everything was about the legislation
Speaker 2: of first the Civil Rights Act to be able to
Speaker 2: end segregation. How does that tie into what's going on
Speaker 2: right now. Well, you heard in my conversation with Professor
Speaker 2: Levinson that the last time that a president usurped the
Speaker 2: power of a governor to invoke the National Guard was
Speaker 2: in nineteen sixty five to have the National Guard against
Speaker 2: the wishes of the governor of Alabama, George Wallace, to
Speaker 2: have the National Guard protect who the protesters. All this
Speaker 2: ties together and protesters today, and it's not even a
Speaker 2: youth thing. It's just a generational thing where either they
Speaker 2: feel that the lessons of the civil rights movement prior
Speaker 2: to now are antiquated out of dat and there's nothing
Speaker 2: that they can learn from them, or the only lesson
Speaker 2: that they learned from them is just marching on the freeway.
Speaker 2: Now there is and now here's the other side to protests. Historically,
Speaker 2: protests are to disrupt. When Doctor King was marching, they
Speaker 2: were not in concert with the law. They were going
Speaker 2: into neighborhoods they were forbidden to go by law, by segregation.
Speaker 2: They were sitting down at lunch counters, they were not
Speaker 2: allowed to buy law. Disruption has always been part of protests,
Speaker 2: and protests will never be at.
Speaker 3: The discretion of the people who don't like them.
Speaker 2: You know, I know people were driving on the one
Speaker 2: on one freeway says, get out of my way. What
Speaker 2: the hell are you doing here? Can't you go protests
Speaker 2: in your living room? That's not how it works. And
Speaker 2: don't confuse civil disobedience with violence. Now, how it does
Speaker 2: get can is you have protests which are not controlled,
Speaker 2: wholly controlled, and you have these impromptu protests where people
Speaker 2: can just show up and with their own agendas, with
Speaker 2: their own weapons, with their own designs, and they do whatever,
Speaker 2: and rightly or wrongly, it is considered.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 2: The protests were not all nonviolent, they were not all peaceful. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but there are a lot of mother followers out there
Speaker 2: who are not part of the protests, and it's impossible
Speaker 2: to tell which is which and who is who. Under
Speaker 2: most circumstances, there's never going to be any perfect protests, never,
Speaker 2: because you can't control all the factors of who shows
Speaker 2: up to your protests. If if Twalla and me and
Speaker 2: everyone in the studio said we're going to go down
Speaker 2: and protest at something such a such a and we're
Speaker 2: going to do it in a public place in front
Speaker 2: of this building, and the word gets out, especially in
Speaker 2: this world of social media, we cannot control who shows up. Now,
Speaker 2: maybe more planning needs to go into it so you
Speaker 2: have a better reign on who has access to that
Speaker 2: particular area. And that comes down to if you should
Speaker 2: get like a protest permit for a specific location, and
Speaker 2: then you can actually get law enforcement to protect the
Speaker 2: protests and keep other people out. You can start controlling
Speaker 2: some of the factors surrounding your protests, then you have
Speaker 2: a better chance of controlling the optics and the resulting
Speaker 2: what ends up on the news, because if someone gets arrested,
Speaker 2: there's no name tax saying I'm with the protests. All
Speaker 2: these folks who were hanging out after ten o'clock last night,
Speaker 2: and we were talking about it Tuala, people who were
Speaker 2: hanging around after the order of dispersal had come down.
Speaker 2: They weren't out there protesting, but they're added to the
Speaker 2: number of people who were arrested. They were added to
Speaker 2: the totality of the violence, the looting, and unfortunately, people,
Speaker 2: for whatever reasons and political interests, they're going to say, well,
Speaker 2: this is not a piece full protests, or this is
Speaker 2: a riot, or this is just a violent display. Why
Speaker 2: is it they can't all those things will be used
Speaker 2: against the people who are legitimately protesting. Why am I
Speaker 2: bringing this up? It goes back to the civil rights movement.
Speaker 2: That's what Kreta Scott King was talking about sixty years ago,
Speaker 2: to make sure that the protests, the marches were not
Speaker 2: coapt co opted by figures and circumstances which would undermine
Speaker 2: the main message. That was the ideological difference between doctor
Speaker 2: King and Malcolm X. Malcolm X says said, why am
Speaker 2: I going to be non violent in the face of violence?
Speaker 2: You're seeing how they're cracking our skulls on TV. You
Speaker 2: see how they're sticking dogs and water hoses on us.
Speaker 2: Why would I be nonviolent in the face of that,
Speaker 2: and doctor King and Kreta Scott King. I don't know
Speaker 2: if you know this, but Malcolm X was actually at
Speaker 2: the March on Washington in nineteen He was actually there.
Speaker 2: He just did not speak, but he met with folks
Speaker 2: behind closed doors, and he told everyone, including doctor King,
Speaker 2: I'm not going to be shown publicly because what the
Speaker 2: optics of me, Malcolm X, being at the March on
Speaker 2: Washington would cast a different light on the event. How
Speaker 2: you've been talking about this and I show up, it
Speaker 2: will be turned into that. That's the lesson that people
Speaker 2: don't understand. How does that relate to today? And I
Speaker 2: was going back and forth with people who I assume
Speaker 2: to be Latino Hispanic on social media. I'll take them
Speaker 2: at their avatar word. But they were saying, when I
Speaker 2: fly a Mexican flag is because of culture, It's about heritage.
Speaker 2: And I said, I get that. I get that. You're
Speaker 2: not talking about Mexico the Mexican flag in terms of nationality.
Speaker 2: You're talking about I am a Mexican person. I am
Speaker 2: a person. I am a person and with a history,
Speaker 2: with a heritage, and I'm proud of my Mexican heritage,
Speaker 2: and that's separate from wanting to be an American citizen.
Speaker 2: And I was trying to tell multiple people, I get that,
Speaker 2: I get all that, But you know what, when people
Speaker 2: are watching the news, maybe with the sound down or
Speaker 2: there's a twenty second news bite and they see the flag,
Speaker 2: they don't get all that context and they don't care.
Speaker 2: More importantly, they don't care. What does happen is those
Speaker 2: images of the Mexican flags being flown again and in
Speaker 2: again in these protests, they're used against you. They're used
Speaker 2: against the message that you want to have out there.
Speaker 2: They're used in a negative way for the optics, which
Speaker 2: make your protests, if not nullified, unimportant and ineffective.
Speaker 3: There are so many lessons.
Speaker 2: Which could be learned from the success of the modern
Speaker 2: civil rights movement, but most people don't know that. They
Speaker 2: just saw doctor King and a bunch of people walking
Speaker 2: down the street and they call that marching, and they
Speaker 2: call that protesting, and they have no idea of the
Speaker 2: underlying strategy which surrounded all that to make sure that
Speaker 2: it was successful. If you go back to Rosa Parks,
Speaker 2: I know we got to go to break. If you
Speaker 2: go back to Rosa Parks. Rosa Parks worked for the NAACP.
Speaker 2: She was not even the first person to sit down
Speaker 2: and refuse to give up her seat on the bus.
Speaker 2: It was Claudette Covin. What But why did you never
Speaker 2: hear about Claudette Covin?
Speaker 3: Why?
Speaker 2: Because she was fifteen years old at the time and
Speaker 2: already pregnant or a young mother. The optics of her
Speaker 2: were not going to work for the civil rights movement.
Speaker 3: That's why the.
Speaker 2: Later waited for Rosa Parks, because she was more considered
Speaker 2: pristine and unassailable in a media sense. All of this
Speaker 2: was intentional. There's a takeaway here. I'm just waiting for
Speaker 2: people to figure out that there is.
Speaker 1: You're listening to Later with Moe Kelly on demand from
Speaker 1: KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 2: I Am six forty mo Kelly here live everywhere in
Speaker 2: the iHeartRadio App. I always believe, even though these are
Speaker 2: tense moments, there are lessons for us to learn.
Speaker 3: There's a lesson for me to learn.
Speaker 2: There's a lesson for you listening right now in your car,
Speaker 2: or maybe you're listening in your headphones on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 2: There's a lesson for all of us to learn. Because
Speaker 2: history is really cool. When you take time to understand
Speaker 2: it and put it in context, it'll give you a
Speaker 2: lot to draw upon.
Speaker 3: When you're in this moment.
Speaker 2: And if we study this moment the next time we're here,
Speaker 2: we will be here again sometime in the future.
Speaker 3: Years down the road, we'll have this to reflect upon.
Speaker 2: Last segment, I was talking about the civil rights movement
Speaker 2: and how we can learn so much from it and
Speaker 2: use it to put this moment in greater context. And
Speaker 2: I was upset in my own way about why people
Speaker 2: who are protesting today and other protests don't use what
Speaker 2: worked in the civil rights movement and understand why it
Speaker 2: worked to better affect change, because when I see people
Speaker 2: who are out in the street, and this is not
Speaker 2: just specific to these protests surrounding Ice Rays, this has
Speaker 2: to do with all the protests of the past ten
Speaker 2: to fifteen years. Really, there's really no direction or focus
Speaker 2: the civil rights movement of the fifties and sixties, and
Speaker 2: I do mean fifties because it started in the nineteen fifties.
Speaker 2: There was always a legislative goal of ending segregation, which
Speaker 2: was the Civil Rights Act, and then ensuring the right
Speaker 2: to vote. The voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act
Speaker 2: in nineteen sixty four, the Voting Rights Act in nineteen
Speaker 2: sixty five. When they had the March on Washington in
Speaker 2: nineteen sixty three, that was to publicly show President Kennedy
Speaker 2: that this is the type of support we have for
Speaker 2: civil rights in this country. It was about because there
Speaker 2: was supposed to be a sit down in Washington, d c.
Speaker 3: Between Kennedy and King.
Speaker 2: That's the whole point of the March on Washington moving
Speaker 2: towards that legislation. Then we know that Kennedy was assassinated,
Speaker 2: and then it fell to the shoulders of LBJ, Lyndon
Speaker 2: Baines Johnson. Part of the reason is we talk about
Speaker 2: the politics of how we got here. Part of the
Speaker 2: reason why the Democrats became the party of African Americans
Speaker 2: and labor, the realignment of different constituencies is because that
Speaker 2: even though the Democratic Party, which was a racist party
Speaker 2: in the South, if you go back to the fifties
Speaker 2: and sixties, the South was all blue, all blue, all Confederates.
Speaker 2: But because LBJ, who himself was an avowed racist, was
Speaker 2: able to sign the Civil Rights Act and the Voting
Speaker 2: Rights Act, the alliances of the party switched where today,
Speaker 2: if you look at the map, the South is all read.
Speaker 2: That's when it happened. People say the parties didn't switch, Oh,
Speaker 2: yes the hell they did. And it was because of
Speaker 2: the Civil Rights Act. And it was Lenna Bains Johnson
Speaker 2: who allegedly famously said that in signing the Civil Rights
Speaker 2: legislation that I'm signing away the South for the next generation.
Speaker 2: And disaffected Democrats left the party. But why are you
Speaker 2: talking about this Because every successful protest leads to legislation.
Speaker 2: It will be different if we could hear right now
Speaker 2: or there was some savvy politician or elected official out
Speaker 2: there who was saying, like, because of what's going on
Speaker 2: right now, I'm going to make sure that we're going
Speaker 2: to pass this legislation, federal legislation. I'm going to introduce
Speaker 2: it in Congress where Ice can't do xyz that whatever
Speaker 2: the legislation is.
Speaker 3: But see, they're in lives.
Speaker 5: The issue with even these protests right now, the legislation
Speaker 5: for these Civil Rights Act and the Voter Registration Act,
Speaker 5: all those things came from within doctor King's kim. This
Speaker 5: was legislation that was handed to the office of the President.
Speaker 5: These are our asks, these are our demands, if you
Speaker 5: will correct. So far, so far, all I have seen
Speaker 5: is a host of blank ICE signs. I've seen American
Speaker 5: and Mexican flags, I've seen graffiti. I have yet to
Speaker 5: see any actual spokesperson or spokespeople that are representing a
Speaker 5: global movement. Because I'm reading that the ICE protests here
Speaker 5: in Los Angeles that activists are ready to take them
Speaker 5: to Chicago, Detroit, Miami, They're ready to go nationwide.
Speaker 3: But these are just activists.
Speaker 5: With a campaign of awareness saying what saying, we don't
Speaker 5: want ICE to come and do X, Y and z.
Speaker 5: You've got to put that into some type of bill
Speaker 5: before anyone that a governor can sign that there are
Speaker 5: steps to this.
Speaker 3: If you don't have anything to say.
Speaker 5: To President Trump outside of we don't like this, that
Speaker 5: doesn't mean anything.
Speaker 3: Here's the strategy.
Speaker 2: A savvy party, which the Democrats are not a savvy party,
Speaker 2: would have already been creating legislation that they could use
Speaker 2: to generate momentum and support for the midterms. And if
Speaker 2: they were to flip the House and or the Senate
Speaker 2: it's less likely the Senate but definite possibility in the House,
Speaker 2: then you could put legislation on the table, which could
Speaker 2: possibly be passed in twenty twenty eight. Twenty twenty eight
Speaker 2: is a long time away. Well, going back to the
Speaker 2: civil rights movement, the Montgomery bus boycott was nineteen fifty five.
Speaker 2: The Civil Rights Act didn't get passed until nineteen sixty four.
Speaker 2: There is a loss, and it takes time planning, strategy, execution.
Speaker 3: It's not running around in the street for three or
Speaker 3: four damn days. It's not. It will never be successful
Speaker 3: like that.
Speaker 5: I don't care if the protests last till the end
Speaker 5: of this week without any concrete legislation to put even
Speaker 5: before the mayor's office, even if it's to say, we
Speaker 5: want to ban the practice of ice being able to
Speaker 5: come into businesses and snatching people from their workplace. States, right, states, right,
Speaker 5: tit a minute, Absolutely, if you just want to enforce
Speaker 5: those things, make sure you have something up front that
Speaker 5: you're asking for. But right now, just walking aimlessly down
Speaker 5: the street because there is there is no goal. They're
Speaker 5: not walking towards a end goal where there's a rally,
Speaker 5: where there's you know, some type of speech to be
Speaker 5: given that you can.
Speaker 3: Get out to the public. So for I haven't.
Speaker 5: Seen any of that and I'm not knocking the right
Speaker 5: to protest. Look, hey, y'all want to go out there
Speaker 5: and make yourself heard, do that, but make yourself actually heard.
Speaker 2: I can't tell the Latino community or those who are
Speaker 2: most concerned with immigration reform or ice reform, how to
Speaker 2: do it in the sense of what you would want
Speaker 2: in any proposed legislation. I can tell you that nothing
Speaker 2: will change until.
Speaker 3: You do it.
Speaker 2: No amount of walking, no amount of interviews, no amount
Speaker 2: of confrontations with police or ice will ever change the
Speaker 2: status quo. And it's going to have to be over
Speaker 2: a period of time. It's not going to be immediate,
Speaker 2: and you have to be committed to it. Right now,
Speaker 2: nobody's committed to anything other than just getting on TV,
Speaker 2: getting content for social media. Nothing more, and nothing is.
Speaker 2: And here's the thing which people just forget. For whatever reasons,
Speaker 2: people in power are counting on your laziness. They are
Speaker 2: counting on you not doing anything more than what you
Speaker 2: see on TV right now, just marching, showing your numbers,
Speaker 2: expressing your outrage, being mad, being afraid, yelling at police,
Speaker 2: quote unquote, calling elected officials onto the carpet, and what
Speaker 2: happens three weeks from now, not a g damn thing, nothing, nothing,
Speaker 2: And this will go from city to city to city
Speaker 2: to city until someone finally actually figures out how this
Speaker 2: game is actually played and then starts played to win.
Speaker 2: And right now, love him or loathe him, President Trump
Speaker 2: is winning because he knows. He is clear that this
Speaker 2: is good for him politically, the optics are great for
Speaker 2: him electorally, and unless something changes legally, he's going to
Speaker 2: keep on doing this same thing. And I keep trying
Speaker 2: to tell people I don't have any dog in this fight.
Speaker 2: I know I gotta go break. I don't have any
Speaker 2: dog in this fight. And I'm not advocating one thing
Speaker 2: or another, but I am a student of history and
Speaker 2: I'm telling you all this is playing out to form
Speaker 2: because this has been as far as strategy goes, this
Speaker 2: is the strategy which has been employed by the Trump administration.
Speaker 3: Y'all just haven't been paying attention.
Speaker 2: He told you about this, he said he was going
Speaker 2: to do it, he laid out the steps in which
Speaker 2: it was going to be completed, and now he's executing
Speaker 2: his plan.
Speaker 3: And those who are mad.
Speaker 2: At the plan don't have any response other than say
Speaker 2: it with me protesting air quotes.
Speaker 1: You're listening to Later with Moe Kelly on demand from
Speaker 1: kfi AM six.
Speaker 3: Forty KFIM six forty. It is Later with mo Kelly.
Speaker 2: Actually it's just KFIM six forty mo Kelly in on
Speaker 2: this special news presentation of what's happening in downtown Los Angeles.
Speaker 3: And let's be honest.
Speaker 2: I've been following at least a television coverage and the
Speaker 2: print news coverage of what is or is not happening.
Speaker 2: There is nothing going on at this moment. Could that
Speaker 2: change in the next five to ten minutes. Possibly, But
Speaker 2: I can only tell you what is or is not happening,
Speaker 2: what might happen or not, what someone else is wish casting.
Speaker 2: And what I mean by that is some people want violence,
Speaker 2: some people want there to be right, some people actually
Speaker 2: want there to be a need for the National Guard
Speaker 2: and the Marines. As of right now, there isn't I
Speaker 2: can't make up something to tell you which is not happening.
Speaker 2: There is no news coverage of violence transpiring right now.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: You can look at various channels and you can see
Speaker 2: the positioning of law enforcement downtown. We are one hour
Speaker 2: into the curfew, which is going to extend until six AM.
Speaker 2: I suspect from the remarks of Mayor Karen Bass from
Speaker 2: the way she phrased it, that they'll probably be a
Speaker 2: few nights of these curfews, especially if it's successful tonight,
Speaker 2: they wouldn't back off on it. If it's successful, we'll
Speaker 2: know more by tomorrow. But if you check us out
Speaker 2: on YouTube, we're having some live feed from CNBC, and
Speaker 2: we say CNBC because there's nothing on k CAW, there's
Speaker 2: nothing on CBS, there's nothing on KNBC regarding this. Right now,
Speaker 2: NBC has America Got Talent and they've been on that
Speaker 2: show for the past hour or so.
Speaker 3: I don't know how long that show has been on. Yeah.
Speaker 5: In the TV we have all of the local networks
Speaker 5: up on screen and they are all running normal, regular programming.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I mean he's died out. Yeah. Yeah. I
Speaker 3: try to be as factual as possible.
Speaker 2: Now we may disagree on the analysis and interpretation of
Speaker 2: those facts, but my first and foremost goal is to
Speaker 2: make sure you have as much accurate information. And then, yes,
Speaker 2: I tried to provide some context. Tonight, I've been going
Speaker 2: more heavy on the history because history is speaking to
Speaker 2: us in this moment. If you recognize some of these things,
Speaker 2: If you know what has happened in nineteen seventy with
Speaker 2: Kent State that informs tonight with the addition of the
Speaker 2: Marines here in southern California, if you were here or
Speaker 2: old enough to remember nineteen ninety two, actually remember it,
Speaker 2: then you'd have an understanding of what tonight is or
Speaker 2: is not in comparison to nineteen ninety two. I'm o
Speaker 2: Kelly Cay If I am six forty, live everywhere in
Speaker 2: the iHeart ready out a spy
Speaker 1: And kost HD two Los Angeles, Orange County more stimulating
Speaker 1: talk