Loading summary
Transcript37 lines
- [00:01]
A
Morning Zoe. Got donuts.
- [00:02]
B
Jeff Bridges, why are you still living above our garage?
- [00:05]
A
Well, I dig the mattress and I want to be in a T Mobile commercial like you teach me.
- [00:11]
B
So Dana oh no, I'm not really prepared. I couldn't possibly at t mobile get the new iPhone 17 Pro on them. It's designed to be the most powerful iPhone yet and has the ultimate pro camera system.
- [00:24]
A
Wow, impressive. Let me try. T Mobile is the best place to get iPhone 17 Pro because they've got the best network.
- [00:31]
C
Nice. You heard them. T Mobile is the best place to get the new iPhone 17 Pro on us with eligible traded in any condition.
- [00:40]
A
So what are we having for lunch?
- [00:42]
B
Dude, my work here is done.
- [00:44]
D
The 24 month bill credits on experience beyond for well qualified customers plus tax and 35 device connection charge. Credit send and balance due. If you pay off earlier, Cancel Finance agreement. IPhone 17 Pro 256 gigs $1099.99 and new line minimum 100 plus a month plan with auto pay plus taxes and fees required. Best mobile network in the US based on analysis by Oaklove Speed Test Intelligence data 182025 visit t mobile.com A Mochi.
- [01:02]
B
Moment from Mark who writes I just want to thank you for making GLP1s affordable. What would have been over $1,000 a month is just $99 a month with Mochi money shouldn't be a barrier to healthy weight. Three months in and I have smaller jeans and a bigger wallet. You're the best. Thanks Mark. I'm Mayra Amit, founder of Mochi Health. To find your mochi moments, visit joinmochi.com Mark is a Mochi member compensated for his story. A Mochi moment from Mark who writes I just want to thank you for making GLP1s affordable. What would have been over $1,000 a month is just $99 a month with Mochi money shouldn't be a barrier to healthy weight. Three months in and I have smaller jeans and a bigger wallet. You're the best. Thanks Mark. I'm Mayra Amit, founder of Mochi Health. To find your mochi moment, visit joinmochi.com Mark is a Mochi member compensated for his story. A Mochi moment from Sadie who writes I'm not crying, you're crying. This is what I said during my first appointment with my physician at Mochi because I didn't have to convince him I needed a GLP one. He understood and I felt supported, not judged. I came for the weight loss and stayed for the empathy. Thanks Sadie I'm Mayra Amit, founder of Mochi Health. To find your mochi moment, visit joinmochi.com Sadie is a Mochi member compensated for her story. A Mochi moment from Tara, who writes for years all my doctor said was eat less and move more, which never worked. But you know what does? The simple eating tips from my nutritionist at Mochi. And after losing over 30 pounds, I can say you're not just another GLP1 source, you're a life source. Thanks, Tara. I'm Mayra Amit, founder of Mochi Health. To find your mochi moment, visit join mochi.com Tara is a Mochi member compensated for her story.
- [03:02]
C
We got some breaking news here on the Midas Touch Network. For those that have been following it, Judge Immergut has just issued her second temporary restraining order in favor of the state of Oregon and California about Donald Trump's attempts to send now the California National Guard into Oregon in full defiance of Judge Immergut's earlier ruling from Saturday late afternoon, in which she said that Donald Trump did not have the power or the authority under the statute to commandeer and federalize the Oregon National Guard because the the elements that are necessary in order to do that were missing, such as there's no rebellion going on and he doesn't need federal troops or the or the commandeer National Guard troops in order to execute federal law. Donald Trump didn't like that and decided to start sending in 200 or more national Guardsmen from California into Oregon, which led to a quick unity between Oregon and California and joining in a new temporary restraining order. And within hours, Judge Immergut set an emergency hearing and ruled from the bench. And who better to tell us about this than the Attorney general of California who's joining us here, Rob Bonta. AG Bonta, thank you for joining Midas Touch.
- [04:27]
E
Grateful to be with you as always. Thanks.
- [04:29]
C
Yes. So let's take it from your perspective. This was an Oregon case until about half a day ago and then it became a California and Oregon case. You were on the hearing. It was by phone mainly to tell our audience what happened today and what Judge Immergut did and why you think it was correct.
- [04:50]
E
Yeah, you know, well, it was an Oregon case until today though, California, you know, I speaking directly with, with A.G. rayfield and my team talking to them have been very closely communicating with them about what happened in LA with California. Since we were first, we've been supporting our fellow ags as they face deployments of National Guard, whether it be D.C. whether it be or Oregon. And then today we got, you know, directly brought into the case with 300 federalized California National Guard's people being moved 1,000 miles up north to Portland, where a judge had already said yesterday that the conditions on the ground absolutely do not justify the federalization of National Guard. They don't justify the federalization of Oregon National Guard. And so the federal government in its ingenious thinking said, well, her order though it said there were no conditions to bring the federalized National Guard to Oregon. Applied to the Oregon National Guard, how about we bring in California National Guard?
- [06:00]
C
How did that work?
- [06:01]
E
And she was completely miffed. I just listened in on the entire hearing. First of all, thank you to my incredible team, the incredible teams in Oregon and Portland. It was a team effort, folks working overtime. Obviously today's a Sunday and democracy needs to be protected every day and the rule of law does as well. And she was really miffed. Her first set of questions of the federal government were how does this not violate my order from yesterday? And I think she's right, you know, that this sort of super technical approach to try to bring National Guard in, that's from another state. And just minutes before the hearing commenced, we got word through a memorandum from Secretary Hegseth that the Texas National Guard has been federalized, 2000 of them, with 400 of them being deployed to both Portland and Chicago. So it is clear that it's a sort of whack, a mole approach from the federal government. You stop the Oregon National Guard from being federalized, we'll bring up the California National Guard. You stop the California National Guard from being brought up north, we'll bring in the Texas National Guard. You stop them, we got, you know, who's got next. You know, we got a bunch of others we can bring in. And so we asked her, the judge, to issue a broad order that says that applies to every National Guard in every state and the District of Columbia and that none of them can be deployed, can be federalized and deployed to Oregon. And she issued that order from the bench. She's going to back it up with a written order as well. But she was concerned, based on the behavior of the federal government about what the scope of her order should be and believed. And I agree that a broad order that is broad in scope is appropriate. So the conditions have not changed in 24 hours. National Guard being deployed in Oregon was unlawful yesterday. It's unlawful today as well. It doesn't matter where the National Guard comes from, whether the Oregon's National Guard or California's or Texas's Guard. And so I think the judge nailed it, the Trump appointed judge nailed it and looked at the facts, looked at the law, issued an order expeditiously and appropriately stopped Trump from this unlawful conduct.
- [08:18]
C
And thank you, AG Banta. And what we've known from the past is There were about seven red states that sent their National Guard into D.C. and I'm sure this is the same group that Donald Trump is trying to cycle through to try to find. I don't even think he's trying to do find a loophole. I think he's just openly defiant of Judge Immergat. It sounds like she thinks that might have happened as well. Well, just to frame the issue, we have a judge who yes, was appointed back in the the first term of Donald Trump, but he's already blaming whoever the people were, you know, at the Federalist Society or Leonard Leo or whoever led him astray because he doesn't like her particular rulings. And she framed the issue in her order on Saturday so perfectly. To my audience I said it's 31 pages, but you really just need to read the first paragraph and one of her last paragraphs to understand it. In her first paragraph for our audience, she said on on Saturday and this like you said, it was illegal then and it's illegal now. She said this case involves the intersection of three of the most fundamental principles in our constitutional democracy. The first concerns the relationship between the federal government and the states. The second concerns the relationship between the United States armed forces and domestic law enforcement. And the third concerns the proper role of the judicial branch in ensuring that the executive branch complies with the laws and limitations imposed by the legislative branch. Whether we choose to follow what the Constitution mandates with respect to these three relationships goes to the heart of what it means to live under the rule of law in the United States. And then she ended it this way. And I'm sure this is sort of the animating force in in her decision making. She said at the end of her order on page 30 from Saturday, this country has a long standing and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs. Quoting from James Madison, addressed to the Constitutional Convention, a standing military force with an overgrown executive. Well, we've got an overgrown executive. Will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition. This is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that if accepted risk blurring the line between civil and military, federal power to the detriment of this nation. That's the judge, right? She nails it. She nails it.
- [11:06]
E
She knows what's at stake, she knows what the issues are here. You know, this Trump appointed judge is doing her duty. She's following the facts, following the law. Let them chips fall where they may. You apply the law to the facts and make decisions not influenced by ideology, political ideology, or you know who the President is or who appointed you. She's doing what her job is.
- [11:27]
C
What was the department. I didn't mean to interrupt you, sorry about that. What was the response? I mean we always like to know our opponent. What was the response? What's the government's position as to why they believe in good faith they could send in California, Texas or any other national card given her earlier ruling. What did they say?
- [11:48]
E
I didn't envy the federal attorney trying to defend this conduct and honestly he was having a hard time and you know, he had his arguments though and, but the judge was pushing and she was not happy and she was saying, you are an officer of the court, sir, and tell me why this doesn't violate my order from yesterday. And his argument was that this is not the Oregon National Guard. That's what your order yesterday applied to. This is the California National Guard. They've already been federalized and they're just being repositioned from Los Angeles and California to Portland. And she was having none of that and not buying any of that hyper technical approach. She was getting to the substance. I think she was likely offended though she didn't show it. She was very professional and had outstanding demeanor by this effort to end, run or just violate blatantly her order from yesterday.
- [12:46]
C
And such a weird, I mean, you and I don't have enough time on planet earth to figure out the machinations of the Trump administration or their strategy or lack thereof. But everything reports up in these cases to the same ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and I would think they're not, it strengthens your hand certainly in the California ninth Circuit case to see how Donald Trump has interpreted unique set of facts that he was able to at one time convince the ninth Circuit about. Now trying to take them on the road to go to any state that he, that he says, oh, I'm having trouble enforcing the law, let me just take it. I don't think that's what the 9th Circuit three judge panel had in mind, do you?
- [13:32]
E
I don't. And look this On August 8th, Trump deployed 300 National Guard for 90 days longer in, in, in Los Angeles, arguing that they are necessary and essential to enforce the federal laws and to keep people safe. And then today he's like, nah, maybe I'll send all of them to Portland. They don't need to be in la. So it completely undercuts his position in our case in la. And we're going to make that known to the court that these federalized National Guard are so essential and so necessary to keep the peace and keep public safety that they were all sent away a thousand miles away to, to another, to another gift.
- [14:18]
C
You were given a gift Ag.
- [14:21]
E
I mean, it is deplorable what happened. And we are going to let the court know how it impacts, you know, the case that we have.
- [14:27]
C
I like the fact that Immergut, Judge Immergut in her Saturday order actually tipped her hat to your judge in California, Judge Breyer, and said, I like what the district court judge did about how you spot a rebellion. I think those. So once I saw that. All right, because, you know, he's taken a little bit of heat because he didn't get the entirety of his injunctions upheld, at least for now. Although the Posse Comitatus one is still right there. The more I learned and maybe you knew about her from her prior experience, even in California, she has a very interesting body of work that's unique among federal judges. She had been a federal prosecutor in la, I believe she was a US Attorney in Portland. She was a district attorney in the county in which Portland is in. She worked Vermont for a couple of years. She's a person that worked very closely with law enforcement and knows law enforcement well, especially in Portland, and lives and works in Portland. And this whole Portland is war, tornado, right. War ravaged. We must send the military. As she's sitting drinking her, her, her local, you know, brewed coffee. Like, where, where is this?
- [15:49]
E
Someone show me it immediately because I don't see it anywhere and I'm here in Portland.
- [15:54]
C
So, you know, when Judge Simon gave up the case after, I assume Trump's lawyers made some sort of argument that made him uncomfortable because his wife is a congresswoman from Portland. We were like, who did it rotate to? But once I did more exploration of her background. You've got a, you know, you've got a great judge for this.
- [16:13]
E
We, I thought you did a great job and, you know, tons of credit to her. I'm sure she's, I hope she's not, I hope this isn't true. Going to get political pressure from the right, from, from MAGA World. MAGA World and from Trump and his people. But she is a true public servant who believes in the law, who knows what law enforcement is, has worked with it and for it, and is not going to get pulled into these silly ideological fights and these depictions of what's happening on the ground that are only a figment of the imagination of Donald Trump that he posts on Truth Social when he says it's war torn. I mean, she pointed out very specifically that Trump's determination to deploy the guard based on the facts on the ground was untethered from the tethered to reality. I like that word. It was untethered.
- [17:05]
C
She and she may get pressure. Look, as you and I are on the air, we got a house that's burned to the ground in South Carolina of a judge. Yeah, really terrible, terrible things are happening here in terms of political violence. But I think, you know, she's a very, like you said, she's a dedicated public servant. Her entire body of work leading to this case says that she's the perfect judge to handle a matter like this, even though Donald Trump is already attacking her and bemoaning it. So is the. My understanding is, I know you asked in the alternative, either a new TRO or modify your old one. She went with the new one. Was that, do you think, because the other side was arguing that since the appeal was up with the ninth, somehow she was divested of jurisdiction.
- [17:52]
E
I don't think she thought she was divested of jurisdiction, though she did ask this question. What if the appeal to the Ninth Circuit on yesterday's tro, you know, the first TRO is granted and the TRO is overturned. Would that affect today's tro? Should she issue one? She was kind of thinking out loud and asking the attorneys their input. And I think the attorneys from California and Oregon made it very clear that today's a separate TRO on a separate issue with a separate movement of, of National Guard. And whatever the court does in the first TRO shouldn't affect the TRO today. So, and she was brought in her scope today. And so we have two very powerful and poignant TROs. But she did connect them. I think she's going to incorporate by reference in the TRO that she's issued today the rationale and the factual recitation in her.
- [18:47]
C
Yeah, the same 31 page underpinned the quote that I read applies to what the analysis that she just did here. And then Donald Trump can, you know, ask for his stays from whatever courts he wants to ask and file his appeals and you'll follow this to the ends of the earth for right now. So I guess the question is right now, where are these two or three hundred California National Guards people? Where are they?
- [19:13]
E
We think that 100 are already on the ground in Portland and they were in and around the LA area. And then another hundred will be there by tonight and the final group of 100 will arrive by tomorrow.
- [19:27]
C
I mean, are you expecting them to comply now with the second TRO and get them off the street?
- [19:33]
E
I do. They shouldn't be performing any official duties. So I don't know if they're going to be put on ice somewhere, you know, just staying in the background and not conducting any official activity or if they're going to be sent back to California, whatever it is, they need to comply with the court order. And they are. They cannot be deployed to engage in, you know, any official duties in, in, in Portland.
- [20:00]
C
A fast moving story, but we're so fortunate to have the Attorney General for California, Rob Bonta, join the Midas Touch Network to give us the update about the case from basically within the courtroom. We'll continue to follow it. This is a fast moving story. It's got a lot of moving parts now, but we've got two temporary restraining orders. There has not been a stay that's been issued about either one of them, although appeals have been filed and we'll see what happens on the ground here and, and throughout. And we'll post this order and the orders that we have on the legal AF substack so that our audience can read it for themselves. AG Bonta, always a pleasure to have you here. Thank you for taking time to improve our audience. Honored to be with you.
- [20:44]
E
Thanks again for having me. It's always great to join you.
- [20:47]
C
Thank you. Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscriber to our substack@midasplus.com you'll get daily recaps from Ron Filipkowski ad free episodes of our podcast and more exclusive content only available@midasplus.com.