Transcript of California AG Rob Bonta reacts to Late Night Court Victory

We got some breaking news here on the Midas Touch Network. For those that have been following it, Judge Emmergut 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 Immer Guts 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 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 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 of national National Guardsmen from California into Oregon, which led to a quick unity between Oregon and California and joining in a new temporary restraining order. Within hours, Judge Imbergut set an emergency hearing and ruled from the bench. Who better to tell us about this than the attorney general of California who's joining us here, Rob Banta. Ag Banta, thank you for joining Midas Touch.

Grateful to be with you as always. Thanks, man. Yes.

Let's take it from your perspective. This was an Oregon case until about a half a day ago, and then it became a California and Oregon case. You were on the hearing. It was by phone, mainly. Tell our audience what happened today and what Judge Scott did and why you think it was correct.

Yeah. Well, it was an Oregon case until today, though California, I speaking directly with AG Rayfield and my team talking to them, have been very close Actually communicating with them about what happened in LA with California since we were first. We've been supporting our fellow AGs as they faced deployments of National Guard, whether it be DC or Oregon. And then today, we got directly brought into the case with 300 federalized California National Guard people being moved a thousand miles up north to Portland, where a judge had already said yesterday that the conditions on the ground absolutely 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? Why not? Maybe that will work. 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 is 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? I think she's right that this super technical full 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 Hegset that the Texas National Guard has been federalized, 2,000 of them, with 400 of them being deployed to both Portland and Chicago. So it is clear that it's a whack-a-mole approach from the federal government. You stop the Oregon National Guard from being federalized, we'll bring it 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, who's got next? We got a bunch of others we can bring in. And so we asked her, the judge, to issue a broad order that applies to every National Guard in every state and the district of Columbia, and that none of them can be federalized and deployed to Oregon.

She 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.

Thank you, Eiji Bante. What we've known from the past is there were about seven red states that sent their National Guard into DC. I'm sure this is the same group that Donald Trump is trying to cycle through to try to find a way. I don't even think trying to find a loophole. I think he's just openly defiant of Judge Emmergut. It sounds like she thinks that might have happened as well. Just to frame the issue, we have a judge who, yes, was appointed back in the first term of Donald Trump, but he's already blaming whoever the people were 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 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. Then She ended it this way, and I'm sure this is the animating force 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 overgrowing 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. Defendents have made a range of arguments that have 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.

She knows what's at stake. She knows what the issues are here. This Trump appointed judge is doing her duty. She's following the facts, following the law. Chips fall where they may. You apply the law to the facts and make decisions not influenced by ideology, political ideology, or who the President is or who appointed you. She's doing what her job is.

What was the department... I didn't mean to interrupt you. Sorry about that. What 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?

I didn't envy the federal attorney trying to defend this conduct. And honestly, he was having a hard time. And he had his arguments, though, 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. She was having none of that and not buying any of that hyper technical approach. She was getting to the substance, and I think she was likely offended, though she didn't show it. She was very professional and had an outstanding demeanor by this effort to end run or just violate blatantly her order from yesterday.

I It's such a weird... 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. I would think 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 says, Oh, I'm having trouble enforcing the law. Let me just take it. I don't think that's what the Ninth Circuit three-judge panel had in mind. Do you?

I don't. And look, on August eighth, Trump deployed 300 National Guard for 90 days longer 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 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 another city.

It's a gift. You were given a gift, AG Bont.

It is deplorable what happened, and we are going to let the court know how it impacts the case that we have.

I like the fact that Judge Emmergut, in her Saturday order, actually tipped her hat to your judge in California, Judge Breier, 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 he's taking a little bit of heat because he didn't get the entirety of his injunctions uphelded, at least for now, although the poste commentatis one is still right there. The more I 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 at Vermont for a couple of years. She's a person that works 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-torn. We must send the military. As she's sitting drinking her local brewed coffee. Where Where is this?

Someone show me it immediately because I don't see it anywhere. And I'm here in Portland.

So when Judge Simon gave up the case after I assume Trump's lawyers made some argument that made him uncomfortable comfortable 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 great judge for this.

I thought she did a great job, and 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 Mager World, Mager World and from Trump and his people. But she is a true public servant who believes in the law, who knows what law enforcement 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. She pointed out very specifically that Trump's determination to deploy the guard based on the facts on the ground was untethered from the fact.

Untethered to reality.

I like that word. It was untethered.

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 things are happening here in terms of political violence. But I think 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. 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?

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, the first TRO, is granted and the TRO is granted and the TRO is overturned. Would that affect today's TRO? Should she issue one? She was thinking out loud and asking the attorneys their input. I think that the attorneys from California and Oregon made it very clear that today is a separate TRO on a separate issue with a separate movement of National Guard, and whatever the court does in the first TRO shouldn't affect the TRO today. She was brought in scope today. 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 Yeah, the same 31-page underpin.

The quote that I read applies to what the analysis that she just did here. Then Donald Trump can ask for his stays from whatever courts he wants to ask and file his appeals, and you'll follow to the ends of the Earth for right now. I guess the question is, right now, where are these 200 or 300 California National Guard people? Where are they?

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.

Are you expecting them to comply now with the second TRO and get them off the street?

I do. They shouldn't be performing any official duties. I don't know if they're going to be put on ice somewhere, 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 cannot be deployed to engage in any official duties in Portland.

A fast-moving story But we're so fortunate to have the attorney general for California, Rob Banta, 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. We'll see what happens on the ground here and throughout. We'll post this order and the orders that we have on the legal AF sub stack so that our audience can read it for themselves. Ag Banta, always a pleasure to have you here. Thank you for taking time to brief our audience.

Honored to be with you. Thanks again for having me. It's always great to join you.

Thank you. Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscriber to our sub stack at mitisplus. Com. You'll get daily recaps from Ron Filipkowski, add free episodes of our podcast, and more exclusive content, only available at mitisplus.

Com.