Krystal and Saagar discuss Glenn Greenwald on media's Iraq War 2.0 coverage, Minnesota assassin last text revealed, California AG sounds off on Trump troop deployment.
Glenn Greenwald: https://x.com/ggreenwald
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com. Very excited now to be joined by friend
of the show, Glenn Greenwall, to talk about the media
environment and how it may resemble the war in Iraq.
To Glenn, of course, was one of the people fighting
against the administration exposing the truth there at the time,
(00:46):
and so can see a lot of these parallels. Glenn,
one of the things we wanted to start with here
is your observation about how the US media organizations are
used as tools of Israel and the US intelligence community.
Let's go and put this up there on the screen
as you note we have two side by side stories yesterday.
One is Iran is eager to negotiate with the US
(01:07):
and Israel to end the war, but CNN says Iran
refuses to negotiate while under attack until his retaliation against
Israel is completed. As you say, disinformation is always a
weapon of war and lets people believe what they want. So,
given your experience now covering so much of these psyops
and others by the intelligence community by various foreign governments,
(01:27):
what can we tell the audience about the warnings for
how to navigate this very difficult information environment.
Speaker 4 (01:33):
Yeah, I mean, I think usually now people are trained
to understand that if they're getting some claim that is
laundered through the media from anonymous sources, that it's often
necessary to apply skepticism to it. People have warned that
lesson Well, but when it comes time to war, especially
when the governments are selling wars to people, when they're
attempting to scare them into supporting a war, skepticism is
(01:56):
almost not even enough. You have to kind of begin
by disbelieving what it is you're being told, knowing how
often almost automatically disinformation is deliberately deployed. So it is
a weapon of war. It's something that every government at
war does. And we've seen over and over that our
corporate media is not just incapable of guarding against it,
but eager to participate in its dissemination. And that's the
(02:16):
reason we've been deceived so many times into wars.
Speaker 5 (02:19):
And so you have to look.
Speaker 4 (02:20):
Back at history to get a guide for how to
navigate what you're seeing currently.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Yeah, I mean, the number of conflicting reports that come out.
I mean, even if you like, outside of this administration,
the number of reports we got from Barock revied about
how Biden was super super mad at Netnyahoo and then
Trump comes into office and he's also super super mad.
Speaker 5 (02:38):
At net Yahoo.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
And you know, I think to your point, especially when
you have the Trump administration just admitting that they lied
to the Iranians, the American people, to the world about
their intent to go forward with negotiations as a ruse
to create an element of surprise for these Israeli attacks.
Whatever credence you were giving them previously has to be
completely thrown out the window at this point.
Speaker 4 (03:00):
Yeah, you know, even there, I mean, that is what
the United States is claiming. That is what Donald Trump
is claiming, because I do believe that's what happened.
Speaker 6 (03:07):
I do believe, at least recently, that the.
Speaker 4 (03:10):
US was negotiating with Iran and leading them to believe
that they still wanted a diplomatic solution as a way
of getting Iran to believe no attack was coming to
let the Israelis in the US attack them with surprise.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
But it's not.
Speaker 6 (03:20):
But let's assume that isn't the case.
Speaker 4 (03:21):
Let's assume that what happened was what they made to
look like what happened, which is that the US was saying, no,
don't do this, and then Israel went and did it anyway,
meaning defy Trump's orders, humiliated the United States, humiliated Donald
Trump by ruining his diplomatic attempts after he told Israel not.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
To do it.
Speaker 4 (03:38):
Even then, what would Trump do. He wouldn't stand up
and admit that net Yahu humiliated him. They would probably
have an interest US officials would in pretending that Trump
was in on that plan all along, that he wasn't
surprised by it, or defied that this was actually Trump's war.
And he's been speaking that way all the time, And
I think I'm so glad you mentioned Barrock reviieve because
he's such a perfect example of the kind of skepticism
(03:58):
that we ought to have. This is a person who's
an Israeli citizen. He was in the Idea Reserves until
twenty twenty three. He worked in their most notorious intelligent unit,
and he has become basically the go to reporter for
understanding us is really relations because he just takes whatever
he's told to write down from both governments and goes
and prints it completely uncritically. And he won the White
House Journalism Award for doing so, which reflects the kind
(04:22):
of stenographic function that they continue to see themselves in,
especially when it comes to foreign policy and wards. They
don't question the government. They're there to publish what they're
told and to stand on the side of the government.
And that's what makes this combination of politics and media
propaganda so potent and so dangerous.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Well, it's actually kind of a useful function if you
know that's what he's doing. It's actually usefully Okay, Well,
this is what they want us to believe.
Speaker 5 (04:47):
This is what they're trying to sell to the public.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
But it has to be read through that particular lens
before we transition to talking about some of the Iraq
War parallels and like lessons learned from that era, because
some of the similarities are really really You talked about
President Trump like trying and you know, people trying to
scare us into war.
Speaker 5 (05:04):
This is scaring me, but not in the direction of war.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
He posted this long text that he got from Mike Huckabee,
who is this, you know, evangelical End Times believer who
also happens to be r US Ambassador to Israel. And
so Trump posted on true Social this what they describe
as a powerful message that he received from Mike Huckabee
that reads, mister President, God spared you in Butler, Pennsylvania
to be the most consequential president in a century, maybe ever.
(05:30):
The decisions on your shouldiers shoulders I would not want
to be made by anyone else. You have many voices
speaking to you, sir, but there is only one.
Speaker 5 (05:37):
Voice that matters. His voice.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
I am your appointed servant in this land, and I
am available for you. But I do not try to
get in your presence often because I trust your instincts.
No president in my lifetime has been in a position
like yours, not since Truman in nineteen forty five. I
don't reach out to persuade you, only to encourage you.
I believe you will hear from heaven, and that voice
is far more important than mine or anyone else's. You
(06:00):
sent me to Israel to be your eyes, ears, and
voice and make sure our flag flies above our embassy.
My job is to be the last one to leave.
I will not abandon this post. Our flag will not
come down. You did not seek this moment. This moment
sought you. It as my honor to serve you. Your
thoughts about that.
Speaker 4 (06:15):
Well, it's not just alarming that Hackabee wrote that, but
that Trump took it and himself published it because Trump
clearly believes it to be true. You know, I heard
from a lot of people that everybody, I think, assume
that Trump's marching around as some sort of evangelical Christian
for most of his political career was a ruse. But
I heard from a lot of people who know Trump
very well that, especially after that assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania,
(06:37):
which admittedly, you know, was something that I think would
transform anybody coming that close to death but avoiding it,
that he really did become convinced that there was some
divine intervention that saved him for a reason, and it's
so ironic that we're hearing that the reason Ron is
own dangerous is because they're a theocratic regime that doesn't
care about anything other than the belief that God is
telling them what to do.
Speaker 5 (06:57):
When that not.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
Only obviously effects in shapes Israel's foreign Paul, but I
think it's shaping Donald Trump's as well. And I think
what it's really alarming is if you look at what
Trump has been saying the last twenty four to forty
eight hours, he's clearly trying to at least send the signal,
whether it's to Ron or Israel or to whomever, that
he is about to do something of historic proportions, which
is what bb net Yahoo thinks about himself as well.
(07:19):
They're both people in their mid to eight seventies, which
is when they start thinking about how their thought of
once they're dead, not what the rest of us have
to deal with as a result of their decisions. And
I think the kind of mindset that they're in now,
as evidence by Trump posting that Huckabee email, is one
that is genuinely alarming and dangerous. And I say that
as somebody who's not typically alarmed moved.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
No, you're absolutely right, Glenn.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
And you know what really strikes me with the Bush
parallel and Iraq, this is a good transition. Is one
of the things that really struck me in reading a
lot about Bush is he really believed that he'd been
saved from addiction and like put on this earth and
sent to the White House to save the United States
during nine to eleven. And that really was a huge
impact on why he decided to go into the war
(08:01):
in Iraq. And so, you know, bringing this like full
circle is not only that the media aspect here, but
what drives me crazy, and I'm sure it must do
as well, is we have the same actors in the
literally the same people who led us into the war
in Iraq now really repeating so many of the same
things we had Ari Fleischer talking about Tucker Carlson and hey,
this is the guy who lied from the White House
(08:22):
podium about weapons of mass destruction. Glenn Beck, who was
on television talking about how America would be greeted as liberators.
He apologized in twenty fourteen, But you know, Glenn, he's
back now to actually saying actually, this time around, they're
going to be greeted as liberators.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
Let's take a listen to that and we'll get your reaction.
Speaker 7 (08:40):
Has Israel asked us to fight their war?
Speaker 6 (08:42):
Answer?
Speaker 7 (08:43):
No, is this another Iraq or is it something entirely different? Well,
let me tell you what makes this moment unlike anything
else we have faced before. First, this was not a
call to war. This was not a land invasion. This
is not a campaign to Toppola regime and then sit
around for twenty years trying to rebuild a culture that
(09:04):
doesn't want what we have. Even though Iran, the Iranian
people are good people, the Persians are great people, and
they do want a life like ours. But this was targeted.
This was surgical. This was preemptive, not against an idea,
not against a guess, against the very real, very stated
(09:26):
intentions of a regime run by men who do not
think like we think. Okay, they do not want what
we want. We choose life, They literally choose death. These
are twelvevers. They are followers of a branch of Sied
Islam that believes not just in the return of the
(09:47):
messianic figure called the Mahadi, but also that is return
can and must be. In their words, hastened or accelerated,
And the only way to do that is to quote
using their words, wah, the world in blood. Okay, I
think I'm out at that. You know, that's the first
stop on the train, and I'm like, I'm gonna get
off here please.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
They hate our way of life there they choose I mean,
this is three This is the same thing. You could
probably copy and paste that and except this time they're
different because they're Persian, which by the way, is very
racist against Arabs.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
But it's like, what are we doing here, Gwen?
Speaker 4 (10:22):
Also, isn't it kind of ironic that we're supposed to
be scared of Arod because they have a Messionic religious
belief and like a third of the Congress wants to
arm and support Israel no matter what because of their
Messionic view that doing so is necessarily for the return
of Jesus, Who's then gonna send all Jews and other
believers to help. But that's a little detail that Israel
as a mind because they don't actually believe that, and
they're happy for the support. But you know, Sagar, the
(10:43):
thing is like the comparison with Iran with the Rock
route there, despite it not being planned originally as a
regime chain or a ground of asion. Is so obvious, right,
Like we're being told the reason we have to start
this war, which is a war that the United States
and Israel started, not wrong. It is because they were
developing extremely dangerous new grow weapon, and they're so psychotic
and dictatorial and unhinged that we can't allow them to
(11:05):
have a new core weapon, which is exactly how the
war in I Rock was justified. And I honestly did.
Of course I knew that from the start. When you
go back and look at the speeches and you see
that the exact same people are uttering the exact same phrases,
it's not even an attempt to modify the script a
little bit, you know. Just as one example, George Bush's
big speech in October, in October and September seventh, rather
than two thousand and two and in Cincinnati was yes,
(11:26):
we can't give you proof that Iraq has newcre weapons,
but you don't want the smoking gun to be in
the form of a mushroom cloud over your city.
Speaker 6 (11:33):
Ted Cruz went on.
Speaker 4 (11:34):
Fox News and said exactly the same thing when asked
about proof that Iran has new weapons. And this is
what's scary is a week ago, every MAGA person, basically
every person, if you showed them. Look, Israel has been
saying for thirty years that Iran is a week away
or a month away or a year away from newcre weapons,
and it never turned out to be true. Would say, yeah,
we're not going to fall for that again the bombs
(11:55):
start dropping, Trump's involved, everybody wants to cheer for it,
and so you just get them on.
Speaker 6 (12:00):
A silver potter.
Speaker 4 (12:01):
This obviously bullshit excuse, which is that Iran has an
active nucro weapons program, which Tolsey Gabert herself set three
months ago, is the consensus of the intelligence community is untrue.
And now it's just the assumption within every media discussion
that Iron is pursuing newcrow weapons And the only question
is do you want to go to word to stop
them or do you want to let.
Speaker 6 (12:18):
Them have it.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
It's mind blowing how propaganda works, even if it's identical
to the one that twenty five years ago we all
watch proved to be completely disgraced and de bonked.
Speaker 5 (12:28):
That is absolutely right.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
And you know another person who was at the scene
of the crime last time as well, Baby Natan Yahoo
here's a little flashback to the case he was making
at the time, and this.
Speaker 8 (12:37):
Is a tyrant who is feverishly trying to acquire nuclear weapons,
and today the United States must destroy the same regime
because a nuclear arms Saddam will place the security of
our entire world at risks. Is simply.
Speaker 9 (12:55):
Not reflecting the reality to assume that Saddam isn't feverishly
working to develop nuclear weapons as if you take out
Saddam Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have
enormous positive reverberations on the region. Principles of real estate
the three l's, location, location, location, The three principles of
(13:18):
winning the War on Terror are the three w's, winning, winning,
and winning. The more victories you amass, the easier the
next victory becomes. The first victory in Afghanistan makes a
second victory in Iraq that much easier. The second victory
in Iraq will make the third victory that much being
less than dismantling his regime will do.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
If you take out Saddam, I guarantee you it will
have enormous positive reverberations on the region because he's feverishly
working to develop nuclear weapons.
Speaker 4 (13:49):
You know, I think there's so many interesting parts to
that testimony that you show that even though just those
excerpts that I think are self evident. But you notice
at the end too, he said, the more you win,
the easier the wins become. So the first one in
Afghanistan will make the second win in Iraq all the easier.
And then of course we didn't win in either, and
then he said that second win will make the third
win easier. Still, what did he mean by the third win?
(14:10):
NEO cons at that point and into two thousand and
three and four were very open about the fact that
they didn't want to stop at Baghdad. You know, there
was that phrase that was leaked by Karl Rove or
somebody like that, Paul Wolfowood saying, real men go to Tehran.
The plan always was was to go top Wol Sadam
and then go get regime change in Iran. And I
think that's the other point that we have to be
so aware of. Glenn Back said, this time it's not
(14:30):
about regime change. Why are they bombing Tehran? Then there
are no nuclear facilities in Tehran. Why did Trump order
sixteen million people to evacuate Tehran, and so they're going
to destroy Tehran where there's no nuclear facilities there either.
It's because this is a regime change where they want
to change the regime of Iran. They want to turn
it into Syria where they just have a collapse in
the central government. All these factions being backed by the
(14:53):
CIA and the massade trying to take over Iran where
at the very least rendering Iran impudent and letting Israel
control the entire Middle East and therefore the United States
as well. That is the real goal of everything that
they're doing. And so maybe it'll end quickly if Trump
drops you know, the biggest problems we have on every
population center, or maybe it'll lead to troops having to
be activated if roon attacks are troops in responseive oil facility.
(15:15):
You don't know once you and lisha war like this
what the results are going to be. And that was
what we learned from a rack, and we were told
it would take two weeks to.
Speaker 1 (15:20):
Get rid of Saddam. Is you know, Glenn, this is
my final question here. I think they've won.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
I think the neocons have won, and I do I mean, look,
I could be totally wrong. There could be some last
minted thing, but I do think the US is going
to get offensively involved. At this point, I have very
very little hope, So I do know that at least
something is going to happen. Fortyh order consequences always do,
and the neocons are going to run away from that.
And since we were somehow unsuccessful in holding them to
account over the last twenty five years, what can we
(15:47):
do differently to hold these people to account and actually
tie them to their decisions or is that just structurally
impossible here in Washington, DC.
Speaker 4 (15:55):
That was the other thing that I really struck me
saga as we prepared our own show last night, going
through these two two and two thousand and three interviews.
The people who went on television and just hold out
right lives and the most assertive authoritative for impossible, none
of them had their careers even remotely impeded, lit alone destoryed.
In fact, they all continue to thrive to this very day.
There's still the ones making the decisions, there's still the
ones in charge.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
And one of the.
Speaker 4 (16:16):
Things that I thought would at least be promising this
time was that there's this big section of MAGA that
would turn against Trump if he actually got the the
country involved in a major war with Iran on behalf
of Israel, and you're already saying, like, one of the
reasons Trump came out yesterday and publicly scorned and humiliated
Tucker Carlson was it was a message to everybody, Look,
(16:36):
if you even think about raising your voice against me,
you will be out. We're going to exclude you from BAKA.
You will no, I'm going to be welcome with the
White House. You'll have no influence. It was a way
of keeping them all into line. And you're already seeing
many of them who had been saying don't go to
war with Iran or it's going to riud your presidency
snapping into line and saying, you know what, I trust
President Trump. I'm sure he's going to do the right thing.
We need to get rid of this regime. And I
(16:58):
don't see any hope of that happening.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
Yes, unfortunately, Charlie Kirk last night goes on and oh,
I trust President Trump.
Speaker 5 (17:04):
He was made for this moment. I'm sure it's going
to all work out great.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
Yeah, I mean, and very few people like Tucker has
his own you know, bas of support and is independent whatever.
There are very few people in the right wing ecosystem
who can exist outside of just like Trump support. So yeah,
they're gonna they're gonna take that message in Glenn, thank
you so much. You've been doing incredible work here. I
also would love for people we were originally booked you
(17:29):
to talk about Palenteer. You got to still do that
in the future.
Speaker 1 (17:31):
You got to come back. They matter. Hey, business is
going to boom for them.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
Okay, all right, all my natures here in Virginia, they're
all about to get filthy rich, so I guess we
can all be.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
They also sponsored that great military parade over the weekend too,
So thanks are thanks are things are looking good for
them and Locky an the others.
Speaker 5 (17:48):
Yep, all right, Glenn, great to see you.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
Take care, Great to see you guys.
Speaker 6 (17:51):
Bye.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
So we've been covering here. Outside of the potential war
with a Ron, there are a couple other stories that
we've been covering. One of them is the assassination of
this Minnesota state Democratic lawmaker and the attempted assassination of
another Minnesota state Democratic lawmaker. The suspect has now been
apprehended after a multi day manhunt. More on that in
a moment when I go ahead and show you, this
(18:16):
is the acting US Attorney Thompson detailing some of the
events that unfolded, some quite extureder information here.
Speaker 5 (18:23):
Let's go out and take a listen.
Speaker 10 (18:25):
After shooting Senator Hoffman and his wife, Belter traveled to
the home of another Minnesota state representative in Maple Grove, Minnesota.
Video surveillance showed that Belter rang the doorbell at the
state representative's house at approximately two twenty four am on
(18:45):
Friday night. Again, he was dressed as a law enforcement officer,
wearing a tactical vest and body armor, carrying a handgun
and a flashlight, and wearing that same hyper realistic silicon mask.
The images, as you can see on the screen are haunting. Unfortunately,
(19:05):
the state representative was not home. She and her family
were gone on vacation, and so Belter left. Belter then
traveled to the home of a Minnesota state senator who
lived in New Hope, Minnesota. He parked in the street
in that same black SUV with the police license plate
(19:27):
at about two thirty six am on Friday night. After
learning of the shooting of Senator Hoffman, New Hope police
dispatched an officer to conduct a wellness check on the
state senator who lived in New Hope. When the New
Hope officer arrived at the scene, she saw Belter's black
(19:48):
SUV parked down the block with the lights on. The
New Hople police officer believed that Belter was a police
officer who had been dispatched to the scene to check
on the staff of the state senator. The New Whole
police officer pulled up next to Belter in his car,
rolled down her window, and attempted to speak with him.
(20:10):
Belter did not respond, according to the officer, he just
sat there and stared straight ahead. So the New Whole
police officer, who had been dispatched to the scene, proceeded
to the state senator's home and she waited for other
law enforcement to arrive. When they did. By the time
they did, Belter had left the scene.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
Belcher had tried to kill four different Minnesota state Democratic
lawhankers and at one of them. So the police officer
shows up to do a wellness check because this guy's
on the loose and they're getting the idea of like
always targeting state elected officials. So let's go to all
the ones that are you know, in the vicinity.
Speaker 5 (20:48):
So she shows up.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
She sees him park down the street because he's in
this fake cop car, pulls up next to him, thinking
this is some law enforcement backup for you know, to
assist her. He just sits there, stare straight ahead, doesn't
say anything. She leaves him alone and goes and performs
this check, giving him the opportunity to escape and then
(21:12):
go to the next lawmaker's home, and I believe it's
that home where he's able to actually shoot and kill
this lawmaker and her husband. At that time, they the
law enforcement, they go on to say, shows up there
at that house where he's able to actually assassinate this lawmaker.
They exchange fire with him, and he's able to flee
(21:34):
on foot, leading to this again multi day manhunt. So
I think there are, to put it generously, a lot
of questions for the way that law enforcement handled all
of this and how this was allowed to unfold when
they had him right there and he's able not only
to escape, but he's able to go on and commit
this murder, and then they have him there and he's
(21:55):
able to get away on foot. The way they're able
to capture him when can put you two up on
the screen. There was a local woman who actually saw him.
He was captured very close to his home, and she
saw him crawling in the grass around her property and
alerted law enforcement that she thought this was him. At first,
(22:17):
she thought it was actually the cops looking for him,
and then she realized, like, no, I think that is
actually the guy. An alerted law enforcement. They're very able
to use drones to track him down. They found him
crawling through some underbush and some bushes and were able
to apprehend him. There's some other really troubling and eyebrow
raising details in a Wall Street Journal report as well.
(22:38):
Can put this next piece up on the screen. So
Belter's wife was actually stopped near a convenience store about
seventy miles north of the shootings. She had two guns,
ten thousand dollars in cash, and passports for herself and
her children in her car, a courney to federal court records.
Speaker 5 (22:57):
Apparently she had received.
Speaker 2 (22:58):
A text another fan only members as well from Belter
at six eighteen am saying quote, Dad went to war
last night.
Speaker 5 (23:06):
Courty Federal court documents.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
He also texted his wife to apologize, saying there's going
to be some people coming to the house armed and
trigger happy, and I don't want you guys around, according
to messages quoted in court filings, and presumably that's what
caused her to flee with firearms herself and ten thousand
dollars in cash, cash and her kids and the passports
Belter had. It was initially described as a manifesto with him.
(23:30):
Later details that have been revealed it wasn't so much
of an explanation of what his motives were of He
had a notebook with a list of targets, some sixty
lawmakers throughout I think all Democratic lawmakers throughout not only
Minnesota but some of the surrounding states. Tim Walls, ilhan
Omar were the senators. They were all on the list,
(23:52):
along with a number of Planned Parenthood both locations, and
pro choice activists. So we don't know, but it seems
like one of the motivations may have been or the
motivation may have been like anti abortion zelotry the last
piece here. There have been a lot of discussion online
about what his motivation was. The Right decided, based on
(24:15):
like literally nothing, that he must be a left winger.
So just so everybody's clear on how the people who
know him describe his political affiliation. This is a guy
who's described as his best friend and actually roommate. Apparently
he lived with his wife in this house, but then
also had a roommate situation another place, and that was,
you know, where this guy was who still considers him
(24:36):
to be his best friend, talking about how he would
be offended if people thought he was a Democrat and
then he was actually like an Alex Jones info warst watcher.
Speaker 5 (24:44):
Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 11 (24:45):
Well, everyone's calling him a democrat.
Speaker 12 (24:47):
Inside he would be offended if people called him a
democrat like Jim Jim I did, Tim Howks. But what
you said that, man, Well, I mean nothing for me.
(25:08):
I mean it's just normal. Well, I don't like this
that timwol did this. I don't like that day he
did that.
Speaker 6 (25:14):
Well you you listen to info words in Wars, but.
Speaker 10 (25:22):
I kind of toil it said, well, it's.
Speaker 1 (25:25):
Like fifty percent truth. And I was a Trump supporter,
voted for Trump.
Speaker 6 (25:31):
If you like Trump, I like Trump.
Speaker 5 (25:34):
So there you go. That's what his roommate had to say.
Speaker 2 (25:36):
Sober and obviously, I mean the story is important and
of itself, and also comes amid a climate of rising
political violence. We saw the president himself, you know, attempted
assassinations against him, and yeah, there's a concern that this
just becomes sort of like part of the background noise
of American policy.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
And the plot, the plot of it is nuts.
Speaker 3 (25:53):
It's also just, I mean, his behavior obviously psychotic, regardless
of his political motivations, is like pretty clear.
Speaker 1 (26:00):
Lot of weird shit going on with this guy. Because
he's married, he has a roommate. It's like, what's going on.
Speaker 3 (26:03):
He's sending these weird text messages, he's gearing up, and
police gears seems to have had all this crazy stuff.
Speaker 5 (26:09):
It's something like private security.
Speaker 1 (26:11):
We had a private security.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
Was also evangelical minister ministering in Africa.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
Check after check of psycho.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
And then also apparently recent financial distress.
Speaker 3 (26:22):
Right, so all the ingredients, I guess are there. He's
been indicted by the FEDS in terms for political assassinations,
so I'm sure that a lot more motivation and all
that will come out with him. But obviously it's horrific
and it's terrifying, and really what it does is just
it makes people afraid, especially in the public, you know,
to go out spent a time like this, this is
(26:42):
a time possibly of war. This is you know something
Tucker and Steve we're talking about yesterday, is like when
when it's time of war and you dissent, you're a trader.
And I'm not trying to just link the two, but
what I'm trying to say is when the tension in
the heat gets turned up all the way and you really,
I mean, this goes out of the conceptual and perhaps
so if it's a pro life thing, it's analogous in
that way. It's like, if you believe it's life or death,
(27:03):
then some people are going to take it that way, right,
I mean, if.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
You think this is the literal like genocide of babies,
right told his wife dad went to war like he
sees himself as a righteous figure in this right.
Speaker 3 (27:14):
And if we're involved, you know, you could see very
similar types of things or you know, very similar ideology and.
Speaker 1 (27:21):
All that pervade.
Speaker 3 (27:22):
So let's just stand against it and look at the
very least, you know, the Trump administment, despite early attempts
to say he was a right winger or a left
winger or whatever, at the least the FBI and the
dj are throwing the book at him for right now.
Speaker 1 (27:34):
Yeah, and that's a good sign.
Speaker 5 (27:35):
Yeah, absolutely, all right.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
We've got the Attorney General of California standing by Sagastranto
appointments that I'm going to conduct this interview but have
a lot of questions for him about this lawsuit against
the Trump administration with regard to federalizing the National Guard.
Hearings happened to happen today, so let's go ahead and
get to that.
Speaker 5 (27:56):
So, as I was just.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Mentioning, there is are hearings today in the state of
California's ongoing lawsuit against the Trump administration over their decision
to federalize National Guard troops and also to call up
active duty marines, some several hundred to respond to protest
activity in and around LA. Can go ahead and put
this tear sheet up on the screen. Appeals Court has
temporarily blocked the initial Federal District Court judges ruling to
(28:21):
return control of National Guard to California, joining us now
to discuss. We're very fortunate to have the Attorney General
of California, Rob Bonta.
Speaker 6 (28:29):
Welcome, sir, Thanks for having me. Great to be with you.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
So if you could just bring our audience a little
bit up to speed on this lawsuit and what is
the basis for this action.
Speaker 13 (28:39):
Absolutely, as we know, last the weekend before this past one,
we saw National Guard troops be brought into Los Angeles
by President Trump. When they arrived on Sunday morning, it
was to quiet streets. We believe that there it was
inappropriate for him to deploy military to Los Angeles. The
(29:01):
governor and the Sheriff's Department, LA Police Department, and mutual
aid agencies in the surrounding areas had everything under control.
And the President has invoked a statute which requires the
presence of a rebellion or an invasion, or the inability
(29:21):
to execute the federal law to be able to deploy
the National Guard. None of those things exist, and it's
just defies credulity to suggest that they do it. Also,
the law also requires the cooperation and consent of the
governor to deploy the National Guard. So the circumstances that
(29:43):
are required for the President to deploy the National Guard
to Los Angeles weren't present, and we brought a lawsuit
on the following Monday.
Speaker 6 (29:51):
We brought a temporary restraining order.
Speaker 13 (29:53):
The following Tuesday, and on that the Thursday following, we
had an order from the.
Speaker 6 (29:58):
Federal District Court judge that said two things.
Speaker 13 (30:02):
One that the President violated the federal law and also
violated the US Constitution, violating the states rights of the
Great State of California, and he was ordered the President
was ordered to return the control of the National Guard
to Governor Newsom. The federal government appealed right away to
the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit issued what's called an
(30:23):
administrative stay. It's procedural while they review the merits. They
are going to have a hearing today at noon to
consider those merits. It's all on shortened time. It's being
done quickly because of the urgency of the matter and
the harm that California faces.
Speaker 6 (30:41):
So we're hoping for.
Speaker 13 (30:42):
A positive ruling today. We believe we will prevail when
we sue the Trump administration.
Speaker 6 (30:47):
It's because we got the.
Speaker 13 (30:49):
Receipts, we got the facts, we got the law, and
we think we're going to win, and so we're hopeful
for a favorable ruling today.
Speaker 2 (30:55):
Do you expect this ultimately to end up at the
Supreme Court, And if so, are you so of tailoring
your arguments to think through how they could appeal to
various of the conservative justices.
Speaker 13 (31:05):
In particular, we always play the long game, and you
know understand that the first decision might not be the
last one.
Speaker 6 (31:14):
That we do have a federal.
Speaker 13 (31:17):
Court system that has an intermediate level of appellate review
and then ultimately the US Supreme Court. Most cases don't
get to the US Supreme Court, but this is one
that may be of interest to them. Obviously, the state
is watching, the nation is watching, the world is watching
this issue of militarizing an American city when there's no
(31:37):
basis for it and doing it over the objections of
a governor and the mayor of that city. So this
one definitely could get to the US Supreme Court. We
make our arguments based on what the facts in law are.
We realize that different judges may review those arguments and
balance them in different ways. But make the arguments that
(31:59):
are appropriate, that that are compelling. And we've made them
here to the district court judge and making them here
to the Ninth Circuit, and we think they're going to
be compelling at both levels. And if it gets this
case gets to the Supreme Court, we think our arguments
will be very persuasive and compelling there as well.
Speaker 2 (32:11):
So I read through the district courts ruling and you
can correct my details on this if I don't get
the legal intricacies precisely right. But one of the questions
at hand here is whether there was a violation of
the Possecommatatis Act, which prohibits using the military in most
circumstances for domestic law enforcement. If we can put F
three up on the screen. So at the time of
(32:32):
that ruling, the judge basically said, like, listen, we don't
really have full information yet, we already have enough to
say that this is the problem and we need to
go ahead and side with the State of California without
actually having all of the information with regard to whether
or not there was a violation of Possecommatatis. Since then,
we've seen this video come out showing what appears to
(32:54):
be active duty Marines making an arrest of a civilian. Here,
my understanding is this was a man at us, actually veteran,
who took a wrong turn in trying.
Speaker 5 (33:03):
To get to a VA appointment.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
What is your understanding of the way that both the
National Guard and the Marines have been used on the
ground since they have been you know, since they have
been brought into the city of.
Speaker 6 (33:17):
La Well, thank you.
Speaker 13 (33:18):
You know, it's all evolving, and video like this is
showing that evolution, and it's evolving exactly the way we
feared and is prohibited by the law of the United
States since the late eighteen hundreds, as you mentioned, that
passcoma Tatis Act which prohibits and prevents the US military
(33:39):
from engaging in civilian law enforcement on American soil. And
that means that the military of the Marines here cannot
participate in searches and seizures and detentions and arrests. And
if that is what it seems to be, the detention
and or arrest of a pavilion by the Marines, that
(34:02):
seems to be squarely in violation of the Posse Comma
Tatis Act.
Speaker 6 (34:07):
So the Posse Commatatus Act is in full effect.
Speaker 13 (34:09):
And the National Guard and the Marines are are our
military entities that are not allowed to participate in.
Speaker 6 (34:22):
Civilian law enforcement.
Speaker 2 (34:23):
Are you are you outside of this the incident I
just showed. Are you aware of other incidents where either
the National Guard or the Marines have you know, have
been involved in domestic law enforcement activities or making arrest
those sorts of things.
Speaker 13 (34:38):
There are some that we've seen, I've seen other video
with with some examples. Uh Secretary hegseth Uh posted a
a on social media, but what appeared to be Marines
maybe National Guard out in the field so to speak
with potentially an ICE agent was a little unclear what
he was trying to suggest. But we believe that the
(35:02):
mission of both the National Guard and the Marines is
to protect federal property, personnel, and functions, and that includes
while protecting a federal building or while out in the
field with ICE agents engaged in immigration enforcement, them being
a necessary part of those operations and taking part in
(35:25):
detentions and arrests, sarches and seizures. And so you're right
that the federal judge, Judge Briar punted for the time
being on the Postcomatatus Act because the facts were not
as clear or developed as he may have wanted to see,
and he wanted to see what the Marines were going
to be doing, what the National Guard we're going to
(35:48):
be doing. And we're seeing more of that now, so
that record is getting more clear, and it's getting clear
in a way that is, I think better for our argument,
bad for America because the military is engaged in civilian
law enforcement, which is prohibited.
Speaker 2 (36:03):
Another thing that is a significant point that you raised,
and I think that all Americans need to be aware of,
is that the order that President Trump used to federalize
the National Guard was not limited, either in time or
in place. And in fact, since the federalizing of the
National Guard in California and sending them into LA, he
has escalated rhetoric about blue cities. In particular, I want
(36:27):
to get your reaction, guys, this is f two to
some of his recent comments in that regard.
Speaker 11 (36:31):
I want them to focus on the cities because the
cities are where you really have what's called sanctuary cities,
and that's where the people are. I look at New York,
I look at Chicago. I mean, you've got a really
bad governor in Chicago and a bad mayor, but the
governor is probably the worst of the country, Pritzker. But
I look at how that city has been overrun by criminals.
(36:51):
And you know New York and LA. Look at La La.
Those people weren't from LA, they weren't from California. Most
of those people any of those people, And yeah, that's
that's the focus. Biden allowed twenty one million people to
come into our country. Of that, vast numbers of those
people were murderers, killers, people from gangs, people from jails,
(37:16):
the empty their jails out into the US. Most of
those people are in the cities, all blue cities, all
Democrat run cities, and they think they're going to use
them to vote.
Speaker 6 (37:26):
It's not going to happen.
Speaker 5 (37:28):
What is your reaction to his assertions there?
Speaker 6 (37:30):
My god, I mean, there's so much in there.
Speaker 13 (37:32):
You know, it's so shameless, so embarrassing, so divorced from
the facts, and all just rageously politicized, and you know,
just he just.
Speaker 6 (37:45):
Makes it up as he talks. And you know, the.
Speaker 13 (37:50):
Crime rates in California are much lower than many of
the Red states, and you know, murder rates way higher
many of the Red states, red cities. And you know,
he's trying to portray a fiction and pawn it off
of the American people as a truth when it's when
it's clearly not, and you know, to it so blatantly
attack blue city leaders and blue state leaders. You know,
(38:14):
he's not a president for all America. He's wants to
be president for half or less and wants to attack
transparently and vindictively everyone else in the Blue cities. He
can't stand the fact that he got absolutely thrashed in
the election by in California and that's too much, apparently
for his fragile ego, so he needs to try to
(38:35):
target California. It's just so inappropriate. That's not how leaders lead.
It's it's it's it's sophomoric and juvenile. It's like a
kid in the White House, unfortunately, but you know, so
much lack of truth there. It's just hard to take
the man seriously, unfortunately. But it would be laughable if
(38:57):
it wasn't so dangerous and for him to act on,
you know, this this political vengeance tour, this lack of
facts to go after certain cities and states. You're right,
the executive order is it was for sixty days. It
wasn't targeted and surgical to an incident or incidents in LA.
Speaker 6 (39:19):
And it's nationwide. It's not just for LA.
Speaker 13 (39:21):
I mean, what is the basis for an executive order
nationwide based on you know, a set of incidents that
we see, you know, after the Lakers win a championship, right,
so it's you know, he's trying to.
Speaker 6 (39:34):
Invoke authority that gives him more power.
Speaker 13 (39:37):
He wants the power, and when there's invasions or emergencies
or rebellions or insurrections, he gets more power. So he
says those things exist when they don't exist, clearly don't exist.
Speaker 2 (39:47):
Yeah, I mean, I think it's pretty clear he's testing
the limits of what he can do here, what he
can get away with, both in terms of, like you know,
public support and resistance, and in terms of the judicial system.
I'm curious if you feel like you gotten enough support
from other Democrats around the country, because, to be honest
with you, I've been a little bit disappointed in the
lack of vocal support and vocal resistance from elected Democrats
(40:11):
around the country, especially given the fact, I mean, he's
directly threatening.
Speaker 5 (40:14):
All blue states, all blue.
Speaker 2 (40:16):
Cities with rolling out the same playbook wherever in one
or whenever he wants to.
Speaker 13 (40:21):
We've gotten some really good support on this case, and
Democrats are speaking up and out across the nation. I
know that there was some concern and views shared like yours,
especially as Trump took office in January twenty January twentieth,
but I think there's a good rhythm and a broad
organized group of Democrats that are fighting for the rule
(40:43):
of law, for democracy. We had democratic governors through the
Governors Association, every single governor signed on against this deployment
of the National Guard. We had democratic attorneys general write
an anarchist brief. We had quite amazingly retired secretaries of
the Army and the Navy, four star retired admirals and
(41:09):
generals who wrote an amicust brief in our favor, in
support of our position, saying that if the military is
ever going to be deployed on American soil, it needs
to be rare and serious and legally clear, and they
thought that those elements were not present here. So really
good support for our case, and I think more broadly speaking,
(41:31):
the voice of Democrats is getting louder and louder across
the nation.
Speaker 5 (41:34):
Last question I have for you.
Speaker 2 (41:36):
Trump stopped short here of invoking the Insurrection Act, and
so the legal grounds, of course that he invoked is
what's in dispute in this particular case. If he were
to invoke the Insurrection Act, do you feel like you
would have a case that you could make or would
it make all of these issues effectively null and void,
and he could basically do what he wants.
Speaker 13 (41:58):
If he invokes the Insurrection Act, we'll see him at
court and confident we can block him. There's no basis
for the Insurrection Act. The only reason he's interested in
it is because it gives him more power, but the
requirements to invoke it are not present. Again, there needs
to be an inability with the regular forces. The statute
(42:19):
says execute the laws of the federal government. That's just
not present. The federal government can execute all the laws
it wants, or there needs to be a deprivation of
rights of individuals in the state where are the military
is being deployed. And that happened back in the sixties
when black Americans were being deprived of their civil rights.
(42:39):
That is not present here. So there's no basis for
invoking the Insurrection Act. Doesn't mean he won't try, because
that's what he does. He gas lights the nation and
says a certain set of conditions exist on the ground
when they don't. Because if those conditions actually existed, which
they don't, he would be able to have more power,
which is what he really wants.
Speaker 6 (42:59):
So will he try? He very well? May.
Speaker 13 (43:01):
Are we ready absolutely and we'll be taking to court
and block him.
Speaker 6 (43:04):
We're confident we can and that we will.
Speaker 2 (43:06):
All right, Well, we're going to be paying close attention
to what unfolds in these hearings today, and California Attorney
General Rob Bonta, thank you so much for taking some
time with us today, Thanks.
Speaker 6 (43:15):
For having me. Grateful to be with here.
Speaker 2 (43:17):
All right, guys, thank you so much for watching. Thank
you so much for your continued support. We are not
going to be able to do the AMA live today,
so we're going to push it off to Ryan and Emily,
but I know you guys love asking them questions too.
They will also be all over what is unfolding with
the potential imminent joining of the US into that war
with Iran, so make sure you tune in for that.
(43:39):
Until then, have a great day.
Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com. Very excited now to be joined by friend
of the show, Glenn Greenwall, to talk about the media
environment and how it may resemble the war in Iraq.
To Glenn, of course, was one of the people fighting
against the administration exposing the truth there at the time,
(00:46):
and so can see a lot of these parallels. Glenn,
one of the things we wanted to start with here
is your observation about how the US media organizations are
used as tools of Israel and the US intelligence community.
Let's go and put this up there on the screen
as you note we have two side by side stories yesterday.
One is Iran is eager to negotiate with the US
(01:07):
and Israel to end the war, but CNN says Iran
refuses to negotiate while under attack until his retaliation against
Israel is completed. As you say, disinformation is always a
weapon of war and lets people believe what they want. So,
given your experience now covering so much of these psyops
and others by the intelligence community by various foreign governments,
(01:27):
what can we tell the audience about the warnings for
how to navigate this very difficult information environment.
Speaker 4 (01:33):
Yeah, I mean, I think usually now people are trained
to understand that if they're getting some claim that is
laundered through the media from anonymous sources, that it's often
necessary to apply skepticism to it. People have warned that
lesson Well, but when it comes time to war, especially
when the governments are selling wars to people, when they're
attempting to scare them into supporting a war, skepticism is
(01:56):
almost not even enough. You have to kind of begin
by disbelieving what it is you're being told, knowing how
often almost automatically disinformation is deliberately deployed. So it is
a weapon of war. It's something that every government at
war does. And we've seen over and over that our
corporate media is not just incapable of guarding against it,
but eager to participate in its dissemination. And that's the
(02:16):
reason we've been deceived so many times into wars.
Speaker 5 (02:19):
And so you have to look.
Speaker 4 (02:20):
Back at history to get a guide for how to
navigate what you're seeing currently.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Yeah, I mean, the number of conflicting reports that come out.
I mean, even if you like, outside of this administration,
the number of reports we got from Barock revied about
how Biden was super super mad at Netnyahoo and then
Trump comes into office and he's also super super mad.
Speaker 5 (02:38):
At net Yahoo.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
And you know, I think to your point, especially when
you have the Trump administration just admitting that they lied
to the Iranians, the American people, to the world about
their intent to go forward with negotiations as a ruse
to create an element of surprise for these Israeli attacks.
Whatever credence you were giving them previously has to be
completely thrown out the window at this point.
Speaker 4 (03:00):
Yeah, you know, even there, I mean, that is what
the United States is claiming. That is what Donald Trump
is claiming, because I do believe that's what happened.
Speaker 6 (03:07):
I do believe, at least recently, that the.
Speaker 4 (03:10):
US was negotiating with Iran and leading them to believe
that they still wanted a diplomatic solution as a way
of getting Iran to believe no attack was coming to
let the Israelis in the US attack them with surprise.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
But it's not.
Speaker 6 (03:20):
But let's assume that isn't the case.
Speaker 4 (03:21):
Let's assume that what happened was what they made to
look like what happened, which is that the US was saying, no,
don't do this, and then Israel went and did it anyway,
meaning defy Trump's orders, humiliated the United States, humiliated Donald
Trump by ruining his diplomatic attempts after he told Israel not.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
To do it.
Speaker 4 (03:38):
Even then, what would Trump do. He wouldn't stand up
and admit that net Yahu humiliated him. They would probably
have an interest US officials would in pretending that Trump
was in on that plan all along, that he wasn't
surprised by it, or defied that this was actually Trump's war.
And he's been speaking that way all the time, And
I think I'm so glad you mentioned Barrock reviieve because
he's such a perfect example of the kind of skepticism
(03:58):
that we ought to have. This is a person who's
an Israeli citizen. He was in the Idea Reserves until
twenty twenty three. He worked in their most notorious intelligent unit,
and he has become basically the go to reporter for
understanding us is really relations because he just takes whatever
he's told to write down from both governments and goes
and prints it completely uncritically. And he won the White
House Journalism Award for doing so, which reflects the kind
(04:22):
of stenographic function that they continue to see themselves in,
especially when it comes to foreign policy and wards. They
don't question the government. They're there to publish what they're
told and to stand on the side of the government.
And that's what makes this combination of politics and media
propaganda so potent and so dangerous.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Well, it's actually kind of a useful function if you
know that's what he's doing. It's actually usefully Okay, Well,
this is what they want us to believe.
Speaker 5 (04:47):
This is what they're trying to sell to the public.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
But it has to be read through that particular lens
before we transition to talking about some of the Iraq
War parallels and like lessons learned from that era, because
some of the similarities are really really You talked about
President Trump like trying and you know, people trying to
scare us into war.
Speaker 5 (05:04):
This is scaring me, but not in the direction of war.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
He posted this long text that he got from Mike Huckabee,
who is this, you know, evangelical End Times believer who
also happens to be r US Ambassador to Israel. And
so Trump posted on true Social this what they describe
as a powerful message that he received from Mike Huckabee
that reads, mister President, God spared you in Butler, Pennsylvania
to be the most consequential president in a century, maybe ever.
(05:30):
The decisions on your shouldiers shoulders I would not want
to be made by anyone else. You have many voices
speaking to you, sir, but there is only one.
Speaker 5 (05:37):
Voice that matters. His voice.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
I am your appointed servant in this land, and I
am available for you. But I do not try to
get in your presence often because I trust your instincts.
No president in my lifetime has been in a position
like yours, not since Truman in nineteen forty five. I
don't reach out to persuade you, only to encourage you.
I believe you will hear from heaven, and that voice
is far more important than mine or anyone else's. You
(06:00):
sent me to Israel to be your eyes, ears, and
voice and make sure our flag flies above our embassy.
My job is to be the last one to leave.
I will not abandon this post. Our flag will not
come down. You did not seek this moment. This moment
sought you. It as my honor to serve you. Your
thoughts about that.
Speaker 4 (06:15):
Well, it's not just alarming that Hackabee wrote that, but
that Trump took it and himself published it because Trump
clearly believes it to be true. You know, I heard
from a lot of people that everybody, I think, assume
that Trump's marching around as some sort of evangelical Christian
for most of his political career was a ruse. But
I heard from a lot of people who know Trump
very well that, especially after that assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania,
(06:37):
which admittedly, you know, was something that I think would
transform anybody coming that close to death but avoiding it,
that he really did become convinced that there was some
divine intervention that saved him for a reason, and it's
so ironic that we're hearing that the reason Ron is
own dangerous is because they're a theocratic regime that doesn't
care about anything other than the belief that God is
telling them what to do.
Speaker 5 (06:57):
When that not.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
Only obviously effects in shapes Israel's foreign Paul, but I
think it's shaping Donald Trump's as well. And I think
what it's really alarming is if you look at what
Trump has been saying the last twenty four to forty
eight hours, he's clearly trying to at least send the signal,
whether it's to Ron or Israel or to whomever, that
he is about to do something of historic proportions, which
is what bb net Yahoo thinks about himself as well.
(07:19):
They're both people in their mid to eight seventies, which
is when they start thinking about how their thought of
once they're dead, not what the rest of us have
to deal with as a result of their decisions. And
I think the kind of mindset that they're in now,
as evidence by Trump posting that Huckabee email, is one
that is genuinely alarming and dangerous. And I say that
as somebody who's not typically alarmed moved.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
No, you're absolutely right, Glenn.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
And you know what really strikes me with the Bush
parallel and Iraq, this is a good transition. Is one
of the things that really struck me in reading a
lot about Bush is he really believed that he'd been
saved from addiction and like put on this earth and
sent to the White House to save the United States
during nine to eleven. And that really was a huge
impact on why he decided to go into the war
(08:01):
in Iraq. And so, you know, bringing this like full
circle is not only that the media aspect here, but
what drives me crazy, and I'm sure it must do
as well, is we have the same actors in the
literally the same people who led us into the war
in Iraq now really repeating so many of the same
things we had Ari Fleischer talking about Tucker Carlson and hey,
this is the guy who lied from the White House
(08:22):
podium about weapons of mass destruction. Glenn Beck, who was
on television talking about how America would be greeted as liberators.
He apologized in twenty fourteen, But you know, Glenn, he's
back now to actually saying actually, this time around, they're
going to be greeted as liberators.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
Let's take a listen to that and we'll get your reaction.
Speaker 7 (08:40):
Has Israel asked us to fight their war?
Speaker 6 (08:42):
Answer?
Speaker 7 (08:43):
No, is this another Iraq or is it something entirely different? Well,
let me tell you what makes this moment unlike anything
else we have faced before. First, this was not a
call to war. This was not a land invasion. This
is not a campaign to Toppola regime and then sit
around for twenty years trying to rebuild a culture that
(09:04):
doesn't want what we have. Even though Iran, the Iranian
people are good people, the Persians are great people, and
they do want a life like ours. But this was targeted.
This was surgical. This was preemptive, not against an idea,
not against a guess, against the very real, very stated
(09:26):
intentions of a regime run by men who do not
think like we think. Okay, they do not want what
we want. We choose life, They literally choose death. These
are twelvevers. They are followers of a branch of Sied
Islam that believes not just in the return of the
(09:47):
messianic figure called the Mahadi, but also that is return
can and must be. In their words, hastened or accelerated,
And the only way to do that is to quote
using their words, wah, the world in blood. Okay, I
think I'm out at that. You know, that's the first
stop on the train, and I'm like, I'm gonna get
off here please.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
They hate our way of life there they choose I mean,
this is three This is the same thing. You could
probably copy and paste that and except this time they're
different because they're Persian, which by the way, is very
racist against Arabs.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
But it's like, what are we doing here, Gwen?
Speaker 4 (10:22):
Also, isn't it kind of ironic that we're supposed to
be scared of Arod because they have a Messionic religious
belief and like a third of the Congress wants to
arm and support Israel no matter what because of their
Messionic view that doing so is necessarily for the return
of Jesus, Who's then gonna send all Jews and other
believers to help. But that's a little detail that Israel
as a mind because they don't actually believe that, and
they're happy for the support. But you know, Sagar, the
(10:43):
thing is like the comparison with Iran with the Rock
route there, despite it not being planned originally as a
regime chain or a ground of asion. Is so obvious, right,
Like we're being told the reason we have to start
this war, which is a war that the United States
and Israel started, not wrong. It is because they were
developing extremely dangerous new grow weapon, and they're so psychotic
and dictatorial and unhinged that we can't allow them to
(11:05):
have a new core weapon, which is exactly how the
war in I Rock was justified. And I honestly did.
Of course I knew that from the start. When you
go back and look at the speeches and you see
that the exact same people are uttering the exact same phrases,
it's not even an attempt to modify the script a
little bit, you know. Just as one example, George Bush's
big speech in October, in October and September seventh, rather
than two thousand and two and in Cincinnati was yes,
(11:26):
we can't give you proof that Iraq has newcre weapons,
but you don't want the smoking gun to be in
the form of a mushroom cloud over your city.
Speaker 6 (11:33):
Ted Cruz went on.
Speaker 4 (11:34):
Fox News and said exactly the same thing when asked
about proof that Iran has new weapons. And this is
what's scary is a week ago, every MAGA person, basically
every person, if you showed them. Look, Israel has been
saying for thirty years that Iran is a week away
or a month away or a year away from newcre weapons,
and it never turned out to be true. Would say, yeah,
we're not going to fall for that again the bombs
(11:55):
start dropping, Trump's involved, everybody wants to cheer for it,
and so you just get them on.
Speaker 6 (12:00):
A silver potter.
Speaker 4 (12:01):
This obviously bullshit excuse, which is that Iran has an
active nucro weapons program, which Tolsey Gabert herself set three
months ago, is the consensus of the intelligence community is untrue.
And now it's just the assumption within every media discussion
that Iron is pursuing newcrow weapons And the only question
is do you want to go to word to stop
them or do you want to let.
Speaker 6 (12:18):
Them have it.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
It's mind blowing how propaganda works, even if it's identical
to the one that twenty five years ago we all
watch proved to be completely disgraced and de bonked.
Speaker 5 (12:28):
That is absolutely right.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
And you know another person who was at the scene
of the crime last time as well, Baby Natan Yahoo
here's a little flashback to the case he was making
at the time, and this.
Speaker 8 (12:37):
Is a tyrant who is feverishly trying to acquire nuclear weapons,
and today the United States must destroy the same regime
because a nuclear arms Saddam will place the security of
our entire world at risks. Is simply.
Speaker 9 (12:55):
Not reflecting the reality to assume that Saddam isn't feverishly
working to develop nuclear weapons as if you take out
Saddam Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have
enormous positive reverberations on the region. Principles of real estate
the three l's, location, location, location, The three principles of
(13:18):
winning the War on Terror are the three w's, winning, winning,
and winning. The more victories you amass, the easier the
next victory becomes. The first victory in Afghanistan makes a
second victory in Iraq that much easier. The second victory
in Iraq will make the third victory that much being
less than dismantling his regime will do.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
If you take out Saddam, I guarantee you it will
have enormous positive reverberations on the region because he's feverishly
working to develop nuclear weapons.
Speaker 4 (13:49):
You know, I think there's so many interesting parts to
that testimony that you show that even though just those
excerpts that I think are self evident. But you notice
at the end too, he said, the more you win,
the easier the wins become. So the first one in
Afghanistan will make the second win in Iraq all the easier.
And then of course we didn't win in either, and
then he said that second win will make the third
win easier. Still, what did he mean by the third win?
(14:10):
NEO cons at that point and into two thousand and
three and four were very open about the fact that
they didn't want to stop at Baghdad. You know, there
was that phrase that was leaked by Karl Rove or
somebody like that, Paul Wolfowood saying, real men go to Tehran.
The plan always was was to go top Wol Sadam
and then go get regime change in Iran. And I
think that's the other point that we have to be
so aware of. Glenn Back said, this time it's not
(14:30):
about regime change. Why are they bombing Tehran? Then there
are no nuclear facilities in Tehran. Why did Trump order
sixteen million people to evacuate Tehran, and so they're going
to destroy Tehran where there's no nuclear facilities there either.
It's because this is a regime change where they want
to change the regime of Iran. They want to turn
it into Syria where they just have a collapse in
the central government. All these factions being backed by the
(14:53):
CIA and the massade trying to take over Iran where
at the very least rendering Iran impudent and letting Israel
control the entire Middle East and therefore the United States
as well. That is the real goal of everything that
they're doing. And so maybe it'll end quickly if Trump
drops you know, the biggest problems we have on every
population center, or maybe it'll lead to troops having to
be activated if roon attacks are troops in responseive oil facility.
(15:15):
You don't know once you and lisha war like this
what the results are going to be. And that was
what we learned from a rack, and we were told
it would take two weeks to.
Speaker 1 (15:20):
Get rid of Saddam. Is you know, Glenn, this is
my final question here. I think they've won.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
I think the neocons have won, and I do I mean, look,
I could be totally wrong. There could be some last
minted thing, but I do think the US is going
to get offensively involved. At this point, I have very
very little hope, So I do know that at least
something is going to happen. Fortyh order consequences always do,
and the neocons are going to run away from that.
And since we were somehow unsuccessful in holding them to
account over the last twenty five years, what can we
(15:47):
do differently to hold these people to account and actually
tie them to their decisions or is that just structurally
impossible here in Washington, DC.
Speaker 4 (15:55):
That was the other thing that I really struck me
saga as we prepared our own show last night, going
through these two two and two thousand and three interviews.
The people who went on television and just hold out
right lives and the most assertive authoritative for impossible, none
of them had their careers even remotely impeded, lit alone destoryed.
In fact, they all continue to thrive to this very day.
There's still the ones making the decisions, there's still the
ones in charge.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
And one of the.
Speaker 4 (16:16):
Things that I thought would at least be promising this
time was that there's this big section of MAGA that
would turn against Trump if he actually got the the
country involved in a major war with Iran on behalf
of Israel, and you're already saying, like, one of the
reasons Trump came out yesterday and publicly scorned and humiliated
Tucker Carlson was it was a message to everybody, Look,
(16:36):
if you even think about raising your voice against me,
you will be out. We're going to exclude you from BAKA.
You will no, I'm going to be welcome with the
White House. You'll have no influence. It was a way
of keeping them all into line. And you're already seeing
many of them who had been saying don't go to
war with Iran or it's going to riud your presidency
snapping into line and saying, you know what, I trust
President Trump. I'm sure he's going to do the right thing.
We need to get rid of this regime. And I
(16:58):
don't see any hope of that happening.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
Yes, unfortunately, Charlie Kirk last night goes on and oh,
I trust President Trump.
Speaker 5 (17:04):
He was made for this moment. I'm sure it's going
to all work out great.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
Yeah, I mean, and very few people like Tucker has
his own you know, bas of support and is independent whatever.
There are very few people in the right wing ecosystem
who can exist outside of just like Trump support. So yeah,
they're gonna they're gonna take that message in Glenn, thank
you so much. You've been doing incredible work here. I
also would love for people we were originally booked you
(17:29):
to talk about Palenteer. You got to still do that
in the future.
Speaker 1 (17:31):
You got to come back. They matter. Hey, business is
going to boom for them.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
Okay, all right, all my natures here in Virginia, they're
all about to get filthy rich, so I guess we
can all be.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
They also sponsored that great military parade over the weekend too,
So thanks are thanks are things are looking good for
them and Locky an the others.
Speaker 5 (17:48):
Yep, all right, Glenn, great to see you.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
Take care, Great to see you guys.
Speaker 6 (17:51):
Bye.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
So we've been covering here. Outside of the potential war
with a Ron, there are a couple other stories that
we've been covering. One of them is the assassination of
this Minnesota state Democratic lawmaker and the attempted assassination of
another Minnesota state Democratic lawmaker. The suspect has now been
apprehended after a multi day manhunt. More on that in
a moment when I go ahead and show you, this
(18:16):
is the acting US Attorney Thompson detailing some of the
events that unfolded, some quite extureder information here.
Speaker 5 (18:23):
Let's go out and take a listen.
Speaker 10 (18:25):
After shooting Senator Hoffman and his wife, Belter traveled to
the home of another Minnesota state representative in Maple Grove, Minnesota.
Video surveillance showed that Belter rang the doorbell at the
state representative's house at approximately two twenty four am on
(18:45):
Friday night. Again, he was dressed as a law enforcement officer,
wearing a tactical vest and body armor, carrying a handgun
and a flashlight, and wearing that same hyper realistic silicon mask.
The images, as you can see on the screen are haunting. Unfortunately,
(19:05):
the state representative was not home. She and her family
were gone on vacation, and so Belter left. Belter then
traveled to the home of a Minnesota state senator who
lived in New Hope, Minnesota. He parked in the street
in that same black SUV with the police license plate
(19:27):
at about two thirty six am on Friday night. After
learning of the shooting of Senator Hoffman, New Hope police
dispatched an officer to conduct a wellness check on the
state senator who lived in New Hope. When the New
Hope officer arrived at the scene, she saw Belter's black
(19:48):
SUV parked down the block with the lights on. The
New Hople police officer believed that Belter was a police
officer who had been dispatched to the scene to check
on the staff of the state senator. The New Whole
police officer pulled up next to Belter in his car,
rolled down her window, and attempted to speak with him.
(20:10):
Belter did not respond, according to the officer, he just
sat there and stared straight ahead. So the New Whole
police officer, who had been dispatched to the scene, proceeded
to the state senator's home and she waited for other
law enforcement to arrive. When they did. By the time
they did, Belter had left the scene.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
Belcher had tried to kill four different Minnesota state Democratic
lawhankers and at one of them. So the police officer
shows up to do a wellness check because this guy's
on the loose and they're getting the idea of like
always targeting state elected officials. So let's go to all
the ones that are you know, in the vicinity.
Speaker 5 (20:48):
So she shows up.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
She sees him park down the street because he's in
this fake cop car, pulls up next to him, thinking
this is some law enforcement backup for you know, to
assist her. He just sits there, stare straight ahead, doesn't
say anything. She leaves him alone and goes and performs
this check, giving him the opportunity to escape and then
(21:12):
go to the next lawmaker's home, and I believe it's
that home where he's able to actually shoot and kill
this lawmaker and her husband. At that time, they the
law enforcement, they go on to say, shows up there
at that house where he's able to actually assassinate this lawmaker.
They exchange fire with him, and he's able to flee
(21:34):
on foot, leading to this again multi day manhunt. So
I think there are, to put it generously, a lot
of questions for the way that law enforcement handled all
of this and how this was allowed to unfold when
they had him right there and he's able not only
to escape, but he's able to go on and commit
this murder, and then they have him there and he's
(21:55):
able to get away on foot. The way they're able
to capture him when can put you two up on
the screen. There was a local woman who actually saw him.
He was captured very close to his home, and she
saw him crawling in the grass around her property and
alerted law enforcement that she thought this was him. At first,
(22:17):
she thought it was actually the cops looking for him,
and then she realized, like, no, I think that is
actually the guy. An alerted law enforcement. They're very able
to use drones to track him down. They found him
crawling through some underbush and some bushes and were able
to apprehend him. There's some other really troubling and eyebrow
raising details in a Wall Street Journal report as well.
(22:38):
Can put this next piece up on the screen. So
Belter's wife was actually stopped near a convenience store about
seventy miles north of the shootings. She had two guns,
ten thousand dollars in cash, and passports for herself and
her children in her car, a courney to federal court records.
Speaker 5 (22:57):
Apparently she had received.
Speaker 2 (22:58):
A text another fan only members as well from Belter
at six eighteen am saying quote, Dad went to war
last night.
Speaker 5 (23:06):
Courty Federal court documents.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
He also texted his wife to apologize, saying there's going
to be some people coming to the house armed and
trigger happy, and I don't want you guys around, according
to messages quoted in court filings, and presumably that's what
caused her to flee with firearms herself and ten thousand
dollars in cash, cash and her kids and the passports
Belter had. It was initially described as a manifesto with him.
(23:30):
Later details that have been revealed it wasn't so much
of an explanation of what his motives were of He
had a notebook with a list of targets, some sixty
lawmakers throughout I think all Democratic lawmakers throughout not only
Minnesota but some of the surrounding states. Tim Walls, ilhan
Omar were the senators. They were all on the list,
(23:52):
along with a number of Planned Parenthood both locations, and
pro choice activists. So we don't know, but it seems
like one of the motivations may have been or the
motivation may have been like anti abortion zelotry the last
piece here. There have been a lot of discussion online
about what his motivation was. The Right decided, based on
(24:15):
like literally nothing, that he must be a left winger.
So just so everybody's clear on how the people who
know him describe his political affiliation. This is a guy
who's described as his best friend and actually roommate. Apparently
he lived with his wife in this house, but then
also had a roommate situation another place, and that was,
you know, where this guy was who still considers him
(24:36):
to be his best friend, talking about how he would
be offended if people thought he was a Democrat and
then he was actually like an Alex Jones info warst watcher.
Speaker 5 (24:44):
Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 11 (24:45):
Well, everyone's calling him a democrat.
Speaker 12 (24:47):
Inside he would be offended if people called him a
democrat like Jim Jim I did, Tim Howks. But what
you said that, man, Well, I mean nothing for me.
(25:08):
I mean it's just normal. Well, I don't like this
that timwol did this. I don't like that day he
did that.
Speaker 6 (25:14):
Well you you listen to info words in Wars, but.
Speaker 10 (25:22):
I kind of toil it said, well, it's.
Speaker 1 (25:25):
Like fifty percent truth. And I was a Trump supporter,
voted for Trump.
Speaker 6 (25:31):
If you like Trump, I like Trump.
Speaker 5 (25:34):
So there you go. That's what his roommate had to say.
Speaker 2 (25:36):
Sober and obviously, I mean the story is important and
of itself, and also comes amid a climate of rising
political violence. We saw the president himself, you know, attempted
assassinations against him, and yeah, there's a concern that this
just becomes sort of like part of the background noise
of American policy.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
And the plot, the plot of it is nuts.
Speaker 3 (25:53):
It's also just, I mean, his behavior obviously psychotic, regardless
of his political motivations, is like pretty clear.
Speaker 1 (26:00):
Lot of weird shit going on with this guy. Because
he's married, he has a roommate. It's like, what's going on.
Speaker 3 (26:03):
He's sending these weird text messages, he's gearing up, and
police gears seems to have had all this crazy stuff.
Speaker 5 (26:09):
It's something like private security.
Speaker 1 (26:11):
We had a private security.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
Was also evangelical minister ministering in Africa.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
Check after check of psycho.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
And then also apparently recent financial distress.
Speaker 3 (26:22):
Right, so all the ingredients, I guess are there. He's
been indicted by the FEDS in terms for political assassinations,
so I'm sure that a lot more motivation and all
that will come out with him. But obviously it's horrific
and it's terrifying, and really what it does is just
it makes people afraid, especially in the public, you know,
to go out spent a time like this, this is
(26:42):
a time possibly of war. This is you know something
Tucker and Steve we're talking about yesterday, is like when
when it's time of war and you dissent, you're a trader.
And I'm not trying to just link the two, but
what I'm trying to say is when the tension in
the heat gets turned up all the way and you really,
I mean, this goes out of the conceptual and perhaps
so if it's a pro life thing, it's analogous in
that way. It's like, if you believe it's life or death,
(27:03):
then some people are going to take it that way, right,
I mean, if.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
You think this is the literal like genocide of babies,
right told his wife dad went to war like he
sees himself as a righteous figure in this right.
Speaker 3 (27:14):
And if we're involved, you know, you could see very
similar types of things or you know, very similar ideology and.
Speaker 1 (27:21):
All that pervade.
Speaker 3 (27:22):
So let's just stand against it and look at the
very least, you know, the Trump administment, despite early attempts
to say he was a right winger or a left
winger or whatever, at the least the FBI and the
dj are throwing the book at him for right now.
Speaker 1 (27:34):
Yeah, and that's a good sign.
Speaker 5 (27:35):
Yeah, absolutely, all right.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
We've got the Attorney General of California standing by Sagastranto
appointments that I'm going to conduct this interview but have
a lot of questions for him about this lawsuit against
the Trump administration with regard to federalizing the National Guard.
Hearings happened to happen today, so let's go ahead and
get to that.
Speaker 5 (27:56):
So, as I was just.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Mentioning, there is are hearings today in the state of
California's ongoing lawsuit against the Trump administration over their decision
to federalize National Guard troops and also to call up
active duty marines, some several hundred to respond to protest
activity in and around LA. Can go ahead and put
this tear sheet up on the screen. Appeals Court has
temporarily blocked the initial Federal District Court judges ruling to
(28:21):
return control of National Guard to California, joining us now
to discuss. We're very fortunate to have the Attorney General
of California, Rob Bonta.
Speaker 6 (28:29):
Welcome, sir, Thanks for having me. Great to be with you.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
So if you could just bring our audience a little
bit up to speed on this lawsuit and what is
the basis for this action.
Speaker 13 (28:39):
Absolutely, as we know, last the weekend before this past one,
we saw National Guard troops be brought into Los Angeles
by President Trump. When they arrived on Sunday morning, it
was to quiet streets. We believe that there it was
inappropriate for him to deploy military to Los Angeles. The
(29:01):
governor and the Sheriff's Department, LA Police Department, and mutual
aid agencies in the surrounding areas had everything under control.
And the President has invoked a statute which requires the
presence of a rebellion or an invasion, or the inability
(29:21):
to execute the federal law to be able to deploy
the National Guard. None of those things exist, and it's
just defies credulity to suggest that they do it. Also,
the law also requires the cooperation and consent of the
governor to deploy the National Guard. So the circumstances that
(29:43):
are required for the President to deploy the National Guard
to Los Angeles weren't present, and we brought a lawsuit
on the following Monday.
Speaker 6 (29:51):
We brought a temporary restraining order.
Speaker 13 (29:53):
The following Tuesday, and on that the Thursday following, we
had an order from the.
Speaker 6 (29:58):
Federal District Court judge that said two things.
Speaker 13 (30:02):
One that the President violated the federal law and also
violated the US Constitution, violating the states rights of the
Great State of California, and he was ordered the President
was ordered to return the control of the National Guard
to Governor Newsom. The federal government appealed right away to
the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit issued what's called an
(30:23):
administrative stay. It's procedural while they review the merits. They
are going to have a hearing today at noon to
consider those merits. It's all on shortened time. It's being
done quickly because of the urgency of the matter and
the harm that California faces.
Speaker 6 (30:41):
So we're hoping for.
Speaker 13 (30:42):
A positive ruling today. We believe we will prevail when
we sue the Trump administration.
Speaker 6 (30:47):
It's because we got the.
Speaker 13 (30:49):
Receipts, we got the facts, we got the law, and
we think we're going to win, and so we're hopeful
for a favorable ruling today.
Speaker 2 (30:55):
Do you expect this ultimately to end up at the
Supreme Court, And if so, are you so of tailoring
your arguments to think through how they could appeal to
various of the conservative justices.
Speaker 13 (31:05):
In particular, we always play the long game, and you
know understand that the first decision might not be the
last one.
Speaker 6 (31:14):
That we do have a federal.
Speaker 13 (31:17):
Court system that has an intermediate level of appellate review
and then ultimately the US Supreme Court. Most cases don't
get to the US Supreme Court, but this is one
that may be of interest to them. Obviously, the state
is watching, the nation is watching, the world is watching
this issue of militarizing an American city when there's no
(31:37):
basis for it and doing it over the objections of
a governor and the mayor of that city. So this
one definitely could get to the US Supreme Court. We
make our arguments based on what the facts in law are.
We realize that different judges may review those arguments and
balance them in different ways. But make the arguments that
(31:59):
are appropriate, that that are compelling. And we've made them
here to the district court judge and making them here
to the Ninth Circuit, and we think they're going to
be compelling at both levels. And if it gets this
case gets to the Supreme Court, we think our arguments
will be very persuasive and compelling there as well.
Speaker 2 (32:11):
So I read through the district courts ruling and you
can correct my details on this if I don't get
the legal intricacies precisely right. But one of the questions
at hand here is whether there was a violation of
the Possecommatatis Act, which prohibits using the military in most
circumstances for domestic law enforcement. If we can put F
three up on the screen. So at the time of
(32:32):
that ruling, the judge basically said, like, listen, we don't
really have full information yet, we already have enough to
say that this is the problem and we need to
go ahead and side with the State of California without
actually having all of the information with regard to whether
or not there was a violation of Possecommatatis. Since then,
we've seen this video come out showing what appears to
(32:54):
be active duty Marines making an arrest of a civilian. Here,
my understanding is this was a man at us, actually veteran,
who took a wrong turn in trying.
Speaker 5 (33:03):
To get to a VA appointment.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
What is your understanding of the way that both the
National Guard and the Marines have been used on the
ground since they have been you know, since they have
been brought into the city of.
Speaker 6 (33:17):
La Well, thank you.
Speaker 13 (33:18):
You know, it's all evolving, and video like this is
showing that evolution, and it's evolving exactly the way we
feared and is prohibited by the law of the United
States since the late eighteen hundreds, as you mentioned, that
passcoma Tatis Act which prohibits and prevents the US military
(33:39):
from engaging in civilian law enforcement on American soil. And
that means that the military of the Marines here cannot
participate in searches and seizures and detentions and arrests. And
if that is what it seems to be, the detention
and or arrest of a pavilion by the Marines, that
(34:02):
seems to be squarely in violation of the Posse Comma
Tatis Act.
Speaker 6 (34:07):
So the Posse Commatatus Act is in full effect.
Speaker 13 (34:09):
And the National Guard and the Marines are are our
military entities that are not allowed to participate in.
Speaker 6 (34:22):
Civilian law enforcement.
Speaker 2 (34:23):
Are you are you outside of this the incident I
just showed. Are you aware of other incidents where either
the National Guard or the Marines have you know, have
been involved in domestic law enforcement activities or making arrest
those sorts of things.
Speaker 13 (34:38):
There are some that we've seen, I've seen other video
with with some examples. Uh Secretary hegseth Uh posted a
a on social media, but what appeared to be Marines
maybe National Guard out in the field so to speak
with potentially an ICE agent was a little unclear what
he was trying to suggest. But we believe that the
(35:02):
mission of both the National Guard and the Marines is
to protect federal property, personnel, and functions, and that includes
while protecting a federal building or while out in the
field with ICE agents engaged in immigration enforcement, them being
a necessary part of those operations and taking part in
(35:25):
detentions and arrests, sarches and seizures. And so you're right
that the federal judge, Judge Briar punted for the time
being on the Postcomatatus Act because the facts were not
as clear or developed as he may have wanted to see,
and he wanted to see what the Marines were going
to be doing, what the National Guard we're going to
(35:48):
be doing. And we're seeing more of that now, so
that record is getting more clear, and it's getting clear
in a way that is, I think better for our argument,
bad for America because the military is engaged in civilian
law enforcement, which is prohibited.
Speaker 2 (36:03):
Another thing that is a significant point that you raised,
and I think that all Americans need to be aware of,
is that the order that President Trump used to federalize
the National Guard was not limited, either in time or
in place. And in fact, since the federalizing of the
National Guard in California and sending them into LA, he
has escalated rhetoric about blue cities. In particular, I want
(36:27):
to get your reaction, guys, this is f two to
some of his recent comments in that regard.
Speaker 11 (36:31):
I want them to focus on the cities because the
cities are where you really have what's called sanctuary cities,
and that's where the people are. I look at New York,
I look at Chicago. I mean, you've got a really
bad governor in Chicago and a bad mayor, but the
governor is probably the worst of the country, Pritzker. But
I look at how that city has been overrun by criminals.
(36:51):
And you know New York and LA. Look at La La.
Those people weren't from LA, they weren't from California. Most
of those people any of those people, And yeah, that's
that's the focus. Biden allowed twenty one million people to
come into our country. Of that, vast numbers of those
people were murderers, killers, people from gangs, people from jails,
(37:16):
the empty their jails out into the US. Most of
those people are in the cities, all blue cities, all
Democrat run cities, and they think they're going to use
them to vote.
Speaker 6 (37:26):
It's not going to happen.
Speaker 5 (37:28):
What is your reaction to his assertions there?
Speaker 6 (37:30):
My god, I mean, there's so much in there.
Speaker 13 (37:32):
You know, it's so shameless, so embarrassing, so divorced from
the facts, and all just rageously politicized, and you know,
just he just.
Speaker 6 (37:45):
Makes it up as he talks. And you know, the.
Speaker 13 (37:50):
Crime rates in California are much lower than many of
the Red states, and you know, murder rates way higher
many of the Red states, red cities. And you know,
he's trying to portray a fiction and pawn it off
of the American people as a truth when it's when
it's clearly not, and you know, to it so blatantly
attack blue city leaders and blue state leaders. You know,
(38:14):
he's not a president for all America. He's wants to
be president for half or less and wants to attack
transparently and vindictively everyone else in the Blue cities. He
can't stand the fact that he got absolutely thrashed in
the election by in California and that's too much, apparently
for his fragile ego, so he needs to try to
(38:35):
target California. It's just so inappropriate. That's not how leaders lead.
It's it's it's it's sophomoric and juvenile. It's like a
kid in the White House, unfortunately, but you know, so
much lack of truth there. It's just hard to take
the man seriously, unfortunately. But it would be laughable if
(38:57):
it wasn't so dangerous and for him to act on,
you know, this this political vengeance tour, this lack of
facts to go after certain cities and states. You're right,
the executive order is it was for sixty days. It
wasn't targeted and surgical to an incident or incidents in LA.
Speaker 6 (39:19):
And it's nationwide. It's not just for LA.
Speaker 13 (39:21):
I mean, what is the basis for an executive order
nationwide based on you know, a set of incidents that
we see, you know, after the Lakers win a championship, right,
so it's you know, he's trying to.
Speaker 6 (39:34):
Invoke authority that gives him more power.
Speaker 13 (39:37):
He wants the power, and when there's invasions or emergencies
or rebellions or insurrections, he gets more power. So he
says those things exist when they don't exist, clearly don't exist.
Speaker 2 (39:47):
Yeah, I mean, I think it's pretty clear he's testing
the limits of what he can do here, what he
can get away with, both in terms of, like you know,
public support and resistance, and in terms of the judicial system.
I'm curious if you feel like you gotten enough support
from other Democrats around the country, because, to be honest
with you, I've been a little bit disappointed in the
lack of vocal support and vocal resistance from elected Democrats
(40:11):
around the country, especially given the fact, I mean, he's
directly threatening.
Speaker 5 (40:14):
All blue states, all blue.
Speaker 2 (40:16):
Cities with rolling out the same playbook wherever in one
or whenever he wants to.
Speaker 13 (40:21):
We've gotten some really good support on this case, and
Democrats are speaking up and out across the nation. I
know that there was some concern and views shared like yours,
especially as Trump took office in January twenty January twentieth,
but I think there's a good rhythm and a broad
organized group of Democrats that are fighting for the rule
(40:43):
of law, for democracy. We had democratic governors through the
Governors Association, every single governor signed on against this deployment
of the National Guard. We had democratic attorneys general write
an anarchist brief. We had quite amazingly retired secretaries of
the Army and the Navy, four star retired admirals and
(41:09):
generals who wrote an amicust brief in our favor, in
support of our position, saying that if the military is
ever going to be deployed on American soil, it needs
to be rare and serious and legally clear, and they
thought that those elements were not present here. So really
good support for our case, and I think more broadly speaking,
(41:31):
the voice of Democrats is getting louder and louder across
the nation.
Speaker 5 (41:34):
Last question I have for you.
Speaker 2 (41:36):
Trump stopped short here of invoking the Insurrection Act, and
so the legal grounds, of course that he invoked is
what's in dispute in this particular case. If he were
to invoke the Insurrection Act, do you feel like you
would have a case that you could make or would
it make all of these issues effectively null and void,
and he could basically do what he wants.
Speaker 13 (41:58):
If he invokes the Insurrection Act, we'll see him at
court and confident we can block him. There's no basis
for the Insurrection Act. The only reason he's interested in
it is because it gives him more power, but the
requirements to invoke it are not present. Again, there needs
to be an inability with the regular forces. The statute
(42:19):
says execute the laws of the federal government. That's just
not present. The federal government can execute all the laws
it wants, or there needs to be a deprivation of
rights of individuals in the state where are the military
is being deployed. And that happened back in the sixties
when black Americans were being deprived of their civil rights.
(42:39):
That is not present here. So there's no basis for
invoking the Insurrection Act. Doesn't mean he won't try, because
that's what he does. He gas lights the nation and
says a certain set of conditions exist on the ground
when they don't. Because if those conditions actually existed, which
they don't, he would be able to have more power,
which is what he really wants.
Speaker 6 (42:59):
So will he try? He very well? May.
Speaker 13 (43:01):
Are we ready absolutely and we'll be taking to court
and block him.
Speaker 6 (43:04):
We're confident we can and that we will.
Speaker 2 (43:06):
All right, Well, we're going to be paying close attention
to what unfolds in these hearings today, and California Attorney
General Rob Bonta, thank you so much for taking some
time with us today, Thanks.
Speaker 6 (43:15):
For having me. Grateful to be with here.
Speaker 2 (43:17):
All right, guys, thank you so much for watching. Thank
you so much for your continued support. We are not
going to be able to do the AMA live today,
so we're going to push it off to Ryan and Emily,
but I know you guys love asking them questions too.
They will also be all over what is unfolding with
the potential imminent joining of the US into that war
with Iran, so make sure you tune in for that.
(43:39):
Until then, have a great day.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com