Rob Bonta

The USDA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

It was an Oregon case until today, though California, I speaking directly with AG Rayfield and my team talking to them have been very closely communicating with them about what happened in LA with California since we were first. We've been supporting our fellow AGs as they face deployments of National Guard, whether it be DC or Oregon. And then today we got directly brought into the case with

300 federalized California National Guard people being moved a thousand miles up north to Portland, where a judge had already said yesterday that the conditions on the ground absolutely do not justify the federalization of National Guard. They don't justify the federalization of Oregon National Guard. And so...

The federal government in its ingenious thinking said, well, her order, though it said there were no conditions to bring the National Guard, Federalized National Guard to Oregon, applied to the Oregon National Guard. How about we bring in California National Guard? Maybe that'll work.

She was completely miffed. I just listened in on the entire hearing. First of all, thank you to my incredible team, the incredible teams in Oregon and Portland. It was a team effort. Folks working overtime, obviously today is a Sunday, and democracy needs to be protected every day, and the rule of law does as well. She was really miffed. Her first set of questions of the federal government were, how does this not violate my order from yesterday?

I think she's right, that this sort of super technical approach to try to bring National Guard in that's from another state and just minutes before the hearing commenced, we got word through a memorandum from Secretary Hegseth that the Texas

National Guard has been federalized, 2000 of them, with 400 of them being deployed to both Portland and Chicago. So it is clear that

It's a sort of whack-a-mole approach from the federal government. You stop the Oregon National Guard from being federalized, we'll bring in the California National Guard. You stop the California National Guard from being brought up north, we'll bring in the Texas National Guard. You stop them, who's got next? We got a bunch of others we can bring in. So we asked her, the judge, to issue a broad order.

joka vaikuttaa kaikkien kansallisten sääntöjen, kaikkien valtioiden ja Colombian puolustusten kaikkien. Ja eikä mitään niitä pystytä edistämään. Ne voidaan edistää ylipäätään Oregoniin. Hän laittoi sen lopun. Hän käsittelee sen myös kirjoittamalla lopun.

She was concerned based on the behavior of the federal government about what the scope of her order should be and believed, and I agree, that a broad order that is broad in scope is appropriate. So the conditions have not changed in 24 hours. National Guard being deployed in Oregon was unlawful yesterday. It's unlawful today as well. It doesn't matter where the National Guard comes from, whether they're Oregon's National Guard or California's or Texas's.

I think the judge nailed it. The Trump-appointed judge nailed it and looked at the facts, looked at the law, issued an order expeditiously and appropriately stopped Trump from this unlawful conduct.

She nails it. She knows what's at stake. She knows what the issues are here. This Trump-appointed judge is doing her duty. She's following the facts, following the law. Chips fall where they may. You apply the law to the facts and make decisions not influenced by political ideology or who the president is or who appointed you. She's doing what her job is. I didn't mean to interrupt you. Sorry about that.

Honestly, he was having a hard time. He had his arguments though, but the judge was pushing and she was not happy. She was saying, you are an officer of the court, sir, and tell me why this doesn't violate my order from yesterday. His argument was that this is not the Oregon National Guard, that's what you're

order yesterday applied to. This is the California National Guard. They've already been federalized and they're just being repositioned from Los Angeles and California to Portland. And she was having none of that and not buying any of that hyper technical approach. She was getting to the substance and I think she was likely offended, though she didn't show it. She was very professional and had outstanding demeanor.

En, ja katsokaa, 8.1. Trumpi laittoi 300 National Guarda 90 päivää myöhemmin Los Angelesissa, jossa puhuttiin siitä, että ne ovat tarpeellisia ja tärkeässä, jotta voidaan vahvistaa kansallisia lakia ja pysyä ihmisiä turvassa.

Today he's like, nah, maybe I'll send all of them to Portland. They don't need to be in L.A. It completely undercuts his position in our case in L.A. We're going to make that known to the court. These Federalized National Guard are so essential and so necessary to keep the peace and keep public safety that they were all sent away. A thousand miles away to another city. You were given a gift, A.G. Bonta.

I thought she did a great job and tons of credit to her. I hope she's not, I hope this isn't true, going to get political pressure from the right, from MAGA world and from Trump and his people. But she is a true public servant who believes in the law, who knows what law enforcement is, has worked with it and for it and is not going to get pulled into these silly ideological fights and these

Ymmärtää, mitä tapahtuu sopimuksessa, joka on vain Donald Trumpin ajatuksena, jota hän laittaa Truth Socialissa, kun hän sanoo, että se on vallattomuus. Hän mainitsi erityisesti, että Trumpin päätöksentekoon sopimuksessa sopimuksessa sopimuksessa sopimuksessa sopimuksessa sopimuksessa sopimuksessa sopimuksessa

I don't think she thought she was divested of jurisdiction, though she did ask this question, what if the appeal to the Ninth Circuit on yesterday's TRO, the first TRO, is granted and the TRO is overturned. Would that affect today's TRO, should she issue one? She was kind of thinking out loud and asking the attorneys their input, and I think that the attorneys from California and Oregon

made it very clear that today is a separate TRO on a separate issue with a separate movement of National Guard. And whatever the court does in the first TRO shouldn't affect the TRO today. And she was broadening her scope today. And so we have two very powerful and poignant TROs. But she did connect them. I think she's going to incorporate by reference in the TRO that she's issued today the rationale and the factual