🚨 BREAKING: Trump SMACKED DOWN in EMERGENCY LATE NIGHT HEARING

We got some breaking news here on the Midas Touch Network for those that have been following it. Judge Immergut has just issued her second temporary restraining order in favor of the state of Oregon and California about Donald Trump's attempts to send now

the California National Guard into Oregon in full defiance of Judge Immergut's earlier ruling from Saturday late afternoon, in which she said that Donald Trump did not have the power or the authority under the statute to commandeer and federalize the Oregon National Guard because the elements that are necessary in order to do that were missing, such as there's no rebellion going on,

and he doesn't need federal troops or the commandeer National Guard troops in order to execute federal law. Donald Trump didn't like that and decided to start sending in 200 or more National Guardsmen from California into Oregon,

which led to a quick unity between Oregon and California and joining in a new temporary restraining order and within hours Judge Immergut set an emergency hearing and ruled from the bench and who better to tell us about this than the Attorney General of California who's joining us here Rob Bonta. AG Bonta, thank you for joining Midas Touch.

Grateful to be with you as always.

Thanks for having us.

Yes. So, let's take it from your perspective. This was an Oregon case until about a half a day ago, and then it became a California and Oregon case. You were on the hearing, it was by phone mainly. Tell our audience what happened today,

what Judge Immerggut did and why

you think it was correct. Yeah, you know, well it was an Oregon case until today, though California, you know, I speaking directly with 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's 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. And she was completely miffed. I just listened in on the entire hearing. First of all, thank you to my incredible team, the incredible teams in Oregon and Portland. It was a team effort. Folks working overtime, obviously today's a Sunday and democracy needs to be protected

every day and the rule of law does as well. And she was really miffed. Her first set of questions of the federal government were, how does this not violate my order from yesterday? And I think she's right, you know, that this sort of super technical approach to try to bring National Guard in that's from another state and just minutes before the hearing commenced, we got word

through a memorandum from Secretary Higgs, that the Texas National Guard has been federalized, 2,000 of them with 400 of them being deployed to both Portland and Chicago. So it is clear that it's a 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 California National Guard. You stop the California National Guard from being brought up north, we'll bring in the Texas National Guard. You stop them, we got, you know, who's got next? You know, we got a bunch of others we can bring in. And so we asked her, the judge, to issue a broad order that says, that applies to every

National Guard in every state and the District of Columbia, and that none of them can be deployed, can be federalized and deployed to Oregon. And she issued that order from the bench. She's going to back it up with a written order as well, but she was concerned based on the behavior of the federal government about what the scope of her order should be and believed, and I agree, that a broad order that is broad in scope

is appropriate. So the conditions have not changed in 24 hours. National Guard being deployed in Oregon was unlawful yesterday. It's unlawful today as well. It doesn't matter where the National Guard comes from,

whether they're Oregon's National Guard or California's or Texas's Guard. And so I think the judge nailed it. The Trump appointed judge nailed it and looked at the facts, looked at the law, issued an order expeditiously

and appropriately stopped Trump from this unlawful conduct.

And thank you, AG Bonta. And what we've known from the past is there were about seven red states that sent their National Guard into DC. And I'm sure this is the same group that Donald Trump is trying to cycle through to try to find a way. I don't even think he's trying to do, find a loophole.

I think he's just openly defiant of Judge Immergat. It sounds like she might, she thinks that might have happened as well. who yes, was appointed back in the first term of Donald Trump, but he's already blaming whoever the people were, at the Federalist Society or Leonard Leo, whoever led him astray, because he doesn't like her particular rulings.

And she framed the issue in her order on Saturday so perfectly. To my audience I said it's 31 pages but you really just need to read the first paragraph and one of her last paragraphs to understand it. In her first paragraph for our audience she said on on Saturday and this like you said it was illegal then and it's illegal now, she said this case involves the intersection of three of the most fundamental principles

in our constitutional democracy. The first concerns the relationship between the federal government and the states. The second concerns the relationship between the United States Armed Forces and domestic law enforcement.

And the third concerns the proper role of the judicial branch in ensuring that the executive branch complies with the laws and limitations imposed by the legislative branch. Whether we choose to follow what the Constitution mandates with respect to these three relationships goes to the heart of what it means to live under the rule of law in the United States. And then she ended it this way, and I'm sure this is sort of the animating force in her decision

making. She said at the end of her order on page 30 from Saturday, this country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs. Quoting from James Madison addressed to the Constitutional Convention, a standing military force with an overgrown executive, well we've got an overgrown executive, will not long be safe

companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition. This is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power to the detriment of this nation. That's the judge, right? She nails it. She knows what's at stake.

She knows what the issues are here. You know, this Trump appointed judge is doing her duty. She's following the facts, following the law, let them chips fall where they may. You apply the law to the facts and make decisions not influenced by ideology, political ideology, or you know, who the president is or who appointed you. She's doing what her job is.

And she's- What was the department, I didn't mean to interrupt you, sorry about that. No, it's okay. What was the response? I mean, we always like to know our opponent.

What was the response? What's the government's position as to why they believe in good faith they could send in California, Texas, or any other national card Guard given her earlier ruling? What

did they say? I didn't envy the federal attorney trying to defend this conduct. And honestly, he was having a hard time. And, you know, he had his arguments though, and, but the judge was pushing and she was not happy. And she was saying, you are an officer of the court, sir. And tell me why this doesn't violate my order from yesterday." And his argument was that this is not the Oregon National Guard, that's what your order yesterday applied to. This is the California National Guard.

They've already been federalized, and they're just being repositioned from Los Angeles and California to Portland. And she was having none of that. And not buying any of that hyper technical approach, she was getting to the substance. And I think she was likely offended, though she didn't show it.

She was very professional and had outstanding demeanor. But by this effort to end run, or just violate blatantly her order from yesterday.

And such a weird, I mean, you and I don't have enough time on planet earth to figure out the machinations of the Trump administration or their strategy or lack thereof, but everything reports up in these cases to the same Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. And I would think they're not, it strengthens your hand, certainly in the California Ninth Circuit case, to see how Donald Trump has interpreted unique set of facts that he was able to at one time convince the Ninth Circuit about, now trying to take them on the road to go to any state that he says, well, I'm having trouble enforcing the law, let me just take it. I don't think that's what the Ninth Circuit

three judge panel had in mind, do you?

I don't. And look, on August 8th, Trump deployed 300 National Guard for 90 days longer in Los Angeles, arguing that they are necessary and essential to enforce the federal laws and to keep people safe. And then today he's like, nah,

maybe I'll send all of them to Portland. They don't need to be in LA. So it completely undercuts his position in our case in LA. And we're gonna make that known to the court that these federalized national guard are so essential and so necessary to keep the peace and keep public safety that they were all sent away a thousand miles

away to another to another city. You were given a gift AG Bonta. I mean it is deplorable what happened and we are gonna let the court know how it impacts

you know the case that we have. I like the fact that Judge Immergut in her Saturday order actually tipped her hat to your judge in California Judge Breyer and said I like what the district court judge did about how you spot a rebellion. I think those I think so so once I saw that, all right, because, you know, he's taken a little bit of heat

because he didn't get the entirety of his injunctions upheld at least for now, although the posse commentatus one is still right there. The more I learned, and maybe you knew about her from her prior experience, even in California, she has a very interesting body of work

that's unique among federal judges. She had been a federal prosecutor in LA, I believe. She was a US attorney in Portland. She was a district attorney in the county in which Portland is in. She worked for Mott for a couple of years.

She's a person that worked very closely with law enforcement and knows law enforcement well, especially in Portland and lives and works in Portland. And this whole Portland is war torn. War ravaged, we must send the military. And she's sitting drinking her local, you know,

brewed coffee, like where is this?

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

So, when Judge Simon gave up the case after I assume Trump's lawyers made some sort of argument that made him uncomfortable because his wife is a Congresswoman from Portland, we were like, well, who did it rotate to? But once I did more exploration of her background,

you've got a great judge for this.

I thought she did a great job and tons of credit to her. I'm sure she's, I hope she's not, I hope this isn't true, gonna 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 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 depictions of what's happening on the ground that are only a figment of the imagination of Donald Trump that he posts on Truth Social when he says it's war-torn. I mean, she pointed out very specifically that Trump's determination to deploy the guard based on the facts on the ground was untethered from the-

Untethered to reality.

No, I like that word. It was untethered.

She, and she may get pressure. Look, as you and I are on the air, we got a house that's burned to the ground in South Carolina of a judge. Yeah, really terrible, terrible things are happening here in terms of political violence. But I think, you know, she's a very, like you said, she's a dedicated public servant, her entire body of work leading to this case says that she's the perfect judge to handle a matter like this,

even though Donald Trump is already attacking her and bemoaning it. So is the, my understanding is, I know you asked in the alternative, either a new TRO or modify your old one. She went with the new one.

Was that, do you think, because the other side was arguing that since the appeal was up with the new one. Was that, do you think, because the other side was arguing that since the appeal was up with the Ninth, somehow she was divested of jurisdiction? I don't think she

thought she was divested of jurisdiction, though she did ask this question, what if the appeal to the Ninth Circuit on yesterday's TRO, the first TRO, is granted and the TRO is 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's 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. So, and she was broadened her scope today. And so we have two very powerful and poignant TROs, but she did connect them. I think she's gonna incorporate by reference in the TRO that she's issued today,

the rationale and the factual recitation in her.

Yeah, the same 31 page underpinning. and the factual recitation in her.

Yeah, the same 31 page underpinning. The quote that I read applies to what the analysis that she just did here. And then Donald Trump can, you know, ask for his stays from whatever courts he wants to ask and file his appeals. And you'll follow this to the ends of the earth

for right now. So I guess the question is right now, where are these two or 300 California National Guard's people? Where are they?

We think that a hundred are already on the ground in Portland and they were in and around the LA area and then another hundred will be there by tonight and the final group of two, one hundred will arrive by tomorrow. I mean are

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

street? I do. I mean they shouldn't be performing any official duties so I don't know if they're gonna be put on ice somewhere you know just staying in the background and not conducting any official activity or if they're going to be sent back to California, whatever it is, they need to comply with the court order and they are, they cannot be deployed to engage in, you

know, any official duties in Portland. A fast-moving story, but we're so fortunate to have the Attorney General for California, Rob Bonta, join the Midas Touch Network to give us the update about the case from basically within the courtroom. We'll continue to follow it. This is a fast moving story.

It's got a lot of moving parts now, but we've got two temporary restraining orders. There has not been a stay that's been issued about either one of them, although appeals have been filed. And we'll see what happens on the ground here and throughout, and we'll post this order

and the orders that we have on the Legal AF Substack so that our audience can read it for themselves. AG Bonta, always a pleasure to have you here. Thank you for taking time to present for our audience.

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

Thank you.

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