All right. Welcome back to the deep dive. You've
shared some source material with us centered
around the recent pretty intense events unfolding
in California and we are ready to jump in. Yes.
Specifically the core source we're digging into
today is this article from ElectoralVoteNews
.pdf. It really takes a close look at the Trump
administration's deployment of the National Guard
and Marines down in Los Angeles. Right. So our
mission for this deep dive is to unpack everything
presented in this specific material. We want
to understand the context it provides, the reported
legal basis, or perhaps, as the source seems
to suggest, the potential lack thereof. The political
backdrop, as it's described in the article, and
what the source believes are the potential implications
of these actions. And yeah, just to stress, we're
sticking strictly to what you've given us in
this source. It's all about getting you, the
listener, quickly informed on what is, let's
face it, a complex rapidly developing situation,
but seen through the lens of this one particular
document. Okay, so let's start where the article
starts, right? With that immediate news hook.
The headline grabbing events in Los Angeles over
the past week. Exactly. The source kicks things
off by highlighting a specific viewpoint, quoting
Senator Chris Murphy from an interview he did
on MSNBC's Morning Joe. Ah, right. And as reported
here, he apparently seemed to view these events,
you know, the fight with Elon Musk, the National
Guard deployment, mostly is just a distraction
from the budget bill. Yeah, I saw that. He was
quoted stressing that Democrats needed to keep
their eye on the ball. And the ball for him was
apparently this big, beautiful budget bill. Well,
this is where the source immediately pushes back.
And they do it quite strongly. They could call
that analysis tone deaf and wrong headed. And
the article doesn't just disagree, does it? It
actually lays out four specific reasons why it
thinks that perspective is, well, misguided.
What's the first big one? Well, the source argues
pretty forcefully that the California action
is somewhere between extremely unusual and maybe
even completely unprecedented compared to, you
know, typical budget bills, which are kind of
a regular, if sometimes messy part of the political
process. This military deployment is just. It's
in a different league altogether. According to
them that makes sense. I mean a budget bill there
are precedents procedures Yeah, this sounds like
something else entirely at least the way it's
described here. What's the second reason they
give? This is a major point. The source really
hammers home a Budget bill, you know, no matter
how flawed someone might think it is isn't going
to destroy the foundations of democratic government
That's their phrasing right? But the source warns
this California action depending on how it unfolds
has the potential to be and I'm quoting again
the beginnings of the end. That's a pretty stark
contrast they're drawing there. It really is.
Wow. And the third reason, that involved reversibility,
didn't it? Exactly. You know, a budget bill can
be reversed, power changes hands, policies get
undone. It happens. But the kind of damage that
could be done in California right now, according
to the source, could be irreversible. They're
arguing this isn't just about policy adjustments.
It's about actions that could have really lasting,
maybe permanent consequences. And finally, there's
just a practical point, right? Yeah, the source
notes that, hey, the budget bill hasn't actually
passed yet. It doesn't seem close. So it's entirely
practical, maybe even necessary according to
them, to focus attention on what's happening
in California right now and worry about the budget
bill later when it's actually closer to happening.
So putting all that together, the source's conclusion
is pretty unambiguous. They keep saying, you
know, what's happening is extremely unusual to
completely unprecedented, potentially the beginnings
of the end. And they state really emphatically,
this is not normal. This is, in fact, about as
far from normal as it gets. And based on all
that, the article argues that now is the time
to push back. It seems like their view is that
this isn't a distraction. It is the critical
issue demanding attention. Right. And to really
grasp the the weight of these events that they
see it. The source actually takes us back for
a bit of a civics lesson. It provides some crucial
historical background on military force in the
U .S. OK. Let's unpack this history because the
source argues it's key to understanding the legal
framework today goes way back to the founders.
Right. In the 1780s. Yeah. They were really grappling
with this problem. Yeah. How do you have military
force available when you need it. But. avoid
recreating the kind of power abuses they just
escaped with the King of England standing army.
Plus, travel was incredibly slow back then. Defending
a large country quickly was a huge challenge.
Exactly. So their initial solution, as the source
lays it out, was to rely heavily on state and
local militias. These were supposed to be, you
know, volunteer citizen soldiers ready for quick
local defense. The idea being this allowed the
new nation to avoid maintaining a large, expensive
and maybe most importantly, potentially dangerous
federal standing. Army. Right. And this thinking
led directly to the Insurrection Act of 1792.
What did that actually allow the federal government
to do? Well, it gave the federal government the
power to deploy U .S. armed forces domestically.
But, and this is key only in specific limited
circumstances, basically to suppress rebellion
when it was the term used was impracticable,
meaning not really practical, to handle it using
just state or local means. So a federal option,
yeah, but clearly intended as a last resort for
a really serious situation. Then the source points
out things started to shift pretty significantly
post -Civil War in the 1860s. Right, modern warfare
was changing things. Yeah, it became clear that
relying solely on sort of ad hoc militias wasn't
going to cut it anymore. The U .S. needed a more
professional, standardized military force. And
that shift prompted several key laws that really
defined the relationship between those state
militias and the growing professional army. First
up, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. Yes, this
is a really important one, still very relevant
today. It basically prohibits the use of federal
troops like the army or air force for domestic
law enforcement purposes, actively policing civilians.
It clarified that state militias, which were
evolving into what we now know as the National
Guard, could enforce laws within their own state,
but generally only with the governor's consent.
And they could operate in other states too. Yeah,
again, usually needing the consent of the governors
involved. The big exception remained those Insurrection
Act circumstances allowing federal military involvement
in specific rebellion scenarios. Okay, so keep
federal troops out of local policing unless there's
a declared insurrection, basically. What came
next, according to the source? Then you get the
Dick Act of 1903 and the National Defense Act
of 1916. These acts really formalized the National
Guard system as we kind of recognize it. How
so? They set uniform standards so Guard units
could train and operate alongside the federal
military. And crucially, they expanded the president's
authority to federalize these troops. Federalize
meaning bring them under direct federal command.
Exactly. For broader circumstances than just
defending their home state, like for service
overseas, which became huge later, or even deployment
in other states under federal control. That was
a big expansion of presidential power over the
guard. OK, so that's a significant shift. More
federal control possible. Definitely. And then
finally, the structure we largely operate under
today was codified in 1956 with Title X and Title
32 of the U .S. Code. Right. Title X and Title
32. What's the difference, according to the source?
So the source explains Title X generally gives
the president more latitude to federalize the
Guard, putting them under federal command. But
importantly, usually only in a supporting role
domestically, not typically to directly enforce
laws themselves unless specific conditions like
the Insurrection Act are met. and Title 32. Title
32 outlines roles where the Guard remains under
State Command under the Governor, but often with
federal funding and approval for specific missions
or training. Think disaster relief coordination,
border support missions approved federally but
run by the state. It really sounds like this
whole history as the source presents it is this
constant back and forth generations of leaders
trying to find that balance, right? Between needing
military strength and flexibility for security
and the fundamental need to protect citizens
liberties from potential government overreach
using that same military force. That's exactly
the tension the source highlights throughout
this historical overview. It's a balancing act.
Okay. So let's take that legal framework the
source laid out, Posse Comitatus, Title 10, Title
32, and see how the National Guard typically
serves in the real world based on what the article
describes. Right. The most common type of service
you see, what the source calls normal service,
is purely under spate governor authority. Like
responding to natural disasters? Exactly. Hurricanes,
wildfires, floods. That's classic guard work.
Or sometimes supporting local authorities after
manmade incidents like mass shootings or bombings,
but still under the governor's control within
their state. Okay, that makes sense. Governor
calls them up for state emergencies. Then there's
Title 32 service. Now here, the guard is still
technically under the state governor's command.
But the mission itself has presidential approval
and, crucially, federal funding. Examples. The
source gives examples like border security operations
where they might assist federal agencies but
remain under state control or maybe maintaining
civil order after massive disasters like during
Hurricane Katrina where federal resources are
needed but state leadership is still primary.
Okay so state command but with federal partnership
and money and the third type. That's Title 10
service. This is where the president assumes
direct federal command. The guard members essentially
become federal troops for that period. And this
is usually for often for foreign deployments.
Guard units have been heavily involved in places
like Iraq and Afghanistan under Title 10. Domestically,
it can also include specific instances like supporting
federal law enforcement operations or historically
quelling riots. But again, only when explicitly
nationalized under federal control. The source
provides some Pretty interesting historical examples
of presidents actually nationalizing state militias
or the Guard, right? Yeah, they mentioned Abraham
Lincoln nationalizing state militias at the very
start of the Civil War, though the source adds
that this was, quote, generally disastrous, which
apparently contributed to the push for a more
professional federal army afterwards. And it's
wild that after Lincoln, according to the source,
no president tried to nationalize Guard units
for almost 100 years. Right. Until the Civil
Rights era. in the 1950s and 60s. The source
notes that then the National Guard was occasionally
nationalized, sometimes without the consent of
segregationist state governors, specifically
to enforce federal desegregation laws and protect
Black Southerners. Which really shows the federal
government using that ultimate authority to override
state opposition in the face of, you know, blatant
civil rights violations, a very specific context.
Precisely. However, the source points out that
after the civil rights era, the trend generally
shifted back. when nationalization has occurred
more recently, like during the LA riots back
in 1992, it was typically done with the consent
and cooperation of the state governors involved.
So, again, that theme the source keeps returning
to, generations trying to balance that federal
power and state autonomy flexibility for national
security versus protecting civil liberties. It's
a pattern they definitely see playing out right
now in California. Okay, shifting gears a bit,
the source makes a strong case. that these events
in California didn't just pop up out of nowhere.
There was a significant buildup in context they
want us to understand. Absolutely. The article
points to this longstanding political backdrop.
There's been conservative animosity towards California
for decades, often framing it as like a test
case for liberal policies that conservatives
see as failures. Plus you have the demographic
reality, which the source notes. California is
heading towards being majority Latino and Los
Angeles already is. And they also mentioned Trump's
personal history with the state, describing it
as a sort of New Yorker disdain. and bring up
past conflicts, like his reported refusal of
federal aid after the big 2018 wildfires. Right.
And here's where it gets connected to some broader
political planning, according to the source.
They bring up the Center for Renewing America,
or TCRA, founded by Russ Fogg, and its explicit
link to Project 2025. Ah, OK. Project 2025. Yes.
And the article highlights a specific plan that
TCRA apparently posted online over a year ago.
This plan, which the source claims Stephen Miller
is intimately familiar with, basically proposes
declaring undocumented immigration an invasion.
An invasion? Why that specific word? Well, according
to the source's description of the plan, using
the word invasion is meant to provide a legal
justification for using the U .S. military domestically,
potentially bypassing posse comitatus by invoking
something like the Insurrection Act or related
powers. Wow. OK, so that's a key connection the
source makes seeing this potential pre -planning
or theoretical framework laid out beforehand.
And there was also some more immediate tension
between Trump and Governor Newsom recently. Yeah,
right before these events kicked off, Trump reportedly
threatened to cut hundreds of billions in federal
funding in California and Newsom. In response,
reportedly threatened to withhold some $80 billion
in tax payments. Withhold tax payments? How would
that even work? The source admits the mechanism
isn't totally clear, but they interpret it as
possibly meaning withholding state employee income
taxes that would normally go to the feds. Regardless
of the specifics, it clearly shows a really heightened
state of conflict between the state and federal
administration right before the deployment. So
putting all that build up together, the history,
the politics, the alleged pre -planning the source,
presents a very strong view on the events themselves.
They argue it was all carefully staged political
theater for the benefit of the base. Yeah, they
describe a specific sequence they believe was
orchestrated. It started, according to the source,
with ICE conducting operations using masks and
riot gear and reportedly even targeting people
who are actually trying to follow the rules to
register or check in. OK, so provocative actions
by ICE first. That's how the source frames it.
These actions, they say, then triggered a public
response, which the article describes as either
entirely peaceful or nearly so. And then almost
immediately after that peaceful or near peaceful
response. tear gas and rubber bullets came out
very quickly. The source includes this slightly
ambiguous detail about checking with Newsom.
The quote is, tear gas and rubber bullets quickly
check with Newsom. It's unclear if they did check
or didn't check. But either way, the source implies
it was a calculated use of force, possibly connected
to provoking a reaction from the governor. And
to further support this idea of staging, the
source notes reports that White House staffers
were apparently gushing about being happy to
have this fight to provoke this conflict. Right.
And they also mention, almost as an aside, that
Dr. Phil was apparently on the scene filming,
similar to some earlier raids reported in Chicago,
suggesting to the source that getting some camera
time, creating visuals, was part of the goal.
So the source's conclusion on this whole sequence
is pretty firm, isn't it? Very. They state flatly.
Nothing here was accidental or spontaneous. This
sequence of events was all but inevitable because
the Trump administration made it that way. That's
their definitive take. Okay, so if the source
believes it was carefully staged, pre -planned,
the big question then becomes why now? Why this
specific timing? Right. The article acknowledges,
you know, the exact trigger might be unclear,
but it does offer several potential theories
or, as they call them, guesses. One possibility
the source floats is just pure distraction. They
point out it hadn't exactly been a great couple
of weeks for the administration leading up to
this. What kind of things? Well, they mentioned
ongoing difficulties with tariffs and trade wars,
some significant court losses like against universities
at public spat with Elon Musk, and the budget
bill itself seemed to be struggling. So perhaps
the source speculates this was a way to kind
of change the subject, shift the narrative. Makes
sense as a political tactic, potentially. What
else? Another theory they put forward relates
to a specific immigration case, the Kilmar -Abrego
-Garcia case. Apparently, the administration
recently took a loss in court related to that,
and there was some negative media coverage questioning
the weakness of their legal arguments in that
area. OK. So the source guesses this might have
created a sudden need to quickly manufacture
some new evidence showing they're being strong
on border policy, even if staged. Anger is also
listed as a potential factor, right? Yeah. The
source describes Trump as always angry, but suggests
his anger was particularly amplified by that
recent very public argument with Elon Musk. So
just lashing out? Potentially. The source speculates
he might have just given the go -order as a way
to vent frustration. And they add this really
provocative line stating that for Trump, footage
of police beating up Mexicans is chicken soup
for the soul. That's quite a statement from the
source about the perceived motive. Wow. OK. Any
other theories mentioned? There's a more speculative
guess related to the New Jersey election. They
doubt it was the primary driver, but suggest
if this action was planned for sometime soon
anyway, maybe doing it during the Republican
gubernatorial primary there could offer some
bonus value. How so? By potentially helping the
Trump endorse candidate, Jack Ciattarelli looked
tough on related issues. Kind of a side benefit.
if the timing worked out. And finally, there's
this idea of a ticking clock. Yeah, the source
notes that hurricane and tornado season is starting
up. They suggest it might look a little packy,
their words, to be carrying out this kind of
operation in a city that's potentially underwater
or recovering from a major storm. And they add
a little jab about. Right. They wryly add that
since some weather forecasters have reportedly
been fired, the administration might not even
know exactly how much time they have left before
the weather could make this kind of operation
much more difficult or politically awkward. So
again, the source stresses these are just guesses
about the precise timing. Exactly. But their
overall analysis assumes it wasn't random, that
it connects back to what they see as a broader
plan already in motion. OK, let's get into how
the deployment actually unfolded on the ground
in the streets of L .A., according to the source's
account. It apparently starts with a really early
morning post from Trump on Sunday. Yeah, 2 .41
a .m. Eastern Time. He posted online about supposed
unrest in L .A., blaming, quote, incompetent
Governor Newscom and Mayor Bass. Using his typical
nicknames there. Right. He declared that radical
left protests. by instigators and often paid
troublemakers will not be tolerated. And very
pointedly stated, masks will not be allowed.
He even thanked the National Guard in that post
for a job well done. But here's the really striking
factual discrepancy the source points out, right?
Yes. The National Guard had not yet arrived in
Los Angeles when he posted that thank you message.
Seriously? According to the source, yes. And
they add that by the time the Guard actually
did arrive on the scene later that day, the streets
were reportedly already quiet. The initial unrest,
such as it was, had subsided. But the deployment
went ahead anyway. It did. Despite those calm
conditions, the source reports another 2 ,000
National Guard troops were deployed on Monday,
and they were followed shortly after by 700 Marines.
This was happening even though the unrest had
reportedly, quote, almost entirely subsided.
And the source also highlights a lack of coordination.
Yeah, they specifically mentioned that the command
structure for the deployed Marines reportedly
did not coordinate their actions or plans with
the local Los Angeles Police Department, the
LAPD. So what does the source make of that? Deploying
more troops into a calm situation without local
coordination? Well, the source interprets this
pretty starkly. They suggest this continued deployment
and the apparent lack of coordination indicates
the White House really wants more tension. and
more acts of resistance and more footage of armed
people beating up brown protesters. That's their
strong interpretation of the motivation behind
the sustained and seemingly uncoordinated military
presence. So with troops on the ground and tensions
described as high, we naturally move to the legal
arena, the battle that started playing out in
court almost immediately. Right. California Attorney
General Rob Bonta, acting at Governor Newsom's
direction, filed a lawsuit seeking an emergency
injunction to stop the federal deployment. But
the source points out a significant limitation
for the governor here. Once the president actually
federalizes the National Guard under Title 10,
a state governor loses command and doesn't have
the authority to just de -federalize them or
order them home. Ah, okay. So Newsom couldn't
just tell them to leave. That's why they went
to court. Exactly. Now, let's analyze the legal
basis the administration reportedly used for
this deployment. Because it's interesting. They
didn't invoke the Insurrection Act. Which seems
like the obvious one for domestic military deployment,
based on the history we discussed. Why not use
it? according to the source. Well, the source
speculates it's because invoking the Insurrection
Act requires the president to formally assert
that there's an actual rebellion happening and
that using the military is the only practical
option left. The source believes making that
specific claim stick in court would be unlikely,
even though an initial internal memo apparently
did mention rebellion. So a potentially weak
legal argument they wanted to avoid, what did
they use instead? Instead, Trump, or as the source
puts it, whoever is making the decisions, reportedly
invoked authority under Title 10 of the U .S.
Code, specifically Section 12406. Section 12406,
what does that section allow? According to the
source, this particular section talks about using
the National Guard to prevent rebellion and to
execute the laws. Notice the wording prevent
rebellion, not necessarily respond to an existing
one. Oh, okay. So the source sees a strategy
there. Yes. They speculate it's maybe a little
easier legally to argue that you're acting to
prevent a potential rebellion or just generally
execute the laws than it is to definitively prove
an actual rebellion is already underway as required
by the Insurrection Act. So the source thinks
this choice suggests the administration knows
it's on potentially shaky ground legally and
is looking for the path of least resistance.
That's the interpretation offered. They're arguing
the admin is trying to find the easiest possible
justification, even if it's a stretch. And what
about A .G. Bonta's lawsuit? What's his argument?
According to the source, Bonta's suit argues
two main things. First, that this is a gross
misapplication of the statute, that Section 12406
isn't meant for this kind of situation. And second,
that the administration made a critical error
by completely bypassing Governor Newsom in the
process, not consulting or coordinating as might
usually be expected, even under Title 10 in some
views. Now, what makes this court case particularly
tricky, according to the source? It's the lack
of legal precedent or jurisprudence, as the lawyers
say. The source states flatly there is Literally
no jurisprudence that is directly relevant to
using this specific Section 12406 in this manner.
Meaning no previous court rulings have directly
tackled this specific scenario. Exactly. There's
no established case law for the judges to rely
on to interpret how Section 12406 should apply
here. Did the source find any previous use of
this section? Just one they mentioned. Richard
Nixon apparently used Section 12406 back in 1970
to have the National Guard deliver mail during
a postal worker's strike. Delivering mail. That
doesn't sound very similar to deploying troops
and Marines for unrest in L .A. Not really. No.
And crucially, the source points out that Nixon
era case never actually went to court to be legally
tested. So it doesn't offer any guidance. So
the bottom line on the legal challenge. Well,
while the source clearly believes the White House's
case appears weak based on their reading of the
law and the lack of precedent, they conclude
the ultimate outcome is genuinely uncertain.
It will depend entirely on how the specific judge
or judges hearing the case decide to interpret
this legally uncharted territory. Now, the source...
It really doesn't pull any punches when it comes
to interpreting the meaning of these events.
They dedicate a whole section to discussing what
they see as potential signs of fascism, arguing
that the administration's actions in California
exhibit characteristics they explicitly associate
with such regimes. Okay, that's obviously a very
strong claim. The source needs to back that up.
How do they connect the events to these characteristics?
They list specific examples, right? They do.
They run down a list of things they observe or
anticipate. The first sign they point to is arresting
innocents. What did I mean by that? The source
suggests it's highly likely, maybe even a smart
bet, that people who have committed no actual
crime will get swept up, arrested, and potentially
incarcerated as part of these broad operations
targeting immigrants. Do they give a specific
example? Yes. They mentioned David Huerta, who
is the president of SEO California, a major union.
He was reportedly arrested while acting as a
community observer during an ICE raid in LA.
The source notes he was later released, but uses
his arrest as an example of someone seemingly
not involved in illegal activity getting caught
up. OK, so using operations that sweep up innocent
bystanders, what's the second sign they list?
Arresting opponents. Now, the source acknowledges
this hasn't happened yet, but they highlight
that Trump has reportedly made multiple public
threats to arrest Governor Newsom. Arrest the
governor? On what grounds? Well, according to
the source, Trump's alleged primary crime for
Newsom is, and this is a quote attributed to
Trump, simply running for governor because he's
done such a bad job. Running for office or doing
a bad job is not usually a crime. Exactly. The
source points out the pretty chilling implications
if political opposition or perceived poor performance
becomes grounds for arrest. They also add this
interesting political analysis suggesting Newsom
has been intentionally goading Trump into making
these threats. Why would he do that? Because
the source speculates, Newsom believes being
targeted and threatened by Trump would make him
look like a martyr and actually help his own
potential presidential bid in 2028. Bit of political
calculation there, perhaps. Interesting. OK,
what other signs does the source discuss? Another
one is intimidating the press. They report a
specific incident where an LAPD officer is alleged
to have very deliberately took aim and fired
a rubber bullet at an Australian news reporter
who was covering the story on the ground. Wow,
a direct targeting of a journalist. That's the
allegation report about the source. Then there's
demonizing the enemy. The source points to the
prominent role DHS Secretary Kristi Noem took
in justifying the actions and specifically highlights
a comment she reportedly made calling Los Angeles
a city of criminals. And the source adds a personal
note there. Yeah, just a brief wry aside saying
something like, we should know we live there.
Reminding the reader the authors are based in
LA. OK, what else? Gaslighting. Yes, gaslighting.
which they describe as a remarkable bending of
reality. The main example they use is Trump repeating
the claim that protesters are just paid crisis
actors. A familiar claim. Right, what the source
calls a tired old right -wing chestnut. They
speculate he'll probably start blaming the globalists
or George Soros next. They also bring up Speaker
Mike Johnson as another example of gaslighting.
How so? By arguing apparently that critics are
hypocrites because they supported mask mandates
during the pandemic, but now dislike masks being
used by federal agents arresting undocumented
immigrants. The source clearly sees this as a
false equivalence designed to deflect criticism.
Another key sign the source identifies is hypocrisy,
or as they put it, rules for thee. Not for me.
Examples of that. They draw a really sharp contrast
between Trump villainizing what they describe
as the largely peaceful protesters in L .A. while
at the same time pardoning people involved in
the January 6th insurrection. The source explicitly
asks, you know, what's the difference there?
That's a stark comparison. Any other examples
of hypocrisy? Yes. They point directly at Kristi
Noem again. They quote a statement she apparently
made just last year, opposing President Biden
potentially federalizing the National Guard,
calling that a direct attack on states' rights.
But now? But now, this past weekend, she was
reportedly praising Trump for doing essentially
the same thing, federalizing the Guard against
the state's wishes. The source presents this
as a blatant contradiction, depending on who
is doing the federalizing. That seems like a
pretty clear example of the double standard the
source is trying to highlight. It does. And finally,
the source offers this new kind of darkly humorous
but pointed sign they call the Musk test. The
Musk test? What's that? Their proposed rule is
basically, if Elon Musk looks at what you're
doing and likes what he sees, there's a decent
chance that you're a fascist. Okay. That's provocative.
And they connect this to the LA events. Yes.
They note that Musk... after apparently having
some public disagreements with the administration,
is now reportedly warming back up to Trump after
seeing footage of the events in L .A. Presumably,
the source implies, the kind of confrontational
footage they suggested earlier the White House
wanted to generate. So just to be absolutely
clear for our listeners, this entire list, the
arrests, the threats, the press intimidation,
demonization, gaslighting, hypocrisy. even the
Musk test, this is all presented as the source's
interpretation of the events. They are viewing
these actions through the specific lens of potential
signs of fascism. That's crucial, yes. We're
reporting on their analysis and the connections
they draw, based entirely on the document provided.
OK, so moving beyond the source's direct interpretation,
they also touch on the broader political landscape.
How are these events being perceived and responded
to, particularly by Democrats? Right. They mentioned
other media perspectives, citing an article by
Julia Mueller in The Hill, for example, which
apparently suggests Democrats are facing a difficult
political tightrope in how they react to all
this. What's the tightrope exactly? Well, a Democratic
strategist is quoted in that Hill article saying
Trump played this brilliantly in a political
sense because he created a situation that seemed
forces Democrats into a tough spot. How so? The
dilemma being, if Democrats strongly condemn
the actions, they risk looking like they support
violent demonstrators or are against law enforcement.
But if they don't condemn it strongly, they risk
alienating their base and looking weak on potential
abuses of power. Uh, the classic political wedge.
But the source we're analyzing pushes back against
that framing. Come strongly. They argue this
isn't really about navigating some clever political
tightrope. For them, it's fundamentally an issue
of gross abuse of power. They connect it back
to other issues. Yeah. They draw a direct comparison
to the lack of due process concerns they raised
in the Abrigo Garcia case we mentioned earlier.
And they issued this really stark warning saying
this situation is becoming dangerously close
to turning the National Guard into Trump's personal
brown shirts. That's extremely strong language
they use there. It really is. So given that perspective,
what does the source suggest Democrats should
do? Forget the tightrope. Pretty much. Their
advice, essentially, is that Democrats shouldn't
focus on the political calculations or worry
about the tightrope. Instead, they should focus
simply on what is right and what is wrong in
this situation, arguing the moral lines are clear.
And they bring in some polling data to back up
their view that focusing on the perceived wrongness
of the method might actually resonate with the
public. Exactly. They cite a specific CBS YouGov
poll, and it shows something interesting. A majority
of people, 54%, actually support the overall
goal of reducing the number of undocumented people
in the country. They support mass deportations
in principle, versus 46 % who oppose. OK, so
the end goal itself has majority support, according
to that poll. But, and this is the key insight
the source draws from it a huge majority, their
words, opposes the way the Trump administration
is going about it. The poll apparently shows
65 % oppose the administration's methods versus
only 35 % who support them. Wow, that's a massive
gap, a 30 -point difference. Right, so the source
argues this suggests that while people might
agree with the stated objective, they strongly
disapprove of the tactics being used, the heavy
-handed approach, the military deployment, the
things that raise concerns about rights and due
process. That 30 -point gap is what the source
thinks Democrats should be focusing on. OK, so
to bring this deep dive towards a close, the
source looks ahead. It discusses the potential
endgame. What they worry might come next based
on these events. Yeah, and they make a point
of saying, you know, they try not to overreact.
They're generally cautious in their analysis.
But these specific actions in California have
raised very serious concerns for them. What's
the specific worry they articulate? The core
concern is that what happened in Los Angeles
might not be a one -off incident. They worry
it could be just the opening chapter, as they
put it, in a larger move towards using military
and police force much more aggressively to impose
the administration's agenda domestically. And
the ultimate concern the source raises goes even
further doesn't it? It does. They express fear
about the potential use of what they term state
-sanctioned violence, specifically to change
the outcome of the 2026 and 2028 elections. That's
a profoundly serious accusation or worry about
the future. And they mention they aren't alone
in having these kinds of worries. Right. They
briefly reference that other concerned individuals
and perhaps other articles or pieces are mentioned
elsewhere within the broader source material,
suggesting this isn't just their isolated fear.
So how do they wrap up this section? With a note
of caution. Yes. They conclude by saying they
sincerely hope this is just an isolated incident.
But given everything they've laid out, the context,
the actions, the legal maneuvers, they state
very clearly that in their view, vigilance is
essential right now, just in case. So there you
have it. We've taken a pretty deep dive into
the source material you shared with us, really
trying to unpack it layer by layer based solely
on what was presented in that document. Yeah,
we've looked at the historical evolution of military
power in the U .S., that whole complex relationship
between federal and state authority that the
source detailed. Right. The legal statutes reportedly
involved or, as the source argues, potentially
misused, like Posse Comitatus, Title 10, Section
1246. Mm -hmm. And in political context, the
source's strong view that this was potentially
a staged event for political reasons. We covered
the specific events on the ground in LA, as the
source described them, that legal challenge that's
now playing out in court. And of course, those
very serious concerns about the potential implications
raised by the source, including their analysis
using that framework of potential signs of fascism,
which, again, is their interpretation presented
in the material. Absolutely. And hopefully, understanding
these different layers, the history, the laws,
the reported events, the legal arguments, and
the source's own analysis and warnings helps
you our listener cut through some of the noise.
Yeah, it gives you a more informed perspective,
hopefully, on what is undeniably a complex situation
involving federal power, states' rights, constitutional
interpretation, all seen, again, strictly through
the lens of the material you shared with us today.
It definitely gives you a lot to think about.
And maybe it leaves us with this final provocative
thought to mull over, something that really builds
on those core themes from the source material.
How does this fundamental historical tension
between federal authority and state sovereignty,
which we saw play out in the evolution of military
law, and which the source argues is vividly illustrated
by this current event in California? How does
that ongoing tension ultimately shape the future
landscape of American governance, and perhaps
even more importantly, the rights and liberties
of citizens going forward?