Share.

    29 Kommentare

    1. MothersMiIk on

      > “Donald Trump has created the conditions you see on your TV tonight. He’s exacerbated the conditions. He’s, you know, lit the proverbial match. He’s putting fuel on this fire, ever since he announced he was taking over the National Guard — an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act,” Newsom said on MSNBC.

      >“And we’re going to test that theory with a lawsuit tomorrow,” he added..

      > Later in the interview, Newsom was asked about border czar Tom Homan’s comments indicating he would not rule out arresting Newsom or Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass if they interfered in his efforts.

      >“Come after me, arrest me. Let’s just get it over with, tough guy, you know? I don’t give a damn. But I care about my community. I care about this community,” he continued.

      >“The hell are they doing? These guys need to grow up. They need to stop and we need to push back. And I’m sorry to be so clear, but that kind of bloviating is exhausting.” Newsom added. “So, Tom, arrest me. Let’s go.”

      They are purposely instigating LA to find any reason to declare martial law. There’s a reason they are going after CA first; they are the **4th world’s largest economy**, putting more than twice the funding into the country than they receive.

      Such an insane escalation in 24 hours, protests being met with national guard and now marines are on ‘high alert’??

    2. Getting these issues in front of the courts is the fastest way to get this country back on track

    3. Vegetable-Tie-5663 on

      Glad there is a plan good for newsom who has the big balls now Dumpy TACO

    4. -Random_Lurker- on

      What, was Charlie Kirk not around for handy?

      I mean, yeah, good for him, ra ra. Where was this Newsom two months ago?

    5. Hobbitsliketoparty on

      MAGA wants to arrest the person who they see as their biggest threat in the next presidential election. Dire times.

    6. All this one day after newsom threatened to hold back the money. Shows just how desperate they are for it.

    7. ImOutWanderingAround on

      Nation of immigrants treating the newest batch of immigrants like shit.

    8. Raspberries-Are-Evil on

      He should order the guard to stand down. He should have the state police remove them.

    9. TwoLuckyFish on

      I feel so naïve. I really thought the Second Amendment was completely obsolete; that we had outgrown it.

    10. Glad Gavin could pull himself out of the French Laundry long enough to make this important statement.

    11. OlorinRidesAgain on

      Funny how Republicans repeatedly ignored subpoenas in the 2020-24 period but now expect democrats to lay down for arrests.

    12. sedatedlife on

      The thing that would actually calm the country is for the police and military instead of protecting fascist actually stand with there communities.

    13. Oceanbreeze871 on

      Newsom getting arrested will make him a national hero.

      Trumps worst nightmare. He’ll truly be the tyrant .

    14. Emergency_Row on

      This country is such a shitshow. The United States is no longer united.

    15. Choice-of-SteinsGate on

      For reference, it’s extremely rare for a president to activate the National Guard without approval or request from the state’s governor. It’s even rarer in this case considering that Trump invoked Title 10—rather than the Insurrection Act. Title 10 can be implemented under vague conditions and is a controversial loophole at best, especially when used without a governor’s consent. This was intentional.

      Title 10 circumvents the Insurrection Act and is legally ambiguous. In other words, its potential for abuse is high.

      Additionally, when Title 10 is invoked, the deployed national guard are *prohibited* from acting as law enforcement (under the Posse Comitatus Act), unless another law like the Insurrection Act is also used. Meaning that the use of Title 10 here can be deemed unlawful.

      It also states that the president can call the National Guard into service if he considers it necessary to „repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion…“

      So Trump’s directive rationalizes his actions by claiming that these protestors are in rebellion against the United States, and that the national guard must be mobilized to suppress this rebellion.

      > “To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”

      From my understanding, the last time this happened was in 1965, and the juxtaposition speaks volumes.

      Some might argue that this happened under George H.W. Bush when he federalized California’s National Guard during the LA riots after the police officers who beat Rodney King were acquitted. However, the governor at the time—Pete Wilson—had already supported the move.

      Which means that the last time a president deployed the National Guard without the consent of the state’s governor was back in 1965 when LBJ federalized the Alabama National Guard to protect civil rights marchers during the Selma to Montgomery marches.

      So ya, think about that juxtaposition for a moment, think about the difference here… Think about not only how uncommon this is, but how the last time this sort of action was taken, it was to *protect* protestors, not to terrorize them and incite a panic so the current administration can create a spectacle that helps it justify any heavy handed, future use of the national guard or military to intimidate and assault Americans who are protesting against such actions to begin with.

      Think about Donald Trump’s choice to abuse his newfound unilateral authority—under vague conditions—to escalate violence against American „rebels“ who are protesting his administration’s ongoing authoritarian methods. And while there have been some instances of vandalism, a vast majority of protestors are exercising their rights lawfully.

      Think about what this means for America… When a president who openly flouts the law and violates the constitution, who doesn’t hesitate to target and attack his political opponents and naysayers, who freely trespasses on the rights of others—and especially those critical of him and his administration—think about what this means for our country and its citizens when a vindictive, narcissistic, and temperamental wanna-be king can grant himself the independent authority to mobilize troops against those objecting to his administration’s unconstitutional actions and his excessive reliance on executive orders and draconian measures to target his enemies.

      What does it mean for Trump’s critics and objectors when he can dictate—under his own terms—who is rebelling against his unchecked authority? When this situation creates a precedent for the Trump administration to deploy troops against any future protests that are identified as „rebellions?“

    16. Mind_Killer on

      Look, let’s just kick this off with a sternly worded letter. You know, just to really give it to him. 

    17. Remember, the same people who will argue the military response to this is justified are the same people who were trying to say trump didn’t have the authority to call in the national guard on January 6th.

    18. ONE-EYE-OPTIC on

      trump is trying to hide his public fight with elon and the fact that two staffers threw fists.

    19. Trick_Judgment2639 on

      It’s fucked that lawyers are going to be the heroes of this nazi occupation

    20. New_Still9974 on

      The sun sets in the West, so pull up fascists! L.A. ain’t going out easy. I’m just sorry I missed the chance to be in my home County while all this was going down. Fuck Trump, fuck his fascist regime, long live the Constitution!

    21. oldschoolology on

      The President of the USA arresting Governors and Mayors is an act of war against America. 

    Leave A Reply