How Can Pete Hegseth Invade California without a Babysitter?
Back when Whiskey Pete Hegseth had trusted advisors by his side, he launched an ill-considered escalation against the Houthis based on Stephen Miller’s vibes about Trump’s views. He shared probably-classified details, in advance, about the attack on Signal. According to WSJ, he “drew resources from efforts in Asia to deter China and pushed back maintenance schedules for carriers.” And, after several months and two F/A-18s later, he packed up, having achieved nothing, and went home.
Since then, he fired those trusted advisors. According to the Guardian, the process that led to their firing appears to have been driven by rumor spread by a guy taking them out.
The White House has lost confidence in a Pentagon leak investigation that Pete Hegseth used to justify firing three top aides last month, after advisers were told that the aides had supposedly been outed by an illegal warrantless National Security Agency (NSA) wiretap.
The extraordinary explanation alarmed the advisers, who also raised it with people close to JD Vance, because such a wiretap would almost certainly be unconstitutional and an even bigger scandal than a number of leaks.
But the advisers found the claim to be untrue and complained that they were being fed dubious information by Hegseth’s personal lawyer, Tim Parlatore, who had been tasked with overseeing the investigation.
[snip]
In particular, one Trump adviser recently told Hegseth that he did not think Caldwell – or any of the fired aides – had leaked anything, and that he suspected the investigation had been used to get rid of aides involved in the infighting with his first chief of staff, Joe Kasper.
[snip]
Still, the Trump advisers who reeled from the claim also eventually told Hegseth they were concerned by the optics of Parlatore, who had been close to the former chief of staff Kasper, running an investigation that targeted Kasper’s perceived enemies in the office.
Curiously, Guardian’s Hugo Lowell neglects to mention that Tim Parlatore was a Trump defense attorney — indeed, he vouched that Trump wasn’t hoarding any more classified documents — until he blabbed his mouth one day.
So that was then: Hegseth took action. Bungled that action. Fired the competent people around him.
This is now: Donald Trump just gave Whiskey Pete open-ended authority to attack US cities, in the name of protecting ICE deployments.
I hereby call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. 12406 to temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations. Further, I direct and delegate actions as necessary for the Secretary of Defense to coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau in identifying and ordering into Federal service the appropriate members and units of the National Guard under this authority. The members and units of the National Guard called into Federal service shall be at least 2,000 National Guard personnel and the duration of duty shall be for 60 days or at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. In addition, the Secretary of Defense may employ any other members of the regular Armed Forces as necessary to augment and support the protection of Federal functions and property in any number determined appropriate in his discretion.
After usurping control of the California National Guard, Hegseth is also prepping a Marine deployment, just in case.
Oh, and he’s also engaged in a whole bunch of dick-wagging on Xitter, on his personal account (he hasn’t posted on his official account since Friday, making me wonder whether he lost the password or the password holder to that account).
Again, he’s doing all that without the kind of trusted advisors he had when he bolloxed the Yemen attack.
In fact, NBC describes that as he is directing an attack on a US city, the White House is attempting, but failing, to find him some babysitters.
The White House is looking for a new chief of staff and several senior advisers to support Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth after a series of missteps that have shaken confidence in his leadership, but it has so far found no suitable takers, according to four current and former administration officials and a Republican congressional aide.
Top Defense Department jobs, including the defense secretary’s chief of staff, are normally considered prestigious and typically attract multiple qualified candidates. But at least three people have already turned down potential roles under Hegseth, according to a former U.S. official, the defense official and a person familiar with the matter.
[snip]
Vance and Wiles have been searching for candidates who could support Hegseth ever since, according to three current U.S. officials and a former U.S. official. So far, though, the administration has not had much luck identifying people who are either willing to work for Hegseth or who fit the bill politically. And the White House has rejected some people Hegseth wants to hire, while Hegseth has rejected some of the White House’s candidates.
He is failing to do the day job — like completing a budget (though Kash Patel also failed to get his budget done on time) — of the Secretary of Defense and is primarily supported by an aide the White House doesn’t trust.
Hegseth now leans heavily on a former military aide, Ricky Buria, who retired from the military in April hoping he could serve as Hegseth’s chief of staff, a civilian position. But White House and Pentagon officials view Buria as a political novice who had reportedly been critical of Trump and Vance in private. (A Defense Department spokesman did not respond to a request for comment from Buria.)
As a result, White House officials rejected Hegseth’s plan to hire Buria as his chief of staff, one of the defense officials and an administration official said. Despite that, Buria was seen with Hegseth during his recent trip to Asia in a workout video posted on social media.
[snip]
The infighting helped delay plans for “Golden Dome,” Trump’s signature missile defense program to defend the U.S. homeland, officials said. It has also contributed to the lack of a Pentagon budget, which raised frustrations among Republicans on Capitol Hill, many of whom supported Hegseth in his tight confirmation battle.
We’re getting closer and closer to the moment when the White House will have to admit what we all told it, back in January: Whiskey Pete is manifestly unfit for his job. He has neither the temperament nor the experience to do this job.
And at the moment, he doesn’t even have the aides — the White House, after several months of trying, can’t find him those aides — that, he said during his confirmation hearing, would help compensate for his lack of relevant experience.
And that’s the guy that Trump just put in charge of usurping California’s National Guard and — possibly — leading a Marine invasion of Los Angeles?
Update: Oh it gets worse!!
The guy behind the claim that NSA intercepts showed Hegseth’s reliable aides were the leakers was someone Elon implanted via DOGE at DOD. And no one cared that Forbes caught him doctoring his resume.
The adviser, Justin Fulcher, suggested to Hegseth’s then chief of staff Joe Kasper and Hegseth’s personal lawyer, Tim Parlatore, that he knew of warrantless surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA) that had identified the leakers.
Fulcher offered to share the supposed evidence as long as he could help run the investigation, three of the people said. But when he sat down with agents over a week later, it became clear he had no evidence of a wiretap, and the Pentagon had been duped.
The problem was that before investigators debunked the claims by Fulcher, who was previously found to have embellished his resume, the damage was done: Trump advisers had been told by Parlatore about “smoking gun” evidence incriminating three aides, and Hegseth had already fired them.
Excellent read— thank you. What I most fear this AM is that CA is another chaotic distraction. Trump’s parade may be a charade orchestrated to accumulate military artillery in DC to wield power for the really dark, big move Miller and Vought are working toward. Tell me I am paranoid, please?
You’re being paranoid.
As I’ve seen it aptly put on bluesky; “The Victory Day Parade is a sham – Russia is going to invade Moscow!”
Or, to put it another way: What can military power in DC accomplish for Trump? A parade showing off authoritarian strongman vibes is possible, and that’s the thing he is openly admitting to. But taking power… he already is in charge in DC! Is he going to bomb Congress? Not only will the military not follow that order, it would lose him power, not gain it.
Rubio and Trump are headed for Camp David.
I am paranoid
I agree that his birthday parade isn’t to invade the Capitol.
On the other hand, he did attack Congress once already. It’s not too far fetched that he may think “his” military is already staged in place if he turns his brownshirts or ICEstapo loose on to the protesters.
There’s always SCOTUS and the other courts.
I would hope the LA protestors are aware that they’re merely an excuse for government thuggery, and would work extra hard to make it extra clear who the troglodytic maniacs are (like how Ukraine does with Putin – every target of the AFU is clearly tied to Putin’s invasion).
For someone who likes to claim how he led troops out of the wire Whiskey Pete certainly doesn’t have the complete perspective I have seen from those I served with that were in actual combat. I have to wonder if his excursions only were in safe areas of the Green Zone, because braggadocio gets one killed in those situations. Green Zone excursions are still dangerous, but the more he talks the more he sounds like a REMF. I won’t translate, because this is a class joint.
As for the order, understand it will apply nationwide, not just LA (whose PD didn’t ask for help) so where is Whiskey Pete going to get those troops? There aren’t enough by my reckoning without stripping them off other assignments.
It’s a big city and while a majority of the protesters are probably already aware of their vulnerability to playing into the hands of fed gov provocation efforts, this is a city where more damage is done to property and normal traffic obstructed after the Dodgers win the world series and the Lakers win the NBA championship: cars vandalized and set afire, local businesses vandalized, streets blocked by “celebrants” etc.
In this case, the 101 freeway was shut down by peaceful protesters for several hours, and in keeping with current tech trends, a few driverless Waymo taxis were set afire. The windows on these vehicles are acutely tinted, so it’s impossible to see if there are paying passengers sitting in the back seat. I have to assume that the Waymos that were incinerated were empty before being set upon, and I’m sure Alphabet has insurance to cover their losses. Meanwhile, foreign journalists (one from Britain [unknown source of projectile] and one from Australia [LAPD]) are getting hit by rubber bullets while covering the events.
(BTW, Google AI translates REMF politely as “non-combatant”…)
If you’re going to attack a Waymo, the first thing you do is black out the cameras. (The cops can get recordings from Waymo to use against you.)
I’ve read that Teslas are equipped with 8 cameras.
Nick Stern, 60, the British born photographer, became a US citizen in 2019.
He is vastly experienced documenting trouble spots. Unfortunately he has previously been shot by police ‘non lethal projectiles’ — also in L.A. in 2020 while covering BLM protests.
See also https://cpj.org/2025/06/law-enforcement-injure-at-least-4-journalists-covering-protests-in-california-amid-federal-crackdown/amp/
And
https://bsky.app/profile/adamrose.bsky.social/post/3lr3qvbc4222u Of L.A. Press Club thread documenting the at least 4 journalists hit with different projectiles
I don’t think you can order a Waymo that already has customers in it going somewhere. That would seem…bad.
I get tons of empty Waymos driving around and parking on my quiet residential street. They need to have a relatively safe place to park while waiting for customers to order them up. I’ve yet to see a single Waymo disgorging customers but I’m sure it happens! Some people like to drive behind them because they are driving more safely than a lot of crazy drivers who drive too fast and tailgate other cars.
I’m a dyed-in-the-wool REMF myself, and you nailed Whisky Pete. He’s one of those officers that wrote commendations for his friends, and they returned the favor, resulting in medals and promotions. This is the way that mediocre, and worse, officers move upwards in the ranks, by tooting each others horns and back slapping their equally incompetent buddies. I’ve read enough of those ‘commendations’ to know which are complete fictions, designed to promote members of a specific club. Unfortunately, there are often enough members in those clubs to get the paperwork past the higher echelons.
QBF: REMFs are a special lower class of support staff (I read somewhere for every soldier in the field there are six making it possible) like frat boys are a special lower class of fraternity brother. You don’t sound to me like a REMF.
When I was in the Navy in the ’60s, petty officers wore service stripes on their left fore sleeve, one for each 4-year stint. Some were gold, others red, gold signifying no bad conduct charges. it became obvious over time that the real difference was whether you had been caught or not.
20 years in uniform (in another service) and I never heard the term “PCS* award” until I worked as a contractor in HQDA.
* Permanent change of station
Rugger, I always appreciate the expansion of vocabulary I get here. Thanks for your contribution.
It’s almost as if…hiring a fourth-tier Fox Friend for an extremely important position wasn’t the best idea. Who knew?
It’s also important to remember that many of these conflicts are intended to distract attention away from some other bad news, especially if it makes Convict-1 / Krasnov / TACO look manly (at least Vlad rode horses bare chested, just sayin’). The Epstein files, the upcoming crash due to the tariff lurching, whatever Elno has planned to win his private war, etc. are all coming and soon.
The hit on the bonds is a predicted tariff effect already coming true, and the ongoing lack of ship traffic tells me the raw materials / components aren’t coming in fast enough to keep the factories running. With just-in-time scheduling and overseas supply chains (cost cutting) it’s not a trivial thing, and almost all of the inventory that companies stashed as a hedge against uncertainly is now gone.
More desperation and distraction is coming out of this WH. Unfortunately, we citizens will have to suffer the consequences. That’s why Whiskey Pete is still there, solely as a distraction to take the heat while Convict-1 / Krasnov / TACO prepares the ‘coffee boy’ memo when it’s time to pull the plug.
I agree that distraction is an element. The argument is also it’s own distraction.
Trump and Miller want ALL these things. Pursuing them at the same time is a way to get them. It’s flooding the zone, intended to overwhelm, to cause people to lose focus, to push them to exhaustion and to give up their opposition. If a few objectives fall by the wayside, they can be picked up later. Dominance is the ultimate goal.
According to Sal, shipping prices are skyrocketing as businesses are looking to get stuff here before the next who knows what.
And probably holiday merchandise.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HAibYybOwmI&pp=ygUVdGhpcyB3ZWVrIGluIHNoaXBwaW5n
Now I have to somehow erase the mental picture of Trump riding bare-chested. Putin was bad enough.
Q: How can he invade?
A: Liquid courage.
One of the perhaps unanticipated consequences of this insanity is that it may lend Newsom more support from people who range from negative to unenthusiastic to lukewarm on many of his other positions.
I’m installing Signal, so I can keep you all updated on the war plans on America.
Slightly O/T, but if you read 10 USC 12406 (which was the only statute Trump cited), it allows deployment from any state or states, but “Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States …” which clearly has not happened.
IANAL and not sure if the word “shall” means Newsom was obliged by statute to issue the orders but failed to do so, but in any case didn’t the CA NG leadership obey an illegal order?
The governors activate the national guard within their state. Yes, it’s an illegal order both federal and state. Trump could use other state(s) NG units after they were properly activated to do the same but that gets messy real fast. We saw rumblings of the same thing back in 2020.
Shall = must in legal frameworks and IIRC EW already pointed out the opening for litigation on those grounds elsewhere on this site. So far the Insurrection Act hasn’t surfaced IIRC this time.
While the officer has the opportunity to refuse an illegal order, it takes some big brass ones to do so because your bars are on the line. Career types are generally risk averse, and given how much Whiskey Pete has been ‘remodeling’ the military into his frat boy image I’d consider it to be less likely.
Service members have a legal and moral obligation to refuse to carry out an illegal order. Yes, it takes brass balls to do that, because your career and possibly your liberty are on the line, even if you’re right.
I’m mot convinced that Hegsesth-Miller-Trump have succeeded in refashioning the military into their pet poodles. Hegsesth’s Toy Soldier mentality will be making a hard sell harder. People know the difference between preening and walking the talk.
I was witness, more than once, to my comrades in arms, obeying illegal orders that put their lives, knowingly at risk for no necessary purpose. Mindless obedience. I was never that easy. I was given an honorable discharge from duty long before I had completed my obligations. I do not trust the military to follow their constitutional oath.
It appears that Hegseth (National Command Authority) directly ordered Gen. Guillot, commander of U.S. Northern Command, to activate and take command of those California National Guard forces.
It is unlikely that the general did not already know that Hegseth’s order was not in compliance with 10 USC 12406, but even if he didn’t know, there would be one or more command JAG officers in his office advising him. But he “was just following orders.” This is why IGs exist.
At HQDA, the cubicle next to mine, for about seven years, was occupied by a rotation of Army JAG officers. Any official action was reviewed by a JAG officer. I learned a lot from them, and when Hegseth started shuffling JAG personnel around, it was easy to spot him as one of those who had a deep resentment for anyone that might dare to stop him from committing war crimes.
Just to add for those who don’t have experience with it, in federal contracts and statues:
– shall = “do it or be in violation of law/breach of contract”
– will = “strongly encouraged, but lacking will not violate law/contract”
– may = “we’d really look favorably on you for doing this, but it’s more of a stretch or bonus objective”
Anyone reading federal contracts or statues without experience of those words’ use in that fashion can be really confusing, particularly since ‘shall’ isn’t really used in any “regular” forum that I can think of.
Nice summary. If any of those DOGE goons are Brits, there’s the added problem of translation of British into American English, because in British English, “shall” is the future tense, whereas “will” is mandatory.
In British legal English
May = discretionary; but depending on the context the discretion could be broad, or guided, and even if broad should not be exercised perversely ie in a manner which is so unreasonable that no reasonable decision maker would decide the issue in that way, by eg failing to take into account a relevant consideration or by taking into account account an irrelevant consideration
Shall = mandatory; the difficulty some people not versed in legal usage have in realising the mandatory meaning is because shall is used in polite vernacular British English idiomatically for offering suggestions eg “Shall we have tea now?”
Will = also mandatory, but usually when there are conditions precedent and/or a leeway in performance eg upon receipt of the architects drawings and schedules of works the applicant will use their best endeavours to submit the planning application promptly but in any event within 3 months of the date of receipt of the plans.
Must = a stringent requirement to be performed to the letter, with no leeway for quibbling ambiguity – the onus is on the performing party to resolve ambiguity in advance.
OK, I just read Steve Vladeck’s *footnote* from Saturday “my own view is that this is better understood as a purely administrative provision than it is as giving a substantive veto to the governor. (Imagine a governor who was thwarting the enforcement of federal civil rights laws, and how Congress would not have wanted to empower the governor to resist such federalization.”
That’s the first time I’ve seen an expert address my question, so I’ll take it on board – although Congress didn’t specifically disempower the governor either. The Lawfare write-up doesn’t address it.
New addition to reporting by Hugo Lowell
“Hegseth aide upended Pentagon leak inquiry with false wiretap claims
Exclusive: ex-Doge staffer Justin Fulcher suggested he had evidence of wiretap that would help investigation”
“The adviser, Justin Fulcher, suggested to Hegseth’s then chief of staff Joe Kasper and Hegseth’s personal lawyer, Tim Parlatore, that he knew of warrantless surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA) that had identified the leakers.
Fulcher offered to share the supposed evidence as long as he could help run the investigation, three of the people said. But when he sat down with agents over a week later, it became clear he had no evidence of a wiretap, and the Pentagon had been duped.”
18:01 pm BST 9 June 2025
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/09/hegseth-wiretap-inquiry-justin-fulcher
Justin Fulcher, 32, is obtuse, ignorant, or lying. He should know that as a fact witness, he could never run any part of the relevant investigation.
He’s a coding salesman, who ran one company into the ground, after making millions from it, persuading govts and healthcare providers in several SE Asian countries to buy his Internet services during COVID.
Unsurprisingly, he’s a serial liar, not least about his academic credentials. (Forbes says he “overstates” them.) He has an MA from Middlebury, but claims he also has a doctorate from Johns Hopkins SAIS. SAIS says it has no record he was ever a student there. Typical Musk DOGE goon.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidjeans/2025/03/04/pentagon-doge-official-justin-fulcher/
https://projects.propublica.org/elon-musk-doge-tracker/
The Forbes article, extensively proving the resume was materially inaccurate, was never acted on either by DOGEistas or Hegseth who took him on in April as an adviser after DOGE got rid of him for “being too collegial” with the Pentagon.
This is beyond stupid.
Submitting a materially false claim on a govt job application is a felony. Lying about having a doctorate from Johns Hopkins SAIS is laughably incompetent, because it’s so easily proven a lie. The arrogance is staggering, even if it’s a job requirement to work for Trump.
A lie like that is also enough to deny anyone even the lowest level security clearance, which would be insufficient to work in the office of the SecDef.
From Lowell’s Guardian article:
Fulcher’s false claims look suspiciously like obstruction of justice.
O/T Brad Bondi lost his bid for D.C. Bar President.
Good deal.
Despite his assertion of having done over 100,000 hours of Pro Bono work.
Surely he will demand a recount.
Cheerful words and a stormy blast. Thanks.
That’s 50 years. It’s so obviously a lie that everyone who was present when he said that should have been rolling on the floor laughing.
When in private practice, I had a boss (a partner, to boot) who was notorious for having billed 27 hours in a 24-hour period. Many things are possible if you’re “flexible.”
Back long, long ago, when I was still required to fill out timesheets (one of the banes of my existence), I recall that you could potentially bill the same time to multiple clients if you would have had to be there/do that for each of them independent of the others. A good example is sitting in a hearing waiting for your case to come up. If you’re there for multiple cases and you have to be there the whole time until your case is called, then the fact that you have more than one case doesn’t affect how long you have to wait for each of them. Presumably the clock for a particular case stops when the hearing for that one ends.
If he put in 80-hour weeks, that would still take over 20 years devoted to nothing but Pro Bono work.
That is some incredible dedication.
Excellent!!!
In an absolute ROUT [see screenshot from Carrie Johnson here]:
https://bsky.app/profile/carriejohnson.bsky.social/post/3lr6rd72snc24
June 9, 2025 at 12:10 PM
He got 1 vote shy of 10% of the total.
Correction: he got just barely over 9% of the total vote. I was miscalculating his share vs the remaining votes, rather than the total.
What’s so amazing is the number of attorneys who turned out to vote in his embarrasing defeat. It was reported that the turn out to vote was in the 10’s of thousands when previous elections saw only 3 or 4 thousand participate in previous years.
https://www.newsweek.com/pam-bondi-brother-defeat-dc-bar-election-2083239
“NBC describes that as he is directing an attack on a US city, the White House is attempting, but failing, to find him some babysitters.”
What are the odds that when the babysitters are found that they will be super pro war with Iran?
I guess you go to Civil War with the incompetent lickspittles you have, rather than the semi-competent lickspittles you wish you had.
The Felon Guy wants Newsom arrested for doing something. Probably for telling him he can’t do any of that legally.
Here’s a link to a post on Bluesky which shows a map of LA and the downtown area where the protests have occurred circled in red. It’s a tiny space, giving the lie to the “LA is a burning insurrection!” nonsense.
https://bsky.app/profile/joemag.games/post/3lr5big67fc2l
Also, on X, Newsom posted a pic of the Guard bivouacked on the floor of a federal building. I read yesterday that the Guard has been detailed for 29 days to avoid the pay and benefits that accrue with a 30 day deployment. That’s not going to go over well.
Reposted by Olga Nesterova on Bluesky:
https://bsky.app/profile/onestpress.onestnetwork.com/post/3lr75q7ux2s2l
David Dayen (American Prospect, 6/9/25) — “The protesters are being called unspeakably violent by the Trump administration. I mostly saw clergy sit-ins and Tejano bands.” Taking place in a five-block area.
Chinga la migra!
Miller, and The Felon Guy, are desperate to have violence they can squash for his birthday celebration on Saturday. The problem is that very few people who live in L.A. and the surrounding cities want either violence OR the military triumph that The Felon Guy is desperate for.
Hmmm…looks like the temptation to do this couldn’t be resisted: 700 Marines now ordered deployed to Los Angeles in a “support” capacity, no invocation of the Insurrection act required (yet). Looks like these are “desert warfare” Marines from 29 Palms. Well…L.A. is coastal desert terrain:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/la-immigration-protests-live-updates-trump-deploys-2000/?id=122621279
CNN reporting, too:
https://bsky.app/profile/acyn.bsky.social/post/3lr76cgcuap26
June 9, 2025 at 4:02 PM
Now BBC is retracting their original report, saying
We’ve just had clarification from our US partner CBS on what role the US Marines may take on in the Los Angeles protests. More than 700 Marines have been put on high alert and could be mobilised in the coming days to support the National Guard, CBS reports. We have contacted the Pentagon for comment. Earlier, we reported that the Marines had been deployed in a support role.”
Seems like nobody really has the straight story: 500? 700? Deployed? On “high alert”?
Clear violation of Posse Comitatus Act then
500? Who’s going to notice? even 2K Guard aren’t noticeable, in 4 million people.
Unnamed officials say 700, and the rest of the 2K Guard will be be deployed this evening.
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/protests-intensify-in-los-angeles-after-trump-20367609.php
It would be quiet if ICE weren’t arresting people for existing.
9-10 million in LA County!
LA County has 10 million people.
They’ve ordered in another 2000 Guard. Apparently most of what they’re supposed to do is guard federal facilities and ICE thugs. They only have “non-lethal” rounds. (Which reminds me of the billboard from a taser company that wanted public support because they weren’t allowed to advertise their “less-lethal” stuff on local electronic media. I have zero sympathy.)
These are Guard infantry units. What are they doing with non-lethal weapons? When and where did they get their training? Plus, infantry operates under rules of engagement, not federal use of force. This is odd because there are a lot of National Guard MP units in northern California who do know the difference.
And speaking of thugs, who is actually on the ground for the administration developing and ordering the missions for these Guard forces? Homan?
I knew a guy who was deployed in LA after the King riots. He said it was very weird being on duty in your own city, with no ammunition. They really don’t get lethal stuff without actual need. I think the Marines are also pretty well trained. They’re not the ones I worry about. The LAPD, and the sheriff’s deputies – they’re the ones with the “warrior” training and the gang tendencies.
I talked to my friend in LA last night. She thinks it’s time for CA to secede. I said well, when you come right down to it, laws don’t seem to matter anymore so they might as well, and tariff the s*** out of the United States of Trump/
O/T–does IT work offshored to the Philippines or India or somewhere get tariffed? If not, why not?
Once again, secession talk is Russian propaganda intended to fragment United States’ collective power, as I pointed out to another commenter.
Stop repeating this crap. We do not forfeit our country to a fascist minority — and yes, they are a minority. We need to act like they are.
And as I pointed out when I made the comment you refer to, secession talk is a “fringe movement” and a “fantasy.” And if every single comment I make here didn’t go to auto-moderation, I might have seen your response.
[Moderator’s note: You are not on an auto-moderation list; I have checked it multiple times over the last year. You are likely still “training” the system to recognize your identity after you switched back and forth between usernames using a different punctuation mark. Thank you for understanding I have a life outside waiting to manually clear each of your comments. /~Rayne]
When do the public executions start?
[Moderator’s note: Let’s avoid the appearance of calling for violence. /~Rayne]
6/14/25; taco time.
So they’re going ahead with their plan without any real opposition. Interesting!
I’m wondering what plans they’ve made for deploying a marine battalion. That requires logistics (a LOT of logistics). Food and water, bivouac, personal hygiene, fuel for vehicles, etc., lots of etc. I’ll bet money that nobody has done the planning required for this, because it was something not foreseen in the United States. I predict a shitshow.
Odds are the Marines did that before the battalion left 29 Palms. It’s unlikely they would have left that to Hegseth. They would not assume they’d just find it in L.A. It would not be typical Marine behavior.
I’m trying to visualize what the 200+ vehicle convoy transporting an entire Marine combat battalion would look like driving across the LA metropolitan area from San Bernardino to downtown. Maybe they will go in helicopters?
They’re driving. The LA Times had a video on their website this morning of a convoy of military vehicles (mixed in with other regular traffic) headed west on Highway 10…
There’s no place to land choppers closer than El Monte Airport (light planes only) or Burbank and Van Nuys.
Today in the Seattle metro area, heading west on I-90, there was a convoy of military equipment – open truck-like contraptions with three axels rolling along on gigantic tires. I saw six of this vehicles trotting along. These vehicles don’t seem to be able to move above 50 mph.
Matt_B, I was speculating yesterday afternoon about how the Twentynine Palms Marines were going to get to downtown LA, and came up with a map. I figured the MAGA route would be making a beeline for I-5 so they could rumble into town out of the mountains — and the sensible route would be through the lowlands directly through east LA suburbia (equally impressive).
https://x.com/KaJo503/status/1932200512470106586
Re: KarenJ503 @ 2:21
The LA Times this morning reports convoys of the 700 Marines were sent to:
1) Orange County Naval Weapons Station in Seal Beach
2) Joint Forces Training Base in Los Alamitos
3).”A number of unspecified National Guard armories”
@Matt___B
There’s a fairly large set of Guard buildings in Sepulveda Basin (which is run by the Army Corps of Engineers). It’s next to the 405 and close to the 101. I don’t know about other armories in the area.
Re: P J Evans 6/11/25 @ 12:45
Here’s a comprehensive list of National Guard armories in L.A. County:
https://www.laalmanac.com/military/mi06.php
I had a stupid fantasy that maybe the federales would be quartered in an LA hotel, and the food and service so good they would be unwilling to raise a hand against such nice people.
Turns out, some of them are so quartered, and they right away began hassling the staff about their immigration status.
“Gentlemen, the officer who doesn’t know his communications and supply as well as his tactics is totally useless.”
– Gen. George S. Patton, USA
Do we imagine that any of Trump’s boot-lickers ever gave a moment’s thought to the tooth-to-tail ratio? I suspect that there was a rush to get boots-on-the-Home-Depot-parking-lot ASAP. Did they ever consider just hiring extras and dressing them up as soldiers (they’re in the perfect place to do that)?
I believe that the regime is recruiting from the different agencies (FBI, DHS, ICE, BOP etc.) for those agents willing to do this ‘work’. Thus the mixture of labels on the tactical vests.
Some were told to do it.
For Emergency Law Enforcement Assistance:
28 CFR 65.70 (c) Federal law enforcement community. The term Federal law enforcement community is defined by the Act [Justice Assistance Act of 1984] as the heads of the following departments or agencies:
(1) Federal Bureau of Investigation;
(2) Drug Enforcement Administration;
(3) Criminal Division of the Department of Justice;
(4) Internal Revenue Service;
(5) Customs Service;
(6) Department of Homeland Security;
(7) U.S. Marshals Service;
(8) National Park Service;
(9) U.S. Postal Service;
(10) Secret Service;
(11) U.S. Coast Guard;
(12) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives;
(13) National Security Division of the Department of Justice; and
(14) Other Federal agencies with specific statutory authority to investigate violations of Federal criminal law.
Though the administration is not executing Emergency Law Enforcement Assistance, to Hegseth, Bondi, Miller, and Homan this probably looks like a shopping list. BOP was used during Trump 1.0. But one of the problems with bringing in LEOs from across the agencies is that some of those folks would be asking WTFO about how things are being run.
Very interesting post – I continue to be so impressed with the number of inputs Marcy uses in crafting her posts here. Anyway, Whiskey Pete is just one more incompetent cog in the Trump Wheel of Incompetence. Over at HHS, we have Brainworm Bobby decimating the national vaccine advisory council members, who were obviously confusing him with pesky facts. Its all because we have an incompetent geriatric pervert in the White House, who only “works” three days a week and golfs four. His Cabinet picks were solely made on the basis of physical appearances or how much the nominee would “tweak the liberals” (e.g. Linda McMahon). As a result, this is the most ridiculously incompetent and corrupt Administration in American history by several orders of magnitude! God help us all.
From Politico:
“06/10/2025 12:08 PM EDT
President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy troops to Los Angeles amid mass deportation protests will likely cost $134 million, the Pentagon’s budget chief told lawmakers.
“Acting Pentagon comptroller Bryn MacDonnell, testifying at a House budget hearing on Tuesday alongside Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, said the estimate covers costs such as travel, housing and food.”
Housing?! They’re sleeping on concrete floors:
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/other/forced-to-sleep-on-the-floor-newsom-slams-trump-with-photos-of-troops-in-la/ar-AA1GokmU
OTOH, ICE agents staying at hotels in Pasadena have been aggressively questioning “suspicious” hotel staffs serving them.
Marcy Reposted this comment [from the House Hearing today] a little while ago:
https://bsky.app/profile/thebulwark.com/post/3lrba2nggh22t
June 10, 2025 at 11:39 AM
Here’s a transcript [as well as I could with the crosstalk]:
These authorities were covered in the second linked commentary, above:
The National Guard in Los Angeles The president hasn’t invoked
the Insurrection Act. He’s instead relying on a theory of inherent constitutional power that is far more limited. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-national-guard-in-los-angeles Chris Mirasola June 8, 2025
It’s the “theory” of the inherent [Constitutional] presidential authority
known as the “protective power”.
TRUMP also relies on “an emergency statutory authority, 10 U.S.C. 12406
That emergency statutory authority, 10 U.S.C. 12406 is
The TRUMP memo characterizes the protests as violent and
threatening to personnel and property, and
Then comes the discussion re: what Aguillar was questioning HEGSETH about:
Note what he writes just after this:
Continuing…
That April 29, 1971 OLC memo is called:
Authority to Use Troops to Prevent Interference With Federal Employees by Mayday Demonstrations and Consequent Impairment of Government Functions
It was signed by NIXON’s Assistant Attorney General for OLC William REHNQUIST.
Here’s the Wikipedia page for the
1971 May Day protests against the Vietnam War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_May_Day_protests_against_the_Vietnam_War
Not surprisingly, I guess, Rehnquist’s Memo isn’t mentioned.
And THIS is where it gets even more interesting:
LINKS to this:
https://x.com/KerriKupecDOJ/status/1270487263324049410
barr
That link is to Barr’s 6/9/20 letter to D.C. Mayor BOWSER.
KUPEC:
Mirasola describes BARR’s bullet points of things TRUMP’s troops
could do in DC of JUNE 2020 as “historical limitations” and suggests that
“We see a gesture towards these limitations in” the third paragraph
of the new TRUMP Memo.
Days to come=today.
The last bit of the REHNQUIST OLC Memo
[*****] 6/7/25
10:06 PM HEGSETH posts
Link for that:
https://x.com/PeteHegseth/status/1931533276985823392
10:06 PM · Jun 7, 2025 [Personal account]
And at 10:18 PM MILLER posts: We will take back America.
https[:]//bsky.app/profile/mrsbettybowers.bsky[.]social/post/3lr4j3lqcyk27
[broken link]
And here are two links to see what TRUMP was up to:
https://bsky.app/profile/yasharali.bsky.social/post/3lr2uau3ma22f
June 7, 2025 at 10:52 PM
https://bsky.app/profile/ronfilipkowski.bsky.social/post/3lr3ts4wvrc2f
June 8, 2025 at 8:16 AM
More from the article:
Sorry for going on and on and on…I’m done now.
Hegseth is lying about whats’ happening. LA is not rioting, it’s not full of violence, and we don’t need ICE.
There’s so much manipulation of perspective going on right now. Most Americans outside of California have no real idea what’s going on because of the gross skew thanks to shitty media coverage.
Ex. the affected area —
What the country should know is that Trump and his minions Miller and Hegseth are going to trash the constitution altogether because Americans are exercising their First Amendment rights in that tiny red circle.
Thanks, PJ and Rayne…[that map is so enlightening.]
Have you all seen this:
https://bsky.app/profile/cwarzel.bsky.social/post/3lrdqi2cs7k2q
June 11, 2025 at 11:38 AM
I don’t know if Warzel has since written more about it.
This wiki is up-to-date and thorough. It is very helpful. All the tabs are useful, but I especially appreciate the one on History and the one on Relevant Laws. Also, the tab on Duties and Administrative Organization has a chart that shows the distinctions between the rights and responsibilities of Governors v the President.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)
The following article is more conversational in tone. I included an excerpt that is particularly relevant to current events. But even if that were not the case, we should never underestimate the unpredictability of individual reactions and behavior. These are very volatile times.
“How the National Guard became the go-to military force for riots and civil disturbances” – Shannon M. Smith, 2/17/21
“Recent investigations into white supremacist infiltration of the military and police prompted closer scrutiny of National Guard troops. Two members were removed from duty protecting the presidential inauguration because of links with extremist organizations.”
https://theconversation.com/how-the-national-guard-became-the-go-to-military-force-for-riots-and-civil-disturbances-153971
Thank you, SL, for bringing in these important facets of our situation.
It all feels overwhelming.
“GoGo Penguin – You’re Stronger Than You Think”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZGcMfw-LtY
Yesterday, testifying before a House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense in his nonanswer to the question of cost and if he had budget for sending marines to L.A., Hegseth said “21 million illegals have crossed our border under the previous administration.”
(Vance has made same claim.)
Why is he not called out on that false (inflated by 14 million) number?
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/breaking-down-the-immigration-figures/
Thanks for the citation to the immigration figures. I wish the responsible media post statistics like this as a pop up to articles they write about immigration.
There are wild exaggerations out there. And confusion.
One resource I haven’t heard about in this discussion is California’s Law Enforcement Mutual Aid System, operated under the California Office of Emergency Services (OES). From the OES web site:
“The Mutual Aid System is based on four organizational levels: cities, counties, regions, and the State. The state is divided into seven Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Regions. The County Sheriff serves as the “Operational Area Mutual Aid Coordinator”. [See note below] In each of the seven regions, one Sheriff, elected by his or her peers, serves as the Regional Mutual Aid Coordinator (RMAC). Cal OES Law Enforcement Branch has Assistant Chiefs assigned to each of the seven regions for direct coordination with law enforcement chiefs and sheriffs within each region.
“The basic concept provides that within the operational area, adjacent or neighboring law enforcement agencies will assist each other. Should the event require assistance from outside the county, the region will provide requested assistance to the impacted county. If the combined resources of the region are insufficient to cope with the incident, the Regional Coordinator contacts the Cal OES Law Enforcement Branch for coordination of resources.”
[Note: During declared emergencies counties become Operational Areas, consisting of a county and all political subdivisions within the county area. A state declaration is not required to request and provide mutual aid.]
https://www.caloes.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/Law-Enforcement/Documents/LEMA-Quick-Reference-Guide.pdf
My point is that there is system in place to deal with unusual events within the law enforcement community, and then there is still the ability of the Governor to use National Guard resources. This isn’t some hidden super-power. It’s day-to-day stuff in California.
If you’ve lived in LA for a few years and have even a somewhat level head you will know these DTLA protests are fairly mild.
I
Further thoughts on 10 USC 12406
Grateful to the commentator up thread who responded to Comments by David Brook
https://www.emptywheel.net/2025/06/09/how-can-pete-hegseth-invade-california-without-a-babysitter/#comment-1099634
June 9, 2025 at 1:30 pm
https://www.emptywheel.net/2025/06/09/how-can-pete-hegseth-invade-california-without-a-babysitter/#comment-1099638
June 9, 2025 at 1:49 pm
Also to the ever industrious Harpie whose thread provides a broader context , and many important considerations https://www.emptywheel.net/2025/06/09/how-can-pete-hegseth-invade-california-without-a-babysitter/#comment-1099833
June 10, 2025 at 2:16 pm
I post this as a separate thread, because it is forensically focused on a particular topic, within those discussions. My thoughts may have a bearing on the legal analyses we await in the briefing due today. And I hope to return to the matter once I have absorbed those briefs.
Trumps best argument may mirror or incorporate the analysis by Chris Mirasola , in his 2nd piece on the topic.
There is a 10th Amendment aspect to this as raised by California, which I am mindful of, informs my thoughts, and which I note Mirasola does not address at all. I simply note that aspect for the time being, have not delved into constitutional aspects here, but I do suggest there is strong reason to think they support California’s position.
II
My Contentions are these
i the significant words in s 12406 are “call”and “orders for these purposes shall be issued through the Governors”
i“Call” is not synonymous with “order”
iii “call into service” is not synonymous with with “order into service”
iv “Call” is a “request” ; it is also “an alert”
v An “order” is a “requirement”;
vi A requisition is an order
vii A requisition into service is not a call or request
viii Though the President may “call”
“Orders for these purposes” (as predicated in s12406)
are, by exclusion, NOT to be made through any officers of federal government,
“but shall be made through” the chief officer of State Government (and as otherwise provided for in DC)
ix Though the President may have various powers to order into active service/ requisition State National Guard
this s12406 is not such a power as those powers.
x “These purposes” are
(a) the factual circumstances satisfying one of the enumerated predicates, together with
(b) release by the State into Federal service National Guard units and members to assist in such circumstances are being addressed
III
“10 U.S. Code § 12406 – National Guard in Federal service: call”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/12406
the President may
•call • into Federal service
members and units of the National Guard of
any State
in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws.
Orders
for these purposes
shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.
https://open.substack.com/pub/stevevladeck/p/156-federalizing-the-california-national
David is right that Steve Vladek opined
“As the brevity of this statute should make clear, this provision provides no additional substantive authority that the federal government did not already possess. There’s nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves. And because of the Posse Comitatus Act, the reverse is not true; there is plenty that these troops cannot legally do that the ICE officers can (once they are federalized, National Guard troops become functionally indistinguishable from federal regulars for purposes of the Posse Comitatus Act).”
But SteveV was not interpreting the meaning of the clause :
“• Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States •
or, … etc.”
Which California contends
this clause gives its Governor a role in the decision making process as per their complaint for declaratory relief
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ECF%201%20-%20Complaint%20NG.pdf
IV
In his 2nd piece on the statute Chris Mirasola
[The Governor’s Role in Federalizing the National Guard Under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 | Lawfare https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-governor-s-role-in-federalizing-the-national-guard-under-10-u.s.c.-12406
10 June 2025 ]
Argues:
“While § 12406 guarantees some role for the state, it is likely far more minimal than what California asserts”
Which obviously begs the question what role?
Mirasola notes that in its original 1903 form the statute does not contain the clause at issue. The clause was inserted in the 1908 amendment. Unfortunately, the legislative history contains no explanation for this amendment. Thus we are left with the text alone.
California contends for consultation with the Governor
Mirasola argues :
California’s position is a robust, likely overly robust, way to interpret
“Orders …shall be issued through the Governor”,
and he does so as follows in 3 arguments —-
1 “issue”
means according to Merriam Webster
“to put forth or distribute usually officially,” …. This suggests a more ministerial,
rather than substantive, involvement with the federal orders issued by the president.
SB Contra: Mirasola does not put sufficient emphasis on the nuance “OFFICIALLY” where a Federal Statute specifies that a STATE Constitutional Officer shall be the OFFICIAL source of the ORDER
2 (a point to which I will return) Ca Statutes extensively delegate decisions to their Adjutant General.
SB Contra: a) the Fed Statute specifies the State Commander in Chief issue the orders. Delegation under State law and regulations do not undermine that
b) the Governors are bound by State Constitution and Law. Ca Law extensively provides for the Governor’s actions in his capacity as Commander in Chief and in particular when there are
“Calls and requisitions” of National Guard units and personnel.
The distinction between call (= alert/request) OT1H and requisition (= order/require) in California Law as in relevant code s146 at (b)
Mirrors the like distinctions in Federal Statutes on the same subject matter.
3 there is little historical precedent
V
In developing his arguments Mirasola prefaced these substantive points by way of a preamble which I think is perhaps too fed-centric, but worth considering.
“There are a variety of statutory authorities under which Congress has authorized the president and other executive branch officials to bring
[SB NOTE: bring, which is not the same as order]
the National Guard (and members of the reserve components, like the Navy Reserve) into federal service. Provided in Chapter 1209and 1211 of Title 10, they are often quite specific: authorizing mobilization to respond ( link ) to a request for assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency under the Stafford Act or responding to a weapons of mass destruction attack ( link )to take just two examples.”
A closer examination of the examples tends to support my contentions rather than the propositions he goes on to make.
Both the links relate to different parts of
10 USC 12304
But Mirasola has overlooked 10 USC 12304 (d) Limitations
VI
10 U.S. Code § 12304 – Selected Reserve and certain Individual Ready Reserve members; •order• to active duty other than during war or national emergency
“(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 12302(a) [active duty limit 24 months]
or any other provision of law,
when the President determines
that it is necessary to augment the active forces
or that it is necessary to provide assistance referred to in subsection (b), he may authorize Secretary of Defense
to •order• any unit,
and any member not assigned to a unit organized to serve as a unit of the Selected Reserve ..etc…
to active duty for not more than 365 consecutive days.
b)Support for Responses to Certain Emergencies.—The authority under subsection (a) includes authority to
•order a unit or member to active duty to provide assistance in responding to an emergency•
involving—
(1)a use or threatened use of a weapon of mass destruction; or
(2)a terrorist attack or threatened terrorist attack in the United States that results, or could result, in significant loss of life or property.
property.
(c)Authority Relating to Significant Cyber Incidents.—
When the Secretary of Defense or …
determines that it is necessary to augment the active armed forces for the response ..
…
to acovered incident,
such Secretary may,
order any unit
…
to active duty for not more than 365 consecutive days.
(d)Limitations.—
(1)
* No unit or member of a reserve component may be ordered to active duty
* under this section to perform
* any of the functions authorized
* by chapter 13 [Insurrection ss251 et seq]
* or section 12406 of this title
or,
except as provided in subsection (b) or subsection (c),
to provide assistance to either the Federal Government or a State in time of a serious natural or manmade disaster, accident, or catastrophe”
Nb The first category of limitations expressly refers to “functions authorized” by s12406 or s251, and groups the two together for a purpose.
Compare with the second set of limitations which is “provide assistance” by refernce to described circumstances which is a different basis for grouping those limitations.
So the statute here is deliberately contrasting
the functions dependent on an authorisation process on the one hand
with on the other mere factual circumstances which might form the basis for conditions precedent
Further, and to drive the point home 10USC s251 sets out a very particular set of authorisation requirements
“Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may,
* upon the request of its legislature
* or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened,
* call into Federal service
* such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.”
So to use militia of another State (B) to quell an insurrection in State (A) there requires considerable input from the constitutional authorities of State (A)
It is no answer that s12406 has less stringent conditions of authorisation than s251. Each is particular unto itself in the specifics, but both have authorisation requirements, involving State Officers, designed, crafted, intended and recognised here to place limits on Presidential edict, by reference to State Officers roles.
VII
With due respect to Mirasola I think this formulation mentioned above bears further scrutiny
“There are a variety of statutory authorities under which Congress has authorized the president and other executive branch officials to bring the National Guard (and members of the reserve components, like the Navy Reserve) into federal service. Provided in Chapter 1209and 1211 of Title 10, they are often quite specific: authorizing mobilization to respond “
The phrases “bring…into federal service” “authorising mobilisation to respond” have a tendency to apply a Fed- centric lens, and overlook the role of the State.
If we look at the first section in, the first chapter mentioned by Mirasola
Chapter 1209 begins with 10 USC 12301
There are 2 points I want to make
1 that the Governor has a role in specified circumstances where consent is required, see (b), (d) and (f) provide for circumstances where the Governors consent is required
2 The process of bringing into Federal Service 12301 (e)
“(e)The period of time allowed
between the •date when• a Reserve ordered to active duty as provided in subsection (a)
is •alerted for that duty • and
the•date when the Reserve is required • to enter upon that duty shall be determined by the Secretary concerned based upon military requirements at that time.
“(a)In time of war or of national emergency declared by Congress, or when otherwise authorized by law, an authority designated by the Secretary concerned may, without the consent of the persons affected, order any unit, and any member not assigned to a unit organized to serve as a unit, of a reserve component under the jurisdiction of that Secretary to active duty for the duration of the war or emergency and for six months thereafter.
Which brings us back to 10 USC s12401
“Members of the Army National Guard of the United States and the Air National Guard of the United States are
not in active Federal service
except when
ordered thereto under law.”
Note the word “Ordered” and the phrase “ordered …under law”
This section must be read together with 10 USC s 12405 (obviously the immediately preceding section to 12406)
“Members of the National Guard
called
into Federal service are,
from the time
when they are required to respond to the call,
subject to the laws and regulations governing the Army or the Air Force, as the case may be, except those applicable only to members of the Regular Army or Regular Air Force, as the case may be.”
Note the words “called into” “from time” “when required to respond to the call”
So there is a clear distinction in meaning between “ordered into active service”
and “called into”;
and the gap between the two is the period between the call / the alert and the time when service person is required to respond to the call
And it is at that latter point in time when the individuals become subject to Federal Military jurisdiction
And this point is reinforced by 10 USC s12301 (a) and (e)
VIII
So the issues here are not merely a political pissing contest between two Sovereigns, but affect the jurisdiction to which individuals and units are subject, including penalties for disobedience.
S12406 reflects the formal handover of Command Authority in a military and juridical sense. Who does it is important, because it is upon orders on their authority signed and issued in their name through their Office that they are ordered to duty and subject to penalty, and the timetable from alert to call to being ordered into duty is in the Name of the Governor as befits the limited role in support of Federal Authorities s12406 contemplates for the National Guard.
Mirasola as noted above refers to the California MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE – MVC
DIVISION 2. THE MILITARY FORCES OF THE STATE [100 – 567]
As “extensively delegating to the Adjutant General “ but I doubt whether delegation is the issue.
And so hand waving loyalty dismisses this formality. But as we have had frequent cause to note formality has legal significance, and formality can be the embodiment of being a public display of matters of deep constitutional significance.
There are obvious complex interpretive issues in considering State Statutes to interpret Federal Statutes, with obvious complexity of State Constitutions and Federal Constitutions coming into play.
But I will make these points in conclusion
1 This California Code is extensively detailed and carefully considered and constructed (cf Florida and Texas equivalents)
2 There are in ss 100, 101, 148 detailed conformity and interpretative provisions
3 s146 provides https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-mvc/division-2/part-1/chapter-2/article-2/section-146/
“146. The Governor
* may
* call into active service
any portion of the active militia as may be necessary, and if the number available be insufficient, the Governor may call into active service any portion of the unorganized militia as may be necessary,
in any of the following events:
(a) In case of war, insurrection, rebellion, invasion, tumult, riot, breach of the peace, public calamity or catastrophe, including, but not limited to, catastrophic fires, or other emergency, or imminent danger thereof,
* or resistance to the laws of this state
* or the United States.
(b) Upon
* call or
* requisition of
the President of the United States.
… “
5 Merriam Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/requisition
1
a the act of formally requiring or calling upon someone to perform an action
b a formal demand made by one nation upon another for the surrender or extradition of a fugitive from justice
2
a the act of requiring something to be furnished
b a demand or application made usually with authority: such as
(1) a demand made by military authorities upon civilians for supplies or other needs
(2) a written request for something authorized but not made available automatically
3 the state of being in demand or use
Wow. Thanks for this analysis.
I’m glad this site’s algorithm and your network provider aligned today to keep all your posts out of auto-mod, but numbering them sequentially is much appreciated given the possibility any one of them could have been pulled to auto-mod.
@Rayne
Thank you.
I avoided the auto mod by waiting to post n3 until n2 had cleared etc and I trusted to luck that each post was short enough
@harpie
Having enjoyed your effort, I thought I should add my 2 cents worth
Yes, SteveBev…I join Rayne in thanking you for all this work!
VIII [ correction edit; I fell at the final hurdle]
And so Mirasola hand-waving-ly* dismisses this formality.
But, as we have had frequent cause to note, formality has legal significance: formality can be both the embodiment and a public display of, matters of deep constitutional significance. And there is good reason to believe such is the case here.
Hearing
Klarsfeld thread on bsky
https://bsky.app/profile/klasfeldreports.com/post/3lrgrf44szc2t
I note
5 mins in
“Judge Breyer on 10 U.S. Code § 12406:
“It is a very short statute but it has a number of requirements, and I need to know whether that statute was complied with.”
Trump “cited the statute. This was his authority in federalizing the National Guard.
10 mins in
Breyer then reads from 10 U.S. Code § 12406:
“Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States.”
He emphasizes:
“It says ‘shall.’ Not ‘may.’ Not ‘might.'”
The DOJ’s claim? Trump sent the order “through” him, but Breyer says:
“I don’t understand how something is “through” somebody if you didn’t sent it to him.”
https://bsky.app/profile/klasfeldreports.com/post/3lrgsa6frdc2t
DOJ: “I think there’s no doubt on this record that Gov. Newsom was fully aware of this order.”
Judge Breyer:
“Why even bother putting the governor? Why not just say the commanding officer of the National Guard should be notified?”
Shumate: “He has expressed his views publicly.”
Breyer notes that was after the National Guard was federalized.
Shumate: There’s one commander in chief of the Armed Forces. …
Judge Breyer: “It’s not the commander in chief of the National Guard. ”
Breyer: “The question really is? Did he comply with the statute? That’s the first question.”
Shumate argues that the order went to the adjutant general, who acts in the name of the governor.
Judge Breyer: “You’re telling me the President acted on evidence?”
DOJ’s Shumate: Of course.
Judge: Did he have to?
Shumate answers no because it “would be a nonjusticiable [matter] for the court.”
Judge Breyer summarizes the DOJ’s position: “If he says it, it’s so.”
Judge Breyer on following the statute:
“That’s the difference between a constitutional government and King George!”
https://bsky.app/profile/klasfeldreports.com/post/3lrgtrr7e5c2t