Posted on Jun 12, 2025
Judge says Trump illegally deployed National Guard to help with LA protests, must return control
1.21K
53
40
9
9
0
A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday directing President Donald Trump to return control of the National Guard to California.
The order, which takes effect at noon Friday, said the deployment of the Guard was illegal and both violated the Tenth Amendment and exceeded Trump’s statutory authority.
The White House had no immediate comment on the ruling.
The order, which takes effect at noon Friday, said the deployment of the Guard was illegal and both violated the Tenth Amendment and exceeded Trump’s statutory authority.
The White House had no immediate comment on the ruling.
Judge says Trump illegally deployed National Guard to help with LA protests, must return control
Posted from apnews.comPosted in these groups: 
Political Opinions
Political Opinions
Posted 8 mo ago
Responses: 15
9
9
0
CPT Lawrence Cable
I have never seen the Supreme Court limit presidential authorities to deal with violent emergencies. And these "'mostly peaceful" riots are violent.
As you probably know, Posse Comitatus was passed by the Southern Democrats after Reconstruction to stop Federal Troops from intervening in Jim Crow Laws and enforcing the 14th Amendment. Is it irony that the same Party is trying to use the same law to override Federal Law Enforcement again?
As you probably know, Posse Comitatus was passed by the Southern Democrats after Reconstruction to stop Federal Troops from intervening in Jim Crow Laws and enforcing the 14th Amendment. Is it irony that the same Party is trying to use the same law to override Federal Law Enforcement again?
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
This will be overturned. We really need accountability for judges who rule according to politics instead of the law. Nothing in the law gives this judge the authority to second-guess Trump's assessment that attacking ICE constitutes rebellion against federal authority.
(5)
(0)
LTC Matthew Schlosser
SGM Jeff Mccloud -
From page 29: "In order to prove an intent to defraud, the People need not
prove that the defendant acted with the intent to defraud any
particular person or entity. A general intent to defraud any person
or entity suffices.
Intent to defraud is also not constricted to an intent to
deprive another of property or money and can extend beyond
economic concerns."
And then, page 31: "Although you must conclude unanimously that the
defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any
person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be
unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.
In determining whether the defendant conspired to
promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office
by unlawful means, you may consider the following: (1) violations
of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA;
(2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of
tax laws"
Like I said, they didn't have to agree on what crime the "falsification of business records" was supposed to further, they were given a menu. Those aren't "allegations," the judge explicitly calls them "theories." The prosecution speculated about multiple different ways that "hiding the payment" might have helped Trump, but didn't need to try to prove any of them or even indicate which one they thought it was. Just throw them out there as ideas and let the jury's imagination take over. This is kangaroo court stuff.
Then, on pages 35-40, the judge lists each of the 34 "falsifications." Every single invoice, check stub, email, any record at all that they could dig up that referred in any way to the payments from Trump to Cohen, was charged as a separate crime. Also kangaroo court stuff.
From page 29: "In order to prove an intent to defraud, the People need not
prove that the defendant acted with the intent to defraud any
particular person or entity. A general intent to defraud any person
or entity suffices.
Intent to defraud is also not constricted to an intent to
deprive another of property or money and can extend beyond
economic concerns."
And then, page 31: "Although you must conclude unanimously that the
defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any
person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be
unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.
In determining whether the defendant conspired to
promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office
by unlawful means, you may consider the following: (1) violations
of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA;
(2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of
tax laws"
Like I said, they didn't have to agree on what crime the "falsification of business records" was supposed to further, they were given a menu. Those aren't "allegations," the judge explicitly calls them "theories." The prosecution speculated about multiple different ways that "hiding the payment" might have helped Trump, but didn't need to try to prove any of them or even indicate which one they thought it was. Just throw them out there as ideas and let the jury's imagination take over. This is kangaroo court stuff.
Then, on pages 35-40, the judge lists each of the 34 "falsifications." Every single invoice, check stub, email, any record at all that they could dig up that referred in any way to the payments from Trump to Cohen, was charged as a separate crime. Also kangaroo court stuff.
(1)
(0)
SGM Jeff Mccloud
LTC Matthew Schlosser - I don't know what to tell you, buddy.
If Trump hadn't committed fraud to pay hush money to a hooker leading into the election, we wouldn't be talking about this conviction.
Kinda like:
If Trump had been a shrewd businessman, he would have had less than 6 bankruptcies and less than 4,095 lawsuits.
If Trump had committed less imeachable offenses, he would have had less than 2 impeachments his first term.
If Trump hadn't lied about the the 2020 election being stolen, and hadn't incited an insurrection, he wouldn't have had to pardon over 170 violent felons who used weapons to assault cops for no reason at all.
If Trump had opted to take the legal and Constitutional route on more of his policies this term, he'd have less than 200 court orders and injunctions.
If Trump had followed through on his plan to eliminate deficit spending, he wouldn't be in a fight with his own party in Congress right now.
I could keep going, but I can only imagine how exhausting it is to have an ever-growing list of excuses to have to add to every damn day, just to hold onto that belief.
If Trump hadn't committed fraud to pay hush money to a hooker leading into the election, we wouldn't be talking about this conviction.
Kinda like:
If Trump had been a shrewd businessman, he would have had less than 6 bankruptcies and less than 4,095 lawsuits.
If Trump had committed less imeachable offenses, he would have had less than 2 impeachments his first term.
If Trump hadn't lied about the the 2020 election being stolen, and hadn't incited an insurrection, he wouldn't have had to pardon over 170 violent felons who used weapons to assault cops for no reason at all.
If Trump had opted to take the legal and Constitutional route on more of his policies this term, he'd have less than 200 court orders and injunctions.
If Trump had followed through on his plan to eliminate deficit spending, he wouldn't be in a fight with his own party in Congress right now.
I could keep going, but I can only imagine how exhausting it is to have an ever-growing list of excuses to have to add to every damn day, just to hold onto that belief.
(0)
(0)
LTC Matthew Schlosser
Oh, I see. You think I'm a Trumpist. Not the case. I never voted for him before 2024, and I have plenty of issues with his policy choices, like gutting foreign aid. On that one, no, I didn't support paying for Iraqi Sesame Street, but he threw the baby out with the bath water.
But I made the first political donation in my life when I sent him $100 the day that jury convicted him. It was just so blatantly obvious that it was all bullshit, I kinda voted for him out of spite. The classified documents case had merit, but it would never have led to a conviction in Florida. But both New York cases were absolute garbage from total shitbags who ran on "get Trump."
But I made the first political donation in my life when I sent him $100 the day that jury convicted him. It was just so blatantly obvious that it was all bullshit, I kinda voted for him out of spite. The classified documents case had merit, but it would never have led to a conviction in Florida. But both New York cases were absolute garbage from total shitbags who ran on "get Trump."
(0)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
SrA John Monette - It may surprise you, but there really isn't anything in the Constitution that says judges can override policy.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google