Oregon’s National Guard lawsuit hinges on Trump’s Truth Social posts

After getting out of the phone with Oregon Tina Cotik on Saturday, the president thought about something he was about to call. Trump said in an interview the next day. But she was trying to persuade him not to send the National Guard, and this had no meaning to him. “But I said,” I am waiting for one minute, do I watch things on TV screens different from what is happening? “

Hours later, Defense Minister Beit Higseth issued a federal memo of 200 members of the National Guard in Oregon Publishing in Portland, and Oregon filed a lawsuit immediately to prevent it from occurring.

At a hearing on Friday, the state of Oregon and the city of Portland presented arguments about the reason for the federal judge granting a temporary restriction order against Trump. About an hour and a half, the appearance of the court has become a strange collision for television and reality, Internet publications and legal rulings. The two sides deviated from a wide range of legal lands – Thorn of Section 12406, Posse Comitaus law, Administrative Procedure Law, irreversible damage. But the official structure of hearing and areas surrounding wooden panels cannot hide absolute madness in the heart of the issue. The lawsuit is summarized in two things: “The Great Level of Respect” is a debtor to the executive authority when the National Guard is inserted, and the clear truth is that the executive branch, at the present time, completely comes out of pumpkin and publishing through it.

There are three thorn to 10 USC § 12406, which determine the conditions that the president may invite the National Guard. The first is in the state of invasion by a foreign force. The second is in the case of rebellion. The third is when “the president is unable to implement the laws of the United States.”

“The parties have focused largely on fissure 3,” said Judge Karen IMMERGUT with the start of the hearing. “I don’t think anyone has argued that we are at the risk of rebellion against the authority of the United States, but the defendants can correct me about it.”

It also turned out that the defendants – or rather, the lawyers of the Ministry of Justice who represent the President and the Higseth house – wanted to argue that Portland was about to rebel, saying that the protests in the ice facility in the southwest of Portland were “a deliberate force of power and arms” of the United States.

“This criterion is so wide that it would swallow a lot of behavior,” the Assistant Prosecutor in Oregon Scott Kennedy intercepted. “Most protests oppose power.”

But in some way, the Ministry of Justice was not affirming that Portland was at the risk of armed rebellion, the most Syriac part of the session. Most of the session has been devoted to whether the pre -conditions of Prong 3 (the inability to implement American law using “regular powers”) have been met – or rather, whether the president’s determination is that it is king It was fulfilled was good.

When Judge IMMERGUT asked about the Ministry of Justice about the main source of the authority to design the president, Deputy Prosecutor Eric Hamilton answered, without the slightest hint of shame, “The most important decision in the jobs he has done is reflected in the social fact.”

The two positions were martyred on September 27 and October 1. In this first position, the president claimed to allow “the full power” to claim the forces “to protect the war that had experienced Portland” from “local terrorists”. The second publication is much longer, and although it is characterized by the use of Trump for its irregular use of capital messages, its sentences have multiple sentences and are compatible with the actual legal provisions. It is a Trump flavorful leaflet that does not feel Trump. In this first place of October, the exact publication enters, as he determined that he “activated the National Guard and called for service” because the application of the law “was not able to implement laws in Oregon.” Oregon has argued that the October Post was inappropriate for it, because Higseth issued his note on September 28 – a completely reasonable objection that almost deserved to be made, under these circumstances.

Hamilton has taken it upon itself to come out to produce the image of the war area that the president was publishing. He said that the snow was under “evil and harsh” attacks by the demonstrators. The rocks were dumped to Ice customers, the “blind” demonstrators tried to drivers with light bulbs, ice vehicle sites were published on the Internet, and ice customers were overcome, and the most terrifying, the ice facility corridor was sometimes limited, preventing transformation changes. The demonstrators were also martyred by preparing a guillotine on the site. (Ice factors have not been identified.)

It was remarkable to see the number of “attacks” that he described was on Internet publications – publications on vehicle sites, posts about Ice agents, and publications that had “violent threats” that demonstrated that Portland was out of control. Kennedy noted that “by describing the defendant to the National Guard”, none of these things was in the authority of the National Guard to address them.

Moreover, not all these things occurred in September, or even August. Many go back to June, some of them to July. “The president’s perception of what is happening in Portland is not what is happening on the ground.” She spent some time reading excerpts from the various law enforcement advertisements that were submitted to the lawsuit, especially in the nights that caused Trump’s social reality sites, when Portland Police Office was in contact with the federal protection service, which was informed “there are no problems or concerns.”

Kennedy described the president’s positions as “mysterious, incendiary exaggeration lacking a good -intention assessment of the facts.”

“We have finally imagining the reality of reality,” said Turku. “The president believes it is the Second World War here. The truth is a beautiful city with a sophisticated police force that can deal with the situation.”

On the horizon, under the year 2020 is looming on a large part of the hearing. The Ministry of Justice wanted to use protests in 2020 to enhance the allegations of violence and rebellion, but given the nature of a temporary restriction, the judge does not seem to want to spend a lot of time thinking about what happened five years ago. But they were also thinking about state and city lawyers at about 2020 – “federal participation”, they would only “fuel” the situation, leaving Oregon and Portland carrying the bag while the angry demonstrators criticized Trump.

The spectators in the courtroom and the surplus room were also thinking about 2020, Portlands wears the suits and jackets of rain and swelling, filling the space with that friendly friendly gossip that is settlement in the northwest of the Pacific Ocean. “Were you here in 2020?” I heard one of the attendees say another in the exhibition.

The judge promised to issue her ruling soon, either on that or next day. She admitted that she was only appointed in the case the previous day – the former judge, Michael Simon, got rid of the previous day, as he was heading to the demands of the Ministry of Justice. Simon is married to MP Suzanne Bonamisi, whose area includes part of Portland and some of her suburbs. The new judge, Karin IMMERGUT, was appointed by Trump in 2019.

When I got out of the courtroom to a cold and wet day in October, the building looked new and old for me. I was there several times before in the summer of 2020 – but the court had independence and fell, and the writing on the federal walls and papers exceeded in Camus. I could have seen the place where steps were made by excessive enthusiasm in 2020; Next to a large piece of carved stone I had not seen before, because it was covered with fortifications. There was a quote from Thomas Jefferson sculpted in his shiny face, with a reading of the inscription: “The loud sea sea is not without a wave.”

It was a little on the nose, but everything was.