HERE IS THE FULL TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING IN NEWSOM V. TRUMP THAT LED TO THE COURT ORDERING TRUMP TO DEFEDERALIZE THE NATIONAL GUARD
Today I got my hands on two transcripts – the transcript of the hearing in Newsom v. Trump over the federalization of the California National Guard and leading to the Court ordering Trump to *defederalize* the troops, and the transcript of the hearing in Kilmar Abrego Garcia v. Noem which led to the Judge ordering that Abrego Garcia be released. I’ll be covering the Abrego Garcia hearing in an upcoming article, and I’ll be including the full transcript for each for Notes from the Front members (Notes members: the transcript of the Newsom v. Trump hearing is included for you here).
(These are *not* public documents, and it has been suggested that I let people know how much I pay out of my own pocket for these documents, because of people complaining about $5 a month, or even attacking me for not posting documents publicly. So to be clear, this is *not* a public document, and this single transcript cost me $78.30 out of my own pocket.)
Right away, on page 7 of the 54-page transcript, Judge Breyer gets into it with the administration’s Mr. Hamilton (ohmygosh, him again!), schooling him (or calling him out, depending on how you look at it) on what exactly §12407 actually means (this is the section of the Federal law that allows the president to call the National Guard into Federal service). Hamilton insists that there are words, or at least meanings, in that section that simply aren’t there.
___
MR. HAMILTON: The Court, I think, is paraphrasing this third sentence to say “original term.” The third sentence is talking about a guardsman commission or enlistment, which I think is different than what the Court may have described as an original term.
THE COURT: I don’t know that I said “original”? Did I say “original”? Let me read it again.
MR. HAMILTON: Oh. Okay.
THE COURT: [As read]: “Whenever the President calls the National Guardof a State into Federal service, he may specify in the call the period of the service.”There’s not the word “original.” I didn’t put it in. But there are the words “in the call.” And do we agree that “in the call” means the call to service? So I look in the call. All right. Now, you say that — is it that sentence that you rely on for the proposition that it gives the President the authority to extend the federalization?
___
Now see the reason this is important is because the administration is saying that the president has the authority under law to *extend* the period of federalization, while §12407 *doesn’t actually say that*.
It goes on:
___
MR. HAMILTON: Yes. And my apologies for misunderstanding the Court. That second sentence does give the President exclusive decision-making authority over decisions about when a —
THE COURT: You mean the first sentence? I haven’t gotten to the second sentence yet.
MR. HAMILTON: Oh. Yes.
THE COURT: Are we looking at 12407?MR. HAMILTON: Yes.THE COURT: By the way –MR. HAMILTON: 12407(a).THE COURT: — I may not have the right book, but the way I looked at the statute, it reads — and I’ll read it again.
___
“I may not have the right book” 😂
And we’re only up to page 9!
Oh, and this by the Judge:
“And it’s your belief that since, in the call, he said it may be extended — it may be determined by the Secretary of Defense — War, whatever — that that is an appropriate extension?”
You gotta love this judge… “Secretary of Defense … War… whatever” – I wish I could have heard that in person! Is it any wonder why I love being a lawyer (most of the time)? :~D
Some other choice tidbits:
___
THE COURT: Rebellion? There is a danger of rebellion today?
MR. HAMILTON: There is.
THE COURT: You actually think that there’s a — that we’re in a situation where there may be a rebellion?
MR. HAMILTON: Yes. Yes.
THE COURT: Oh, okay. Well, tell me, what is the evidence supporting that?
MR. HAMILTON: The record goes, again, back to the beginning of the mission in June of this year, when there were riots in Los Angeles focused on obstructing the Federal Government’s enforcement of Title 8 of the United States Code.
THE COURT: Is that a rebellion? Is that a rebellion? I just want to know. Is that a rebellion? It’s a protest, and it may be a violent protest. Is every violent protest a rebellion? Is it?
___
But wait, this part *actually* made me laugh out loud:
___
THE COURT: And today, I want to know today, even though you say it’s irrelevant. Is there a danger of a rebellion today?
MR. HAMILTON: There is a danger of a rebellion today.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, I’ll be careful.
___
Bahahahahaha… “Well, I’ll be careful.”
Then there is an entire section where Judge Breyer takes Hamilton and the administration to task – upbraids them, really – for describing these National Guard lawsuits, both in California and the other states, as meritless.
In fact, he spanks Hamilton and stands him in the corner, saying “And I don’t think that is a genuine concern because I can tell you this: This Court and every one of my colleagues throughout the country, when they get these motions, they treat them seriously, and the first thing they look at is to see is there any merit to the motion.”
There is of course much, much more, culminating in the Court issuing the order that it did last week (already sent to you but if you are a paid Notes from the Front member and need it again just it ‘reply’ and ask for it and I’ll re-send it to you).
Notes from the Front members: the 54-page hearing transcript is in your inbox now.
To protect myself from claims of improper republication, and trolls, I don’t publicly share documents I find, I make them available privately to Notes from the Front members. Many of them are not public documents, and I pay for them out of my own pocket in order to share them with you. Others of them may be public, and you could probably find them yourself if you wanted to spend the hours that I do looking for them, but then you wouldn’t get the explanations my decades of law practice and as a law professor, nor the snark that I inject into those explanations. ;~) And honestly, $5 a month is less than you would pay for a minute of lawyer time anywhere else. You can join below for immediate access to all of the documents, our private chat, etc.. – it’s $5 a month.
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/here-is-the-full-transcript-of-the
Source