[anonymid]

I do have a bias, and I don't think that negates the points. I think that's the benefit of establishing a common factual basis. You can argue with the bias by presenting competing facts, or a different interpretation of the facts, but at least we can agree on what we're starting with.

I think the question is - why is the national guard and the military being sent to CA without the governor's consent?

Part of the justification for this from the administration is that the riots are out of control, are posing an immediate risk of violence and property damage. Based on what I've found of the actual violence and damage being done, this justification does not hold up, as the violence and property damage are lower than previous protests in which there didn't seem to be a need for interference.

The rule of law is a different argument. What is the rule of law that is being undermined? I think here too you can have an argument about the operations that ICE is conducting, are they lawful - given that they are being conducted in sanctuary cities? Who has jurisdiction in this case? Is the administration lawful in sending in the national guard without the consent of the governor? What about the military? Newsom is now suing Trump over deploying the marines and the national guard despite his wishes, so there is a claim that such actions were unlawful.

Based on my brief research into this, ICE was operating in an unconstitutional way and making many procedural violations. City Sancutary status is lawful and has been upheld in the court of law. Newsom's challenge of Trump's deployment of the National Guard also held up in court. [link](https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/99a64b2d-e3b6-4d37-956f-c...)

When you say that "the law is being attacked" in this case, what do you mean?