On Sunday during live coverage of the Los Angeles riots, local ABC affiliate KABC ran footage that did not match what the anchors were describing. Jory Rand went as far as to say the protestors were “having fun watching cars burn,” but would he feel that way if that was his car? Would this have been just another example of the liberal media distracting from the obvious facts?
Los Angeles took a beating earlier this year with the historic wildfires in January but has taken another pounding with the city’s breakout over ICE arrests and deportations. Again, the city and nation turn heads due to the lack of leadership and command to simply protect the people of Los Angeles, ranging from California Governor Gavin Newsom, down to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.
In a clip that will live infamy alongside this and this, from the Black Lives Matter riots of 2020, Rand described the footage this way:
I don't know if there's any police activity pushing these folks this way, or perhaps just the smoke. It's getting too hard to breathe. More explosions here from those cars. But we do have a decent sized crowd watching these cars continue to burn. Otherwise, as Tim said, things do look relatively peaceful at this hour. We saw the folks at Aliso and Alameda sitting down on the ground. We saw the folks at Temple and Alameda just kind of waiting it out. It's broken down to just a couple dozen people at that location, and so things seem pretty-It's hard to say that with three cars burning, but things do seem relatively calm minus these cars that have been set on fire.
If there are two words that do not go together, it is peaceful and explosions. One must ask when they watch this segment, “are they even seeing the footage being broadcasted live?” It got worse. Rand also stated, “It could turn very volatile if you move law enforcement in there in the wrong way and turn what is just a bunch of people having fun watching cars burn into a massive confrontation and altercation between officers and demonstrators.” To clarify, the cars on fire were Waymo, which are self-driving taxis and, worse yet, run on EV’s. But despite the rioters “having fun,” a comment made by reporter Tim Caputo said, “it smelled like a dumpster fire.”
To the liberal media, everything is Trump’s fault. One KABC anchor recalled an insanely dubious claim from 2020:
In Trump's first term, he elicited hopes and desires to use weaponry against U.S. citizens. There's that famous day in Washington D.C. when the President wanted to walk across the grounds to the church through Lafayette Park to the nearby church there and wanted U.S. troops to be on the ground to shoot at the legs of demonstrators who were outside the White House. And so, he has expressed a desire to fire upon using U.S. military means against us citizens which would be wildly against anything written in our constitution and our laws. And again, now there is an open threat from the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense to do exactly that using an Insurrection Act, that looks like it does not have the grounds to be used here.
California’s leadership has once again proven that the safety and well-being of Los Angeles citizens are not a priority. The National Guard was sent to protect federal property and thus plays an important role in restoring law and order.
After a decade of gaslighting on riots, America is done with them being labeled as “peaceful protests” when there is clearly nothing peaceful about explosions and fires.
Click here for the transcript.
KABC Los Angeles
6/8/2025
8:48 p.m. PacificJORY RAND: Well, we did see those flash bangs going off. So, it looks like officers are somewhere. Unless, that is, those are just simple fireworks. But we see those puffs of smoke and those typically are flash bangs trying to disrupt the crowd. And we do see some movement coming now towards the 101 from the top of our screen. So that would be a north to south that would be coming directly from where Tim was standing. I don't know if there's any police activity pushing these folks this way, or perhaps just the smoke. It's getting too hard to breathe. More explosions here from those cars. But we do have a decent sized crowd watching these cars continue to burn. Otherwise, as Tim said, things do look relatively peaceful at this hour. We saw the folks at Aliso and Alameda sitting down on the ground. We saw the folks at Temple and Alameda just kind of waiting it out. It's broken down to just a couple dozen people at that location, and so things seem pretty - It's hard to say that with three cars burning, but things do seem relatively calm minus these cars that have been set on fire.
NIKU KAZORI: Exactly. There are a few scenes, and it looks like this scene is the worst one that we have been seeing because, like you said, the other areas that we've seen, we have seen people sitting down and this is just the worst of it. Seeing these three Waymo cars on fire, which hopefully someone can get a handle on them very soon. But again, it's really dangerous for any kind of police or the fire department even move in on a situation like this. So they have to really handle this gently. It's difficult. It's hard, especially with three. Are there three on fire? It looks like three are on fire, but there are five Waymo's in that area but three are on fire.
RAND: It's a precarious situation. You want to maintain control and get order back in the city, but if you try and do so to, in a certain way, you're going to devolve here into some really bad confrontations. And so, you know, there are discussions being had right now by law enforcement about how best to handle this situation. Once the demonstrators made their way onto the 101, it took CHP a little bit of time to come up with a plan and how they were able to do that. And here we have the 101 back open again. So same kind of situation here. There's a large group of people. It could turn very volatile if you move law enforcement in there in the wrong way and turn what is just a bunch of people having fun watching cars burn into a massive confrontation and altercation between officers and demonstrators.
KAZORI: So it looks like next to that big the car fire we have that wide angle. Is that the one on the other side? Is that a closer look at the car fire? And if so, there's people around there taking pictures and it's just they don't even mind all the toxic fumes in the air. But the scene is definitely look like it's less crowded than what it looked like about 30 minutes ago. So at least people are moving away, but still really dangerous because again, these EV batteries, this can explode at any minute. And just the air, I mean, Tim said it smelled like a dumpster fire behind him.
10:02 p.m. Pacific
RAND: You cannot turn U.S. troops against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil unless you're using the Insurrection Act. Is this grounds to use the insurrection? Would you could under any circumstances legal, moral could this be deemed an insurrection against the United States?
KAZORI: This is where I would love if we had a legal expert to be here and answering the questions for us because that is such a good point and it just I'm curious – I mean is that the next step if it's not the national – if it's – the National Guard is here but the next step after the National Guard is it the Marines and does it stop there? Does he deploy the Army, Navy, Air Force, what's the step? I mean this just seems so everything is so out of order. And just –
RAND: In Trump's first term, he elicited hopes and desires to use weaponry against U.S. citizens. There's that famous day in Washington DC when the President wanted to walk across the grounds to the church through Lafayette Park to the nearby church there and wanted U.S. troops to be on the ground to shoot at the legs of demonstrators who were outside the White House. And so, he has expressed a desire to fire upon using U.S. military means against us citizens which would be wildly against anything written in our constitution and our laws.
And again, now there is an open threat from the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense to do exactly that using an Insurrection Act, that looks like it does not have the grounds to be used here. There I'm sure there will some that will call this an insurrection. But we're talking legal grounds. Does the president in this instance have the legal grounds to declare this an insurrection against the United States and deploy U.S. military troops against U.S. citizens which is strictly forbidden by the US constitution?
