Thread by @BarbMcQuade

1/ DOJ intervention in defamation case is the latest abuse of the levers of government to protect Trump. Here’s how I see it. washingtonpost.com/national-secur…

2/ DOJ routinely removes state tort cases to federal court where a government employee was acting in the scope of his employment when the event occurred. Think mail carrier involved in an accident in her postal truck. This law protects employees from liability on the job.

3/ Once DOJ certifies employee was acting within scope of employment, case goes to federal court. DOJ also files motion to substitute US as defendant. This means that taxpayers now pay legal fees and any money judgment. Judge may deny this motion if she disagrees about scope.

If judge agrees that Trump’s statements were within scope of employment, then next step is for DOJ to move to dismiss for sovereign immunity. Gov may be sued only for claims to which Congress has consented, like negligence. It has not consented to being sued for defamation.

That means if court agrees that Trump was acting within scope, then the case will be dismissed, and Trump wins the whole ballgame.

So it all comes down to scope. Courts look not only at the act but also context. Carroll alleged 3 defamatory statements - 2 verbal and 1 written. Verbal statements came in response to reporter’s questions to Trump as president. One could argue those statements were within scope.

But written statement was provided by Trump voluntarily. There’s no basis to argue this statement was within scope of duties as POTUS. He was not at a press conference or responding to reporter’s questions. Carroll needs only 1 statement to hang her hat on, and this one will do.

So she should be able to go forward with her lawsuit. Why, then, would DOJ go down this path? To stall, of course. They will appeal an adverse ruling and delay resolution of the case last the election.

DOJ usually removes a case shortly after it is filed. This one too 10 months. Why? Removal was filed same day as deadline for Trump to appeal denial of his immunity defense, and he faced deposition, production of documents, and DNA sample.