For people asking me about Merrick Garland's decision in the defamation case, I'll refer you to this article by
@BradMossEsq.
politico.com/magazine/story…
This is a defamation case.
The legal question is whether Trump made the statement in the scope of his employment
1/
@BradMossEsq.
politico.com/magazine/story…
This is a defamation case.
The legal question is whether Trump made the statement in the scope of his employment
1/
In other words, this case isn't about the rape itself (except that truth is a defense to libel)
I suspect that the issue will be appealed, and the appellate court will decide whether it agrees that the defamatory statements were uttered in the scope of Trump's employment.
2/
I suspect that the issue will be appealed, and the appellate court will decide whether it agrees that the defamatory statements were uttered in the scope of Trump's employment.
2/
The legal issue, from the government's brief: documentcloud.org/documents/2079……
This is how the DOJ would answer a lot of the questions I'm getting.
It's easy to check the DOJ's legal reasoning.
3/
This is how the DOJ would answer a lot of the questions I'm getting.
It's easy to check the DOJ's legal reasoning.
3/
Here is how to check the DOJ's reasoning: Look up the cases they cite to see if they indeed support the conclusion that courts in the past have found statements like Trump's to be part of his employment.
4/
4/
So I did it. Me = Nerd face
Here's Council on Am. Islamic Relations v. Ballenger, 444 F.3d 659, 664 (D.C. Cir. 2006) casetext.com/case/council-o……
The facts look somewhat similar. An elected official answered questions about his personal life and was sued for defamation.
5/
Here's Council on Am. Islamic Relations v. Ballenger, 444 F.3d 659, 664 (D.C. Cir. 2006) casetext.com/case/council-o……
The facts look somewhat similar. An elected official answered questions about his personal life and was sued for defamation.
5/
In this case, a congressman, fielding questions about his personal life, made an utterance about Islam for which he was sued for defamation by a nonprofit (NGO) whose stated goal is to promote a positive image of Islam in the United States.
casetext.com/case/council-o…
6/
casetext.com/case/council-o…
6/
The Congressman was talking about his marriage and said his wife didn't like living across from the Council on American-Islamic Relations after 9/11.
7/
7/
The court said the remarks were within the scope of employment, even though they were not discussing government or policy.
It was purely personal. But the court said he was acting within the scope of his employment because the press often asks politicians personal questions.
8/
It was purely personal. But the court said he was acting within the scope of his employment because the press often asks politicians personal questions.
8/
What Trump did and said was WAY worse, but that isn't the consideration.
This is from the government's brief👇
Is it annoying? Yes.
Is the DOJ right?
I could see this going either way.
9/
documentcloud.org/documents/2079…
This is from the government's brief👇
Is it annoying? Yes.
Is the DOJ right?
I could see this going either way.
9/
documentcloud.org/documents/2079…
Ooops, I didn't attach the screenshot for Tweet #8:
The government acknowledges that Trump was crude and disrespectful, and draws no conclusion about whether what he was was false and defamatory.
10/
The government acknowledges that Trump was crude and disrespectful, and draws no conclusion about whether what he was was false and defamatory.
10/
The government's argument is that the same law has to apply to everyone, which is what Rule of Law means.
There are statutes in place, and courts have made decisions about those statutes. The DOJ is trying to follow the law and past court decisions.
11/
https://twitter.com/TerpBE/status/1402473374874574848
There are statutes in place, and courts have made decisions about those statutes. The DOJ is trying to follow the law and past court decisions.
11/
The laws I quoted govern all elected officials and federal employees.
Trump is included. He isn't special.
Not taking sides here, just trying to show you all that it's more complicated than it seems at first glance.
12/
https://twitter.com/TerpBE/status/1402473374874574848
Trump is included. He isn't special.
Not taking sides here, just trying to show you all that it's more complicated than it seems at first glance.
12/
When Congress passes a law, and courts enforce it, there's always a policy reason.
It was not passed with Trump in mind. The reason was to protect federal employees and elected officials.
If you don't like a law, the thing to do is change the law.
13/
It was not passed with Trump in mind. The reason was to protect federal employees and elected officials.
If you don't like a law, the thing to do is change the law.
https://twitter.com/MarkSZaidEsq/status/1402471450750210054
13/
If it makes you feel any better, there are no laws protecting Trump's call to Raffensperger pressuring him to "find votes" so he can win.
There are no laws protecting Trump from tax evasion or bank fraud. . .
14/
There are no laws protecting Trump from tax evasion or bank fraud. . .
14/
He will try to hide behind the First Amendment for the charge that he incited a riot, but his argument (I believe, and so do others) is weak.
The rape itself (at issue in the Carroll case) is out of the statute of limitations. This was a way to get the truth out.
15/
The rape itself (at issue in the Carroll case) is out of the statute of limitations. This was a way to get the truth out.
15/
The reason I'm staying neutral (and said this could go either) way is (1) I'm not an expert in the Westfall Act and (2) courts do surprising things.
There may be a way for the courts to limit the scope, but most likely, that's for Congress.
16/
There may be a way for the courts to limit the scope, but most likely, that's for Congress.
16/
People think that this is a rape case and Trump is getting off the hook for rape.
The rape itself is outside the statute of limitations.
This is a defamation case.
17/
The rape itself is outside the statute of limitations.
This is a defamation case.
17/
I came back to peek at my mentions to see if anyone is yelling at me and telling me I'm stupid. (It happens, particularly when I go against the current on Twitter).
Instead, I found this simple (and legally sound) solution.
18/
Instead, I found this simple (and legally sound) solution.
https://twitter.com/spiderstumbled/status/1402629018403409932
18/
Here's a legal argument Jean Carroll might use in arguing that the Westfall Act doesn't apply to the president.
19/
https://twitter.com/AkivaMCohen/status/1304053875608084483
19/
I put this on my blog because I'm also getting questions about this through email.
This thread got long, so I added a bit to the blog that I didn't think fit here.
terikanefield.com/has-merrick-ga…
This thread got long, so I added a bit to the blog that I didn't think fit here.
terikanefield.com/has-merrick-ga…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
