Quote (thesnipa @ Oct 27 2020 12:16pm)
sure for a white house briefing or interview panel.
but does an interview with The Hill where he called her "not my type" count as official duties?
and is a 1988 piece of law really going to last long in the internet age with regards to twitter activity, TV call in interviews, pre recorded sit down interviews, campaign rallies, and a bevy of other developing political messaging of those in and out of office?
keep in mind i dont think that the "shes not my type" statement in response to a rape allegation, in a vacuum, is enough to cause any damage in a defamation suit. and i dont even think a defamation suit would be successful even if all evidence is admissible. financially acknowledging her book offset any credibility damage they could argue.
Other courts had been asked this same question in past decades and this past year, and came down saying that the president's messages to the public- even those not through official channels or to the media, were within the scope of his duties as president. And thus forbade him from banning people on twitter. That was his personal twitter account he shitposts on, and it was considered within his executive capacity. Well, this case considers an official white house press release given by the press secretary to the press pool on white house letterhead. It couldn't be more official and through proper channels.
And the precedent cited was CAIR v Ballenger. Rep. Cass Ballenger was giving a statement to the media about his pending divorce and marital strife, which are personal scandals. In his statement, in one offhand remark he said one source of discomfort for his wife was living across from the CAIR headquarters after the 9/11 attacks, saying they were the fundraising arm for Hezbollah. So CAIR tried to sue him, but the westfall act had the DoJ take over the case and dismiss it because;
Quote
the D.C. Circuit found that a Congressman's comments to the press on his pending separation from his wife were within the scope of his employment because "[a] Member's ability to do his job as a legislator effectively is tied, as in this case, to the Member's relationship with the public and in particular his constituents and colleagues in the Congress." By commenting on his private life, the Congressman was seeking to maintain his constituents' trust in him and thereby discharge his legislative responsibilities more effectively.
That case is the holding precedent, and both the higher courts and supreme court already look at cases involving Trump's personal statements and gave consistent approaches.
This one judge then declares that he's the sole arbiter of the law and that everyone else is wrong and all other precedents were wrongly decided, and flips the bird to the concept of stare decisis and lets this case keep bouncing around ahead of the election
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.