Those last three paragraphs of the Scarborough piece sure seem to glass over a lot. The examples cited all actually relate to job functions and policy decisions. The Trump tweets about Scarborough (and Daniels) do not seemingly relate to any job function or policy.
-
-
Here is the Murtha ruling. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1262084.html … The Valerie Plame case had a similar ruling a bit later.
-
"As in Ballenger, the underlying conduct-interviews with the media about the pressures on American troops in the ongoing Iraq war-is unquestionably of the kind that Congressman Murtha was employed to perform as a Member of Congress." Seems distinguishable from Trump's tweet.
-
Thin thin line.
-
The broader context of Murtha's remarks were about policy: "...it is hard to fathom how Congressman Murtha's discussion of grave public policy concerns relating to the war in Iraq could ever fall outside the scope of his employment."
-
So at the very least, it's would be harder to argue that Trump's tweet was within the scope of his employment.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.