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.
-
-
The problem, at least as far as how I view the CAIR/Wuterich rulings, is that the D.C. Circuit doesn't care about the underlying content of the communication. What they look at is the overarching function; in this case, responding to media reports.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @BradMossEsq @chrisgeidner and
Just as Murtha making comments to the media about Wuterich fell within the scope of Murtha's employment (regardless of what he said), Trump responding to media reports about Stormy's allegations could be construed as falling within the scope of his employment.
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @BradMossEsq @chrisgeidner and
I know that not everyone agrees with my assessment. I believe
@steve_vladeck has expressed some skepticism about it.@MarkSZaidEsq2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @BradMossEsq @chrisgeidner and
I find it difficult to believe - even though I disagree w/decision - a scenario that a Congressman would have broad immunity from defamation but a president would not.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I'm not saying I think that would be the case. I'm saying, the three examples cited related to underlying policy decisions within the scope of the people's employment. Neither Trump tweet, by my read, does so.
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.