...Westfall is not a carte blanche for anything and everything an elected official says while they hold a federal office. It's a protection that only applies to speech that is made while they are engaged in their legitimate duties, which is a very important qualifier...
It's also a meaningless qualifier. Case in point, that
Carroll's counsel cites as at least one instance of alleged defamation statements made by Trump not at a press event but rather extemporaneously fielding questions from reporters before boarding Marine Force One, which was argued to be outside his scope of office because the statements were not made at a press event. Likewise, another instance of alleged defamation was written, sent by the press secretary to a reporter absent letterhead, document numeration or filing, or as stated in the relevant memorandum, "any other signs of official process". And of course the third -- the interview with
The Hill -- which was argued to be outside the scope of his Presidential duties as the majority of the interview
was about the 2020 election.
But of course, being you're the one that won't shut up about Ballenger you're already well aware of that last instance. Because it's the only way you can defend that point and try to draw a distinction between it and the Capitol riot case, whilst trying to preserve plaintiffs' arguments
and sidestep that Westfall immunity extends to political/campaign activity (
Operation Rescue National v. United States). Because litigants' arguments in a case are neither case facts nor established law, especially as they are by necessity conflicted parties, and what you present are plaintiffs' arguments which present
themselves as self-contradictory and ultimately self-defeating.
Because if Trump's comments on January 6th are indeed to be understood as tantamount to campaign speech, being that Westfall immunity has been ruled by the courts to apply to campaign speech, plaintiffs' counsel is arguing Westfall immunity applies to what they're trying to sue Trump for in the first place. In other words, yes what I identified as the salient legal question, is in fact the salient legal question and everything you've brought to the fore here is, yet again, sound and fury signifying nothing.
Translation: You've tacitly acknowledged that your interpretation is baseless, but are pretending it doesn't matter.
Or, you simply fail to understand exactly how high the legal barrier is to declaring political speech as incitement in the first place. Which is A, why the criminal case failed in part, and B, why this is a civil case in which the preponderance standard applies. Because if Trump's statements cannot be understood as incitement in the first place, the civil case is meritless.
None of which is relevant anyways, because once again the issue is whether the Biden administration will defend Trump in this case, and they will. Because to let Trump take the "L" is to create a precedent in which a sitting president can and would be held liable for malfeasance (real or perceived) once they leave office. No sitting president nor their administration will ever willingly allow that precedent to be created, out of naked self-interest.
If their predecessor is to be held liable, they can and will be too once they're out of office. Because as I pointed out, that's precisely what the Obama administration did with the former Bush administration and for the same reason.
