Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
Executive privilege is a very squishy, grey, untested area.
Here, my feeling on the subject is that in theory, if the alleged slander arose from the President's duties since he was commenting on a matter of public concern during a Presidential press conference. That should probably be a privileged statement.
Even if the statement wasn't privileged, I don't know if it'd be actionable anyhow for a few reasons. 1) The police officer is a limited purpose public figure -- he's famous, of public concern, etc. 2) since the President's statements weren't made with malice (he didn't know the statement was false or wasn't necessarily reckless with regard to the truth), and even if he did that it's hard to say that the President's words would have the tendency to lower the police officer's standing in the community. The whole story is out there and the President's remarks are a mere sideshow.
|
Having the President say on national TV that your actions were stupid does seem to me to be likely to lower the police officer's standing in the community. That's actually the only thing that would make me wonder if he could be included in the defamation. The damage likely to be done to the cop's reputation was magnified greatly, I think, by the President commenting on it.
And since it was a health care address, I think it's a little less clear that he was responding to an issue of national concern. Had "Skip" not been a personal friend, which I think is how he put it, I think he would been a lot more reticent to speak up without knowing all the facts.
But as I said before, I think it would foolish for the cop to try to sue Gates, much less Obama.
Threaded Mode
