[Girlene]

Thanks for posting this, vietvet67. Clarice Fieldman has written a good summary at American Thinker of what is going on with the suit against Murtha. More from the article,

..."the District Court in the Wuterich case, make clear that the government may not be substituted for the defendant and move to dismiss under the Westfall case unless it can establish that the conduct was made within the scope of the original named defendant's employment. And establishing that requires more than a perfunctory, conclusory affidavit on the issue:...."

...."In fact that is what the Department of Justice unsuccessfully tried to do in the Wuterich case -- get it dropped without offering conclusive proof that these outrageous statements were made within a Congressman's scope of employment and without allowing the defense to probe the facts by deposition and document discovery to establish that the conduct complained of was outside that scope and that Murtha, therefore, must defend the case on his own dime and be liable for any defamatory statements he made....."

..."The court agreed, and said, despite the Certification, the Government will not be substituted for Murtha (and the case therefore dismissed) until after Wuterich has had an opportunity for discovery to determine whether or not these statements come within the scope of his employment."....

Clarice lists various facts that will be explored by SSgt Wuterich's lawyer during their discovery. Her conclusion:

...."I think that there was no legislative purpose in smearing Wuterich and Kilo Company. Personal aggrandizement and political ambition motivated this Murtha media blitz. I think the very fact that a number of the statements were made in Murtha's campaign office rather than his official offices supports the claim that these statements were not made in the scope of his employment as a Congressman.

"It is my understanding that the court-ordered discovery will take place in November, and we will not know whether the suit will proceed until it is completed. But if Congressmen are protected by statutory immunity from accountability after making facially libelous statements based on no solid evidence against the troops in time of war, something is wrong with the law."

[brityank]

But something is wrong with the law."

This is the gist of where we're at, but I won't hold my breath waiting for Congress to repudiate or revise the laws -- it's not in their (self-) interest. Thanks for the ping, Girlene.

[Shelayne]

Great article by Clarice! Thanks for the ping, Girlene.

I will be flabbergasted (and seriously pissed off) if the judge rules that Murtha was speaking within the scope of his role as congressman.

Everytime these cases come up with Democrats, though, I get a sinking feeling. Please, Lord. Let this one be different.

[freema]

d. Wuterich will certainly seek all records in Murtha's possession of all comments to the media made on this issue and the circumstances surrounding all these interviews.

e. Wuterich will explore who provided Murtha the information he said he relied on. His pleadings refer, in fact, to leakers from among people inside the Department of Defense.

Note this, for the record:

http://dcist.com/2007/10/04/is_the_senate_b.php