Nitpick: it was the Indiana AG, not Ohio.
Based on some of the things the IN AG said, I’m not sure he did any further research, rather than just knee-jerk reacting. Specifically the bit about the doctor not having submitted the paperwork when, in fact, she had. This should have been easily researched by a state official.
ISTM there are two separate issues here.
The OP was about defamation based on statements made in press conferences and the like. Separately from that, W-a-M and NP discussed the matter of whether a targeted investigation would be an abuse of power. My comments were about this second issue. If as you’re now saying that there was no investigation targeted or otherwise, then that whole discussion would be moot, but my comments were premised on the suggestion by W-a-M that there was one.
I guess part of the issue might be - was the AG “shooting from the hip”? Was there actually an investigation underway when he spoke, or was he simply jumping to conclusions without evidence?
I mean, he obviously impugned her reputation without evidence. Was he provided with details - by his department - that would indicate there was a problem, or was he doing what is known in some political circles as complete “making shit up” to satisfy his prejudices.
It seems to me if there was an investigation, he was doing his job (badly). If there was no investigation yet, he was not. Some of his statements use future tense and seem to indicate pre-judgement. Either way, he or the state will be on the hook for something. (Why not both of them?)
It also occurs to me that the lawyers for the state would be working for the AG. It would then seem to be a career limiting move to take the position arguing “my boss should pay for this personally, not the state”.
The only distinction I would see is if the plaintiff wants to hold the AG liable personally, his personal lawyers would have to argue that the state bears the burden. I do wonder if his lawyers are actually paid by the state (if the government -i.e. the AG- decides that the state should shoulder this cost)what their conflict of interest position is? Arguing that the state’s liable, yet employed by and paid for by the state…
Are you suggesting that there is a conflict issue anytime a government lawyer determines that a government employee was operating within the scope of his employment (and, therefore, the proper defendant is the government entity itself)? The (state and federal) Tort Claims Act regime relies on the government making that distinction.
(If find it unlikely, however, that the government lawyers would argue that the state was actually liable. If they conclude that, they’d settle the case).
I’m very reluctant to summarise a criminal investigation in this way, in either case. Yes, things sometimes come to the attention of the police through media reports. If those reports are credible, it’s completely appropriate for the police to investigate. And we don’t know, simply from the media reports, what those investigations found or are finding. Providing the investigation is being done in a professional way, by normal investigative and prosecutorial standards, and not with the expressed goal of “getting” a political opponent, it’s appropriate. At this stage, we don’t know what has gone into the investigations in either case.
Maybe, if the employee they are making a determination about is… their boss. The guy who decides if they stay employed and get promotions.
Then they are basically saying “sue us, the state, but not him, the stupid guy with the runaway mouth.”
Not so much admitting liability as assuming the burden of possible liability. Sort of like the scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian where the do-gooder says “here brother, let me help you carry that cross.”