The duties of Habba's office do not include publicly accusing and impugning a citizen of illegal actions they did not do...
The duties of the U.S. Attorney precisely include making public accusations. That's what makes false arrest and malicious prosecution so hard to prove under a
Bivens claim. However the point is well taken. Condescending statements made on social media are not the kind of accusation a U.S. Attorney is tasked with making. It won't be very hard to style that as a political statement rather than legal assertion.
...in the course of a civil law suit in which they are the defendant.
No federal defendant is named in the suit. The defendant is the private owner of Delaney Hall, which is a New Jersey entity. The defendants have tried at least once to remove the case to federal jurisdiction without success. However it is likely that Alina Habba is sympathetic to the Dept. of Homeland Security's desire to remain in and use the building as a tenant.
Neither of these applied to Habba's actions.
I agree. Withhold information? Speak freely behind closed doors?
Yes, that was my point. The previous poster used the term "executive privilege" to allude to Habba's likely defense, when a more accurate term is "executive immunity." Executive privilege does not describe or excuse Alina Habba's actions, but executive
immunity might. Ordinarily the government enjoys a presumption of regularity, which in this case would ordinarily mean that the existence of the charges is presumptive evidence that the officers responsible for it were acting properly within their office.
However in this case it's painfully evident that Habba did not act with regularity, and Baraka has a much stronger possibility of prevailing than most defendants making similar claims in court.
I've attached the complaint, which has some very strong arguments.
