Mo Brooks is trying to get some legal cover for his role in the insurrection, and the DoJ is having none of it. He will make for an interesting Select Committee witness.

“Instigating an attack on the United States capitol would not be in the scope of a member of congress’ employment”

A committee in the U.S. House of Representatives said, in a July 23 letter to the Department of Justice, that Rep. Mo Brooks acted outside the scope of his office when he spoke at a pro-Trump rally hours before the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol.

That committee opinion disagrees with Brooks’ claims in a court filing last month when he said that his speech at the Ellipse near the White House was all a part of his duties and that he would not have been invited to speak by the Trump administration if he were not a congressman.

The filing Tuesday came in the federal lawsuit brought by California Democrat Congressman Eric Swalwell alleging that Brooks – along with co-defendants former President Donald Trump, Trump’s son Donald Jr. and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani – were responsible for the Capitol siege.

The judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, ordered the United States as well as Swalwell to respond to Brooks’ assertion that he was acting within the scope of his office by Tuesday.

In a court filing, the House general counsel said it would not participate in the lawsuit.

“Given that the underlying litigation was initiated by a current Member of the U.S. House of Representatives (Swalwell) individually suing another current House Member (Brooks) individually and does not challenge any institutional action of the House or any of its component entities, the (counsel’s office) has determined that, in these circumstances, it is not appropriate for it to participate in the litigation,” the filing said.

www.al.com/…

x
DOJ is also due to respond to Brooks’ motion today, but there’s no time deadline, so it could come in whenever tonight 
Just in: DOJ won’t certify that Rep. Mo Brooks was acting within the scope of his employment when he made the statements that got him sued by Rep. Swalwell for allegedly inciting the Jan. 6 riots.

So, long story short, he’s on his own: s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2101…

Image

DOJ: “The record indicates that Brooks’s appearance at the January 6 rally was campaign activity, and it is no part of the business of the United States to pick sides among candidates in federal election”

Image

This doesn’t end the fight totally — it’s still up to the judge to grant or deny Brooks’s motion to certify that he was acting w/in the scope of his employment and substitute the US govt as the defendant. But it’s a much steeper hill to climb without DOJ on board 

• • •

x

x

x

x

Liked it? Take a second to support Community last on Patreon!

This is a Creative Commons article. The original version of this article appeared here.

1 COMMENT

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here