Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) demanded his dismissal from a federal lawsuit alleging that he helped incite the mob behind the deadly Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, arguing that he can’t be sued because he was acting as a federal employee while vowing to challenge the election results hours before the attack.
Coward. At least defend your position. But instead, he runs away. Again, coward.
Funny how lawbreakers like to hide behind the law.
Even funnier when it is a law maker.
Your honor, when I was helping those bank robbers take over the bank I was acting as the bank manager so I shouldn’t be held liable.
“IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IF BROOKS WAS RIGHT OR WRONG.”
This clearly sums up his intellectual integrity and intelligence in a nutshell. And I do mean nut.
Weren’t Julius and Ethel Rosenberg federal employees?
(Asking for a prosecutor.)
Will he also claim that as a supporter of secession and nullification he has no reason to abide by federal law?
Saying he is a sovereign citizen will be his next bit.
Well, clearly he was special, just like his master, and they can’t be accused of crimes including trying to destroy democracy as long as they were in office as federal employees.
I bet he has nothing but disdain for the elites, but he’s more than happy to claim elite privilege.
They are all a bunch of Fredos.
I don’t like slippery slope arguments, but this claim justifies it – what’s to keep a congresscritter from arguing:
“I opened up machine gunfire on the Capitol Police thinking it is was what my constituents demanded. Rightly or wrongly. It was therefore part of my official duties as a federal employee!”
/checks watch
Yep, widespread violence inevitable…
hehe
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington directed the Justice Department and Swalwell to respond to Brooks’s claims. Mehta gave Swalwell and the Justice Department a July 27 deadline to respond.
They won’t need until July 27 to craft their response. “That’s fucking nuts!” should be sufficient.
And James O’Keefe is a journalist, too, so he can do anything he likes, right?
Being old isn’t bad. And being foolish isn’t bad. But an old fool has no place in Congress.
That is my position on the damn DOJ memo about presidents and indictments as well.
I agree.
Where did he uncover that crock of [clang]!!?!?!
No one is above the law, buddy, and hopefully you will find out sooner rather than later
It seems like a strange thing to argue that fomenting rebellion against the government is protected activity if you’re part of that government. Though, it’s a bit strange to be fomenting rebellion against a government you are part of in the first place…
It is a difficult decision for the judge though…was Brooks actually acting as a representative of his constituents when calling for a democratic election to be overturned? Did they really want to overturn the government? It’s possible the answer to that is yes, so his argument may have merit when portrayed that way. No, I don’t agree with it, I think anyone who pulled what he did deserves some kind of punishment (at least to be ejected from office), but the law can be a tricky thing.
Honestly though, I’m surprised he didn’t just fall back on the 1st Amendment to say his speech was protected, which seems like the simplest argument to make. That makes me think his lawyers consider what he said to cross the line into incitement of a riot or violence, which is not protected speech…that might explain falling back on the argument that “I’m an elitist government official so I can do whatever I want!”. And that means Brooks has opened the door to putting limits on the behavior of members of Congress, at least when it comes to calling for violence, which would actually be a good thing.
It should be really interesting to see the response to this (which I expect to be something like “no, being a member of Congress doesn’t allow you to call for violent overthrow of the government”), and then see what the judge has to say. If the judge does allow the suit to go forward, you can bet the defendants will try to get the Republican Supreme Court to intervene…should be really interesting to see if Roberts and Co. decide that calling for the violent overthrow of the government is fine and dandy.
Mo Brooks’s job is to certify the electoral vote, not to incite an insurrection in order to stop it.
Brooks cited a 1988 law that protects federal employees from being held liable while acting within the scope of their office or employment.
Does the 1988 law cover acting with treasonous intentions?
Ol’ Mo is at the tail end of a long long line of GQP idiots.
Seems to me that a Congresscritter who helps incite an insurrection against Congress is guilty not only of treason, but of dereliction.of duty.