Mo Brooks throws Trump under the bus in response to lawsuit that accuses him of inciting MAGA mob

[riversedge]

oh my --this delicious. ha ah





"Brooks only gave the Ellipse Speech because the White House asked him to, in his capacity as a United States Congressman," the new court filing says. "But for the White House request, Brooks would not have appeared at the Ellipse Rally."

Link to tweet

?s=20



Mo Brooks throws Trump under the bus in response to lawsuit that accuses him of inciting MAGA mob

https://www.rawstory.com/mo-brooks-2653685982/

July 06, 2021


Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) claims in a new court filing that he was asked by a White House official to speak at former president Donald Trump's infamous "Stop the Steal" rally that preceded the Jan. 6 insurrection.

The Alabama Republican was given Trump's endorsement for the U.S. Senate after making the speech, which a lawsuit alleges helped incite the violent assault on the U.S. Capitol, but Brooks' attorneys responded by insisting he only took part because the former president wanted him there.

"Brooks only gave the Ellipse Speech because the White House asked him to, in his capacity as a United States Congressman," the new court filing says. "But for the White House request, Brooks would not have appeared at the Ellipse Rally."
Chris Matthews talks to Raw Story: Who would you bet on in 2024, Trump or Kamala?

The response also claims Brooks coordinated the contents of his speech with White House officials, who asked him to take part the day before the rally, and he justified his actions by baselessly arguing that Trump lost the election through fraud.

[C_U_L8R]

1. Party of Personal Responsibility, my ass.

What a bunch of chickenshits. They can't even stand up for their own treason.

[riversedge]

2. BUT*** Brooks' legal filing specifies that he thinks Donald Trump still won the election

Replying to
@MacFarlaneNews
And........ Brooks' legal filing specifies that he thinks Donald Trump still won the election

Link to tweet

?s=20

Link to tweet

?s=20

[riversedge]

3. '...Said no judge ever..'.............

Replying to
@MacFarlaneNews
"Since you did it only because someone asked you to, since you wouldn't have done it otherwise, and since you wholeheartedly believe your own actions are justified, then in my eyes your actions are justified." Said no judge ever.

Link to tweet

?s=20

[Thomas Hurt]

5. So what? Servility and stupidity is a defense...

[LetMyPeopleVote]

6. Mo Brooks says he can't be sued for inciting Capitol riot because he is a federal employee

This is NOT in the scope and course of his duties as a member of Congress. If Mo had made these statements on the floor of the House, he would be protected by the speech and debate clause but inciting a rebellion and being a traitor is not in the course and scope of his official duties

Link to tweet

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) has asked to be dismissed from a federal lawsuit alleging that he incited the Jan. 6 mob assault on the U.S. Capitol, claiming that he can’t be held liable because he was acting as a federal employee while challenging the 2020 election results in a fiery speech just before the riot began.

Brooks said in a motion Friday that he should be dropped as a defendant or represented by the Justice Department in the case, filed March 5 by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.). The lawsuit names former president Donald Trump, Brooks, Donald Trump Jr. and Rudolph W. Giuliani and seeks damages in connection with their statements to a crowd near the White House that the former president told to march to the Capitol.

“Today is the day American patriots start taking down names,” Brooks said, echoing Trump’s unfounded claims that the election was rigged. Brooks told people in the crowd that they were victims of a historic theft and asked whether they were ready to sacrifice their lives for their country.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington on Monday directed the Justice Department and Swalwell to respond to Brooks’s claims. The judge also dismissed without prejudice Swalwell’s request that the court enter a default judgment against Brooks, who had previously failed to meet a deadline to respond to the suit.