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

[LetMyPeopleVote]

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.

[elleng]

1. CLEARLY, he doesn't understand his JOB!!!

[2naSalit]

2. Clearly. ...nt

[sheshe2]

3. Clearly he is as dumb as he looks.

Clearly, he does.

[leftieNanner]

4. And he will likely be

The next Senator from Alabama.

Ugh.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

5. A rather Trumpian sense of entitlement.

[Peppertoo]

6. Mo Brooks, Less Sense

This is insane.

[crickets]

7. It's like watching a nightmare version of Calvinball.

Every time you turn around, another Repub makes up a stupid new rule that makes no sense.

[Takket]

8. gee i wonder where he got the idea of using that as a defense...

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/08/1004340386/biden-doj-plans-to-continue-to-defend-trump-in-e-jean-carrolls-defamation-lawsui

"Then-President Trump's response to Ms. Carroll's serious allegations of sexual assault included statements that questioned her credibility in terms that were crude and disrespectful," Brian Boynton, the acting head of the department's Civil Division, wrote in the brief. "But this case does not concern whether Mr. Trump's response was appropriate. Nor does it turn on the truthfulness of Ms. Carroll's allegations."

Instead, Boynton said, it boils down to a few legal questions, including whether a president is an "employee of the government" and whether Trump's denials were made within the scope of his office.

The department said the answer to both questions is yes, and therefore under federal law it said the government should be able to replace Trump as defendant in the case.

If the department were to succeed in its efforts, legal experts said the move would effectively end the case because the federal government can't be sued for defamation.

[AllaN01Bear]

9. the gentleman is a representative and not a federal employee, he can be sued and or fired

ie , not voted for or recalled . hem. cant fix stupid .

[struggle4progress]

10. "You can't sue me! I read Mein Kampf on the House floor!"

[LetMyPeopleVote]

11. Accused of inciting the Capitol riot, Brooks offers weak defense

This is a dumb defense https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/accused-inciting-capitol-riot-brooks-offers-weak-defense-n1273213

In other words, as far as the Alabama congressman is concerned, lying to an agitated mob, and allegedly helping incite a riot, was part of his official duties as a federal official.

By this reasoning, Brooks could've said and done effectively anything at the event, just so long as he could plausibly say he was there in his official capacity as an elected lawmaker.

In the same filing, Brooks insisted that he only appeared at the rally because the White House asked him to, before adding that he believes Donald Trump secretly won the 2020 race. (The Alabaman specifically pointed to "overwhelming" evidence that no one has seen.)

As the Post's report added, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta yesterday directed the Justice Department and Swalwell to respond to Brooks' claims.