A Lawsuit Against Jan. 6 Rally Speakers Forces DOJ To Consider Who's Legally Immune

[Jilly_in_VA]

A lawsuit against the men who spoke at a rally before the Capitol riot on Jan. 6 is putting the Justice Department in a tricky position.

The department is considering whether those federal officials acted within the scope of their jobs that day, which would trigger a form of legal immunity. Government watchdogs said the case has serious implications for who's held accountable for violence that delayed the election certification and contributed to the deaths of five people.

One of the defendants is Republican Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama, who stood before the crowd on Jan. 6 and said:
"Now, our ancestors sacrificed their blood, their sweat, their tears, their fortunes and sometimes their lives to give us, their descendants, an America that is the greatest nation in world history. So I have a question for you — are you willing to do the same?"

Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California featured those remarks in a lawsuit this year. He's sued Brooks, former President Donald Trump and others over lying about the election, inciting a mob to storm the Capitol, and causing pain and distress to people inside the complex.

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/26/1020786560/a-lawsuit-against-jan-6-rally-speakers-forces-doj-to-consider-whos-legally-immun

[Dream Girl]

1. I'm sure Merrick Garland will do the right thing

[lagomorph777]

6. Didn't we already hear that DOJ said they can't uses Executive Privilege?

Although, I'm sure they have numerous other legal shenanigans they can try.

[bamagal62]

2. We're all waiting for Merrick Garland to do something.

My patience is wearing thin. (I promise I’m trying)

[captain queeg]

3. The rethug politicians will be getting pretty nervous

There are a few who are so far gone they continue to believe things will work out for them. I suppose the ones that are so deluded even believe that fearless leader will be president again. I can’t even imagine what’s going on in their twisted brains, not that I’ll spend time trying. It all reminds me of the book Helter Skelter, written by the prosecutor of Charles Manson and like that case, the leader was guilty even though he didn’t do the physical acts. His followers didn’t get off just because they were manipulated.

[gratuitous]

4. When Republicans are in office, they're in favor of a very expansive view of privilege and immunity

When Nixon first invoked the notion of "executive privilege" during the Watergate investigation, it was supposed to be a very narrow application. Since then, this argument - which appears nowhere in the Constitution - has burgeoned to include practically anyone whose office is in the White House, friends and confidants of the president, and lackeys and hangers-on of various degrees of shadiness.

If the office-holders who incited the mob on January 6 are let go scot-free, immunized by the high offices they hold, I think it sets a far more dangerous precedent than holding trials for them.

[Nevilledog]

5. There's this 👇

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215668492

[abqtommy]

7. "Legally Immune"? Since when did NPR start writing for The Onion? It took me less than a

minute to come to a conclusion that I hope the DOJ also makes. And that means "Legal Liability",
not "Immunity".