Lakhota
Diamond Member
The Department of Justice said the Alabama Republican’s speech before the Capitol attack was “not within the scope” of his employment.
The Department of Justice said Tuesday that Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) was not acting in the scope of his official duties as a congressman when he gave a speech to Donald Trump supporters on Jan. 6, saying the lawmaker is not protected by laws that shield members of Congress from legal action.
The determination comes amid a lawsuit filed this year by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) against Brooks, former President Trump and attorney Rudy Giuliani. The suit accuses the trio of inciting the deadly attack at the U.S. Capitol as Trump and his surrogates continued to spread lies that the 2020 presidential election had been stolen from him.
“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 elections,” the agency wrote. Official later added: “Inciting or conspiring to foment a violent attack on the United States Congress is not within the scope of employment of a Representative — or any federal employee — and thus is not the sort of conduct for which the United States is properly substituted as a defendant under the Westfall Act.”
Brooks had argued that he was acting in his duties as a congressman during the “Stop the Steal” rally and was therefore protected by the Westfall Act, which shields federal employees from lawsuits related to their work. The Justice Department’s decision means the federal government will not replace Brooks as the defendant in the suit, echoing a similar decision by the House of Representatives on Tuesday.
The New York Times notes the decision likely means the Justice Department could decline to provide protection to Trump in the lawsuit and force him to defend himself.
www.huffpost.com
www.nytimes.com
This is good news from the DOJ. This should also worry others - including Trump. What do you think?
The Department of Justice said Tuesday that Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) was not acting in the scope of his official duties as a congressman when he gave a speech to Donald Trump supporters on Jan. 6, saying the lawmaker is not protected by laws that shield members of Congress from legal action.
The determination comes amid a lawsuit filed this year by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) against Brooks, former President Trump and attorney Rudy Giuliani. The suit accuses the trio of inciting the deadly attack at the U.S. Capitol as Trump and his surrogates continued to spread lies that the 2020 presidential election had been stolen from him.
“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 elections,” the agency wrote. Official later added: “Inciting or conspiring to foment a violent attack on the United States Congress is not within the scope of employment of a Representative — or any federal employee — and thus is not the sort of conduct for which the United States is properly substituted as a defendant under the Westfall Act.”
Brooks had argued that he was acting in his duties as a congressman during the “Stop the Steal” rally and was therefore protected by the Westfall Act, which shields federal employees from lawsuits related to their work. The Justice Department’s decision means the federal government will not replace Brooks as the defendant in the suit, echoing a similar decision by the House of Representatives on Tuesday.
The New York Times notes the decision likely means the Justice Department could decline to provide protection to Trump in the lawsuit and force him to defend himself.
U.S. Won't Defend Rep. Mo Brooks For Speaking At Pro-Trump Rally On Jan. 6
The Department of Justice said the Alabama Republican's speech before the Capitol attack was "not within the scope" of his employment.
U.S. Declines to Defend Trump Ally in Lawsuit Over Jan. 6 Riot (Published 2021)
The move could mean that the Justice Department is also unlikely to defend former President Donald J. Trump in the case.
This is good news from the DOJ. This should also worry others - including Trump. What do you think?
