Boston, Massachusetts 2021-07-28 13:03:22 –
Washington-A Republican speech prior to the riots at the US Capitol was not covered by the protection of members of the House of Representatives and federal officials, the Justice Department said in a court filed Tuesday. Of the 2020 election results.
Republican Rep. Mo Brooks claimed that Brooks, then President Donald Trump, and others were virtually exempt from the proceedings filed by his colleague Eric Swalwell for contributing to the failure. Attack on Congress.
Past court opinions and the judicial ministry’s legal interpretation have provided a wide range of safeguards to protect elected civil servants sued in public statements. But in the case of Brooks, the Justice Department decided he was overkill.
The agency cannot conclude that Brooks was acting within his office or employment as a member of the House of Representatives at the time the claim was filed, the court filings said. rice field. “Inciting or colluding to incite a violent attack on the United States Parliament is not within the employment of representatives or federal officials.”
The ministry’s legal debate states that Brooks’ appearance at a rally outside the White House prior to the riot was “an election campaign, and choosing one side of the candidates in a federal election is not part of the U.S. business. I concluded.
During his speech at the rally on January 6, Brooks told the crowd to “withdraw his name and start kicking his ass.”He has Insisted His statement was that 64 percent of voters were part of his job as a representative of the district that chose Donald Trump over Biden. As a federal employee, Brooks says he is exempt from proceedings against actions taken within the scope of his work.
In another case, including a defamation proceeding against writer E. Jean Carroll against Trump, the Justice Department under President Joe Biden denied her allegation that Trump had sexually assaulted his personal position. Insisted that he could not be sued in.
That position infuriated Democrats. In contrast, the decision that Brooks could be sued would probably be supported on the left, as his comments far exceeded his job as a member of the House of Representatives.
Swolwell, who Sued Brooks in Federal Court of Justice, District of Columbia, His colleague claimed to have been active “in his personal ability for his own benefit” at the rally. Swolwell’s lawyer, Philip Andnian, said Tuesday night that he “did not agree anymore” with the ministry’s analysis.
“Mo Brooks not only engaged in defenseless campaign activities on January 6, but was revealed by his own submission. He colluded to interfere with Congress and is at the heart of our democracy. Caused a deadly rebellion that struck, “said Andnian.
Mr Brooks said the ministry’s reasoning was wrong because “the law is so broad” and added that he believed the court would ultimately stand by him.
“I didn’t recommend anyone doing anything in the campaign,” Brooks said. “If that’s the norm, everything that happens in Congress affects the campaign, so everything that happens in Congress is a campaign.”
He made a general comment on voting in future elections, but said, “I never asked anyone to participate in anyone’s campaign. [because] Then you cross the line. “
Judge Amit Mehta of the US District Court asked the Justice Department to consider whether Swolwell could sue Brooks or whether precedent would require the government to replace Brooks as a defendant.
Mr Brooks also called on the House of Representatives to intervene in the proceedings, but earlier Tuesday said in a letter that it was “inappropriate” to be involved in a dispute between the two members.
House impeachment manager and chairman of the Judiciary and Land Security Commission has also sued the president’s sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Rudolph W. Giuliani. Swolwell claimed that four men made false claims of incendiary bombs at a rally on January 6, which directly led to a violent attack on the Capitol.
Elder Trump has not asked the Justice Department for intervention. As a former president, he claims to have an “absolute immunity” from the proceedings.
Brooks First member of parliament He declared that he would challenge the Electoral College, which proves Biden’s victory, and set January 6 as the focus of those who are trying to overturn the election results.He continues Disseminate false information About elections. In response to Swolwell’s proceedings, he again asserted Congress’s rights and obligations to decide Trump’s victory and elections.
On January 6, he evoked bloodshed and death hours before Trump and asked, “Are you willing to do what you need to do to fight for America?”
Brooks argues that his speech encouraged verbal and voting fighting rather than physical violence. USA! USA! ‘”-And the White House asked him to do so, so he spoke only at the rally.
Hundreds of people in the crowd he told to “stop at the Capitol” broke through the barricade into the building. Several people have died in the turmoil. After that, two police officers who protected the building committed suicide. Members of the House of Representatives, including Brooks and Swolwell, were forced to evacuate.
More than 500 defendants have been charged with committing crimes during the riot, officials said they had assaulted nearly 140 police officers and caused $ 1.5 million in damages.
Keep all the latest news from Boston.com up to date
Rep. Brooks may be sued over Jan. 6 speech, Justice Department says Source link Rep. Brooks may be sued over Jan. 6 speech, Justice Department says