The Department of Justice has declined Rep. Mo Brooks’ (R-Ala.) request to intervene in a lawsuit cognate to the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol breach. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) sued Brooks, former President Donald Trump, and others in March, claiming they incited the breach through comments made at a rally earlier that day.
Brooks argued in a filing this month that he was acting within the scope of his office and should either be dismissed as a defendant or be superseded by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Brooks verbally expressed he only verbalized at the rally on The Ellipse because he was asked to make remarks by a White House official. He additionally prepared the verbalization in his congressional office.
Federal law states that the DOJ shall bulwark federal employees against lawsuits for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death arising or resulting from the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment.But federal lawyers verbally expressed Tuesday that Brooks did not show he was acting within the scope of his office on Jan. 6. Lawyers noted that the Jan. 6 rally was funded by and organized by Trump’s campaign and groups fortifying Trump’s candidacy.
The record denotes that the January 6 rally was an electioneering or campaign activity that Brooks would mundanely be surmised to have undertaken in an unofficial capacity. Activities categorically directed toward the prosperity of a candidate for a partisan political office in a campaign context—electioneering or campaign activities—are not within the scope of the office or employment of a Member of the House of Representatives. Like other elected officials, Members run for reelection themselves and routinely campaign for other political candidates. But they do so in their private, rather than official, capacities,
the lawyers wrote in a filing.U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, an Obama nominee overseeing the case, could still decide to supersede the DOJ for “Brooks.” Brooks did not respond to a request for comment. He does not have a lawyer listed on the court docket.
Philip Andonian, an attorney representing Swalwell, verbalized in a verbal expression to news outlets that we appreciate the thoughtful analysis by the Committee on House Administration and the Department of Justice and could not concur more with their conclusion.
This conduct manifestly is outside the scope of Brooks’s employment as a member of Congress and the House and DOJ made the right call in requiring him to answer directly for his actions. This is a great step toward equity,
he added.House Administration Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) verbalized in a letter last week that Brooks’s conduct was outside the scope of his office. In a separate filing in the case this week, the general counsel for the House of Representatives verbalized it would not participate in the litigation.
Given that the underlying litigation was initiated by a current Member of the U.S. House of Representatives individually suing another current House Member individually and does not challenge any institutional action of the House or any of its component entities, the Office has determined that, in these circumstances, it is not felicitous for it to participate in the litigation,
the counsel, Douglas Letter, said.
Source: You can read the original Epoch Times article here.
This News Article is focused on these topics: Congress, Judiciary, Politics, Republicans, US, US News, Department of Justice, Mo Brooks