The Justice Department chose he went too far.

During a speech at the Jan. 6 rally, Rep. Mo Brooks informed the crowd to “begin taking down names and kicking ass.” Eric Lee/ Bloomberg

By Devlin Barrett and Rachel Weiner, Washington Post

WASHINGTON– A Republican congressman’s Jan. 6 speech ahead of the riot at the U.S. Capitol is not covered by securities for members of Congress and federal workers, the Justice Department stated in a court filing Tuesday– drawing a legal line over efforts to stop the certification of the 2020 election results.

Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., had actually argued that he is effectively immune from a lawsuit submitted by his associate Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., that implicated Brooks, then-President Donald Trump, and others of fomenting the stopped working attack on Congress.

Past court viewpoints and Justice Department legal interpretations have actually offered broad safeguards to protect elected officials who are sued over their public statements. In the case of Brooks, the Justice Department chose he went too far.

The company “can not conclude that Brooks was acting within the scope of his office or work as a Member of Congress at the time of the occurrence out of which the claims in this case arose,” the court filing stated. “Inciting or conspiring to foment a violent attack on the United States Congress is not within the scope of work of a Representative-or any federal employee.”

The department’s legal argument concluded that Brooks’s look at the rally outside the White House that preceded the riot “was campaign activity, and it is no part of the business of the United States to pick sides among prospects in federal elections.”

As a federal employee, Brooks states, he has immunity from claims for actions taken within the scope of his job.

In a different case, including writer E. Jean Carroll’s character assassination lawsuit versus Trump, the Justice Department under President Joe Biden has argued that Trump could not be sued in his individual capacity for denying her claim that he had sexually assaulted her.

That position infuriated Democrats. In contrast, the decision that Brooks can be taken legal action against, due to the fact that his remarks were so far beyond his work as a member of Congress, probably will be cheered on the.

Swalwell, who sued Brooks in a District of Columbia federal court, argued that his coworker was running “in his personal capacity for his own benefit” at the rally. Philip Andonian, an attorney for Swalwell, said Tuesday night that he “could not agree more” with the department’s analysis.

” Not only did Mo Brooks engage in unguarded campaign activity on January 6– which his own filing makes clear– he conspired to interfere with Congress and prompted a fatal insurrection that struck the very core of our democracy,” Andonian said.

Brooks stated the department’s reasoning was incorrect since “the law is extremely broad,” adding that he believes the courts will ultimately agree him.

” I was not promoting anyone do anything in any campaign,” Brooks stated. “If that is the requirement, then whatever that is performed in Congress is campaigning due to the fact that everything that is performed in Congress impacts projects.”

While he made basic remarks about voting in future elections, he said, “I didn’t ask any person to take part in anybody’s project … [because] then you cross the line.”

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta asked the Justice Department to weigh in on whether Swalwell can sue Brooks, or whether precedent requires the federal government to substitute itself for Brooks as an accused.

Brooks had actually likewise requested for your house to intervene in the claim, but earlier Tuesday the general counsel decreased, saying in a letter that it was “not appropriate” to get involved in a disagreement in between two members.

Swalwell, a Home impeachment manager and Intelligence subcommittee chairman who rests on the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees, is likewise taking legal action against the president’s son Donald Trump Jr. and Rudolph W. Giuliani, neither of whom can mount a federal employee defense. Swalwell declared that the four guys made incendiary false claims at the Jan. 6 rally that led directly to the violent attack on the Capitol.

The older Trump has actually not asked the Justice Department to intervene; he argues that as the previous president he has “absolute immunity” from the suit.

Brooks was the very first member of Congress to declare that he would challenge the electoral college count certifying Biden’s triumph, setting up Jan. 6 as a focal point for those seeking to reverse the election results. He has continued to spread false information about the election. In action to Swalwell’s suit, he once again declared Trump’s victory in addition to the right and duty of Congress to decide the election.

On Jan. 6, he spoke hours prior to Trump, conjuring up bloodshed and death and asking, “Are you willing to do what it requires to defend America?”

Brooks has argued that his speech motivated combating through words and votes, not physical violence– “The only thing I asked Ellipse participants to do is shout ‘USA!

Hundreds of individuals in the crowd he had actually told to “stop at the Capitol” overran barriers and broke into the structure.

More than 500 accuseds have been charged with committing criminal offenses during the riot, which authorities said led to assaults on nearly 140 policeman and $1.5 million in damage.

Newsletter Signup

Stay up to date on all the most recent news from