Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) told a court Wednesday that he should have immunity from a civil lawsuit over his remarks at a rally just before the Capitol riot, pushing back against the Justice Department’s argument that he was not acting within the scope of his employment as a lawmaker Jan. 6.
Brooks filed a response to the Biden administration’s refusal to back his immunity claim, disputing their assessment of his “Stop the Steal” rally speech as campaign activity and thus not legally protected from the civil suit.
The Alabama Republican, who is representing himself against a lawsuit from Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), defended his character and attacked Democrats in the court filings.
“In 4 decades of public service, Brooks has a perfect ethics record, having never been found to have violated any ethics laws, large or small (despite Democrats, over the years, having harassed Brooks with at least 38 ethics complaints, none of which have been found to be substantive or warranted),” Brooks wrote.
He added that he had never been unfaithful to his wife, has no criminal history and has never taken illegal drugs.
Swalwell filed the lawsuit earlier this year, accusing Brooks, former President Trump and ex-Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani of inciting the riot at the Capitol.
Brooks asked the Justice Department to certify that he was acting within his official duties as a legislator when he delivered a speech Jan. 6, which under federal law would effectively shield him from such lawsuits.
But last week, the Justice Department declined, arguing that his conduct that day appeared to be political campaigning, which does not fall under protected activity.
“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,” department lawyers wrote in their filing.
One section of the Justice Department brief included the heading, “Instigating an attack on the United States Capitol would not be within the scope of a Member of Congress’s employment.”
Brooks also filed a motion Wednesday to strike what he said were “fictions” in the Justice Department’s brief.
“It is also abundantly clear (as shown hereinafter) that the DoJ has little understanding about what Members of Congress do in their jobs in Congress,” Brooks wrote.
“Swalwell’s Complaint makes every effort to replicate the Salem Witch Hunt,” he continued.
Swalwell’s attorney Philip Andonian pushed back, saying in an email that Brooks “continues to demonstrate why anyone who represents themselves has a fool for a client.”
“Putting aside the allegations in the Complaint, which must be accepted as true at this stage, Brooks himself admits in his supporting affidavit that he was, in fact, campaigning — as both the House and DOJ correctly observed. He might not like that he sunk his own argument, but it is what it is. His responsive pleadings filed today are nonsensical at best, and do nothing to change the fact that DOJ correctly concluded that Brooks was acting outside the scope of his employment on January 6 and thus is properly a defendant in our case,” Andonian added.
Updated: 11:50 p.m.