Mo Brook’s Trifecta Hire a competent Criminal Defense Attorney -DOJ MOABish
Holy CRAP the DOJ went there and it’s glorious - “conspiring to prevent the lawful certification of the 2020 election and to injure Members of Congress and inciting the riot at the Capitol”
Which was filed shortly before 9:30PM DC Local time - see DDC-ECF - the last paragraph on page 1 of the introduction is absolutely savage - see Scribd Link for the USA Filing - RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order, filed by UNITED STATES
In response to the Court’s order, the United States hereby reports that the Department has declined to issue a certification because it cannot conclude that Brooks was acting within the scope of his office or employment as a Member of Congress at the time of the incident out of which the claims in this case arose. In light of the Department’s declination, the United States should not be substituted as a defendant in this action.
But wait…there’s more oh so much more…
He, being Mo Brooks is ENTIRELY SCREWED read the last paragraph on page 2 of the Government’s introduced - it’s freaking GLORIOUS and Mo Brooks should be terrified that he might be criminally indicted. And I’m not one to oversell any legal filing -but HOLY SHITTLESTIX ON FIRE…
..conspiring to prevent the lawful certification of the 2020 election and to injure Members of Congress and inciting the riot at the Capitol…
…The United States respectfully submits that the Court should deny Brooks’s petition. Because the Department has declined to certify, Brooks bears the burden of showing that his actions were within the scope of his office or employment as a Member of Congress. And, as explained below, Brooks has not carried that burden…
Indeed, although the scope of employment related to the duties of a Member of Congress is undoubtedly broad and there are some activities that cannot be neatly cleaved into official and personal categories, Brooks’s request for certification and substitution of the United States for campaign-related conduct appears to be unprecedented…courts have routinely rejected claims that campaigning and electioneering activities fall within the scope of official employment. Brooks thus has not sustained his burden of demonstrating that his conduct at the January 6 rally was undertaken in his official capacity.
In addition, the Complaint alleges that Brooks engaged in conduct that, if proven, would plainly fall outside the scope of employment for an officer or employee of the United States: conspiring to prevent the lawful certification of the 2020 election and to injure Members of Congress and inciting the riot at the Capitol.
holy mother Mary of God…
and to all of you assholes calling the FBI incompetent demanding the firing of Director Wray and Attorney General Garland, kindly go fork yourselves with a rusty pole and delete yourself from the internet. You self aggrandizing pieces of Blue-QANON I’ve got podcast, books, premiere content to sell -shit…. Seriously go fork yourselves in the face with a rusty fork and delete all your bullshit from the Internet. You uninformed recalcitrant fuckfacemotherdogshitfuckersfucktards <—yes I know that’s not actually a word but I’ve had it with the Blue-QAnon Twitter assholes, who have no idea what they are perseverating about - have another Tito’s Asshole
Alleged action to attack Congress and disrupt its official functions is not conduct a Member of Congress is employed to perform and is not “actuated . . . by a purpose to serve” the employer, as required by District of Columbia law to fall within the scope of employment. Restatement (Second) of Agency § 228(1)(c). Thus, if the Court were to reject our argument that the campaign nature of the January 6 rally resolves the certification question, the Court should not certify that Brooks was acting within the scope of his office or employment unless it concludes that he did not engage in the conspiracy and incitement alleged in the Complaint.
This is just absolutely savage …
Oh but wait - there’s way more
RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order, filed by OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES see DDC-ECF- Mo Brooks also rejected by the House GC… see DDC-ECF
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 appropriate for it to participate in the litigation. Pursuant to the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Office “shall” provide legal assistance to the House, which includes all Members of the House, “without regard to political affiliation.”
Oh wait there’s even more by way of an Exhibit
If Mo Brooks thinks he’s not going to be criminally charged well the DOJ made it clear and now the House GC is also making is crystal clear…SEE DDC-ECF for the Exhibit
standards of conduct that apply to Members place limitations on whether Members are authorized to engage in certain activity on official time, in official space, and using official funds. Conduct that violates a criminal statute, that is personal in nature, or that is primarily campaign or political in nature is outside the scope of a Member’s official and representational duties.
Conduct that violates a criminal statute is outside the scope of official duties. Whether or not Representative Brooks’s conduct was a violation of criminal law is a question to be answered by prosecutors and juries, so it is not addressed here.
Conduct that is personal in nature is outside the scope of official duties. Members face numerous restrictions on the use of official resources for personal activity, as the Committee on House Administration and other authorities advise Members. None have suggested that Representative Brooks’s conduct was personal in nature, so that is not addressed here.
I don’t say this enough but Rep. Zoe Lofgren is an awesome legislator who’s keen sense of our statutes, Congressional Rules and her assertive eloquence is frankly, without equal. She’s often overlooked as a member of Congress but anytime I read her proposed bills, congressional letters —there is an elegance to her writings that I truly enjoy. And this is on full display on page 3 of her letter - she took Mo Brooks to the shed and completely eviscerated him and his arguments.
LLOLS you thought I was done - nope there’s more
RESPONSE re 20 MOTION to Certify Defendant Mo Brooks was Acting Within the Scope of his Office or Employment filed by ERIC SWALWELL. and you can Inject this right into my veins.. (because I gave up Red Bull and I’m running on fumes).
…merely serving their interests on January 6. And, second, he claims that in his speech on January 6 he mainly was just whipping up support for the 2022 and 2024 elections—that his speech wasn’t primarily about what the crowd whose members had traveled so far to be there that day should do that day, but what they should do in the next two election…
…Brooks has doubly removed himself from the protections of the Westfall Act. The Act manifestly protects “employee[s] of the Government.” 28 U.S.C. 2679(b)(1). Worse still, in alleging that he is essentially an employee of his constituents, Congressman Brooks has identified a “master” who exercises no control over his day-to-day activities, as required by the District’s “scope of employment” law
I mean the brutality here should be taken as a whole…but Swawell’s Opposition is also thoughtful and a well formulated argument—especially about the legal framework required by the Westfall Act… also the subtext here is because the House of Reps GC also declined to represent or certify Mo Brooks - guess what?
Article I, Section 6, Clause 1: Brooks can’t make any argument mitigating his liability under the Speech and Debate Clause -that’s why he wanted the DOJ anc the House to Certify him under Westfall but both refused
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place
.
so the only viable defense argument Brooks has is “I’d like to negotiate a plea agreement provided the DOJ suspends the Grand Jury Testimony and I’ll resign my position in Congress, provided you let me be Queen for the Day” <—I’m being snarky but I think in general that’s Mo’ Brooks way out - the First Amendment isn’t an option. Why? This is why - 1 of 2👇🏻
The falsity of Trump’s Impeachment Attorneys can not be emphasized enough. This Clause is specific to members of the Legislative Branch, not to the Executive Branch. Epic Fail Blog dot Org. As ascertained by the venerable and non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CSR) in December of 2017 the CSR issued a Report entitled - Understanding the Speech or Debate Clause, which reads in part:
serves chiefly to protect the independence, integrity, and effectiveness of the legislative branch by barring executive or judicial intrusions into the protected sphere of the legislative process.”
In layman’s terms, the Speech and Debate clause essentially immunized members of Congress and thus they cannot be held to account for their speech or debate in any other forum but Congress. There really is there no such constitutional provision protecting the president’s speech or public acts. Which is odd that they would go there. Not to be outdone, Trump’s Impeachment Attorneys brought up the two SCOTUS landmark cases (Brandenburg and Schneck ) yet their intellectually dishonesty to some how contort what SCOTUC held, is just mind boggling. As previously explained both of those cases actually cut against Trump’s First Amendment Argument.
As Trump was leveling these accusations, and accounts of his supporters’ violent responses were being widely reported, Brooks issued tweets supporting Trump’s narrative, even by directing them at the same states that Trump was singling out.
Despite claiming at the rally that America was at risk as it hadn’t been in “perhaps centuries,” the Petition says nothing about the evidence that supposedly led Brooks to believe in good faith that the 2020 election had been stolen from Trump in an unprecedented act of fraud. m
And, most importantly of all, despite very narrowly claiming that Brooks has “never seen or heard of any Donald Trump rally being followed by the kind of violence” that occurred on January 6, id. ¶ 20 (emphases added), the Petition does not deny that Brooks was aware that Trump’s followers repeatedly had responded to Trump’s election fraud claims with political violence, as specifically detailed in the Complaint.
Okay it’s past midnight and yet here I am typing and reading away. For your reading convenience I dumped tonight’s damnit I mean July 27th’s) late night filing by the DOJ, House Of Rep GC and Swawell’s respective filings to the Google Public Drive Swawell v Trump Folder or you can also access the Court filings via my Scribd Link -at any rate I’m not joking Mo should really think about calling the DOJ and negotiate Queen for a Day —I took so much shit on Jan 9th when I was like he’s going ti run for Senate, in February 2021 indeed
And with that I bid you a very goodnight. Seriously it’s past midnight on a school day and I’m still “working” —good news is I’m only publishing one article tomorrow (at 6AM) because I had that in the queue. As I was following various search warrants and seizure. So when the 30 count indictment as to the 34 defendant was unsealed on July 27th I just needed to fill in some holes)…
I truly needed some rather hopeful news tonight. I saw the No Go for Mo announcement earlier and thought of you.
Stellar job as always, my dear.
Thank you for what you do.
“fuckfacemotherdogshitfuckersfucktards“ - a “Spicism” meaning “Go f#ck yourself”.
Spicy is on fire🔥 this morning & I am here for it. 🥰