Republican Mo Brooks in deep doo-doo

Ever so slowly the sand beneath the Republican’s edifice of invincibility is slipping away:

By Katelyn Polantz, CNN, June 6, 2021

“Rep. Mo Brooks served with lawsuit related to his role in Capitol insurrection”

… Swalwell’s legal team had had difficulty serving Brooks and hired a private investigator to give him the papers, according to court filings. Swalwell’s attorney, Matthew Kaiser, told CNN Sunday that a private investigator had left the papers with Brooks’ wife at their home in Alabama.

Rep. Mo Brooks is avoiding an insurrection lawsuit. Rep. Eric Swalwell hired a private investigator to find him.
CNN is unable to corroborate Brooks’ claim that Swalwell’s team committed a crime. …

Serving the papers is important because it starts a clock in court for Brooks, the defendant, to respond to Swalwell’s accusations, which seek to hold him, ex-President Donald Trump and others liable for the January 6 attack on Congress.
If Brooks doesn’t believe he was properly served, he will have the opportunity to contest it in court. …

Apparently it was a plenty legal service. Mo you are served! See ya in court.

The wheels of justice move slowly, but time, it moves so fast.

The Department of Justice has ruled that Mo Brooks supporting an attempt to overthrow our government is not part of his duties. (let alone oath of office)

By Marshall Cohen and Tierney Sneed, July 27, 2021, CNN

DOJ won’t protect GOP Rep. Mo Brooks in insurrection lawsuit

Washington (CNN) The Justice Department on Tuesday rejected a request from GOP Rep Mo Brooks to protect him from a civil lawsuit against him and former President Donald Trump concerning the January 6 insurrection.

( in a court filing by the Department of Justice this past Tuesday, reading in part:)

“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,” the Justice Department wrote in a filing. “In light of the Department’s declination, the United States should not be substituted as a defendant in this action.” …

“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,” the filing said, adding that federal courts have “routinely rejected claims that campaigning and electioneering” are part of lawmakers’ official duties. … “Members (of Congress) run for reelection themselves and routinely campaign for other political candidates. But they do so in their private, rather than official, capacities.”


(the Justice Department said, referring to the civil claims against Brooks spelled out in the lawsuit, which he denies:)

"Inciting or conspiring to foment a violent attack on the United States Congress is not within the scope of employment of a Representative – or any federal employee,“The final decision is still up to federal Judge Amit Mehta of the DC District Court, but the burden now solely falls on Brooks to convince Mehta that he was acting in his official capacity. …”


El Paso Inc.: In rejecting Brooks’ request for certification, the Justice Department wrote,

“it appears that the fundamental purpose of the rally was to advance the electoral success of a presidential candidate.”


Another story worth following along as it develops. Here’s a bit of dissection of the deception by Rolling Stone’s Ryan Bort.

Rep. Mo Brooks on Incendiary Jan. 6th Speech: Trump Made Me Do It The Senate candidate told the MAGA faithful before the insurrection to “start taking down names and kicking ass”


In a July 2nd court filing, Brooks claimed he can’t be sued for his comments the morning of the insurrection because they were made in the course of his duties as a federal employee, and that challenging the outcome of the election “represented the interests of his constituency.”

Brooks also attempted to pin some of the blame on Trump, arguing that the only reason he spoke at the rally was because the White House asked him to make an appearance. “But for the White House request, Brooks would have not appeared at the Ellipse rally,” the filing read, also noting that Brooks’ office and the White House reached an agreement about the “parameters” of the speech in question. …

Rep Mo Brooks: “Are you willing to do what it takes to fight for America!” Brooks yelled before telling rally attendees to “carry the message to Capitol Hill” and that “the fight begins today.”

A healthy society (hell, healthy mental health) demands people be willing to take responsibility for their actions. It’s how humans learn and grow, it’s something that used to get instilled in pretty near everyone, and forgotten by criminal predators:

Brooks was not served with the suit until early June, but it wasn’t for lack of trying. According to Swalwell’s team, Brooks’ office refused to respond to phone calls and emails about the suit, forcing them to hire a private investigator. Still, Brooks was able to avoid the suit. “Plaintiff’s investigator has spent many hours over many days in April and May at locations in multiple jurisdictions attempting to locate and serve Brooks, to no avail,” Swalwell’s team wrote in a court filing in early June.
Every good criminal predator is also an expert opportunist:
Mo Brooks then began using the incident to fundraise for his Senate campaign.

“THEY CAME AFTER MY WIFE,” the subject line of one fundraising email read.

Waah, waah, waah. Of course, can’t do without a taste of that entitled supremacist knee jerk victimization pose.

It’s an interesting article, does a good job of filling in some details, and making some excellent observations. Finishing with:

Falsely alleging that America’s electoral process is illegitimate. Calling on supporters to sacrifice their blood to save the country from socialists.

It’s all just part of the job of a federal employee, apparently, for Brooks and the rest of the Republican representatives who continue to stand behind the former, defeated president

Some important details.

Klu Klux Klan Act 1871


On this date, the House approved “An Act to enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other Purposes,” also known as the “Ku Klux Klan Act.” Introduced as H.R. 320 on March 28, 1871, by Representative Samuel Shellabarger of Ohio, the bill passed the House on April 6 and returned from the Senate with amendments on April 14. After nearly a week of heated debate in the House and the Senate, the chambers reconciled their differences on April 20 when the House agreed to the conference report on H.R. 320 and the Senate concurred. The Ku Klux Klan Act, the third of a series of increasingly stringent Enforcement Acts, was designed to eliminate extralegal violence and protect the civil and political rights of four million freed slaves

The doctrine of the last clear chance @ 1:30

Reminds me of something that was drilled into our heads when we took drivers ed, way back in the day. It doesn’t matter who’s at fault, if you have a last clear chance to avoid an accident, you must take it, or you’re also liable for that accident.

Constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe joins Lawrence O’Donnell to discuss the ongoing DOJ investigations into January 6th and why he believes “executive privilege won’t be available” to Donald Trump in many of the cases.


Ali Velshi reports on the Department of Justice response to Rep. Mo Brooks' attempt to excuse himself from a January 6th lawsuit by claiming his participation in Donald Trump's pre-riot rally was part of his job as a member of Congress, and shares new reporting from Slate that Brooks says he was wearing body armor at that rally.


we are here : Level Up Lake Worth is a Licensed & Accredited drug rehab center providing holistic addiction treatment to the Palm Beach community.

This is a discussion forum not a billboard.
We don’t like your type (spammers) around here.

But since you resurrected this thread I may as well make an update that actually relates to the topic. Mo filed a response August 5th, skimming over it, it seem unsurprisingly pathetic. Now we wait to see what the judge has to say about it.