Mo Brooks is a January 6 congressman who can’t keep his mouth shut

Someone may need to tell Representative Mo Brooks to stop talking.

The Republican congressman from Alabama continues to defend himself in court against allegations that he helped incite Riot January 6, 2021—And it didn’t help the former prosecutor.

The particular defense Brooks has chosen appears to be intended for Justice Department attorneys to provide his legal defense. He is arguing that his provocative speech 6 as part of his official duties as a congressman, a crusade he continued in federal court on Monday.

If so, Brooks may have opened himself up to the possibility of removal from office. And if that’s not the case – as prosecutors are trying to prove – then Brooks has given prosecutors all the ammo they need to charge him with misuse of congressional resources.

In his shaky attempt to prove that the January 6 speech was part of his official duties, Brooks introduced evidence that his staff took taxpayer time to prepare and help him deliver his January 6 speech. So now, if Brooks turns around and admits his speech was a campaigning – as prosecutors argue – he could run into a whole new set of legal problems.

Brooks created a ‘damn if you do, damn if you don’t’ legal conundrum.

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a visiting professor at the American University of Washington College of Law, told The Daily Beast that part of the problem was with Brooks deciding to become his own attorney. “There is an old phrase that ‘a lawyer representing himself has a fool for a client.’ That seems appropriate,” said Torres-Spelliscy.

Brooks, a Trump loyalist who has made baseless claims of voter fraud, spoke to objector near the White House on January 6. And in his 10-minute speech — while wearing bulletproof vest—Brooks says January 6 is a day for “ass kicking,” repeatedly referring to the protesters’ ancestors who “sacrifice their blood…and sometimes their lives.”

“Are you willing to do the same? Are you willing to do the same to fight for America? ‘ said Brooks. “Bigger! Will you fight for America? ”

The crowd then surrounded the Capitol, barbaricly beat the police, smash their way into the building, tear through the office, stealing things and electronic device, looking for politicians with kidnapping tool, Threatened kill them, and erect the gallows outside.

After the attack, Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) sued Brooks and other speakers at political rallies, including former President Donald Trump, his son Donald Trump Jr. and heroic election conspiracy theorist Rudy Giuliani.

In federal court on Monday, U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta listened to Brooks argue his measure — a measure specifically designed to give him immunity by shielding he got behind the government and forced the Justice Department to fight the legal battle for him.

“Every action I do, every speech…is within the scope of my work. They are all part of my job duties,” he told the judge, referring to his responsibilities as a member of Congress.

Brooks insists that will include the part when he shouted to protesters, “Today is a time to choose, and tomorrow is a time to fight!”

William Bullock Pittard, a private attorney representing Swalwell, pointed out that Brooks wants the government he harmed now to represent him. Meanwhile, a DOJ prosecutor argued that Brooks was actually giving a campaign speech at a Trump campaign rally.

Interesting, the proof is clear because it comes from Brooks .’s own court records, in which he tried to explain the provocative language by stating that the “choice” in his speech meant “those senators and congressmen who support and oppose, in elections in future.” His speech “tomorrow…fight” referred to “future elections.”

For the part of his speech, he said, “Today is the day the American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass!” The congressman’s own court filings describe it as purely elective.

“My comment addresses what patriotic Republicans need to do in the 2022 and 2024 elections,” he wrote in July.

DOJ Prosecutor Brian M. Boynton used those assertions to ask Judge Mehta to block Brooks from granting himself a government defense and immunity.

“It’s a fundamental principle in our democracy that the government must remain strictly neutral when it comes to elections,” Boynton said Monday.

Pittard said, citing documents.

Jessica A. Levinson, a law school professor at Loyola Marymount University, said that by having access to government protections, MPs could get into more legal trouble – possibly even being expelled from the State. festival.

“Members of Congress are allowed very wide latitude when they use this protection. Having said that, what happened was an uprising… and if we consider that to be the business of Congress, we’ve really stretched that definition to a breaking point,” she told The Daily Beast. .

“It’s fair to say, ‘Okay, if this is how you behave officially, then you’re no longer a member of Congress. Helping someone incite an uprising is an indisputable offense,’ she said.

Judge Mehta has yet to rule on whether Brooks can get the Justice Department to come rescue him. But during the five-hour hearing, the judge showed little patience with the clumsy attempts by lawyers against former Presidents Trump and Giuliani to whitewash or mitigate the uprising. Mehta presided through a number of criminal cases related to violence.

If Brooks fails to convince the judge that he is operating officially as an MP and reverts to the notion that he is campaigning, he could face charges of misuse. congressional resources. That’s because, again, Brooks himself laid out in court documents how he directed his office to be involved in every aspect of the speech, starting with the plans being made. with the White House.

“I then tasked my congressional staff with figuring out the details” of the speech, then typing it up “in my office at the Rayburn House office building on the office computer.” my congressional chamber,” he previously wrote. “I also time, review, revise, and practice Ellipse speech in my office.”

In his presentation to the judge on Monday, Brooks insisted there was nothing in the House Code of Ethics that he violated in his speech. To make his argument, Brooks points to the unsuccessful Ethics Committee complaint against him by Congressman Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) last March. Even so, it was clear to everyone in the virtual hearing that the process was merely a failure on the party line.

Brooks’ congressional office did not respond to The Daily Beast’s questions about the congressman’s solo legal strategy. While he graduated from the University of Alabama law school in 1978, he entered politics as a state representative just four years later — and the state bar association now lists him as “not eligible.” licensed to practice law in Alabama.”

Legal scholars have noted that Brooks has put herself out in the cold, alone. The House of Commons would normally have a strong personal interest in maintaining immunity for its members, regardless of party affiliation. Legal scholars told The Daily Beast that the legislature’s refusal to assist him shows how serious his conduct was.

“We are in uncharted legal waters here so I have no guess as to what the courts will do with the congressman suits where lives are at stake on the Capitol because an unprecedented uprising,” said Torres-Spelliscy.