House attorneys assess the immunity of Representative Mo Brooks in January 6 trial



Brooks, in a petition he himself filed, points out that his tweets and speech at the rally focus on the contested presidential election and whether to certify the state’s electoral tally, on which members of the Congress voted and did so later Jan. 6.

“I cannot imagine the House attorney rejecting this claim, even though he only entered the case after being asked to do so,” said Stan Brand, former lawyer. General of the House today at Brand Woodward Law. “I think it was their way of trying to avoid controversy.”

Brooks, in support of his petition, told federal court that his tweets were posted on his official membership account, that he prepared the rally speech in his congressional office, and that he represented voters who preferred ” overwhelming “that Trump remains president and supports his conduct.

Swalwell, in the original lawsuit, said Brooks “was acting in a personal capacity.”

Traditionally broad protections

Members of the House sometimes generate lawsuits when they carry out a wide range of activities to strengthen their responsibilities as elected officials, such as communicating with voters or speaking with the media or the public on matters of public interest, Hungar said.



Comments are closed.