Within the scope
It’s an interesting idea, that a member of Congress should be able to encourage a violent attack on that same Congress because his team lost an election, and then get the government to act as his lawyer. The DoJ isn’t persuaded.
The Justice Department rejected a request by Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks for legal protection in court against a lawsuit linking him to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Brooks, former President Donald Trump and others were sued by Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., earlier this year. Swalwell alleges that Brooks and others named in the lawsuit helped incite a mob of Trump supporters on Jan. 6 during a pro-Trump rally.
Swalwell alleges it and the rest of us watch clips of them doing it.
Lawmakers can, at times, receive legal protection as an “employee of the government.” That is allowed when their actions are considered to be done within the scope of their duties.
So, is trying to overthrow the government within the scope of their duties as a member of the government? I’m gonna go with no. The DoJ dressed it up as “he was engaging in a political campaign” but we get to just say Nope.
It is an interesting idea, legally. Does it work in other fields, too, or just in government? I mean, If your boss in the garment factory wants to fire your friends, so you hire hit men to come in and attempt to kill your boss and wreak havoc on the building, does that count as part of your work? Will your boss act as your lawyer/
It wasn’t just seeking to get the government to act as his lawyer. The actual motion, if it had worked, would’ve essentially forced the plaintiffs to sue the U.S. government instead of Mo Brooks. So yes, the government would’ve had to defend against the suit, but if they lost, Mo would’ve been immune from paying any settlement, instead foisting it off on the taxpayers. Party of personal responsibility, they say….