Trumping the “BRIBE”

On February 18^th, U.S. District Court Judge Amil Mehta offered U.S. Representative Mo Brooks a “bribe”, that which is today backfiring on the wherewithal of the jurisprudence in justice served. Wherein after dismissing Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump Jr. in action a lawsuit filed by Eric Swalwell, that the Trump Dysentery Dynasty thugs were merely exercising their “Free Speech & Debate” clause to cause a “Domestic Terrorist Attack” on the U.S. Capitol, the judge thought it proper to “bait” Mr. Brooks, to file for a dismissal and that he would be awarded the same consideration as Rudy and Jr. It was like a “Get Out of Jail Free” card. And of course with respect to “legitimate political discourse” Brooks immediately filed for such a “motion” and of record as stated: “Defendant Mo Brooks (Brooks) Moves to Dismiss Eric Swalwell’s Complaint against Brooks in its entirety. Brooks’ Motion to Dismiss is pursuant to the Court’s suggestion in its Order of February 18, 2022 (Document 66).” That “suggestion” is the “Bribe”. But even though Mo  Brooks accepted this “too good to be true” offer unbecoming a “Judge”, it was almost 2-weeks plus and there came no acceptance of that “Motion” by Judge Mehta? It should have been a slam dunk a bribe is a bribe! And now we know why, as Eric Swalwell is taking Judge Mehta to task on this “bribe”. Way to go Mr. Swalwell!

The February 18th "Bribe" was as follows:

"The court invites Brooks to file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court is prepared to grant such motion for the same reasons it dismisses all claims against Giuliani and Trump Jr.: Brooks’s remarks on January 6th were political speech protected by the First Amendment for which he cannot be subject to liability." 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
 ERIC SWALWELL, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants. Case No. 21-cv-00586 (APM)

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MO BROOKS’ MOTION TO DIMSISS

Plaintiff Eric Swalwell, through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to the Local Rules of this Court, submits this opposition to Defendant Mo Brooks’ motion to dismiss (ECF Dk. No. 57), which the Court invited Brooks to file in its February 18 omnibus order (ECF Dk. No. 56). In support of this opposition, Plaintiff hereby incorporates and refers to relevant points and authorities already before the Court, including in particular (i) Plaintiff’s Combined Opposition to the Motions to Dismiss by Defendants Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump Jr., and Rudolph Giuliani (ECF Dk. No. 23); (ii) The United States’ Response to Defendant Mo Brooks’s Petition to Certify He Was Acting Within the Scope of His Office or Employment (ECF Dk. No. 33); (iii) Plaintiff’s Opposition to Petition to Certify Defendant Mo Brooks Was Acting Within the Scope of His Office or Employment (ECF Dk. No. 34); and (iv) the opposition briefs to the motions to dismiss filed in Thompson, et al. v. Trump, et al. and Blassingame, et al. v. Trump. 1 Plaintiff also incorporates the oral arguments to this Court at the motions hearing on January 10, 1 The Thompson opposition is ECF Dk. No. 23 in case number 21-cv-00400 (APM), and the Blassingame opposition is ECF Dk. No. 21 in case number 21-cv-00858 (APM). Case 1:21-cv-00586-APM Document 58 Filed 03/08/22 Page 1 of 3 2 2022, as well as the supplemental points and authorities the Court requested at that hearing (ECF Dk. Nos. 51 and 52). For the reasons articulated in these pleadings and at the January 10 hearing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendant Brooks’ motion to dismiss.

 Dated: March 8, 2022