In a recent interview with Slate, Alabama Representative Mo Brooks revealed that he was wearing body armor during his January 6th speech at the Ellipse, which immediately preceded the storming of the US Capitol by rabid Trump supporters. This little detail creates serious legal jeopardy for Brooks, as it means that he may have failed to engage in due diligence to try to prevent a violent attack on the US Government, and left for the Ellipse that day with an expectation that there would be violence. He then engaged in provocative and inflammatory speech that contributed to the agitation of a violent crowd. Mo Brooks must be subpeonad, placed under oath, and made to testify before both the House January 6th Committee and a Grand Jury. I’ll now present an opening series of fifteen initial questions that should be asked of Brooks while he’s on the witness stand.

1. Representative Brooks, you allegedly told a Salon.com reporter that you’d had a tip about January 6th that you felt was so credible that it led you to put on body armor before leaving the house that day.  Was that an accurate portrayal of your words?
2. Were you in fact, wearing body armor on January 6th?
3. Can you describe the nature of this body armor? Was it bullet-proof, did it include joint protection? Did you have a helmet that you stashed somewhere close to the stage?
4. Would you mind telling us how much it cost, or how you obtained it? Did you purchase it online or was it a gift from a constituent?
5. Do you normally conceal body armor under your clothing when you you are in Washington DC or was this something you purchased specifically for January 6th?
6. What was it about the nature of the tip that you felt was so credible that it led you to wear your body armor that day?
7. Are you able to tell us, or at least give us some nature of the occupation of the person who was the source of this alleged tip?
8. Can you repeat the warning you received verbatim?
9. Did you make any effort to alert Capitol Police, or the National Guard of this information? If not then why not.
10. Were you aware that the Trump Administration had communicated with both the Capitol Police and the National Guard, and had issued orders calling for the gentle handling of Trump supporters?
11. Did you make any attempt to inform the Trump Administration that their gentle handling orders might leave Federal buildings, staff or lawmakers vulnerable to attack? If not then why not.
12. To your knowledge, were Trump White House staff aware of this tip of potential violence? How did they react, and do you know if at any time there was talk of calling off the rally at the Ellipse so as to avoid the possibility of violence?
13. Were you ever concerned that a failure to share information about a possible threat to the US government, combined with the provocative nature of your speech at the Ellipse might create the appearance of a conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States and to solicit a crime of violence.
14. Were you aware of Steve Bannon’s comment on January 5th when he said, and I quote: “All hell’s going to break loose tomorrow…it’s going to happen quick.”
15. Did you think that claim was directly related to the tip you had received, and how did you interpret Bannon’s words?

The remainder of the questioning would obviously be dictated by the nature of Brooks’s answers, but those fifteen questions are absolutely essential. The reason it’s so important to find out why Brooks chose to wear body armor, and why he chose to proceed with a highly provocative speech to a very rowdy crowd in spite of a threat that he found so credible that it led him to take unusual protective measures is to determine criminal intent regarding the behavior of Brooks and the rest of the speakers that appeared at the Ellipse on January 6th.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio the Supreme Court ruled that provocative language is protected under the First Amendment unless that language is likely to spark “imminent lawless action”. If Brooks was aware of a threat of violence so credible that it motivated him to wear body armor to the Ellipse, and he chose to give such a provocative speech in spite of those concerns of violence, then that suggests criminal intent under the Brandenburg standard, and Brooks may be charged with violations of 18 U.S. Code § 2101 (a)(1): inciting a riot and 18 U.S. Code § 373 – Solicitation to commit a crime of violence. The fact that there is as yet, no report of any effort on Brooks’s part to refer that tip to the FBI, the Secret Service or the Capitol Police, and that Brooks has since allied himself with fellow Republicans who have sought to obstruct any investigation of the events of January 6th, suggests that Brooks may have had some intent to benefit from those acts of violence, and his speech at the Ellipse was intended to incite a situation he intended to benefit from.

If other Trump Administration staff, or individuals in the Republican Party who were associated with logistics and planning for the January 6th gathering were aware of Brooks’s alleged “tip”, then additional charges become involved, including 18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy and 18 U.S. Code § 2385 – Advocating overthrow of the United States Government. If a thorough investigation, including a comprehensive review of Republican Lawmakers’ social media activity and private messages demonstrates that there was a general belief that an angry mob could prevent the peaceful transition of power mandated by the United States Constitution, and a very real intent to pre-empt the election of Joe Biden as President and declare Trump as a permanent office-holder who was not bound by term limits or procedures as described in the Constitution, Then Mo Brooks, Donald Trump, and many members of the Republican Party could end up going to prison for a very long time.