This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks is once again insisting he should be granted immunity in a lawsuit filed against him for comments made before the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Brooks’ latest response came in a court filing Wednesday.

In a brief filed last month, the U.S. Department of Justice said Brooks’ fiery speech on January 6 ahead of the riots did not fall within the scope of his office. Brooks had asked the court for immunity under the Westfall Act, a provision that gives government employees legal protection in certain civil suits if the lawsuit pertains to actions they took while on the job.

In his latest response, Brooks says the DOJ’s brief is quote “fictional”.

He’s also asking the court to throw out a number of statements from California Congressman Eric Swalwell, who filed the suit. Brooks says Swalwells’s claims are “conclusory” and not based on facts or evidence.

The California democrat alleges that Congressman Brooks, along with former President Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Rudy Giuliani incited the riots at the capitol with speeches they gave just hours before the attack.

In Wednesday’s response, Brooks offers the court a list of what he calls “verified Brooks facts”, some of which include the fact that he’s never smoked tobacco or done drugs; that he’s never had a DUI; and that he has always been faithful to his wife.

The U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who is presiding over the lawsuit, has not yet announced if he will grant Brooks immunity under the Westfall Act. If he does, the United States government would take Brooks’ place as defendant in the suit.