Thank you.

  My reply answer to Wayne Reynolds complaint is in four parts.

I ask for an in-person hearing in which I can confront and question my accuser (THAT
should be most interesting and informative).

Please confirm receipt of this email.

MO BROOKS’ FOUR-PART RESPONSE TO WAYNE REYNOLDS’ FRIVOLOUS

AND MERITLESS “ETHICS COMPLAINT”.

** 1.  By way of background, and since I was elected to Congress in 2010, roughly 40
ethics complaints have been filed against me with the House Ethics Committee, with
the Alabama Bar Association, perhaps before the Alabama Ethics Commission
(unsure of AEC, there have been so many I can’t remember them all), and, as part
and parcel of a federal lawsuit in the D.C. District Court (suit by Socialist Democrat
Congressman Eric Swalwell).

Unfortunately, over the years, so-called “ethics complaints” processes have been
weaponized by political adversaries to obtain adverse media coverage for their target.

With respect to the roughly 40 “ethics complaints” against me, each had one primary
motive: politics - a desire for political retaliation or political gain.  

ALL 40+/- complaints against me have been resolved in my favor by independent

decision-makers (bi-partisan and sometimes Democrat-only).  Wayne Reynolds’
frivolous complaint should be similarly resolved.

The fact that Wayne Reynolds has been marketing his hit piece to media all over the
state (instead of complying with the ALGOP Ethics Committee’s confidentiality rules)
underscores Wayne Reynolds’ nefarious political motivation in conjuring up his
meritless ethics complaint. 

** 2. Wayne Reynolds’ Complaint should be dismissed as meritless on its face

because it is based on an 1819 News news/opinion article (attached to the complaint)
in which the few actual quotes by me state, in substance and effect:

A.  My judgment and belief that Communist China did not want me in the U.S. Senate
(based on my positions on a host of issues) and used whatever tools it has in its
toolbox to prevent me from being in the U.S. Senate.  As my quotes reflect, I do not
opine on whether or by how much the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) conduct
successfully affected voters’ opinions or votes.
B.  Nothing about whether the CCP sought to promote Katie Britt, any other
specifically-named Republican candidate, or any other specifically-named Democrat
candidate (bearing in mind that there were EIGHT other candidates for the U.S.
Senate).  I have no way of knowing (and did not opine) on whether the CCP tried to
help promote any specifically named candidate of the EIGHT other contenders.

For emphasis, Jeff Poor’s sensationalized opinions about what my remarks might
mean are just that: opinions, and the Ethics Committee should look at my actual
verbatim remarks, not some writer’s interpretations that, in the media business, are
often intended to sensationalize and be “click bait” to maximize hits and media profits.

**3.  Wayne Reynolds complaint should be dismissed on its face because it offers
ZERO evidence that my remarks were knowingly false or, for that matter, untrue in
any way, shape or form.  Rather, Wayne Reynolds’ disgruntlement is based entirely
on his contrary opinion and dislike of my opinion.  As the accuser, Wayne Reynolds
has the burden to properly allege and prove a factual basis for a violation of ALGOP’s
Ethics Rules . . . and he did not so allege and he can not so prove.

**4.  I deny that I have violated any applicable Alabama Republican Party ethics rule
and demand evidentiary proof by Wayne Reynolds to the contrary.  I will offer
information contrary to Wayne Reynolds’ fanciful ethics complaint.

Sincerely,

Mo Brooks