(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Update on Defamation Lawsuit Against SC Congresswoman Nancy Mace [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']

Date: 2025-03-14

Several days ago TheCriticalMind had an excellent diary up on the current controversy surrounding SC Republican congresswoman Nancy Mace’s explosive accusations on the floor of the House last month concerning her ex-fiancée and three of his friends. Today one of those friends, Brian Musgrave, dropped the anticipated hammer and filed a formal defamation lawsuit against Nancy Mace and 5 unnamed codefendants in Federal Court.

The Speech and Debate clause of the Constitution naturally immunizes lawmakers for anything they may say on the floor of the House or Senate, but Nancy took her accusations straight to social media after her floor speech, where such protections presumably do not apply. From the legal filing:

Brian Musgrave’s only nexus to Congresswoman Mace’s speech is his longtime friendship with Mace’s ex-fiancé through which the two men own an investment condominium and a home together on the Isle of Palms. Mace’s ex-fiancé resided periodically at the Isle of Palms condominium. It is at this property that Mace alleges she and/or others were incapacitated, raped and filmed. • Brian Musgrave was not present. • Brian Musgrave did not incapacitate anyone. • Brian Musgrave did not assist anyone in Mace’s alleged rape. • Brian Musgrave did not film anyone. • Brian Musgrave has never seen any film or other image depicting the alleged rape of Congresswoman Mace or any other woman. … On February 10, 2025, Congresswoman Nance Mace and her team destroyed the lives of Brian Musgrave and his family. Perhaps the Defendants felt that the message was so powerful that a little collateral damage in the form of Brian Musgrave’s name and reputation was acceptable. It is not acceptable to Brian Musgrave. It is not acceptable to his family. … Through this action, Brian Musgrave seeks to recover that which has been wrongfully taken from him – his good name and reputation.

The gist of Musgrave’s filing would seem to be the following points:

67. Caught flat-footed, Musgrave sought to defend himself by referring publicly to Mace’s speech as a “dangerous mix of falsehoods and baseless accusations leveled at four individuals without a shred of evidence.” 68. On February 11, 2025, at 7:45 AM, Defendant Mace doubled down on her allegations against Brian Musgrave and responded to his effort to defend himself with the following post on X: … 70. In Exhibit D, Congresswoman Mace alleges that she is in possession of metadata that presumably will link Brian Musgrave to her alleged crimes. Despite having demanded the production of the evidence, nothing has been provided to date because no such evidence exists. 71. In Exhibit D, Congresswoman Mace alleges by implication that a SLED investigation is active against Brian Musgrave. 72. While the Plaintiff has been informed that there is in fact an active SLED investigation, he is also informed that he is not a target of any criminal investigations.

Since Musgrave can apparently prove he was not at the site of the alleged crimes when they supposedly occurred:

90. Through her social media posts, Congresswoman Mace defamed the Plaintiff by asserting that evidence existed to support the allegations against him that he was a rapist, a predator and a sex trafficker. 91. Through her social media posts, Congresswoman Mace defamed the Plaintiff by implying that he, Brian Musgrave, was the subject of an ongoing SLED investigation which she knew it not to be true. 92. If the foregoing was not enough, Congresswoman Mace took to the House Floor once again and delivered a second speech about her alleged sexual abuse and exploitation and once again inferred that Brian Musgrave was culpable to her for what allegedly happened. 93. Musgrave has no idea as to what, if any, evidence Congresswoman Mace possesses to suggest that any other person has committed a crime against her, but it is defamation per se for Congresswoman Mace to intertwine Musgrave into any such allegations when she knows that Musgrave is innocent of any and all such crimes. … 101. In addition to the conduct complained of herein and upon information and belief, Congresswoman Mace and her Jane Doe / John Doe team have otherwise engaged in a campaign of defamation against Brian Musgrave through efforts to recruit witnesses to support the allegations against him which they know to be false. 102. Campaigning and recruiting witnesses to give false testimony to support defamation is not consistent with carrying on the business of the Congress and is not protected by the speech and debate clause, nor is it a matter within the course and scope of Congresswoman Mace’s employment as a United States Congresswoman. … 105. The written version of the speech that Defendant Mace released for publication contains a number of false allegations against the Plaintiff as is libelous per se in that: a. Accuses Musgrave of the crime of rape; b. Accuses Musgrave of being a sexual predator; c. Accuses Musgrave of the crime of sex trafficking; d. Accuses Musgrave of the crime of sexual assault; e. Accuses Musgrave of illegally videotaping Congresswoman Mace engaged in a sex act; f. Accuses Musgrave of participating in the use of drugs or other intoxicants in order to incapacitate Representative Mace so that she could be sexually abused by others; g. Accuses Musgrave of sexually abusing women; h. Accuses Musgrave of the illegal surveillance, photographing and/or videotaping of any woman; i. Accuses Musgrave of the crime of adultery; and j. Suggests that it is unsafe for Musgrave to be in the presence of minor females. 106. These and other false statements were published to third parties. 107. The publication of these and other false statements about the Plaintiff are so injurious to his reputation that the law presumes injury. Over and above any legal presumption, the Plaintiff and his family are devastated by these false accusations. 108. The Plaintiff is entitled to and prays for an award of damages both actual, in an amount sufficient to compensate him fully for all losses herein, and punitive, in an amount determined by a jury to be sufficient to impress upon the Defendant the seriousness of her conduct and to deter such similar conduct in the future.

And from Politico, we have this rather telling follow-up:

In her February speech, Mace claimed she was speaking out because South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson had declined to act upon evidence of abuse that she said she provided. But the top state prosecutor said Mace’s accusations of improper conduct by his office were “categorically false,” claiming the office had “no knowledge” of Mace’s alleged assault until her speech on the House floor.

Likewise, from her wikipedia entry:

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/3/14/2310287/-Update-on-Defamation-Lawsuit-Against-SC-Congresswoman-Nancy-Mace?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.