One of the men Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) accused of sexual abuse in a fiery speech on the House floor last month is suing the congresswoman for defamation, a test of legal rules that members of Congress say protect remarks in the chamber.
Mace accused a group of South Carolina businessmen of being “rapists, peeping toms or voyeurs, and sex traffickers,” claiming she herself was a victim of abuse. One of the men, Brian Musgrave, is suing the congresswoman for defamation.
In a lawsuit filed in South Carolina, he denied Mace’s allegations. He said he was not present during any alleged events in which Mace claimed the group of men engaged in sexual acts involving children, sexual assault, and rape. She alleged she was among the victims who were photographed and filmed while incapacitated.
“These predators are not untouchable,” Mace said on Feb. 10. “These predators are not invisible, and these predators are not invincible, and today, their names will be tied to their crimes and their cowardice forever.”
Musgrave denies the accusations, with the suit noting he was out running errands when a reporter reached out about the floor speech later that evening. The lawsuit states he spent hours telling family and friends “to let them know that his name and likeness would appear on the floor of Congress and that he would be falsely accused of being a rapist, a predator and a sex trafficker.”
“Brian Musgrave was not present,” the lawsuit reads. “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.”
The lawsuit is challenging the parameters of the speech and debate clause of the Constitution, under which Mace’s office said her statements were protected because they were “quintessential ‘legislative acts.’”
The suit acknowledged the clause offers “broad protection” to members of Congress, but argues it does not turn the floor of Congress into “a sanctuary for defamation, nor does it protect Congresswoman Mace’s extra-Congressional defamatory statements surrounding her speech.”
Musgrave’s lawyers note that he and Patrick Bryant, Mace’s ex-fiancé and one of the men she named on the floor, owned a beach condo on the Isle of Palms, one of the areas mentioned by Mace in her speech. The lawyers said he knew Bryant placed a Google camera in “plain view on top of the refrigerator” and “assumed that he used it for security or other such similar purposes.”
The counsel also noted that Musgrave has never had access to the camera and did not view, if any, recordings captured on the device.
The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division confirmed that it was investigating Bryant shortly after Mace’s public speech. Bryant has denied the allegations, and Musgrave is denying he knew of any of Bryant’s alleged wrongdoings.
“Upon information and belief, matters between Bryant and Mace became quite contentious
as the couple disagreed on how to divide the assets that they had acquired together,” the suit stated. “While contentious, Musgrave never heard of any allegations by Mace that Bryant had acted inappropriately toward her in a sexual manner – that is, until February 10, 2025.”
“Other than to inflict pain on Bryant’s friend, it is unclear as to the reasons why Mace and
team chose to include Brian Musgrave in her speech on the floor on the evening of February
10, 2025,” the lawsuit continues.
The suit seeks an unspecified award for compensatory and punitive damages to be determined by a jury “sufficient to impress upon the Defendant the seriousness of her conduct and to deter such similar conduct in the future.”
Mace noted she had been collecting evidence for over a year, claiming she was doing the floor speech because South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson had declined to act upon evidence of abuse she said she provided to him. But Wilson’s team said in a statement that the allegations against him were “categorically false.”
“Congresswoman Mace and the Attorney General have been at multiple events together over the last six months. She also has the Attorney General’s personal cellphone number. Not once has she approached or reached out to him regarding any of her concerns,” the attorney general’s office said.
Mace and Wilson are both considering runs for South Carolina governor in the 2026 election.
DEMOCRATS SEARCH FOR MESSAGE DISCIPLINE IN FACE OF GOP ‘RIDICULE’
When asked for comment about Musgrave’s lawsuit, the congresswoman’s office pointed the Washington Examiner to a letter from congressional attorneys. Matthew Berry, general counsel for the House, hit back at Musgrave’s theory that her remarks “did not advance any legislative initiatives” but instead pushed a “personal narrative.”
“Not only is this assertion factually inaccurate, but it is also inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent applying the Speech or Debate Clause,” Berry said. “As a factual matter, Congresswoman Mace specifically mentioned twelve pieces of legislation related to the issues raised in her speech, all of which she personally introduced in the last 14 months.”
