During a recent interview with CBS News'60 Minutes, "QAnon shaman" Jacob Chansley claimed that the doors to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 were left open for the mob to enter. Now, a federal judge says Chansley "blatantly lied" in the interview after the court released two videos debunking his claim, Law&Crime reports.
"Not only is defendant unable to offer evidence substantiating his claim that he was waved into the Capitol, but evidence submitted by the government proves this claim false. A video submitted by the government captures rioters breaking through the windows of the Capitol building," Senior Judge Royce Lamberth wrote in a 32-page opinion on March 8. "At the same moment that rioters smash the glass and crawl through the windows, the video pans over to show a large group of rioters walking through an adjacent doorway into the Capitol building. Included in that group is defendant, who is easily identifiable by his horned headdress."
"The government's video shows that defendant blatantly lied during his interview with 60 Minutes+ when he said that police officers waved him into the building," Lamberth added. "Further, this video confirms that defendant did not, as defense counsel claims, enter the building" contemporaneously with the exiting by Capitol Police." […] Nor did he enter, as defense counsel represents, in the 'third wave' of the breach. To the contrary, he quite literally spearheaded it."
"The Court is not persuaded that defendant's mother will ensure his compliance with any conditions of release imposed, and defendant identifies no other custodian," the judge wrote.
According to Lamberth, Chansley's TV interview was likely just a publicity stunt.
"Such media appearances are undoubtedly conducive to defense counsel's fame. But they are not at all conducive to an argument that the only way defense counsel could privately communicate with his client is if defendant were temporarily released," Lamberth wrote. "Given defense counsel's decision to use what could have been a confidential videoconference on a media publicity stunt, that argument is so frivolous as to insult the court's intelligence."