The Justice Department has criticized Jacob Chansley, also known as the QAnon Shaman, for attempting to overturn his conviction for obstructing Congress’ proceedings on January 6, 2021. Chansley’s legal effort, which was based on Capitol surveillance footage provided to Fox News’ Tucker Carlson by Speaker Kevin McCarthy, was described as “meritless” and distorting the “overwhelming” evidence of his criminality. Assistant U.S. Attorney Kimberly Paschall argued that the footage covered only a small portion of Chansley’s actions that day and that the vast majority of the footage had already been turned over to Chansley and his previous lawyer. If Chansley’s effort were successful, his guilty plea would be withdrawn, and the case would proceed to trial, where he could face up to 20 years in prison.
On Wednesday, the Justice Department urged a federal judge to deny the motion of Jacob Chansley, the so-called QAnon Shaman, to issue an acquittal or new trial on the charges he faced for his participation in the deadly U.S. Capitol riot in January.
Chansley, who was identified in media reports and charged with two misdemeanors and one felony for his actions, made a motion earlier this month to have his case thrown out or declare a mistrial, arguing that his guilty plea was entered incorrectly.
Chansley claimed that he had been “lulled into a false sense of security” with false promises of a pardon from then-President Donald Trump, and that he was coerced into pleading guilty. He also argued that the language the court had used to accept his plea was “confusing”.
The Justice Department countered by saying that there was no legal support for Chansley’s arguments, and that there no evidence of coercion or misconduct.
The government also argued that Chansley had received a fair trial, had intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily pleaded guilty, and that his motion should be rejected.
In denying the motion, the court will not only be upholding Chansley’s conviction, but also guarding against a possible pardon from a president – a move that would raise serious constitutional questions.
The court has not yet issued its ruling on Chansley’s motion.
