"I am not belittling my client... but my client was wearing horns. He had tattoos around his nipples. He wasn’t leading anywhere. He was a follower."

Said Albert Watkins, the lawyer for Jacob Chansley (AKA "The QAnon Shaman"), quoted in "U.S. judge scolds ‘QAnon Shaman’ for appearing on ‘60 Minutes Plus’ without permission" (WaPo). 

As for the controversy over appearing on TV:

During a detention hearing Friday, Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia questioned whether Jacob Chansley appeared in the interview that aired Thursday without the required clearance from the U.S. Marshals Service, the detention facility or the judge. The judge also questioned whether Chansley’s attorney, Albert Watkins, was deceitful in skirting proper authorization to appear on the show.... Watkins said he did make “independent arrangements” with “60 Minutes Plus” but denied conducting “subterfuge.” He said he assumed his client would be allowed to be captured on camera from his office.

What is the government interest in suppressing communication by persons charged with crimes? I can understand why someone's lawyer might advise him not to give public interviews, but why is there a requirement of "clearance from the U.S. Marshals Service, the detention facility or the judge" — and what is the extent of the clearance? Is it just about giving interviewers access to a detention facility? If it's nothing more than that, then the lawyer's assumption was correct. If it is more than that... why is it more than that?

"Well, I sang a song. And that's a part of shamanism. It's about — creating positive vibrations in a sacred chamber."

"I also stopped people from stealing and vandalizing that sacred space, the Senate. Okay? I actually stopped somebody from stealing muffins out of the — out of the break room. And I also said a prayer in that sacred chamber. Because it was my intention to bring divinity, and to bring God back into the Senate." 

Said Jacob Chansley, quoted in "'QAnon Shaman' claims he wasn't attacking the country in first interview since Capitol riot arrest/Jacob Chansley, the man seen wearing face paint and a fur helmet with horns during the January 6 insurrection, tells 60 Minutes+ he was trying 'to bring God back to the Senate'" (CBS News). 

60 Minutes+ correspondent Laurie Segall pushed him: "But Jake, legally, you were not allowed to be in what you're calling the sacred chamber." 

He responded: "And that is — and that is the one very serious regret that I have, was believing that when we were waved in by police officers, that it was acceptable." He also said he regretted not receiving a pardon from Trump and that "while he regrets entering the building 'with every fiber of my being,' he doesn't regret his loyalty to the former president."

"Alarming revelations of threats to the Capitol and members of Congress prompted House Democratic leaders to wrap up their legislative work for the week on Wednesday night...."

"The immediate threat is intelligence related to a possible plot by a militia group to attack the Capitol on Thursday. Followers of the QAnon conspiracy theory believe former President Trump will be reinaugurated on March 4, a traditional date for presidential inaugurations until 1933...."  

MSN News reports.

How much evidence of a possible attack was there? Is vacating the building the right response to whatever this was? I presume it was something more than just people spinning theories that focused on a date that happens to have historical significance, but only the House is abandoning its workplace, not the Senate.

"FBI Director Christopher Wray resoundingly said Antifa and other leftists were not part of the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6. "

"'We have not, to date, seen any evidence of anarchist violence extremists or people subscribing to Antifa in connection to the 6th,' Wray told the Senate on Tuesday. 'We're coming after it' if there's violence from both the left and the right, he added, but in the Capitol, there wasn't evidence of leftists adding fuel to the insurrection... Wray said the bureau is seeing 'quite a number of what would we call militia violent extremists' as the FBI builds its cases agains the rioters. He specifically mentioned the groups the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. He added that they have seen in their investigations instances of 'racially motivated violent extremists' who advocate for White supremacy. 'One of the things that is happening as part of this is that as we build out the cases on the individuals when we arrest them for the violence, we're getting a richer and richer understanding of the different people's motivations,' he said. 'But certainly as I said, militia violent extremism and some instances of racially motivated violent extremism, especially advocating for the superior [sic] of the white race.'... 'The problem of domestic terrorism has been metastasizing across the country for a long time now and it is not going is a way any time soon,' Wray said...."

From CNN's ongoing coverage of testimony this morning from FBI Director Christopher Wray before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The riot at your doorstep is an insurrection.

Any "riot" is bad. But while traveling across US, I hear some say Congress overreacted like little kings & their experience was far milder than what many went thru in the past yr without the same fervor for hearings, to prosecute, find organizers, etc. What do you think?

— Sharyl Attkisson🕵️‍♂️ (@SharylAttkisson) February 27, 2021