The government has filed its brief in support of holding Jake Angeli (aka "Q-Shaman") without bail pending trial. Let's take a look. #lawtwitter

First, an 18-page memo filed prior to a detention hearing isn't unheard of, but it's not every day, either. It's a signal that they really, really want this guy locked up.

Next: the charges. They're getting serious here. Angeli faces two felonies: 18 USC 231 civil disorder,
which carries up to to five years in prison, and 18 USC 1512(c)(2), obstructing an official proceeding (the electoral college count), which carries up to 20 years in prison. And some misdemeanors.

Next we come to the authorization for detention. The government has to show
That some law says the judge can jail him pending trial. In this case, Angeli is totally fucked because of a prop choice: he used a spear as a portable flag pole, and that gets him a "felony involving the use of a dangerous weapon."
In general, if you're gonna crime, crime without a weapon. It'll go better when you're prosecuted.

One really notable choice on page 1: they're calling the coup a "violent insurrection that attempted to overthrow the US Government." I haven't seen that in an official doc yet.
Again on page 3, "Chansely [Angeli's real name] was one of the insurrectionists..."

Not rioters, trespassers, protesters, or the like. Insurrectionists. It matters that the government is taking this view.
Another cool stylistic choice on page 4: embedding images within the brief. I've never seen a court rule that says not to do this, but it's rarely done. And when done, often highly effective (with the right image for the right point).
The brief goes on to explain that Angeli used his bullhorn to rile up the crowd whenever the cops got it settled a bit. They also have an officer saying he "used his bullhorn to communicate that they were there to take out several
United States congressmen."

He's toast.
Judges can shake off an awful lot as "sad choices," but this is way over the line and into "get comfy in prison" territory.

Next, they allege that he left a note on Pence's desk: “it's only a matter of time, justice is coming.”

Chilling.
Page 6 is a whole list of things you should not do after failing to overthrow the government:
1) Call the FBI and confess
2) Say as part of your confession that your ambiguous note wasn't a threat
3) Drive to the FBI to confess some more
4) Bring your crime costume to the FBI.
The threat bit is a great example of why we say "don't talk." He confessed to so much, just to say he didn't mean the threat as a threat;
a) Nobody believes him;
b) Even if they did, he's given up a LOT more than he got;
c) There's no benefit to saying that before trial.
On page 7, probation recommends release with conditions. That plane ain't gonna fly. The government points out that he lied to the pretrial evaluator, and that they didn't consider the fact that he's a crazy insurrectionist who said he'd do it again.
Okay, I'm convinced, this guy's fucked. He's getting held.

Wait, there's more? That wasn't the conclusion? No, that was the conclusion of the introduction.

Now they're summarizing the legal standard.
Page 8: he says he has no mental health issues, but you don't have to be a psychologist to know this dude's delusional:
If that's not enough, here's a transcript of some word salad he made on YouTube on the day of the coup:
A lot of the analysis section is repeating facts from the introduction to match them up with the elements of the legal standard. This is not atypical.
On page 15, regarding the "nature of the offense" element, the government reiterates that Angeli is a participant in a violent insurrection to overthrow the government. Chilling characterization: "the insurrection is still in progress and he intends to continue participating."
"Strong evidence, including [Angeli's] own words and actions at the Capitol, supports that the intent of the Capitol rioters was to capture and assassinate elected officials[.]"
Page 16: the judge is supposed to consider the "weight of the evidence," and well, most of the evidence is his own spontaneous confessions on the internet. That's very bad for him.
Page 17: "His ability and willingness to conform his behavior to pre-trial supervision conditions appears to be virtually nil."

Searing. Also accurate.
The government concludes with a brief analysis of the final factor, "danger to others." They take all of 7 lines. It's a no brainer.

On page 18, they conclude with the signatures and certificate of service.
This guy is totally fucked. They are using his distinctive costume, assumed leadership role, and erratic words and behavior to make an example of him.

The only thing I see in his favor is that the government thinks he's nuts. So there *might* be a defense or mitigation there.
His affect and behavior may change after a few weeks in jail without access to his devoted followers and drugs of choice. That's not uncommon. But for now he's likely to be a very difficult client for his legal team, and probably continue to be self-destructive.

More from Government

The Government is making the same mistakes as it did in the first wave. Except with knowledge.

A thread.


The Government's strategy at the beginning of the pandemic was to 'cocoon' the vulnerable (e.g. those in care homes). This was a 'herd immunity' strategy. This interview is from


This strategy failed. It is impossible to 'cocoon' the vulnerable, as Covid is passed from younger people to older, more vulnerable people.

We can see this playing out through heatmaps. e.g. these heatmaps from the second


The Government then decided to change its strategy to 'preventing a second wave that overwhelms the NHS'. This was announced on 8 June in Parliament.

This is not the same as 'preventing a second wave'.

https://t.co/DPWiJbCKRm


The Academy of Medical Scientists published a report on 14 July 'Preparing for a Challenging Winter' commissioned by the Chief Scientific Adviser that set out what needed to be done in order to prevent a catastrophe over the winter
This is a good piece on fissures within the GOP but I think it mischaracterizes the Trump presidency as “populist” & repeats a story about how conservatives & the GOP expelled the far-right in the mid-1960s that is actually far more complicated. /1

I don’t think the sharp opposition between “hard-edge populism” & “conservative orthodoxy” holds. Many of the Trump administration’s achievements were boilerplate conservatism. Its own website trumpets things like “massive deregulation,” tax cuts, etc. /2

https://t.co/N97v85Bb79


The claim that Buckley and “key GOP politicians banded together to marginalize anti-Communist extremism and conspiracy-mongering” of the JBS has been widely repeated lately but the history is more complicated. /3


This tweet by @ThePlumLineGS citing a paper by @sam_rosenfeld and @daschloz on the "porous" boundary between conservatives, the GOP and the far-right is relevant in this context.


This is a separate point but I find it interesting that Gaetz, like Roy Moore did In his failed Senate campaign, disses McConnell. What are their actual policy differences? MM supported taking health care away from millions, a tax cut for the rich, conservative judges, etc. /5

You May Also Like

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.