Morning Wire XX
[0] On March 1st, Steve Baker, an investigative journalist for the Blaze, was arrested by the FBI and placed in handcuffs and ankle chains as he was arraigned on four misdemeanor charges.
[1] His charges stem from his work as an independent journalist when he entered the Capitol building on January 6th and documented the protests and rioting.
[2] Federal prosecutors say Baker is guilty of entering a restricted area and disorderly conduct and protesting in a Capitol building.
[3] But he says he's only being charged.
[4] because he's a libertarian reporter.
[5] In this episode, we sit down with Baker to discuss his arrest, his charges, and the reason he believes federal authorities are using him to send a chilling message to other journalists.
[6] I'm Daily Wire, editor -in -chief John Bickley, with Georgia Howe.
[7] It's Saturday, March 9th, and this is an extra edition of Morning Wire.
[8] Joining us now is Steve Baker, an investigative journalist for The Blaze, who turned himself into the FBI in Dallas last week over charge.
[9] related to his reporting from the Capitol building on January 6th.
[10] Steve, thanks for coming on.
[11] Glad to be here.
[12] Thanks for having me. So first, I want to read these four misdemeanor charges the Justice Department is bringing against you.
[13] One, knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building without lawful authority.
[14] Two, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building.
[15] Three, disorderly conduct in a Capitol building.
[16] And finally, four, parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol.
[17] building.
[18] First, as you fully admit and document in your own reporting, you did, in fact, enter the Capitol during the riot.
[19] That said, are these charges fair?
[20] No. In fact, the only one that is fair if it's equally applied to everyone who went through doors or broken windows, whatever the case may be, is the first charge.
[21] The other three are pure nonsense.
[22] I mean, I did no picketing.
[23] I did no parading.
[24] I wasn't wearing any political paraphernalia or carrying a Trump flag.
[25] In fact, I had no Trump gear at all.
[26] I still don't own any Trump gear all these years later.
[27] And I certainly was using no abusive language.
[28] And then, as I said before, the first charge is the one, what I could refer to as the glorified trespassing charge.
[29] And of course, everyone is hit with that charge.
[30] And then, of course, all of the low -level offenders are hit with these four, whether they did these things or not.
[31] We have hundreds of people who did not do, number two, three and four.
[32] They only did number one, but they hit them with all four of them so that they can scare them into a plea deal on just one of those charges, get their quick two years probation, their $2 ,000 fine, 100 hours community service.
[33] The DOJ gets their notch in their gun belt, and they move on.
[34] Now, part of your defense is that the footage you've had access to shows that you don't actually do some of the things that you're accused of in terms of parading or demonstrating in the Capitol.
[35] Is that correct?
[36] That's correct.
[37] Absolutely correct.
[38] The footage inside the building is only 37 minutes, but we all, you know, obviously we have footage of me outside the building as well, and we have my footage, which, of course, is a couple of hours worth of video that shows me doing my job of recording the events that were taking place.
[39] Now, we fully reviewed the charging documents, and they include a few quotes from you about the riot that I'd also like to give you a chance to respond to, one in which you said you 100 % approved of what happened today, referring to January 6th.
[40] You also called Nancy Pelosi the B word and also said your one regret as you didn't grab a computer from her office.
[41] Are those quotes accurately and fairly presented in the charging documents?
[42] Well, no, of course not.
[43] And again, I've read hundreds of these charging documents and followed many of these trials myself.
[44] And this is the one thing that the Department of Justice is consistent about is that they take all of these quotes out of context of the moment.
[45] And for instance, let's just start with the first one, this 100 % approval.
[46] I did two separate long -form interviews with correspondence from WUSA that day and then that night.
[47] And in those interviews, which was probably about an average of 10 to 15 minutes each, they consolidated that entire amount of recording down to 15 seconds in a highly tightly edited thing in which they, of course, denigrated.
[48] my independent journalism in the process.
[49] Some of those statements you said were actually jokes, not serious assertions.
[50] Is that correct?
[51] The first comment, obviously, is a joke.
[52] When we recorded that, I was there with another writer that day, and we had drove up to D .C. for the event, of course, not knowing what the event would ultimately become, but when the day was over and we're finally both back in our hotel room and we had gotten separated during the day.
[53] And we poured a couple of adult beverages, turned on the camera, and started a YouTube recording on that.
[54] And of course, we were joking about it.
[55] You know, look, I had no love for whether I was in Pelosi's or near Pelosi's office or near McConnell's office.
[56] In fact, when the FBI asked me in my interview with them over two years ago, they said, of course, did you say this?
[57] And of course, they knew I did because they had a copy of the YouTube video.
[58] And I said, yes, I did say that, you know, it couldn't have happened to a more deserving bitch.
[59] I said, but if I had been in McConnell's office, I would have said it couldn't have happened to a more deserving bastard.
[60] I said, what part of me being a libertarian and not liking either side do you not understand?
[61] That's exactly how I responded to them in that interview.
[62] And then when you get to the laptop part, now by 11 o 'clock that night, this was already on the news.
[63] There were already people talking about somebody, you know, possibly have stolen Nancy Pelosi's laptop.
[64] And we were commenting and joking on that.
[65] Well, as I said, with a couple of adult beverages in our hands.
[66] But this is exactly what the DOJ does with all of these people.
[67] Ultimately, the biggest crime that every one of these J6 defendants commit, whether it's Stuart Rhodes, the founder of the oathkeepers, or it's a grandmother who took a selfie inside the Capitol for 10 minutes, or it's me. They go and they get language.
[68] that was used, words that was used, speech that was used, and then they tie that in and make that speech representative of their behavior.
[69] Because the one thing that you'll notice, in every one of those quotes that you said right there, are that you referenced there, every one of them happened off the property.
[70] They didn't happen when I was doing my job on the property that day.
[71] So do you believe it's accurate to say that you're being charged for comments that you made, perspectives that you aired, whether in jest or seriousness, rather than your actions that day.
[72] I guarantee you this, and I will also tell you that this morning, I was reading Twitter and reading all the thousands of comments that have been thrown out there about me over the last 48 hours.
[73] And one of those comments in particular was very instructive.
[74] And this comment came from Ryan Riley of NBC News.
[75] And he wrote, you know, I wouldn't say, unfair piece on me, but you've got to have been a little bit more accurate.
[76] But what he said is that by all means, we have to look at this case for what it is, and the contemporaneous language matters.
[77] Now, Ryan has covered more J6 trials than anybody.
[78] He's a walking encyclopedia of the defendants, of the charges, of convictions, of the sentencings.
[79] And what he was saying is that if it wasn't for my language, he actually says this on January 6th, before I entered to the Capitol, and then after I left in the entering, he says he is convinced that the case almost certainly would have been brought.
[80] So it's not about my behavior that day.
[81] It's about my words.
[82] In your post -arrest interviews, you've said that you believe that the way you were perp walked and chained during the proceeding on Friday was unnecessary and also very deliberate.
[83] Can you expand on that for us?
[84] I have obviously spoken to many law enforcement agents, officers from every department in the federal system to local sheriffs, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
[85] Every single one of them are absolutely appalled that they put leg chains and then the belt chains on me and pulling my wrist into my stomach for misdemeanor charges.
[86] And of course, you have to go to the reality that before January 6th, the FBI had never been used in such a manner to prosecute, hunt down, and investigate misdemeanor defendants.
[87] Well, they're not only doing that in January 6 related cases, which is something they have never done in the entire history of that agency and don't do it outside of January 6 cases even today.
[88] But what they do is the first thing is they will swat you at your home.
[89] I got by with that and probably because we have been so cooperative for so long and probably because of the profile that I have working for the Blaze, they probably thought that wouldn't be prudent for them at this time.
[90] So what they did, rather than issuing me just a simple order to appear, there was an individual, a defendant in the courtroom with me that day, who had felony charges against her.
[91] She was sitting in the gallery with her lawyer.
[92] When her number was called up, she went up, and she pled not guilty.
[93] She had no change.
[94] She was wearing her nice dress, and she had no leg chains, no handcuffs on.
[95] She was not accompanied by a U .S. Marshal.
[96] And so rather than me as a misdemeanor defendant being presented in the same manner, I was locked up for five hours with meth dealers, literally meth dealers.
[97] I saw their charging documents with my own eyes.
[98] And I'm in leg chains with them, marched in, held in a pen, and then it's surrounded by U .S. Marshals, as though I'm going to leap up and attack the judge or something like that.
[99] but the other felony defendant had no such humiliation tactics laid upon her.
[100] Do you believe federal authorities are trying to send a message specifically to journalists here?
[101] I think they're trying to send a message to anybody who is not comporting with the preferred narrative.
[102] And I, you know, look, I've written extensively about this very issue.
[103] I'll go back to something I said earlier.
[104] It's the scary words.
[105] You look at what happened to Stuart Rhodes, the founder of the Oathkeeper, sentenced to 18 years.
[106] He is not sentenced for his behavior.
[107] He never went into the Capitol.
[108] He did no violence.
[109] He carried no weapons.
[110] He did no chanting.
[111] He did no parading.
[112] He wasn't waving any flags.
[113] And yet he was sentenced to 18 years because two months beforehand, he told the president in an open letter that if the president would invoke the Insurrection Act, that his 35 ,000 oathkeepers would help him and surround the White House and defend him.
[114] Well, the president did not do that.
[115] And Stuart Rhodes did not follow through with his promise to come to the aid of the president if he did so.
[116] And then a week later, after January 6th, Stuart Rhodes had been drinking.
[117] He was in a parking lot.
[118] He was being recorded by an FBI confidential human source surreptitiously.
[119] And in that recording, he said something to the effect of, I wish I had brought my rifle and put a bullet in Nancy Pelosi's head.
[120] so on the one hand prior to january 6th he makes a promise to the president we will do this if you do that president didn't do that so he didn't do that a week later he said i wish i had done that that was used by the department of justice in that trial before a highly prejudiced dc jury a jury pool of 92 and a half percent joe biden voters and in that particular no -win situation that was Stuart Rhodes' death nail.
[121] Now, in your reporting and commentary leading up to and after the arrest, you've said this is a selective prosecution by the feds and that laws are being applied in ways they haven't been in similar cases.
[122] You've touched on that in terms of the FBI's involvement in these misdemeanor cases.
[123] What are some other ways in which you feel like the laws are actually being applied in a way that they haven't been used before?
[124] Well, I think that the first and most significant thing is when we're talking about selected prosecution is who they are prosecuting related to journalism and who they are not related to journalism.
[125] One of the things that most people do not understand unless you're in the business is that a press badge or a press pass are working for a company of any size.
[126] Doesn't matter if it's Washington Post, New York Times.
[127] It doesn't matter whether you have a congressional gallery pass or not.
[128] You are not allowed any time to cross a restricted boundary, a police set -ups, restricted line without the express permission of law enforcement.
[129] Now, for generations, law enforcement will look the other way because they know that for the, you know, in the public interest and for the public good, that journalists sometimes needs to come behind the tape, come behind the restricted line in order to help get the story to get it out to the people.
[130] And in this particular case, on January 6th, there were already probably, I want to say this is a rough but fairly accurate estimate, close to 100 journalists already in the building that day, photojournalists, videographers, print journalists, etc. And they were there for the purpose of documenting this, you know, historic event, which happens every four years on January 6th was the certification of electoral college vote.
[131] And then there was a cadre of all types of journalists on the outside, independent, mainstream, big organizations, credentialed, uncredentials, etc., etc. And right at 60 of those journalists went through broken windows and busted open doors to go in and document what was happening.
[132] But as we have seen, not a single one of those from the left have been so much as charged in the last three years.
[133] But we have a long and growing list of those who do work on the right side of the political spectrum who have been charged and that is without them parading demonstrating picketing using louder abusive language of any kind yet they're being charged because of their associations for instance one journalist a videographer from pensacola he was the first january sixth defendant arrested he was arrested in florida rather arrested for same form misdemeanors that they're charging me with.
[134] And they swatted him with over 20 agents putting the long rifles and the red dots on him, his wife, and his children at 6 .30 in the morning.
[135] He decides to go to trial on this because he was not going to plead guilty for something he didn't do.
[136] And they punished him for it and they sentenced him to eight months in prison.
[137] They put him in a medium security prison in Georgia that does not house misdemeanor defendants.
[138] So first of all, when we're talking about the selective prosecution, you have to say, well, why did they go so hard?
[139] This guy's gentleman's name is J .D. Rivera.
[140] Why did they go so hard at J .D.?
[141] They went hard at J .D. because he had a history of being an activist in Latinos for Trump.
[142] His behavior as a journalist that day in the Capitol, he brought his expensive professional gear.
[143] He was contracted by a television station in Mobile, Alabama.
[144] But his political history of being an activist for Trump caused them to go after him so hard.
[145] They convicted him.
[146] They threw him in prison.
[147] He spent the first two months in this facility in solitary confinement.
[148] When he got into the general population, all of the other prisoners didn't trust him because he told them he was there for misdemeanors.
[149] And they were saying, oh, no, that's not.
[150] No, misdemeanor Fendez don't come to this prison.
[151] We know.
[152] We're professional.
[153] criminals.
[154] We commit crimes and we come to prisons.
[155] This is not where you're supposed to be.
[156] He said, well, you are if you're January 6th defendant.
[157] And that's the level of selective prosecution that I'm talking about.
[158] Is there anything that you feel that is being missed in terms of national reporting or the national debate on this?
[159] The one thing that the entire nation is missing unless they follow these cases, these trials, these defendants as closely as I've followed of them for the last three years, is that just because the Department of Justice says this in their charging documents does not mean that it happened, or more importantly, it does not mean that it happened in the manner in which they presented.
[160] They present these words as though they are celebratory words, as though I was supporting the bad behaviors and the misdeeds that took place that day, and nothing could be further from the truth.
[161] I've written just got hundreds of thousands of words about this since January 6th.
[162] And I hate going back again to the Oathkeepers, but it was the first and most important trial to be presented by the Department of Justice related to January 6th.
[163] But that's how they convicted these men.
[164] These men and women are former military or current.
[165] They're former law enforcement or current.
[166] And they talk like sailors.
[167] They talk like, you know, like you would expect a bunch of retired military, vets to talk.
[168] It's braggadocio.
[169] It is over the top when they are together and when they're on their comms and, you know, it's rah -rah.
[170] It's 1776.
[171] It's this, that, and the other thing.
[172] And all of this type of language was used against them.
[173] And that's what made my radar go off.
[174] And I started really honing in on this on all of these cases is that if you walk into the building and you chant at USA, USA, USA, or whose house, our house, your penalties, your sentencing is going to be worse than if you just walked in, took a couple of selfies and walked out.
[175] But if you opened your mouth and you participated in the revelry, no violence, no property damage, your penalties are still going to be more.
[176] And I have mainstream media colleagues, which I presented that to, who followed these trials even closer than I do, who have admitted to me, Yes, that is the case.
[177] Final question.
[178] Do you see any reasons for optimism about your case and other J6 cases going forward?
[179] So there's not a lot of room for optimism because you can't win in front of a D .C. jury or a D .C. judge.
[180] That's why, and the Department of Justice knows this, and that's why in over 1 ,300 cases and growing and accelerating right now at a rapid pace, they have not granted a single change of venue request.
[181] So in my case, the only optimism I have right now related to my case is that I am the first of any of these independent journalists with the size bullhorn, the megaphone that we have in terms of obviously my employment with Blaze Media.
[182] And then because of that, it's obviously gone viral.
[183] We were trending on X for the last 48 hours, this story.
[184] and being picked up by the likes of your program, Daily Wire.
[185] Well, Steve, thank you for joining us, and we'll certainly be tracking your case very closely.
[186] Hey, thank you, guys.
[187] I really appreciate it.
[188] That was Steve Baker, investigative journalist for The Blaze, and this has been an extra edition of Morning Wire.