Raleigh Journalist Charged with Four Misdemeanors for January 6th Coverage

Steve Baker, who now writes for The Blaze, describes his prosecution as "retaliation" for his investigative reporting on stories "embarrassing" to the government

The Department of Justice has finally followed through on its threat to arrest and charge Raleigh journalist Steve Baker for reporting on the rioting at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, a prosecution Baker and his legal team have referred to as "retaliation"

An uncredited screenshot from my own January 6th video included in the FBI Statement of Facts shows Baker inside the Capitol

After self-surrendering to the FBI in Dallas, TX on Friday morning, Baker was charged with the four misdemeanors common to J6 defendants and released on his own recognizance.

January 6th

Baker travelled to DC on January 6th armed with a camera and microphone to conduct man-on-the-street interviews with attendees of the planned Trump rally/protest. Although Baker's history of publication centered on his writings, this wasn't his first time on the streets with a camera: in early 2020, when Raleigh Police shut down the first ReopenNC protest in early 2020 while declaring that "Protesting is a non-essential activity", Baker published a video asking officers on the scene why they had shut down the demonstration.

When Baker arrived at the Capitol during the early stages of the riot, he began documenting what he was able to observe of the crowd and its interactions with the police.

After the police defense collapsed, Baker continued to document as he, like dozens of mainstream media journalists, followed the rioters into the United States Capitol Building.

But, unlike those mainstream journalists, Baker was not associated with a media corporation; instead, he was publishing directly to the audience he had spent years building as a political writer as The Pragmatic Constitutionalist (formerly The Pragmatic Libertarian).

Baker has also spent the last three years publishing investigative stories related to January 6th which cast the government in a negative light.

The Process is the Punishment

Upon being released from the courthouse, Baker had the following to say about the process he was being put through: "I don't like the deliberate humiliation they put me through. There was no reason to do that. There was no reason to march me into a courtroom in leg chains today."

I can very much sympathize with this sentiment; although I was arrested here in Raleigh, I was put through exactly the same process when I was charged for covering January 6th three years ago. Even though the DOJ had no reason to believe that either of us were dangerous, both Baker and I were cuffed, locked in a cell, and brought before a judge with our legs and arms chained together, only to find out that the DOJ was not even asking for pretrial detention.

I first became aware of Baker and got in touch over two years ago when I saw his press release about the government's move to prosecute him for his journalistic activities.

In November 2021, after being interviewed by the FBI, Baker had been informed by the DOJ that he would be "charged within the week" including with at least one felony charge under a "racketeering" statute.

However, this was not true. After Baker went on a press offensive, the DOJ went radio silent; but not before the Assistant U.S. Attorney handling the case, Anita Eve, let Baker's attorney know that she was "not thrilled" with Baker's press release.

It wasn't until 20 months in August 2023 later that Baker heard back from the DOJ, this time in the form of a grand jury subpoena for the video footage he had captured.

The DOJ followed up by informing Baker on December 14, 2023 that he would have to self-surrender five days later, on the 19th. The next day he was informed that the date would be postponed until after Christmas, or "mid-January".

However, as January came and went, Baker was once again left in limbo.

"Retaliation"

On January 22, with Baker still uncharged, he and his pro-bono legal team (including Matthew P. Ceradini of Raleigh) released a statement and held an accompanying press conference at Dealey Plaza (where JFK was assassinated).

The attorneys highlighted Baker's history of investigative reporting on stories and facts "embarrassing to the government", and raised the accusation of "retaliation":

Steve’s actions on January 6 have been known to the Department of Justice for 3 years. But it is only now – after Steve has broken two major stories greatly embarrassing to the DOJ – that he is possibly being targeted for arrest and possibly felony prosecution. Any action taken to put him in handcuffs, hold him in custody, and have him transported to court by federal law enforcement will be nothing other than retaliation for his recent reporting.

The news of Baker's arrest and charging provoked an outpouring of support for Baker and the first amendment, including prominent political figures:

• Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky): "The fourth branch is arresting another journalist today for embarrassing the regime."

• Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia): "Free Press is dead in America when the government jails journalists who refuse to report the regime’s political agenda and lies."

• Vivek Ramaswamy (2024 presidential candidate, Republican): "Those who pontificate about 'threats to our democracy' should take a hard look at the threats to freedom of the press."

• Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (2024 presidential candidate, independent): "The suppression of free speech through intimidation and arrest goes directly against what our Founding Fathers intended. The Twitter Files, Missouri v. Biden and Kennedy v. Biden reveal a full scale war by the US government on the First Amendment!"

Perjury, conspiracy, and coincidences

Baker's skepticism of the narrative put forward by the government and establishment media was apparent even in his initial report What I Saw on January 6th in Washington, DC (published January 13, 2021), in which he referred to the idea that the day was an "insurrection" or "sedition" as being "the height of laughable absurdity".

Baker was already dipping his toe into the investigatory side of January 6th journalism with an article the next month, Who was “Up the Chain” on January 6?.

Baker has also provided live coverage of several January 6th trials in DC, including the Oath Keepers' trial in late 2022, as well as my own trial last year.

Baker also garnered attention with his three part series entitled Capitol Police Were Sacrificial Pawns on Jan. 6 (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3), laying out evidence regarding Capitol Police and Capitol Police leadership on the day.

However, Baker's most groundbreaking investigative journalism may be what he has published since joining The Blaze as an opinion contributor and investigative journalist in August 2023.

In October, Baker published evidence that U.S. Capitol Police Special Agent David Lazarus, had perjured himself when testifying against the Oath Keepers. With access to the U.S. Capitol CCTV, Baker was able to prove that Lazarus could not have witnessed what he testified to, as he was in a different part of the Capitol.

Baker has also published evidence casting into doubt the stories told by celebrity U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn both as a witness at trial, to the media, and in his book. I, as a witness to part of the infamous encounter between Dunn and the Oath Keepers, can confirm that Dunn's accounts of the incident do not match the reality of what occurred. Dunn is currently running as a Democrat to represent Maryland's 3rd Congressional District.

In addition, Baker was the first to break the news that the "passerby" who reportedly discovered the "pipe bomb" at the DNC was in fact a plainclothes U.S. Capitol Police Officer, and the fact that the officers it was reported to were in no hurry to investigate.

The Charges

Baker is facing up to 1 year in prison if convicted of the four misdemeanors he has been charged with:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1) - Knowingly Entering or Remaining in any Restricted Building or Grounds Without Lawful Authority

• 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(2) - Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds

• 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(D) - Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building

• 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(G) - Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building
  These four charges compose the base of nearly every January 6th prosecution.

The Statement of Facts submitted by the FBI in support of the charges largely confirms what we know, that Baker followed the crowd into the building with his camera, and published what he observed and documented.

Given that we can expect FBI's filing to, at best, portray true facts in the light least favorable to Baker, what is perhaps more interesting is what the document does not include: any evidence of Baker committing any acts of violence or property destruction, or encouraging any others to do so.

The primary basis for the charges, beyond Baker's mere presence at the riot, is remarks that he made; such as allegedly referring to the occupants of the Capitol (and then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi specifically) as "b----es", allegedly telling a reporter he "approve[d] 100%" of what happened at the Capitol, or allegedly remarking that "the only thing I regret is that I didn't like steal their computers because God knows what I could've found on their computers if I'd done that."

Baker had the following response to his quotes, according NBC "justice reporter" Ryan J. Reilly:

In a phone interview after his arrest, Baker called the process "humiliating," but said that law enforcement officers he dealt with were friendly and cordial. Baker said he had no regrets about the language he used on Jan. 6, and that some of his comments, like those during his discussions with his friend over drinks on the night of the riot, were taken out of context.

"With the 'couldn't happen to a nicer b----' comment... when the FBI asks me why I said that I said, 'Because it wasn't McConnell's office.' I said, 'If it had been McConnell's office, I would've said it couldn't have happened to a more deserving bastard.' And then I followed that up by saying, 'What part of me being a libertarian do you not understand? I don't like either side,'" Baker said.

Source: Musician and libertarian writer who works for 'The Blaze' arrested on Jan. 6 charges - NBC

Legal Defense

Despite his large and experienced legal team, Baker will still face an uphill battle in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where all January 6th criminal cases have been charged.

So far, only two January 6th defendants have achieved full acquittals, Matthew Martin and James Beeks, and no defendant has been able to get their case transferred to a district with a less unfavorable jury pool.

The DOJ has successfully prosecuted a handful of January 6th defendants who have made some sort of media or press freedom argument including Shawn Bradley Witzemann, JD Rivera, Owen Shroyer, Samuel Montoya, John Sullivan, and myself. (The FBI did comply with the DOJ's "News Media Policy" (28 C.F.R. § 50.10 (2022)) in investigating and filing charges against Baker, a "courtesy" not afforded all of the above named defendants).

One strategy that Baker's legal team will likely employ is a claim of "selective prosecution". Although the judicial system grants a large deal of prosecutorial discretion, a defendant can have their case dismissed if he is able to "demonstrate that (1) other similarly situated individuals have not been prosecuted and (2) his prosecution was based on an impermissible motive" (United States v. Sutcliffe).

A recent example of this occurred in California, where a federal district court judge dismissed federal rioting charges against alleged far-right rioters, on the grounds that "no individuals associated with the left, who engaged in anti-far-right speech and violently suppressed the protected speech of Trump supporters, were charged with a federal crime for their part in starting riots at political events." (The dismissal is currently being appealed by the government).

It is relatively easy to find numerous instances of mainstream journalists who also entered the "restricted area" and even the Capitol Building itself as they documented the actions of the crowd, like Baker. For instance, at the same Senate Wing Door where Baker entered, we can also find Ashley Gilbertson, a photographer who captured quite a few iconic January 6th images for the New York Times; Young Kim, a video journalist who licensed his footage to RMG News¹, was the 5th individual to enter the Capitol at this door by climbing through a window; and Luke Mogelson, a writer for the New Yorker who also climbed through a broken out window.

However, as I found out in my own legal defense, it can be difficult to prove to a judge that these journalists who were not charged are "similarly situated individuals".

It's possible we could see more novel arguments made by Baker's legal team. For instance, in Sherrill v. Knight (1977), the DC Appeals Court ruled that a member of the media had a due process right under the 1st and 5th amendments when being denied a White House press pass (this case was one of the precedents cited in CNN v. Trump to temporarily restore Jim Acosta's press pass after it was revoked). One could argue that this establishes a protection for members of the media separate from the standard of selective prosecution.

Baker has pledged not to take a plea deal:

Misdemeanors? For what? Terrorism? Is there such a thing as misdemeanor terrorism charges? 60 other journalists entered the Capitol on J6. Do we all have to see the world through the same prism?

Here we go. Game on. I will not take a plea deal.

• TPC4USA on Twitter/X

1. This article initially referred to Young Kim as “an RMG News video journalist”. It has been updated for clarity.