Blaze Media investigative journalist Steve Baker appeared Friday before a federal judge in the Northern District of Texas in Dallas. The hearing was held at 10 a.m. and its sole purpose was to formally notify Mr. Baker that federal criminal charges have been filed naming him as a defendant in the federal court for the District of Columbia; It was to make sure they had legal advisors to represent them. While the case is pending, the court imposes a series of conditions on him that he must abide by.
This was a so-called “out-of-district appearance,” or an appearance in federal court that is not the venue where the charges are pending. I attended hundreds of hearings of the same type during his 21 years as a federal prosecutor in the Department of Justice. They are routine, simple, and generally short unless the government requires the defendant to be detained and transported by U.S. marshals to a district pending prosecution.
We have decided to remain cooperative. If what we feared might happen actually happened, it would be recorded and the nation would see.
I was told in advance by the assistant U.S. attorney handling the case that the government would not seek to detain Steve.
In over 20 years as a prosecutor, I have never been involved. Not once —At his first court appearance on a misdemeanor charge, the defendant was told to first report to the FBI and have his fingerprints and photo taken before going to court.
However, these were the instructions given to me regarding Steve’s “surrender” prior to his first appearance on the complaint filed and signed by a federal judge in the District of Columbia. I spoke with prosecutors in mid-December, before the Justice Department decided to file charges. I asked to be told if and when charges would be filed and told Steve that I would be brought to the nearest federal court for my first appearance on the date and time he instructed me. I didn’t want the FBI SWAT team to force their way into his residence at 6 a.m. to arrest him. Prosecutors agreed to do so and agreed that no SWAT arrests would be made.
Steve was asked to report to the FBI office in Dallas at 7 a.m. and was instructed to wear shorts, a T-shirt, and footwear such as sandals or flip-flops in 40-degree weather. So I wondered what was planned. that’s right I didn’t get any further explanation in advance of what happened in the end.
Steve arrived at the appointed time, wearing a jacket, tie, and slacks. He never entered the actual FBI office building, instead meeting at the security cabin. Visitors must check in before being allowed into the building. Two investigators took his fingerprints, took a photo, and did what I suspected. They handcuffed him and placed him in the back of an FBI vehicle for transport to court.
Steve was “arrested” even though we had volunteered to appear in court at the appointed date and time for our first appearance. This has been the normal way the Department of Justice has handled misdemeanor cases since 1992, when I started this job.
We considered ignoring that instruction and simply having him “turn himself in” to the U.S. Marshal’s office at the courthouse. That would have been the normal process. However, we have decided to continue to cooperate and follow the government’s instructions. If what we feared might happen actually happened, it would be recorded and the nation would see.
The government cannot decide what kind of reporting it likes or what kind of reporting makes it uncomfortable, and then take prosecutorial measures based on that judgment.
Before his meeting with the judge, the FBI “arrested” Steve, and the U.S. Marshals Office and courthouse security added a belly chain, box cuffs, and shackles. The idea is to wrap a chain around the defendant’s waist and place handcuffs on the front of the chain, preventing the defendant from moving his arms up, down, left or right. Another chain runs from the abdominal chain to the chain connecting the two ankle cuffs to each other. When shackled in this way, all a defendant can do is usually shuffle with the guards on either side.
Ten minutes after the hearing ended, Steve left the courthouse through the front door like everyone else.He could–and should have done –I entered the court in the same way. There is nothing that justifies what the Department of Justice imposed on Steve Baker on March 1st. All because of the journalists who spent 37 minutes inside the Capitol documenting the events of January 6th as they unfolded.
The criminal complaint date is February 21, 2024. It took the Justice Department 1,141 days to determine that journalists covering international news events were legitimate subjects of federal criminal prosecution.
The Justice Department had been threatening to take this action for more than two and a half years, ever since the FBI first contacted Steve and asked him to attend an interview in North Carolina. In the end, Steve was present for the interview and answered questions about his recollections of that day and his actions. He then turned over all the videos he shot to the FBI and federal prosecutors.
The Justice Department finally had to take this step just weeks after Steve published a story in Blaze Media about members of the U.S. Capitol Police who likely committed perjury in one or more trials on January 6th. It seems worth noting that I felt sexual. Steve also happens to be one of the very few journalists working closely with multiple House committees studying video evidence of the events of January 6th that has not yet been released.
Our defense will reveal that there were dozens of journalists – some working for media companies, others like Steve at the time – freelancers. They were both in “restricted areas” and had entered the Capitol building. The same way hundreds of protesters were prosecuted through broken windows and doors. One freelancer in particular had his full-length article published in The New Yorker just nine days later and later promoted to the Pulitzer Prize.
He has never been charged.
This has all the hallmarks of “selective prosecution.”The government – foolishly, in my view – pointed out in an affidavit supporting the criminal complaint that Steve made the comment. rear on January 6th, supported or supported the actions of the demonstrators that day.
It is political speech, always has been political speech, and the inclusion of that information makes Steve stand out among the dozens of journalists who could have been indicted but have not. A game about the motives of selected governments is revealed.
This case won’t slip even under the waves. The government cannot decide what kind of reporting it likes or what kind of reporting makes it uncomfortable, and then take prosecutorial measures based on that judgment.
There has been an outpouring of support on Steve’s behalf. This includes the unwavering support of Blaze Media, who currently employ him and have known for some time that this moment might finally come.
I’ve played in this arena all my professional life. Game Start.
