INTERVIEW: Steve Baker, a Journalist in the Crosshairs of the DOJ

by Roger L. Simon

We used to think it was elsewhere—the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, communist China.

But something happened in this country, as Ernest Hemingway said of bankruptcy, “gradually, then suddenly.”

Many now believe we are living in a new form of tyranny here in the USA.

The fate of independent journalist (now with The Blaze) Steve Baker is a terrifying illustration of where we are today in the land founded on the principle of freedom of speech.

Mr. Baker was inside the U.S. Capitol on Jan 6, 2021, as a journalist doing the usual note-taking and videoing of what was occurring, nothing remotely violent, only to find himself having been treated by our Justice Department as some kind of “insurrectionist” to a degree that he was placed for a time in irons.

After now years of threats to prosecute him, Mr. Baker has finally been summoned to appear Wednesday, April 3, at the U.S. District Court in Washington to answer a criminal complaint on four code violations similar to those that have led to the incarceration of many Jan. 6 defendants. They are:

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.

Mr. Baker could actually now do jailtime for being a reporter—in the USA.

It’s more than worth noting journalists from several mainstream media organs, including their mother ship, The New York Times, were inside the Capitol reporting at the same time as Mr. Baker.

None of them have been asked to answer a criminal complaint or anything similar for their activities that day. This is likely because their reporting mostly adhered to what has been called “the party line” while Mr. Baker wrote and videoed what he saw.

As one who has earned his living as a writer all my life, the implications of Mr. Baker’s case alarmed and continue to alarm me.

More importantly, especially as it relates to Jan. 6, it seems that you need to work for one of the approved sources, a source that operates and disseminates the approved narrative.

But it gets much more complicated than that, I think, because today, it only requires a cellphone camera and an internet connection for you to allow your voice to be heard by millions of people.

And you know, I make this comparison at the time that I showed up in DC on Jan. 6, I had tens of thousands of followers of my blog and my social media accounts, making me a larger publisher of information and commentary and analysis than most of 90-plus percent of the nation’s newspapers.

Having said that, that does not prevent me from covering an event on the Capitol steps. It doesn’t even prevent me from going inside any of the congressional offices and knocking on the door of the congressman and saying, ‘May I speak to Congressman so-and-so about such-and-such legislation?’ I don’t need the flashy press badge in order to do that.

But this is the one thing, Roger, that is most confusing, let’s say, to the average person and looking out at this from afar or not associated with the law or anything surrounding journalism: When the FBI asked me if I was credentialed that day, I said, ‘Yes. By the First Amendment.’

I‘ll give you [an example]. I had been covering the Oath Keepers trial back in October of 2022. And I had already been there for several weeks. It was a nine-weeklong trial and I think sometime in the third or fourth week of the trial. Ryan Riley from NBC News is also there in the courthouse every day covering this trial. I’d seen him but we had not spoken, not been introduced. But we had our lunch break. He came up and sat down behind me in the media room where we were getting the video and audio feed from the courtroom. And he sat down behind me and he said, “Hi, my name is Ryan Riley with NBC News, and I’ve been reading some of your stuff and following some of your coverage.”

And he said, “So tell me, why haven’t you been indicted yet?” And they were the first words he ever said to me. And my response to him was, “Well, usually I get dinner and a couple of drinks before I’m asked to bed,” you know, but that was his introduction to me. And this has been, well, a year and a half ago now. We’ve had lengthy conversations, most of them are off the record, although he did interview me after my arrest and actually updated his article and allowed me to comment on his article after my arrest and we’ve shared some information about our own investigations and research into certain Jan. 6-related characters.

And so, I was hoping that during this process, that I would be able to have, you know, a minute to have that larger audience be aware of the work that we’re doing, particularly against the weaponized Department of Justice, FBI, and the corruption at the United States Capitol Police, which I’ve spent a lot of time on. And so I was expecting that that would happen. But they did say that Tucker wanted to definitely lead with my story, the story of my arrest, and the circumstances around that. That’s where he wanted to begin. So that’s where we began and that’s drama, that’s fine. And, again, I’m thankful to have had the opportunity to share that with his audience.

And then at the end of the 15 minutes of focus on my story, I was fully anticipating the next question to take me into some of the work that I’ve done, that has brought me up to this point, and maybe even be responsible for my arrest. And so, all of a sudden, Tucker says, “Steve, I mean, it’s just, it’s unbelievable. Thank you for being with me today.”

So I was caught off guard in that moment, not being able to share that, and I wasn’t the only one that noticed that.

First published in the Epoch Times.