Reversal of FATE: Steve Baker’s update on January 6 prisoners is ‘a good sign’



January 6 started as a chance for Trump supporters to innocently protest and quickly turned into a day that would change their lives forever.

Now, however, things might be taking a turn for the better.

“One J-sixer is seeing a reversal of fate,” Jill Savage of “Blaze New Tonight” explains.

“John Strand is actually one of the more, let’s call it, infamous stories, certainly one of the more high-profile cases of all the January 6 defendants,” Steve Baker tells Savage.

Strand was friend and bodyguard of Simone Gold — a doctor and attorney who was the deplatformed founder of the Frontline American Doctors. Gold had been accused of “disinformation” for recommending alternative therapies that were not part of what Baker calls the “approved narrative” regarding COVID-19.

Gold was scheduled to speak on January 6 at one of the six legally permitted events scheduled on the Capitol property that day.

“By the time they got to the Capitol, everything had gone to hell in a handbasket, and so there was nothing but chaos by the time they arrived. The breaches had already taken place. John Strand and Simone Gold did not participate in violence, they did not participate in breaching the Capitol building whatsoever,” Baker explains.

However, their fatal flaw was going inside the Capitol peacefully.

“She actually decided to deliver her prepared remarks there in the Rotunda. She climbed up on the Eisenhower statue, with John standing guard beside her, she delivered her remarks there in the great Rotunda of the Capitol, and then they peacefully left, just as so many other hundreds and thousands of people did,” Baker says.

Both Strand and Gold were “handed that infamous 1512 obstruction of an official proceeding felony.”

The felony carried up to 20 years of imprisonment.

Gold ended up taking a plea deal and pled down to a single misdemeanor. Judge Christopher Cooper sentenced her to 60 days in prison.

“John Strand decided he was not going to take this lying down, that he was going to be a warrior, and he, despite the odds being horribly stacked against him, he was going to go to trial and he did that,” Baker explains.

He was convicted on all counts, and he was sentenced to 32 months in prison.

“Now what’s happening is that because of the Supreme Court’s overturning the 1512 obstruction of an official proceeding charge against 355 defendants, him being one of those,” Baker says, “they’re shortening their sentences or letting them go.”

If they haven’t gone to trial yet, they’re not charging them with it.

“It’s especially a good sign because the Department of Justice has already announced that they want to figure out how to continue with that charge,” Baker explains. “But the point being, is it appears that the judges are pushing back against the DOJ.”

“We’ll take this as a good sign,” he adds.


Media ticked over White House plan to charge reporters $170 for COVID-19 test every time they enter



The White House plans to roll out a new policy starting Monday that would charge journalists $170 to take a COVID-19 test every time they enter the grounds, and reporters in the press corps and beyond are not happy about it.

What are the details?

The Washington Post revealed the plan, reporting that the Biden administration is getting pushback from media outlets large and small who are unhappy about being asked to pay the government what could amount to tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege of doing their jobs.

But the Biden administration says the tests are just too expensive for the White House to keep paying.

The outlet pointed out:

Until now, the cost of testing has been borne by the White House. But officials there contend that the cost of maintaining the testing regime for nearly a year has strained its budget. So it wants to shift the burden onto news organizations: No test, no entry to the White House.

Reporters from across the country also expressed their frustrations and dismay over the new policy on social media.

Max Tani of The Daily Beast tweeted, "I think part of 'bringing truth and transparency back to the briefing room' is not making it prohibitively expensive for smaller outlets with tight budgets to go to the White House."

I think part of “bringing truth and transparency back to the briefing room” is not making it prohibitively expensiv… https://t.co/Qjvr8kiWn1
— Max Tani (@Max Tani)1614372358.0

Mississippi Free Press reporter Ashton Pittman criticized the Biden administration for what he believed was two bad decisions in the same day, writing, "It's GREAT that the president doesn't call journalists 'fake news' or 'the enemy of the people.' But between apparently deciding to let MBS off the hook for murder and now trying to make journalists pay $170 per visit to the @WhiteHouse? This is madness."

It's GREAT that the president doesn't call journalists "fake news" or "the enemy of the people."But between appar… https://t.co/0aWRs3u4fQ
— Ashton Pittman (@Ashton Pittman)1614381051.0

Pittman argued further, "Not all outlets can afford that, but on principle it's antithetical to the free press-public servant relationship to make journalists pay for access." He added, "We need transparency, not admission fees."

Some Twitter users hailed the White House's decision, expressing hope that smaller outlets — namely conservative outlets OANN and Newsmax — might be priced out of attending press briefings under the new policy.

Tim Murtaugh, the former communications director for President Donald Trump's 2020 campaign, explained, "Put another way: A small news outlet with one White House reporter, paying $170 for each virus test, would pay:

$170/day

$850/week

$3,400/month

$40,800/year.

That's a lot for the privilege of covering Biden. Only bigger outlets could swing it."

Put another way:A small news outlet with one White House reporter, paying $170 for each virus test, would pay:💥… https://t.co/9Hjxabk2T5
— Tim Murtaugh (@Tim Murtaugh)1614384227.0