The federal government denied Blaze News investigative journalist Steve Baker's pretrial request to lift a gun possession restriction on him over Baker's "alleged threatening statements" at "public officials" on January 6.

Washington, D.C., federal Judge Christopher R. Cooper's minute order said Baker's Pretrial Services officers cited "safety concerns" in regard to Baker possessing a gun — and Cooper added that such concerns are "heightened" due to Baker's "alleged threatening statements directed at specific public officials during the riot on January 6, 2021," which Baker covered that day as an independent journalist.

'The government is telling Steve he cannot exercise his Second Amendment rights and protect himself because of words he said that day. What words? Who was threatened?'

Cooper also denied Baker's motion to lift a requirement that he notify Pretrial Services before entering Washington, D.C., "given the gravity of his purported misconduct inside the Capitol on January 6, which was allegedly targeted at high-ranking federal lawmakers."

What's the background?

Baker last month pleaded not guilty to four non-violent misdemeanor charges the Justice Department brought against him in connection with his reporting at the U.S. Capitol on January 6. Baker has been searching for the truth about what went on behind the scenes that day and believes the U.S. government has been targeting him for it.

After being told he was being charged, Baker arrived at the FBI's field office in Dallas on March 1 and turned himself in. He was then arrested, handcuffed, and charged with:

• Knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority
• Disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds
• Disorderly conduct in a capitol building
• Parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a capitol building

Baker and others have blasted the charges against him. U.S. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) himself sounded off with a March op-ed asking, "Where is the outrage over Steve Baker’s prosecution?"

What's more, shortly after Baker's arrest, Blaze Media released never-before-seen video showing Baker's movements in and around the U.S. Capitol on January 6, which appears to stand in stark contrast to the narrative the federal government has been floating about him.

The 47-minute video includes Baker's cellphone camera documentation of what went on inside the Capitol building alongside newly released footage from the Capitol's CCTV cameras that BlazeTV obtained primarily through Loudermilk's efforts. He and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) have made providing access to January 6 videos a priority.

Here's the unfiltered video showing Baker just before he entered the Capitol, his movements inside the building, and after he left. Content warning: Language:

Steve Baker Inside the Capitol on January 6 youtu.be

Baker discussed his legal saga in a pair of October commentary pieces for Blaze News (here and here), detailing the ins and outs of the federal investigation he's been under following his independent journalistic work on January 6, which took place prior to him joining Blaze News.

Restrictions

Baker told Blaze News that during his first appearance before Cooper in a virtual hearing last month there was "quite a bit of discussion" about pretrial restrictions on him, which related to Cooper's previous order to Baker to comply with them. Baker, in turn, maintained he's been in compliance all along.

Still, Baker seemed upbeat in April and confident that things would be resolved, telling Blaze News that "the government is working with my attorneys to modify the language of certain restrictions."

Baker told Blaze News that until recently he had carried a gun for self-defense due to online threats he's received — concerns that played out in a couple of unnerving encounters during which Baker said individuals actually came looking for him in person.

But in his minute order issued Tuesday, Cooper noted that "concerning the firearm restriction, Pretrial Services has informed the Court that it objects to this late-breaking request, citing safety concerns, and the Court finds that the restriction is necessary to ensure the safety of Pretrial Services officers who may need to conduct a home visit or visit the defendant without warning." Cooper added that "these safety concerns are heightened because of Mr. Baker's alleged threatening statements directed at specific public officials during the riot on January 6, 2021."

Problem is, Baker told Blaze News that until recently, he had carried a gun for self-defense due to online threats he's received — concerns that played out in a couple of unnerving encounters during which Baker said individuals actually came looking for him in person.

Cooper did grant Baker's request to modify a requirement that he "report every contact with law enforcement. Henceforth, Mr. Baker is required to report only instances where he engages with law-enforcement personnel in their official capacity because of his own suspected wrongdoing (i.e., if he is suspected of, charged with, or cited for any violation of law)."

'Made my blood boil'

Baker broke down with Blaze News his disagreement with this week's ruling: "This is the second of these minute orders from Judge Cooper, and both have made my blood boil. My attorneys advise me to prepare for many more days like this. In both cases, these minute orders seem to be coming on the advice of a D.C.-based pretrial services officer whom I’ve never met. My North Carolina PSO is great, and he has even told me he doesn’t consider me a risk at all. So the D.C. PSO just seems to be advising the court by rote."

In regard to Cooper stating Baker made "alleged threatening statements directed at specific public officials during the riot on January 6, 2021," Baker told Blaze News he "made no threatening statements at all on January 6. Much less directed at 'specific public officials.' It’s almost as if Judge Cooper hasn’t yet taken the time to become familiar with the basics of my case. I’d already gotten that impression during my last status hearing when Cooper was surprised to learn that I’m a working journalist with Blaze News."

Baker also told Blaze News he takes issue with Cooper denying his motion to lift a requirement that he notify Pretrial Services before entering Washington, D.C., "given the gravity of his purported misconduct inside the Capitol on January 6, which was allegedly targeted at high-ranking federal lawmakers."

Here's how Baker answered that assertion:

First, there was no misconduct while at the Capitol. None. Second, my jokingly calling Nancy Pelosi a "bitch" happened on video while sharing adult beverages at a hotel in Virginia, AFTER I’d left the Capitol. Is this a new legal precedent with which I’m not familiar, that using non-threatening pejoratives when referring to 'high-ranking' lawmakers over drinks is grounds for restricting travel to D.C.? If so, the court should never allow any non-residents to visit our nation’s capital.

The bottom line is that Judge Cooper has taken this very unusual tack of issuing a minute order while also failing to address any of my attorneys arguments in the motion. Instead, he just parroted whatever some anonymous pretrial services officer said in response to my motion.

And Cooper makes no mention of the fact that Assistant U.S. Attorney Anita Eve in the government’s response to my motion had the audacity to say, "Travel to the District of Columbia is not a 'right.''' My attorney William Shipley — a former federal prosecutor for over 20 years — highlighted the absurdity of the government’s response on X: "This opposition is some of the weakest legal work I've seen come out of DOJ over the past 30+ months."

Because Cooper chose to completely ignore the arguments in my motion, we are going to file an expedited appeal.

Blaze Media editor in chief Matthew Peterson also blasted Tuesday's ruling:

What the government is doing to Steve is political lawfare. We put the footage of Steve in the Capitol on January 6 on YouTube. What he said and did there is a matter of public record. The government is telling Steve he cannot exercise his Second Amendment rights and protect himself because of words he said that day. What words? Who was threatened? And if the punishment for calling Nancy Pelosi a bitch while sitting with your friends is a 'threat' requiring firearm restrictions, well, there are millions of us that they need to start processing.

A Blaze News exclusive story from March detailed what the federal government specifically accused Baker of saying and doing on January 6 — all contrasted with video evidence that appeared to call the government's conclusions into question.

What has Baker uncovered so far?

Baker began his investigative reporting for Blaze News last fall. His first January 6 analysis for Blaze News came last October following countless hours in a House subcommittee office looking at frame after frame of January 6 closed-circuit video — and it had him wondering: Did Capitol Police Special Agent David Lazarus perjure himself in the Oath Keepers trial?

Baker's investigative efforts also resulted in two additional analyses, both focusing on Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn: "January 6 and the N-word that wasn't" and "Harry Dunn's account of January 6 does not add up. At all."

In December, Baker alleged that he uncovered major irregularities involving Dunn, the Capitol Police, the press, and U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland).

In January, Baker asserted that newly released U.S. Capitol closed-circuit TV video clips from January 6 show Lazarus gave false testimony in the Oath Keepers trial.

Proof of Perjury | The Truth About January 6 youtu.be

Also in January, Baker and others were asking what the U.S. government has to hide in regard to the pipe bomb found on January 6 at the Democratic National Committee headquarters.

Baker in February wrote another analysis titled "Capitol Police diverted all CCTV cameras away from DNC pipe bomb investigation — except one" and later that month asked why Kamala Harris was at the DNC and not the Capitol on January 6.

Rep. Loudermilk — who chairs the Committee on House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight — in March told Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck the reason the FBI and the Justice Department may be going after Baker over his January 6 coverage is because "he's onto something" the federal government wants kept under wraps.

In addition, GOP House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan in March opened an investigation into the DOJ over its treatment of Baker. In a scathing letter to Matthew Graves, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Jordan outlined "serious concerns" about the DOJ's "selective prosecution" concerning Baker's arrest "as well as the Department's commitments to the First Amendment rights of journalists."

In his letter, Jordan demanded that Graves produce the following no later than 5 p.m. March 26:

• All documents and communications regarding Baker's arrest;
• All documents and communications regarding any investigation, prosecution, and arrest of any other journalist covering Jan. 6;
• All documents and communications related to the DOJ's determination to request pretrial detention of defendants charged in connection with Jan. 6 — plus those who are now or who have been in pretrial detention related to Jan. 6.

Jordan's letter concludes by reminding Graves that the Judiciary Committee has "jurisdiction to oversee" the DOJ regarding matters "related to civil liberties."

Baker has told Blaze News that according to his contacts on the Judiciary Committee, Jordan's demands have yet to be met.

Baker in April penned another analysis titled "Overreaching prosecution tactics face high court scrutiny in Jan. 6 cases," in which he warned that "the Justice Department could easily use a law aimed at destruction of evidence to quash disfavored political views."

Journalist Steve Baker shares TRUTH of Recent High-Profile J6 Arrest youtu.be

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!