Blaze Media investigative journalist Steve Baker says Justice Department will be charging him for his Jan. 6 reporting



Blaze Media investigative journalist Steve Baker on Thursday said the U.S. Department of Justice will be charging him for his Jan. 6 reporting.

— (@)

"My attorney has just been notified by @FBI that I am going to be charged by @TheJusticeDept for my journalistic efforts on #Jan6," Baker wrote Thursday on X. "I have to self-surrender on Tuesday. Charges are yet unknown. Stay tuned for more information to follow this afternoon."

What are the details?

Baker on Thursday told Blaze Media that FBI Special Agent Craig Noyes contacted his attorney in North Carolina and that Noyes said he doesn't know what the charges are — and won't know until the judge signs off on the warrant.

Baker also told Blaze Media that if the Justice Department goes forward with charges, travel restrictions will be placed on him, which will hamper his reporting, as he's based in North Carolina but works a great deal in Washington, D.C., covering trials, viewing Jan. 6 videos, and speaking face-to-face with elected officials.

Given Baker has been writing Blaze Media investigative stories on Jan. 6 since early October, Baker said he "cannot help but think the timing [of the impending charges] is suspect."

Blaze Media's editor in chief, Matthew Peterson, spoke out Thursday regarding the message Baker said the FBI delivered to his attorney.

— (@)
— (@)
— (@)

What's the background?

Baker discussed his Jan. 6 legal saga in a pair of October commentary pieces for Blaze Media (here and here).

In them, Baker said he'd been under federal investigation for the better part of two years following his independent journalistic work on Jan. 6, which began before he joined Blaze Media.

More from Baker's first commentary:

I made no effort to hide what I was doing on January 6. I did two different interviews that same day with WUSA, a CBS News affiliate in Washington, D.C. I also uploaded a short YouTube video commentary later that same evening.

Upon returning to my home in Raleigh, North Carolina, I socked myself away for five days, doing a frame-by-frame analysis of my own videos. I then wrote and published on January 13, 2021, a 9,500-word opus to my blog detailing what I experienced that day, titled, “What I Saw on January 6th in Washington, D.C.”

That piece, and a February 24, 2021, follow-up, “Who was ‘Up the Chain’ on January 6?” has been viewed and read by hundreds of thousands of readers on my blog and various social media pages.

I always expected that I would be contacted by the FBI at some point, at the very least to acquire my videos for the bureau's investigations. I did no violence or property destruction on January 6, and I certainly did not interfere with the election certification, as I didn’t enter the Capitol Building until well after both the Senate and House of Representatives had been evacuated.

After the FBI made initial contact with Baker in July 2021, Baker said he and his attorney met in person with FBI Special Agents Gerrit Doss and Craig Noyes in North Carolina on Oct. 18, 2021. At the conclusion of the interview, Baker said he and his attorney volunteered to turn over Baker's Jan. 6 videos, but nothing came of that.

Baker said his attorney got a Nov. 17, 2021, email from assistant U.S. attorney Anita Eve saying that Baker could expect to be "charged within the week" — and that the charges would be interstate racketeering and property damage, which Baker said were bogus. With that, Baker said he and his attorney informed the media that he — an independent journalist — was being prosecuted for his coverage of Jan. 6.

Eve was forwarded a copy of Baker's press release, telling his attorney that she was "not thrilled" with it. His attorney replied, “Mr. Baker is obviously feeling threatened by the charges and is using his First Amendment right to garner support. ... Are you suggesting that he refrain from making further statements? ... He has nothing to hide. But he does have a right to speak truthfully about his experiences and share his opinions. ... It’s not fair to ask him to be silent while he endures federal prosecution.” His attorney again volunteered to turn over Baker's Jan. 6 videos.

Despite the threat of charges "within the week," Baker said he didn't hear from Eve's office for nearly two years — and in August 2023, his attorney accepted service of a grand jury subpoena, signed by Eve, for all the Jan. 6 videos Baker personally recorded.

Baker wrote in his second commentary that "grand juries generally are not convened for misdemeanor offenses but rather for felony charges." Curiously, he added that renewed interest from the Justice Department coincided perfectly with his discussions with Blaze Media to become a contributing investigative journalist and columnist.

As Baker told Blaze Media on Thursday, he'd been "poking the bear rather aggressively."

Later that same August, Baker and his attorney delivered a flash drive containing his videos to FBI Special Agent Noyes.

Baker concluded his second commentary with the following promise: "The truth is, my life hasn’t been destroyed. Yet. But many others have been. I intend to show through my investigations that many lives have been destroyed for no good reason — and that cannot stand."

How are others reacting?

Bradford L. Geyer, an attorney who represented now-imprisoned Oath Keeper Kenneth Harrelson — who Baker said was unjustly accused on Jan. 6 — on Thursday told Blaze Media that "since Jan. 6, few reporters have uncovered as many vital stories as Steve Baker. It sadly seems plausible that the decision to charge him is influenced by his recent reporting and the new stories he's in the process of breaking. If the government believes this will silence him, we predict it will be sadly mistaken. Journalists play a critical role in upholding transparency and informing the public, making it vital for them to operate without undue interference from law enforcement. Providing journalists with protections and a buffer ensures the preservation of a free press, safeguarding the democratic principles of open discourse and accountability. Sadly, it seems that the historical high bar for investigating journalists at the Justice Department has been conspicuously lowered in some cases. Given the stakes, all journalists should rally to Steve Baker’s defense."

Anything else?

Baker's first Jan. 6 analysis came in October, following countless hours in a House subcommittee office looking at frame after frame of Jan. 6 closed-circuit video — and it had him wondering: did the security chief for then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi perjure himself in the Oath Keepers trial?

Soon after, the slow pace of getting an unrestricted look at everything recorded on video prompted Blaze Media editor in chief Matthew Peterson's appeal to House Speaker Mike Johnson to release all the videos. On Nov. 17, Johnson did just that.

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."

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

Here's Baker speaking to Glenn Beck, founder of TheBlaze, on Oct. 4 about his first Jan. 6 investigative story for Blaze Media:

Pelosi’s Head of Security Likely PERJURED Himself With Jan 6 LIE | Blaze Media EXCLUSIVEyoutu.be

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

Liberty Safe is already getting the Bud Light treatment



Liberty Safe has just become the Bud Light of safes.

As one of the largest gun safe manufacturers in the country, the company essentially threw away its consumer base when it gave a private citizen’s access code to the FBI during a raid on the citizen's home.

While FBI agents were arresting the man, they raided his home in Arkansas and contacted Liberty Safe to get an access code to his gun safe.

The man in question, 34-year-old Nathan Hughes of Arkansas, has been charged with a felony offense of civil disorder. Hughes has also been charged with misdemeanor offenses related to the protest at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

According to the DOJ, in surveillance footage, Hughes was wearing an Infowars-branded Space Force shirt, which Sara Gonzales believes they included to make him seem “automatically guilty.”

The DOJ also claims that he “helped other rioters physically fight police.”

Conservatives across the board are not happy.

“If he physically fought police, then you would just say ‘he fought police,’ but how did he help other rioters do that? I’m not quite clear, maybe he brought them a cup of water, thus destroying our sacred democracy,” Gonzales quips.

Liberty Safe released a statement saying, “Our company protocol is to provide access codes to law enforcement if a warrant grants them access to a property. After receiving the request, we received proof of the valid warrant, and only then did we provide them with an access code.”

Liberty Safe also denied knowing any details surrounding the investigation and claimed to be “devoted to protecting the personal property and 2nd amendment rights” of its customers.


Want more from The News & Why It Matters?

To enjoy more roundtable rundowns of the top stories of the day, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

LIVESTREAM: Crowder takes a sledgehammer to the Left's January 6 narrative



The last January 6 committee hearing may have been postponed due to the hurricane, but that will not stop Crowder from debunking previously released testimony. Watch the livestream below. Use promo code JAN6 when you subscribe to MugClub and save $20.


Want more from Steven Crowder?

To enjoy more of Steven’s uncensored late-night comedy that’s actually funny, join Mug Club — the only place for all of Crowder uncensored and on demand.

Reuters reporter mocked for her 'wave of #Jan6 anxiety' after seeing protesters with American flags



A reporter for Reuters was ridiculed for claiming she had a "wave" of anxiety when she saw a group of protesters waving American flags, which reminded her of the Jan. 6 rioting.

Congressional correspondent Patricia Zengerle tweeted a photograph of the protesters on Wednesday.

\u201cYikes. Just saw this gang walking around the Capitol and had a wave of #Jan6 anxiety.\u201d
— Patricia Zengerle (@Patricia Zengerle) 1658328130

"Yikes," she tweeted. "Just saw this gang walking around the Capitol and had a wave of #Jan6 anxiety."

The photo showed about half a dozen people with American flags and a large banner that had a website address for the "1776 Restoration Movement."

Zengerle's tweet received the dreaded "ratio" distinction, when negative comments outnumber the "likes" a tweet receives. At the time of publishing, the tweet had garnered only 332 "likes" but had received more than 4.7k comments.

Many of the responses mocked Zengerle.

"I appreciate Patricia displaying so efficiently how absurd everyone who panicked about 1/6 really is. A half dozen senior citizens with bad hips waving American flags is about as dangerous as 1/6 was," read one popular response.

"Journos literally talk about seeing a crowd of old people waving American flags as if they're currently on the ground in Fallujah," replied strategist Greg Price.

"Oh no, patriotic senior citizens waving American flags. Our democracy is under attack by the AARP 'gang.' Lock down the Capitol. Someone evacuate AOC," mocked another tweet.

"You're not making the point about Jan 6 that you think you are," responded Noah Blum.

"I can understand your fear - the old lady back there carrying a flag larger than her own body must be an absolute beast," replied another user.

"Really? A small group of people with American flags terrifies you?" read another response.

"Journos literally see boomers with American flags and think Capitol police should shoot them on sight," read another popular response.

Zengerle didn't respond, but she did close off the comments to the tweet so that only those who follow her or are followed by her could respond directly to it.

Another public hearing by the Jan. 6 committee is scheduled for Thursday.

Here's more about the Jan. 6 committee hearings:

New witnesses for Jan. 6 committeewww.youtube.com

PROTECT YOURSELF! The Leftist Mob Is Inciting Violence Against YOU #RoevWade | Louder with Crowder

PROTECT YOURSELF! The Leftist Mob Is Inciting Violence Against YOU #RoevWade | Louder with Crowder

Dems INCITE their OWN January 6 following Roe v. Wade



To say that the Left has gone off the deep end would be like saying the sky is blue in 2022. But the hypocrisy and void of self-awareness reach unseen levels when House Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez shifts from telling the media of her life-threatening ordeal that she claims to have suffered on January 6 to calling a Supreme Court decision "illegitimate" as she stokes the flames of outrage in the nation's capital.

In today's episode of "Louder with Crowder," Crowder covers why democrats use Roe v. Wade for their own January 6. They may not be calling it that, but we are, and we'll tell you why. Also, banning abortion is not racist, no matter how much the Left says otherwise. And California is battling inflation with more inflation because California is run by nincompoops.


Listen to the podcast here.

Want more from Steven Crowder?

To enjoy more of Steven’s uncensored late-night comedy that’s actually funny, join Mug Club — the only place for all of Crowder uncensored and on demand.

Opponents attack wife of Clarence Thomas over his dissent bashing decision to not hear critical election case



Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a searing dissenting opinion after the Supreme Court refused to hear a pivotal case involving a controversial Pennsylvania electoral directive that allowed the counting of ballots received up to three days after Election Day.

Now, Thomas' opponents are using his opinion to attack his wife.

What did Thomas say?

Thomas believes the court's refusal to hear the case opens the door for more election controversies in the future.

The central concern, according to Thomas, is whether state executives have the power to usurp their state legislatures in determining election laws, despite the U.S. Constitution explicitly assigning that power to legislators.

"[Pennsylvania's] decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future," Thomas wrote. "These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable."

Thomas later added:

One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clearrules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for futureelections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneatha shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invitefurther confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito joined Thomas in dissent.

Why did opponents attack his wife?

Thomas' wife, Ginni Thomas, has been outspoken about her political beliefs and support for Donald Trump.

Despite the fact that Thomas raised serious constitutional concerns with the Pennsylvania case, Democrats implied his wife's politics drove his dissent — and even demanded that she be investigated to determine what role, if any, she played in the deadly violence at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

Christine Pelosi, daughter of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "I'm concerned that #SCOTUS Justice Thomas dissented—we will have to learn more about the role his wife Gini Thomas played in raising money for Trump's deadly #Jan6 'Insurrection Day.'"

Agree - yet I'm concerned that #SCOTUS Justice Thomas dissented - we will have to learn more about the role his wife Gini Thomas played in raising money for Trump's deadly #Jan6 “Insurrection Day"
— Christine Pelosi (@sfpelosi) February 22, 2021

Duty to Warn, an "association of mental health professionals warning Trump is psychologically unfit," attacked Thomas for not disavowing his wife's politics.

"Today, SCOTUS refused to hear an appeal from the PA GOP about extending mail-in voting deadlines. Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent. His wife Ginni endorsed the 1/6 protest, demanded an overturn of the election, and sent 'LOVE' to demonstrators. He's not dissented to any of that," the organization tweeted.

Today, SCOTUS refused to hear an appeal from the PA GOP about extending mail-in voting deadlines. Clarence Thomas w… https://t.co/WDVJSXIO87
— Duty To Warn 🔉 (@Duty To Warn 🔉)1614029385.0

"Justice Thomas by the very fact that Ginni Thomas participated in 1/6 attack needs to recuse himself," another critic said.

"For the sake of the integrity of the highest court in the United States of America, Justice Thomas must resign. Ginni Thomas must be investigated for her role in the January 6 insurrection. He and his wife are clearly radicalized," another person said.

There is no evidence that Ginni Thomas played any role in the deadly violence at the Capitol.

Anything else?

Ginni Thomas apologized to Thomas' staff earlier this month in emails obtained by the Washington Post.

"I owe you all an apology. I have likely imposed on you my lifetime passions," Ginni Thomas wrote. "My passions and beliefs are likely shared with the bulk of you, but certainly not all. And sometimes the smallest matters can divide loved ones for too long. Let's pledge to not let politics divide THIS family, and learn to speak more gently and knowingly across the divide."