New York City Mayor Eric Adams Seeks Early Trial To Clear Deck For Re-Election Campaign

'An earlier trial date will ensure that Mayor Adams’s speedy trial rights are upheld'

'Lawfare': Gov't rejects Steve Baker's gun request over his 'alleged threatening statements' at 'public officials' on Jan. 6



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!

Distillery 'disheartened' that its Rittenhouse Straight Rye Whiskey being used to 'celebrate' not-guilty verdict — and Twitter crushes 'virtue signaling' company



Not surprisingly, a number of leftists were triggered after a jury agreed that Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense when he fatally shot a pair of adult males who attacked him — and blew off the bicep of a third adult male who pointed a gun at the teenager's head — amid rioting in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August 2020.

However, plenty of others were relieved by the not-guilty verdict and celebrated the fact that justice was done.

But take note: If you've raised a glass in tribute to the exonerated defendant, let the record show that one particular distillery really hopes it wasn't done with its Rittenhouse Straight Rye Whiskey.

Say what?

Seems that Heaven Hill Brands of Bardstown, Kentucky, got word that some revelers have been using its spirit, which happens to share Kyle's surname, to celebrate his not-guilty verdict. And Heaven Hill not only wants it to be known that there's "no connection" between Rittenhouse Straight Rye Whiskey and the court case, but also that the outcome is "no cause for celebration."

"We have been disheartened to learn that some individuals and businesses have been using our Rittenhouse Straight Rye Whiskey brand to celebrate the Kyle Rittenhouse case verdict, despite the profound loss of life from those events," Heaven Hill tweeted.

1/3 We have been disheartened to learn that some individuals and businesses have been using our Rittenhouse Straight Rye Whiskey brand to celebrate the Kyle Rittenhouse case verdict, despite the profound loss of life from those events.
— Heaven Hill Brands (@Heaven Hill Brands) 1637523138

The company added: "There is no link between our Rittenhouse Rye brand, which was started post-prohibition to commemorate Rittenhouse Square, and this case. It is our strongly held belief that in serious matters such as this, where lives were lost and people deeply affected, there is no cause for celebration, but instead deep reflection on how we can make the world a more peaceful and respectful place for all."

3/3 there is no cause for celebration, but instead deep reflection on how we can make the world a more peaceful and respectful place for all.
— Heaven Hill Brands (@Heaven Hill Brands) 1637523166

How did folks react?

As you might guess, many commenters took Heaven Hill to task for unnecessary hand-wringing and "virtue signaling":

  • "I'll celebrate a verdict that reaffirms the American right to self defense all I want with or without your brand," one commenter replied. "The loss of life was caused by the actions of the attackers, not Kyle. This is not a partisan issue, the kid is not a conservative, he was just protecting his town."
  • "Never heard of you until this statement," another user noted. "A boy was arrested, charged, became a man, and tried by a jury of his peers. The jury found him not guilty. That is cause for celebration. As you have requested, I will scratch your brands off of my shopping list."
  • "And I’m on the board for a nice group of restaurants in Tennessee that spent over $175,000 on your products last year, and we are done doing business now," another commenter declared. "Go woke, go broke."
  • "Quit virtue signaling," another user wrote. "I doubt anyone cared whether or not there was a link. They just had the name Rittenhouse on the label and that was enough. This all would have blown over in a few days."
  • "Get ready for a marked decline in all Heaven Hill brands at the largest liquor store in southern Maryland. I can and will make that happen," another commenter warned. "Should have stuck to whiskey. There was no reason to insert yourself into this debate. Enjoy your virtue signaling."

But this quippy response — in reference to convicted chid sexual abuser Joseph Rosenbaum, one of the attackers Rittenhouse shot dead — could just be the outright winner: "Maybe you folks can create a pedophilia line of 8-year-old scotch and call it Rosenbaum to offset your feelings."

NOT GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS: Jury Completely Exonerates Kyle Rittenhouse, Affirms Right To Self-Defense

Eighteen-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty of all charges Friday, after an intense trial determined that he acted in self-defense.

BREAKING: Jury finds Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty on all counts



A jury of 12 in Kenosha, Wisconsin, found 18-year-old accused murderer Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty on all counts Tuesday afternoon, marking a conclusive end to the most high-profile case to arise from last year's violent spree of Black Lives Matter riots.

The jury gave the verdict Friday afternoon after nearly four days of deliberation, acquitting the defendant of all charges.

The jury's determination is perceived as a victory for self-defense and gun-rights advocates as well as a repudiation of the unfounded narrative initially pushed by Democrats and mainstream media outlets that branded Rittenhouse as a white supremacist vigilante.

What's the background?

The Illinois teenager had been tried on multiple felony counts — including first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, and attempted first-degree intentional homicide — for fatally shooting Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, and wounding Gage Grosskreutz, 28, during Black Lives Matter riots in the Wisconsin city on Aug. 25, 2020.

Riots had broken out in the city following the shooting of a black resident, Jacob Blake, by a white police officer. After multiple investigations, the officer who pulled the trigger that injured Blake was cleared of any wrongdoing and returned to the job.

Rittenhouse's defense team maintained that their client was ambushed by rioters after coming to Kenosha that night to protect local businesses against looting and burning and to provide medical aid to individuals injured in the uprising. The prosecution, on the other hand, sought to prove that Rittenhouse had come to the protests armed with an AR-15 in order to seek violence.

Rittenhouse would have served a mandatory life sentence in prison if he had been convicted. But in the end, the jury favored the defense team's arguments of self-defense over the prosecution's claims of murder.

What else?

As the trial unfolded, legal experts began characterizing the prosecution's bid as an uphill climb. Videos of incidents viewed by the public appeared to show Rittenhouse being chased down and physically threatened before firing any shots.

But in their closing arguments to the jury, the prosecution argued that Rittenhouse provoked the "entire incident" of fatalities by bringing a gun to the protests. They also argued that by bringing the gun, the defendant gave up his right to self-defense — an argument that flies in the face of both state and federal law.

"You lose the right to self-defense when you're the one who brought the gun," said Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger. He later added, "You cannot claim self-defense against a danger you create. If you're the one threatening others, you lose the right to claim self-defense."

Elsewhere, the prosecution team seemed to mock Rittenhouse as a "coward" for bringing "a gun to a fistfight" and characterized the rioters who chased Rittenhouse as a crowd "full of heroes" who tried to stop an "active shooter."

Anything else?

Many now anxiously wait to see whether the verdict will ignite more rioting and looting in downtown Kenosha and elsewhere around the country.

Over the weekend, residents in the small Wisconsin city began bracing for a possible repeat of last August, NBC News reported. Several business owners, too, closed their shops on Monday in anticipation of violence and vandalism.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) also responded to potential violence by preemptively ordering 500 National Guard troops to Kenosha to ensure public safety and order.

This is a breaking story and may be updated.

Rittenhouse trial judge SHUT DOWN prosecutor's IRRELEVANT 'evidence'



Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Bruce Schroeder paused during the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse to explain to the prosecution why the "evidence" presented on Wednesday was irrelevant.

In this clip, Steven Crowder pinpointed the critical moment when Judge Schroeder shut down the prosecution's attempt to present the jury with biased video footage from the Kenosha riots that broke out during the summer of 2020.

So what exactly prompted the judge to remove the jury and smack down the prosecutor?

Prosecutor: I understand the objection. The problem is how portions of the video have nothing to do with the defendant but describe the scene, and I am trying to give the jury a sense of the scene.

Judge: That is hearsay.

Prosecutor: I am not introducing anyone's statements for the truth of the matter asserted. I'm introducing it for the state of mind of the defendant as he watches the scene.

Judge: If it's not for the truth of the matter asserted, then it is irrelevant.

The judge explained that he admitted the prosecution's video based on a two-part rule. The first part of the rule, according to Judge Schroeder, requires evidence to prove the defendant was aware of the decedent's violent acts or turbulent behavior, and the other part is circumstantial evidence of the decedent's violent behavior at the time of the incident.

Watch the clip to see what Crowder had to say. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.


Lawyer: I’d vote NOT GUILTY for Officer Derek Chauvin. Here’s why.



Former Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin is facing several charges for his role in the death of George Floyd. But attorney Andrew Branca, who specializes in self-defense law, joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Tuesday to explain exactly what must be proven in order for those charges to stand.

Did Chauvin act reasonably in the context of the entire situation? Were his actions directly responsible for Floyd's death, or could it be blamed on factors beyond Chauvin's control?

Branca also argued that the prosecutor committed misconduct serious enough for a potential appeal, how political tension makes it "impossible" for a fair trial, why he would vote not guilty, and what sentence Chauvin is facing if the actual jury disagrees.

Watch the video below for more details:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.