Staff Reports
The Attorney for a Journalist Question why his Client is being Targeted by the DOJ After Accusing the Department of Justice of a Witch Hunt
Attorney for journalist arrested on Jan. 6 charges blasts his treatment https://t.co/PeU2d0eK6c https://t.co/PeU2d0eK6c
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) March 14, 2024
An attorney representing Steven Baker, a journalist who was present at the U.S. Capitol for a mere 37 minutes on January 6, 2021, and recently charged with four misdemeanors, has raised concerns over the Department of Justice targeting his client. The attorney, Ed Tarpley, is puzzled by the DOJ’s actions, especially after Baker exposed a story that contradicted testimonies from two Capitol Police officers.
Baker, who works for Blaze Media and hosts a Podcast called the Pragmatic Constitutionalist, has been hailed as a “tremendous investigative journalist” by his legal representative. The House Oversight Committee, led by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), recently released a report on the events of January 6 and will hold a hearing on the pipe bombs left in front of the Democratic and Republican National Committee offices on January 5.
In a recent interview, Tarpley questioned why Baker is being singled out for arrest when other journalists who were present at the riot have not faced similar consequences. According to Tarpley, the DOJ’s actions might stem from Baker’s continuous work as an investigative journalist, notably breaking stories that have embarrassed the Department of Justice and challenged their narrative.
Baker voluntarily turned himself in to the FBI in Dallas on March 1, indicating his willingness to cooperate with the authorities. Tarpley contended that Baker’s arrest, three years after the event, is a shameful act that deserves condemnation from everyone.
The attorney highlighted that Baker was among a handful of journalists entrusted to view available footage of January 6 by former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Through this access, Baker unearthed a story that contradicted the testimonies of two Capitol police officers, leading to charges against him. Tarpley emphasized that Baker’s report, based on CCTV footage, debunked the sworn-in testimony of Officer David Lazarus, who claimed to have witnessed interactions between Oath Keepers and Officer Harry Dunn, which contradicted Baker’s findings.
Rep. Jim Jordan has also expressed interest in Baker’s case, questioning the DOJ’s treatment of the journalist and advocating for an independent investigation into the events of January 6. Additionally, concerns have been raised about potential infringements on Baker’s First Amendment rights, with Tarpley asserting that the Department of Justice has used the words of individuals against them in the January 6 prosecutions.
In April, the Supreme Court is expected to hear a case that could impact numerous January 6 cases, including that of former President Donald Trump. This pivotal decision promises to shed light on the intricate legal implications surrounding the events at the Capitol.
