Journalist arrested, charged for Jan. 6 coverage

[Batman]

Meanwhile, he's out of jail and made a quick statement outside the courthouse.

 

[wicked]

What does Hat Man think about this?

I think falls more on marketing than legal.

I thought the sarcasm font was pretty obvious on that one.

 

[Batman]

Decent story from NBC News that includes some of Baker's back story (a musician who turned to a life of BLOGS! when COVID hit), him explaining some comments that have been brought up ("What part of me being a libertarian do you not understand? I don't like either side"), and what his strategy moving forward is (it depends on the judge ashigned to the case whether he'll plead guilty and get it over with or try to fight it at a trial).
Story also talks about some of the other journalists who were there who have been arrested (or not) that day.

Musician and libertarian writer who works for 'The Blaze' arrested on Jan. 6 charges

 

[Batman]

What does Hat Man think about this?



I thought the sarcasm font was pretty obvious on that one.

Eh, I just got confused. I know people here have their ideological problems with Whitlock, but my biggest one is that he's just terrible to listen to.

 

[Batman]

One more. A bit longer interview after he was released from jail today.
Man, I think this might set a record for the most newsworthy tweets from The Blaze posted in one day.

 

[tapintoamerica]

I don't think I've ever heard him suggest it was not a big deal, or that it wasn't a dark day. He's not whitewashing or downplaying it. He's trying to logically explain it. There is a difference.

From the NBC story:
"Do I approve of what happened today?" Baker said in another interview on Jan. 6, according to the FBI filing. "I approve 100%."

Your boy is a traitor.

 

[Deskgrunt50]

I don't think I've ever heard him suggest it was not a big deal, or that it wasn't a dark day. He's not whitewashing or downplaying it. He's trying to logically explain it. There is a difference.

His biggest thing, especially once he got swept up in it, is that it appears there were a lot of weird little things from that day that don't add up. If you read his account of the day, he pointed some of it out right away. Like Trump supposedly inciting the crowd, but the audio system at the rally was absolute garbage and it was hard to hear anything, so how many in the crowd even heard what he said? Or some of the interactions between protestors who appeared to be well-prepared and organized. Or, as he's gotten further down the rabbit hole with the video, cameras that were focused on a spot for weeks suddenly pivoting to a different angle right when something important is happening in that spot.
What he's tried to do is go back, review video — thousands of hours of it over the past year, from hundreds of cameras — and connect the dots on those anomalies. He's said some conspiracy theories were easy to dismiss once you see something on video from a couple of different cameras. Other theories gain more credence. Some narratives on both sides get blown apart.
No one else has been either able or willing or motivated enough to take on the gigantic task of sorting through that mountain of video evidence. He's obviously got all three of those things going for him.

Ooof. That entire account sounds like a conspiracy theory along the lines of it being antifa, a tourist group, it was Nancy Pelosi's doing and the Ray Epps nonsense. Oh, but this guy has it all figured out? Rabbit hole indeed.

People try really hard to make this something different than it was, when the truth is really simple. Trump wound these people up for months, before and after the election, with absolute lies. Told them they were all cheated. Even though he lost 60 court cases. He was given his shot to prove it and he failed. So there really shouldn't have even been a "rally" because it was all based on absolutely nothing.

Yet, there was, and the people were wound up even more with the same lies when they got there. But they were given a solution, and that was stopping Mike Pence from certifying the votes. So they attacked the Capitol.

But none of that has to do with the topic, which should this guy have been arrested or not. I'm still not sure what qualifies him to be a journalist and why he'd be qualified to try to put together the kind of video investigation that you described. He frankly sounds a lot like any other internet conspiracy theorist who's "cracked the case."

I think based on his profile, he might have done enough work on that website that he can make a case he was there documenting everything. He might be able to win or get the charges dropped. But that's based on my belief that we need to err on the side of the free press as much as possible.

 

[Batman]

From the NBC story:
"Do I approve of what happened today?" Baker said in another interview on Jan. 6, according to the FBI filing. "I approve 100%."

Your boy is a traitor.

He mentioned that in his long post-Jan. 6 piece. It's at the very, very end if you don't want to scan all the way through it.

Shared post - What I Saw on January 6th in Washington, DC (just reposting the link for reference)

In the first WUSA Channel 9 interview, I was asked if I supported what I saw. I said, "Yes. 100%." Not the senseless violence and death, but the spirit of resistance against an oppressive state . . . even if misplaced and misapplied on that day. Their camera placement had me framed with the Capitol dome, behind. I turned my head, pointed over my shoulder, and said to the reporter, "There's a darkness in that building, and what happened today may have just been a test run. The next time they may return far better prepared — a Million Gun March, of sorts — and if they come back in the same numbers, there's no way they can be stopped. We may have heard the first shot, today."

 

[tapintoamerica]

It's interesting that this guy is lining up with journalists, whom his klan has made the habit of hating since at least the 1940s.
If the government can't prove he did anything to aid and abet the murderous mob he worships, I won't be upset if he walks. But if you have no credentials and you enter a building without permission and only because others have overpowered security, you can't be shocked if you get arrested.

 

[Batman]

But none of that has to do with the topic, which should this guy have been arrested or not. I'm still not sure what qualifies him to be a journalist and why he'd be qualified to try to put together the kind of video investigation that you described. He frankly sounds a lot like any other internet conspiracy theorist who's "cracked the case."

I think based on his profile, he might have done enough work on that website that he can make a case he was there documenting everything. He might be able to win or get the charges dropped. But that's based on my belief that we need to err on the side of the free press as much as possible.

Man, have you seen some of the chuckleheads who get moved up the ladder in this business?

 

[tapintoamerica]

The notion that the Jan. 6 crowd couldn't have been whipped into a frenzy by Trump because the audio quality was substandard is laughable. It was a predetermined event, he says. People had arrived ready for battle long before Trump began talking.
Who, pray tell, had told encouraged them to show up? Who tweeted, "Will be wild"? Did Antifa do that?

His rambling, stylistically and grammatically tortured blog post is not the reasoned rhetoric of a credible observer. It is not the work of a reputable journalist. Its author is an apologist for violence who claims it's impossible to know which side of the political spectrum bears the brunt of the blame.

 

[Deskgrunt50]

Man, have you seen some of the chuckleheads who get moved up the ladder in this business?

There is a lot of that. No argument there.