Best of the Program | Guests: David Harsanyi & Steve Baker | 2/29/24

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Commercial Insurance.

Trucking is a big job, so Progressive is proud to offer truckers the coverage they need and discounts to help them save.

Quote Truck Insurance in as little as eight minutes at progressivecommercial.com.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates.

Discounts not available in all states or situations.

Welcome to the podcast.

Today, we talk to Steve Baker.

He's from the Blaze, and he's going to be apparently arrested tomorrow.

He's turning himself in to authorities because of his dastardly actions on January 6th, which are all on video apparently and don't show him doing much of anything other than

reporting, which is what he is, a reporter.

An incredible turn in this country.

We have David Harsani on about the accusations from the media that anyone who is a Christian is automatically a Christian nationalist.

We'll get into that.

And we will talk about,

we had a, I would say, a passionate discussion about the pros and cons of Captain Crunch.

You know, look, it's a controversial thing, and I know a lot of people don't want to, don't, don't feel like they can handle a discussion like that, but if the roof of your mouth can handle Captain Crunch, you're a better man than me.

You're a better man than me.

It's a passionate discussion, and I think it will lead to a lot of controversy across the country.

We'll get into that.

It's all in today's podcast.

First, to shoot or not to shoot.

Believe it or not, in a lot of emergency situations where you need to protect yourself or your family, that is the question.

Not everything is cut and dry.

And if you are only armed with a gun, you have a limited number of choices.

Am I going to shoot and possibly kill this person or not?

And the worst thing you can do is try to stop your attacker by shooting them in the foot.

I have the Burna launcher in my house.

My wife and my adult children have it as well.

It's a great compliment to my firearms.

There are situations where less than lethal is the way to go and Burna is the best alternative to deadly force, better than you know pepper spray or tasers or anything like this.

It fires powerful deterrents like tear gas and kinetic rounds.

So you boom, you fire this thing and it throws a kinetic round up to 60 yards, I think it's 60 yards, 60 feet.

And I mean, it will hit them hard.

Then, if they keep moving, you hit the second one, and I have it as tear gas.

Not fooling around.

I want that person incapacitated for at least 40 minutes until the police can come.

You can find out all about these made here in America.

They are fantastic.

Burna, B-Y-R-N-A dot com/slash Glenn.

That's burna.com/slash glenn.

Get an exclusive 10% discount now.

Burna.com/slash glenn.

You're listening to the best of the Glenbeck program.

So, I don't want to talk insider radio kind of stuff, but this is very important for you to understand.

The power of your local stations,

it is absolutely critical.

And a lot of damage has been done by these giant corporations owning everybody.

There's no real mom and pops left anymore.

And I think personally, that's a problem.

However, the largest radio corporation is the one that I have

worked for and with now since 1989 was Clear Channel.

It's now iHeart Radio.

And it's the largest broadcaster in America.

The second largest, what do they rename it to it?

Odyssey?

Yeah, is it Audi?

Yeah, it's Odyssey, I think.

Right?

Odyssey's one of them.

I just don't know which one you're talking about.

The J-Corps, the old J-Corps.

Yeah.

Anyway, they've changed so many times.

They've changed so many times we don't even.

But that one just was purchased by the Soros group.

Okay.

Second largest.

And then the third largest looks like it may go to a Singapore group.

So not even owned by America.

Really not a good thing.

Brennan Carr is the FCC commissioner who I just am a big fan of because he actually will speak out on behalf of the American people and freedom of speech.

He issued a warning

a couple of days ago.

The FCC just ordered every broadcaster to start posting a race and gender scorecard that breaks down the demographics of their workforce.

Activists lobbied for this because they want to see businesses pressured into hiring people based on their race and gender.

We welcome Brendan Carr to the program now.

Hi, Brendan.

So good to be back with you.

Thanks for having me on.

So what does this mean

for the average radio station and radio group?

What does this mean?

Yeah, this is a pretty wild decision by the FCC, and you're right that it has to do with broadcasters, but it's also part of a more broad effort to sort of compel businesses at large, even outside the broadcaster context, to hire or not hire people based on their race and gender.

And so the FCC tried to do this many, many years ago.

In fact, twice before, the FCC has sought to pressure broadcasters into hiring people based on race and gender in violation of the equal protection components of the Constitution.

And the courts have struck the FCC down twice.

But now here the FCC goes again for a third time.

And as you noted, it's going to require every single broadcaster to publicly disclose a race and gender scorecard that lists every employee across these demographic lines.

And the FCC's record was very clear.

The one reason why activist groups and others wanted the FCC to do this is because they want to launch public pressure campaigns targeting individual stations if they don't have what the activists view as some proper balance or the right number of some unspecified amount of race ethnicity employees.

And so it's deeply, deeply concerning.

So, what is terrifying to me is the arrogance of so many people on the left.

This whole woke thing is completely falling apart.

It's falling apart like in ways I never expected.

I don't know if anybody saw the opening monologue of Saturday Night Live

this last weekend, and the answer should be for most people, no.

But it was actually funny because it broke rules, the woke rules.

This is coming apart, and yet they're still going down this direction.

Is this a done deal?

Is this going to go to the Supreme Court another time?

Has anybody filed against it?

Yeah, what's funny to me about all this, as you noticed, the government is usually a little bit slow.

It's a little bit behind.

trends.

The government's not the fastest moving entity.

And so when in sort of the real world, you see the tide turning slowly against the sort of radical versions of DEI, that's the precise moment when the FCC decides to jump in and double down on that type of approach.

I do hope it's appealed.

There are a number of entities that have appealed this before in one.

And so, I'm hopeful that some groups of broadcasters or otherwise will take this to court.

But it's also part and parcel of a broader trend we're seeing with free speech in the country where the government is outsourcing censorship to third parties, whether it's Facebook and Google.

And this is the same type of pattern as well.

We are trying to sort of co-opt these activist organizations to force people into hiring based on race and gender.

And the Constitution and the Constitutional law is very clear.

The government can't do indirectly that which it is prohibited from doing directly.

So I do hope that somebody takes this up and goes to court because it is part of these, very broadly speaking, concerning trends.

So last time you were on with me, I I think was back in November, and we talked about how the Biden administration wants to control the internet in the name of equity.

I've seen the FCC

lean one direction or another

on trying to

silence people.

You know, they always try to use the FCC to go after Rush Limbaugh, and it's always failed.

Then it got very quiet.

We didn't have any attacks, boycotts, and et cetera, et cetera, for a while now since Rush Limbaugh died.

But I can't believe they've just turned their eyes away from the freedom that we have on regulated airwaves.

How is this developing?

How do you feel about the future of free speech on radio?

Yeah, I think you're right to notice this broader trend.

I mean, when I was growing up in high school in the 1990s, you're right.

There was sort of a surge of FCC activity there, whether it was, you know, censorship or political censorship.

In fact, I remember very famously when I was in high school, M ⁇ M, the FCC won't let me be.

And for a little while there, the FCC sort of turned a corner, as you noted, in sort of the mid-2000s.

And for a while, stayed out of this type of political censorship type of activity.

And it is concerning as to where things are going now.

As you pointed out, the Biden administration is engaged in a lot of regulatory actions that are ultimately about increasing government control and then down the road, increasing of censorship.

And what's clear in this country as a cultural matter is we have to return to an embrace of free speech for a lot of reasons.

But one is the soapbox is directly connected to the ballot box.

And what I mean by that is once people start not trusting Americans with the freedom to speak their minds on the soapbox, they very naturally go into, well, I also don't trust you to make your own decisions at the ballot box.

And I think in some ways we're starting to see that.

And again, sort of switching back to this FCC order on race and gender scorecards, the FCC claimed it wasn't doing it to pressure people.

In fact, one of the lead justifications they gave for publicly disclosing this is that it said they wanted the public to be able to have the data so that they could verify the accuracy of these disclosures by broadcasters, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

What exactly does the federal government want the public to do to verify the race and gender of employees?

How exactly are they going to verify that?

Particularly when the FC is adding newly a category of gender non-binary, but whatever that mechanism is, that the FC wants the public to verify the race and gender of broadcasters.

I'm not sure what you've been encouraging that type of conduct.

So

I think this is a continuing trend of the story that came out today,

where

the president directed all agencies to work on on a plan to register more voters, which is not the job of the State Department or the FCC or anybody else.

And there was a lawsuit

by the Government Accountability Office to be able to see those plans.

The DOJ has just rejected

offering those plans and turning those plans over in this court case because they say it will be confusing for the American public.

Who do they think they are?

And who do they think we are that we'd be confused by evidence of whatever it is you're doing, good or bad?

Yeah, you know, it's concerning this sort of paternalistic approach of not trusting the American people.

I mean, that's the fundamental component of democracy is that we have to trust people.

And, you know, the other sort of interesting development of the last couple of days or so, you know, I'm sure you've been tracking, was this Google AI that has been sort of widely criticized for being biased.

And I think there's actually something that we should give Google credit for with this in terms of a contribution to public discourse.

And that is that it has laid bare for the American people to see in the clearest terms yet, the bias and sort of partisan ideology that has been embedded in so much of the products coming out of Silicon Valley.

And for years, people said, well, there's no conservative bias in Silicon Valley.

And these Google AI chat bots really make that clear.

In fact, last weekend, I went on it and I asked it to write an op-ed against President Biden's signature effort to control the internet, known as net neutrality.

And it said it couldn't do that.

And I asked it to write one in support.

of that exact same policy, net neutrality.

And it wrote a very long, flourishing one about it.

And so as things move more into this space of artificial intelligence and AI, it's deeply concerning

the really serious partisan bias that clearly has been embedded in these algorithms.

And Google came out and said, well, Maya Culpa, it was a mistake.

It actually was not a mistake.

In fact, again, hats off to them.

They have an ideology and they found a way to code it deeply into these algorithms in an effective way.

But we need to sort of step back and make sure that we don't have these biases embedded as these technologies start moving forward.

Yeah, I tell you, the only mistake they made was that they were discovered.

It wasn't subtle enough.

They're very into changing people's minds without their fingerprints on anything.

Brendan, thank you so much.

I appreciate everything that

you do and you're warning us about.

I'm extraordinarily concerned about

my job and

the jobs of those people who do disagree with the government for the first time in my life.

I think

I may lose my job at one point or lose my ability to speak out.

That's never happened to me before.

And I appreciate the warning signs.

Yeah, well, thanks so much for having me on.

I think these are really important issues to track.

Again, each one individually looks like it could be a one-off, whether it's these digital equity rules for the Internet or the government working with Silicon Valley to censor Americans' political speech or these race and gender scorecards.

But you have to put them all together because they're not pinpricks.

It's a mosaic.

At the end of the day, it's about more and more government control.

And the government is colluding with these large technology companies to carry out an effort to put more controls on more speech than we've ever seen in our history.

And I think the good news is things are turning slightly.

I think the...

The maximum effort of censorship happened during COVID, whenever there's government control, that COVID was sort of by definition, you increase in censorship.

And I think it's receding, but it's also, it's kind of downstream from this extreme version of identity politics because once you divide the world into oppressors and oppress, then it's very easy to take all the rights away, including free speech rights of the oppressor group.

And there's no sort of free exchange of information and free debate.

But we've got to get back to that of the cultural matter.

I will tell you, thank you very much.

I will tell you, tomorrow I'm going to be talking about what's happening in Canada.

Trudeau has just introduced a bill that is going through Parliament now that that will make hate speech

life in prison.

You're engaged in hate speech.

You could get life in prison in Canada.

You want to talk about bone chilling?

They are way down this road and we've got to turn around.

Brendan Carr, FCC Commissioner, thank you so much.

Back to the podcast in a second.

First, drug shortages hit a new record high last year.

Right now, there are still hundreds of vital medications that aren't available.

They should be.

It's America.

That's including something as basic and life-saving as amoxicillin.

Medication shortages are going to happen.

You can't introduce 10 million people into your country and give them access to the health care system when the healthcare was built for

a country that was 10 million smaller in population.

When you have the things of unrest all around the world and we get all of our medicine from someplace else in the world, it's going to happen.

Take this problem head-on and into your own hands with the Jace case by Jace Medical.

It's a pack of different antibiotics that you can use to treat a host of bacterial illnesses in an emergency.

And you can have all of the medicine that you have to take for your family, a year's supply in your home.

Get the Jace case and so much more at jacemedical.com.

Promo code Beck.

Now back to the podcast.

This is the best of the Glen Beck program.

Welcome to the Glen Beck program and say hello to our good friend David Arsani.

He is the Federalist Senior Writer and National Review columnist.

He has just written a column for the Federalists that says, we're all just Christian nationalists now.

Are we all?

If this is Christian nationalism, count me in.

As I have said on this program, do not take this charge lightly, and I don't think David does,

but don't call yourself a Christian nationalist.

It does have meaning, and I'll show you on tomorrow's show why they are saying it.

And this is coming from the government.

Why are they doing this?

I'll show you.

It's going to have great ramifications.

But David made such a great case about this.

I wanted to have him on.

Hi, David.

Hi there.

Thanks for having me.

You bet.

So

count me in.

We're all Christian nationalists.

Why do you say that?

Well, I mean, I don't know.

I should say that the way that these people I'm writing about on MSNBC describe Christian nationalism is not really a thing.

It's just what the Declaration of Independence says, and it's the core idea of America.

If you think that your rights come from the state, then you don't understand the United States, you don't understand the founding, and actually the founding can't really work for you.

And I think that they're actually being honest as well.

I mean, I do think they believe rights come from the state, and that this way they can get rid of rights they don't like, add new ones whenever they feel like it, and that's a huge problem.

Yeah, that's the Soviet Union,

right?

You know, only

every autocracy, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Um, so um, explain nature's God and nature's law.

Well, you know how people always say they're spiritual but not religious?

Yeah.

I guess I'm the opposite.

I'm not really spiritual, but I'm definitely religious because I think religion offers incredibly

important

ideas about the world that were you know, even if you believe in God, you also probably probably believe that they evolved into religion because they're the right things.

I do believe that.

So

for me, it is clear that man has innate rights.

I'm not sure why or where they come from, but in my heart I know it, and rationally I know it.

So the right to speak your mind, the right to practice your faith, the right to own property, all the things that are basically enshrined in the Constitution,

those basic rights, which are negative rights, meaning like I'm not asking someone to do anything for me.

These are just things I'm born with, I think are vital

to living a free and prosperous life.

And a constitution's not perfect or anything like that, but it's as close as I think humans have gotten.

So if you don't believe in God, you should act like you do when you talk about the law.

Yeah, well,

yeah, I think so.

The idea that you're born

with

rights given to you by your family's position or the state, they can take those rights away at any time.

And we all know, wait, I'm an individual.

This is why this always happens in times of collectivism,

because it's the group over the individual, where America was always about the individual.

Help the individual live a great life, you know,

allow them to be able to celebrate God in their own way, which would be their governor,

their regulator, if you will, on their passions,

and let everybody do their thing and you'll be amazed at what happens.

We've always known in America that's true.

Yeah.

I think people hear the word individual and they

like it computes as selfish or something like that.

But it's not.

I mean, the difference is an individual can go to their church, give charity to whoever they want.

But collective decides who you give charity to and maybe who where you go to church.

And that is the difference.

Individualism doesn't mean that you can't become part of a community and do things communally, but it does mean that you're not treated individually.

I mean, for instance, democracy, everyone keeps talking about it and they never really define it.

But I don't really care about democracy when it comes to rights because I don't care that three people can tell me what to do.

That's not how it works.

And that's what I think, you know, just to clarify what individualism I think means to the person who believes in natural rights.

David, have you noticed that every time the left accuses the right of something, they're doing doing it

projection, yeah.

I mean, it is

incredibly consistent.

I think we have a new national religion now in America with high priests and, you know, a confessional and everything.

It's like the issue of abortion, which I think, you know, the key natural right is your right to life, right?

But

when the Supreme Court, you know, they were yelling about democracy forever, democracy, this, that.

And when the Supreme Court's like, okay, you can vote on this now, then they're like, that is, you know, you're attacking democracy now.

To them,

it's so malleable.

It could be anything.

It could be anything they believe right now.

It has no, I often try to ask them to define what it means, but they don't really, I mean, the left doesn't really debate anymore.

They just,

you know, they call you some whatever name they're calling you now.

Today it's Christian nationalist, you know, and that's what you are.

So they don't really debate it or define their terms, et cetera.

So let me change subjects here real quickly.

Stu and I were talking about

Donald Trump having probably a very good week for him with the decision with the Supreme Court yesterday and also what's happening with Fannie Willis or Fonnie Willis.

What are your take on those two cases?

This is my broader view of the whole thing is that Donald Trump's biggest strength or one of his biggest strengths, is that his enemies are just the worst people usually.

I have the worst enemies.

Trust me, you've never seen enemies like this before.

Nobody has.

I mean, from the start, you know, and I'm not a huge fan of the guy, truthfully, but the people who hate him are worse than he is.

So to save democracy, they're worse than he is.

To, you know,

to take him off ballots, the people who are supposedly upholding the Constitution and democracy and all that, you know, are worse than he is.

As the things I don't like about him,

let's say how he talks about government or maybe that he's a little bit not conservative enough for me, frankly.

You know, I think one of the big secrets about Donald Trump is he's actually quite moderate on a lot of issues.

Or I would say normal, like, you know, when it comes to gender or borders or things like that,

is that his enemies are the worst people.

And a lot of people under, because of the hysteria about Donald Trump, a lot of bad people, a lot of people want to make their names have gotten in

with the mobs going after him.

And because of the hatred for him, a lot of people on the left just let, you know, praise all these people before actually maybe vetting them a bit.

So yeah, I think it's a good it was a good week for Donald Trump.

What do you think is going to happen with the Fannie Willis?

What do you think is going to happen with the Fannie Willis case?

I don't know.

I don't know how you can move forward knowing all we know right now, right?

But I don't know.

Here's my thing.

So in New York, you have a case where you have a New York jury

or a New York judge even, or you have a D.C.

jury or D.C.

judge in another case.

They're going to convict Donald Trump.

They're going to find him guilty.

They're going to ask him to hand over 500 million bucks because they hate him.

And I don't think those are fair trials.

I don't know how it's going to go in, Georgia's, I guess, my answer.

So you think there's a chance she keeps her job?

In any normal environment, that would not be the case, but I'm not sure.

Wow.

I don't, what do you guys think?

No, right?

I mean, I don't think she, I mean, how does the governor not call for if the judge doesn't

turn on her and say these are clear lies.

You perjured yourself.

She should lose her license she should pay a big fine and possibly because they did it with such zeal go to jail I mean I don't think I've ever seen a more clear-cut case on perjury because she did it with zeal where I've seen people perjure themselves Anthony Fauci but he's not necessarily going

well actually he

did too

but she just went in passionately her attorneys even tried to stop her.

So I can't imagine why that wouldn't happen.

But then again, you also have a governor who is a conservative governor.

Why wouldn't he open?

I mean, if he's a rule of law guy, he should open a special investigation if nothing happened.

It does seem like there are some developments in that world as well.

It's like, again, this judge was appointed by a Republican and, you know, I believe was in the Federalist Society at some point.

So I don't know.

I mean,

this is not a DC jury we're talking about here.

There should be some rational thought brought into this situation.

But again, I think the pessimism usually wins.

That's the end of the story.

I just feel like everything's falling apart in Lawless.

So I don't, you know, I'm scared to say what I think is going to happen.

I just want more Fannie Willis on the stand.

Oh, yes.

It was so fun to watch, wasn't it?

I mean, you know, I felt a little like an arsonist, except I didn't start the fire, but

I was just watching like that is beautiful.

It's like that, it's like that meme of girl watch smiling, watching the house burn down.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

All right, uh, thanks so much, uh, David.

I appreciate it.

From the fucking Federalist David Harsani:

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

This should

speak volumes to you.

There's a new poll out.

It shows that the border is the number one problem.

Now, you would think the economy would be number two, taking a poll of average Americans.

You know what number two is?

Something I don't think I've ever seen before in a poll:

government.

Number one is the border.

Number two is government.

I don't even know what that entails.

I know what that means to me.

And number three is the economy.

And government is a problem.

They are interfering everywhere.

And

now we have Steve Baker, our investigative journalist with the Blaze Media.

He has been covering January 6th and doing research on this since January 6th.

He's been working as a journalist on this.

The FBI

has issued a warrant for him to turn himself in tomorrow.

We don't know what the charges are.

No idea.

Steve, I've been praying for you this week.

I know many members of the audience are doing the same.

This is crazy what's about to happen to you tomorrow.

Yeah, I've always been more worried about my unpaid parking tickets from college.

Yeah.

Yeah.

You are a

nice, gentle,

regular guy.

And

do you even know what the charges are?

No, they haven't told us yet.

Is that usual?

No, back two and a half years ago when they initially threatened me and said that I would be arrested within the week in November of 21, they actually told my attorney at the time what the charges were going to be then.

But because I'm a little outspoken and vocal about what's happening with me,

we were told at the time by an assistant U.S.

attorney that a judge would not be happy with me going out to the press in the manner that I've done.

So I just intensified that and accelerated that

and lit that candle brighter.

Yeah,

I see the look on your face.

I see the look on your face.

What right is it for them to say, we're coming after you.

And then when you say, hey, by the way, everybody, they're saying they're coming after me.

They haven't said why they're coming after me.

This is all I've done.

Why would you be in trouble for defending yourself in the public square?

Because once they arrest you, well, now you've been arrested by the FBI.

It's a really bad thing, even if you're innocent.

Well, two years ago, the U.S.

attorney said to my attorney that a judge will not look favorably upon this, to which my attorney responded, are you saying that my client should forego his First Amendment right under the threat of persecution from the federal government?

And she said, oh, no, we're not really saying that.

We just, you know, it's just we're concerned that, you know, for him and his status.

Concerned for you.

I kid you not.

Now, fast forward two years under the current threat, and they won't tell me the charges this time, literally, quote unquote, from the U.S.

Attorney, because he'll tweet it out.

Well, what?

Yeah.

Yeah.

We'll do it for you.

Yeah.

Technically, the charges are under seal until you're actually arrested.

So they are technically not in violation of any law.

Right.

But so tomorrow morning at 7 o'clock, when I arrive at the FBI field office here in Dallas, I will learn what my charges are.

And what is it that you are supposed to dress?

How are they, what did they, advice did they give you on that?

They notified my attorney that I needed to arrive in shorts, a t-shirt, and flip-flops.

And why is that?

It's easier to change into the orange jumpsuit and leg chains.

And

is that something that everybody does?

When they bust down somebody's door, do they say, hey, change into a t-shirt and some flip-flops?

I don't think that when they bust in your door,

you get that opportunity

when they invite people to turn themselves in.

I've never seen people turn themselves in.

This is exactly what they did to the independent journalist Stephen Horn from Raleigh, North Carolina, coincidentally where I live.

And when they arrested him and they brought him in, they did exactly the same thing.

They put him in an orange jumpsuit, put leg chains on him, and made him march before the magistrate in leg chains on misdemeanor offenses.

It's one of the interesting parts here because you don't know, as you point out, what you're being charged with, but you do know that they are misdemeanors, right?

That is what they have told my attorney.

So why on earth would you need to be in leg chains?

We have prosecutors all over the country that won't charge people who've sexually assaulted individuals with crimes, and they won't hold them, and they release the next day.

And they're going to put you in leg chains for misdemeanors?

Well, let's start with the bigger question, and we'll work our way to that specific answer.

This is the first time in history, since January 6th, that the FBI is even involving themselves in misdemeanor offenses and with misdemeanor defendants and swatting misdemeanor defendants with sometimes 15, 20, 25 agents swatting misdemeanor.

No, the FBI has never done that in their history until ordered to do so by Merrick Garland's DOJ after January 6th.

So fast forward to this.

Why are they doing that?

Why are they requiring me?

My My attorney told me when he told me that this was what they were going to have me

requesting that I arrive dressed in flip-flops and shorts.

I said, why are they doing this to me?

He said, you know why.

He said, you've been poking them in the eye for three years.

This is retribution.

This is evil.

It's just evil.

When you have a government, I mean, I don't know if you saw the story today from California, but there was a judge in California said, you can't arrest just people on the right when Antifa was there and they were being violent, beating up these people.

You arrest the people they were beating up and you don't arrest Antifa.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

When a United States government can come after individuals, and you know, we've been saying this from the beginning, if they'll do this to Trump, you don't think they'll do it to you?

Well, the selective prosecution is exactly what's happening right here.

We have over 60, we have documented over 60 journalists that entered through those doors or broken windows that day.

The fifth person through the broken window that day was a New York Times reporter.

The New Yorker reporter Luke Mogleson went through the broken window and he paralleled another independent photojournalist.

They went through the same window, paralleled the other journalist.

He had spent a lot of time working on the Latinos for Trump campaign.

Well, even though he didn't parade, he didn't do any protesting, he did no chanting, anything of the sort, and was contracted at the time as a video photo journalist for a TV station in Mobile, Alabama.

Even though that was the groundwork laid,

Four misdemeanors, swatted by over 20 agents at his home with the red dots on his wife, his children, and of course, obviously himself at 6.30 in the morning.

And then he was convicted.

He said, I'm going to go to trial on this.

He said, Luke Mogleson from the New Yorker, we went through the same window at the same time, and he hasn't been charged.

I'm going to go stand before a judge.

He did a bench trial.

He was convicted on all four misdemeanors.

And because he went to trial and he wasted the government's time and resources not taking the plea deal that he was offered,

the judge put him in prison for eight months, sentenced him to eight months.

They put him in a medium security facility in

Georgia, where after spending the first two months in solitary confinement

and gets out into the general population, he learns from all the other prisoners that they never put misdemeanor defendants in that prison.

All of the other guys were, actually, they distrusted him.

They thought he was some sort of plant, you know, inside the prison.

They're like, people don't come here for misdemeanors.

We're, you know, this is what we do for a living.

We're pros.

We go to prison.

You know, we commit commit crimes and go to prison for a living.

You're not supposed to be here.

He goes, well, you are if you're a J6 defendant.

So

mentally,

how are you?

I have my moments.

I'm okay.

I've had over two years to prepare for this.

I've game planned it all out in my head.

I'm not going to sleep tonight.

I'm not even going to try.

It is my way anyway.

And so I'm just going to, you know, prepare, pray, and

then I'm going to put on my suit and tie.

Good for you.

And walk in with my head up.

Good for you.

Good for you.

More in just a minute with Steve Baker.

He's an investigative journalist, a Blaze Media correspondent.

He has been, he's the guy who

worked with Congress to expose the video that was being held back.

And for this, he is

being arrested and arraigned tomorrow in what city?

Here in Dallas.

Here in Dallas.

Will it happen?

Will the trial happen here in Texas?

We will certainly be filing a motion for change of venue out of D.C., but none of those have been granted yet on J6 cases.

Because they know they can't win anyplace else.

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Commercial Insurance.

Trucking is a big job, so Progressive is proud to offer truckers the coverage they need and discounts to help them save.

Quote Truck Insurance in as little as eight minutes at progressivecommercial.com.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates.

Discounts not available in all states or situations.