Below is my column in the Hill on a controversial criminal case involving a conservative journalist who was arrested after the January 6th riot. The prosecution of Steven Baker exposes the growing tensions in the media over the role of reporters as advocates.
Here is the column:
Former New York Times writer (and now Howard University journalism professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones declared recently that “all journalism is activism.” Advocacy journalism is all the rage in journalism schools and on major media platforms.
Given that shift in journalism, one would think that these editors and journalists would love Steven Baker.
Baker was arrested for covering what he viewed as a citizen protest defying the government and demanding justice. He did not hide his support for their cause as he reported on what became a riot.
Baker, however, is a conservative journalist and the protest that he was covering became the Jan. 6th riot. Now, the Biden administration has arrested Baker on four misdemeanor charges linked to his entry into the Capitol on that day.
Baker would later not only supply stories to his main media outlet, Blaze News, but also sell videos to The New York Times and HBO.
Journalists often accompany protesters and even mobs as stories unfold. Indeed, there were many reporters in the crowd that entered the Capitol. But Baker, the conservative journalist, was charged while others were not.
The response from most media figures and groups has been crickets.
The Justice Department leaves little doubt why they pursued Baker. The criminal complaint and an FBI agent’s affidavit repeatedly reference Baker’s support for those who stormed the Capitol. Entering through a broken door like hundreds of others, he walked past Capitol police, who stood by and even directed some protesters. Baker was in the building for only approximately 37 minutes before police led him out.
The government claims that the Texas-based writer “antagonized” police officers when they blocked his effort to get through a door. They quote him as asking “Are you going to use that (gun) on us?”
They also quote him as later stating, in an interview with a local television station, that he was “quite excited to see this going on. Do I approve of what happened today? I approve 100 percent.”
He also pointed out his image in footage while emphasizing that his red hat was not a MAGA hat but a Yorktown, Virginia hat. He would joke about what a shame it was that he did not get his hands on Nancy Pelosi’s computer, given what he might have found.
In any other context, Baker might be the poster boy for the new journalism. “J-schools” now encourage students to leave “neutrality behind” and push “solidarity [as] ‘a commitment to social justice that translates into action.’”
A recent series of interviews with over 75 media leaders by Leonard Downie Jr., former Washington Post executive editor, and Andrew Heyward, former CBS News president, reaffirmed this shift. As Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle, stated: “Objectivity has got to go.”
But that objectivity seems to depend heavily upon what ideology you are advocating.
For example, NPR employees objected to efforts to maintain a neutral tone in reporting and declared that “civility is a weapon wielded by the powerful.” The NPR leadership went even further to unleash the advocates within journalists, by allowing them to cross over from covering to participating in protests.
The public-subsidized NPR declared that reporters could join political protests when the editors believe the causes advance the “freedom and dignity of human beings.”
Something tells me that NPR editors would not have found Baker’s brand of advocacy to be “dignified.”
NPR recently hired a new CEO, Katherine Maher, who has declared that “white silence is complicity” and has publicly denounced Trump and his supporters. The message seems clear about what kind of protests would be considered advancements of freedom.
Would the government have charged an NPR reporter who accompanied Black Lives Matter rioters in the police station they occupied in Seattle? If not, then what exactly is the dividing line between crime and advocacy journalism? Is it an ideological line?
In the George Floyd riots, at least 126 journalists were arrested or detained in 2020. Virtually all of the charges against them were dropped. Des Moines Register reporter Andrea Sahouri was tried on simple misdemeanors for failure to disperse and interference with official acts. She was acquitted.
The difference is that a long list of journalistic organizations came to her aid. That is not the case for Baker.
Before Baker’s arrest, Washington media was already facing criticisms over double standards. Recently, CBS was embroiled in a controversy after it fired acclaimed investigative journalist Cathrine Herridge, who had clashed with the liberal network over her work on stories unpopular with the Biden White House and many Democratic establishment figures. Not only did they lay Herridge off, but CBS brass even seized her files and forced her union to take legal action before giving them back. The files contained confidential source information.
While this was unfolding, Herridge was in court, fighting to protect her confidential sources. After CBS fired her, she was held in contempt this week for refusing to violate journalistic confidentiality. The same week, despite firing Herridge and seizing her files, CBS President Ingrid Ciprian-Matthews was honored at the 33rd annual First Amendment Awards.
Likewise, this week, Julian Assange is facing deportation and prosecution for publishing the Wikileaks files, exposing abuses in the U.S. government. Although legacy media routinely publish classified material from whistleblowers, Assange has embarrassed many in Washington and will have to pay for it.
That brings us back to Baker. He is not charged with property damage or violence. The question is whether, on that day, he was an advocate, a journalist or an advocate journalist.
So, what exactly is journalism? Major media figures have actively erased the distinction between advocates and journalists. It is now subject to the same test that Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once used to identify pornography in the case Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964): “I shall not today attempt further to define [it]…But I know it when I see it.”
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
NINE TO ZERO!!! How many “experts” and other pundits said it is only due to it being a “MAGA” Court that it will fall?
Hey Dennis, hey Gigi, hey Sammy, hey Boob, hey all of you Anonymous big mouths, where the he** are you now?
HullBobby,
Now the real fun begins.
Watch how not only MSM, Democrats, and our leftist friends here on the good professor’s blog all try to spin, decry the court rouge, or use their third rate legal opinions generally nothing more than MSM propaganda or DNC talking points with a dose of mental gymnastics to say how wrong the professor and the SC are.
Go read the scathing concurrence. It is as we predicted. SCOTUS changed 14/3 to help Trump.
Sammy, go google the words “scathing concurrence” and you will see ZERO ENTRIES! Moron.
Scathing concurrence is not a thing!
HullBobby,
Did not take long, from my 1109 comment to you, to Sammy’s 1109 comment to prove their spin, decry the court rouge, or use their third rate legal opinions generally nothing more than MSM propaganda or DNC talking points with a dose of mental gymnastics to say how wrong the professor and the SC are.
“To start, nothing in Section 3’s text supports the majority’s view of how federal disqualification efforts must operate. Section 3 states simply that “[n]o person shall” hold certain positions and offices if they are oathbreaking insurrectionists. Amdt. 14. Nothing in that unequivocal bar suggests that implementing legislation enacted under Section 5 is “critical” (or, for that matter, what that word means in this context).”
“Although federal enforcement of Section 3 is in no way at issue, the majority announces novel rules for how that enforcement must operate. It reaches out to decide Section 3 questions not before us, and to foreclose future efforts to disqualify a Presidential candidate under that provision. In a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint, it abandons that course.”
“Section 3 serves an important, though rarely needed, role in our democracy. The American people have the power to vote for and elect candidates for national office, and that is
a great and glorious thing. The men who drafted and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, however, had witnessed an “insurrection [and] rebellion” to defend slavery. §3. They wanted to ensure that those who had participated in that insurrection, and in possible future insurrections, could not return to prominent roles. Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President. “
Reply to Sammy @ 11:48 am “It reaches out to decide Section 3 questions not before us, and to foreclose future efforts to disqualify a Presidential candidate under that provision. . . . Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President.” I assume this quote comes from Judge Barrett’s concurring opinion. She is being naive. The targets of section 3 will not be “insurrectionists”, a term not even defined in the 14 Amendment. The target will be people like Trump who are disfavored by powerful political and legal elites. If the S Ct did not make this kind of challenge virtuallly impossible, the current ballot cleansing scam would rear its ugly head again and again. Marc Elias, George Soros, and their ilk are not going away.
Edwardmahl,
“Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President.”
The way I see it, this line now opens the question of what procedures need to be established to determine exactly how 14, 3 is ruled on.
Someone just declaring someone else is an “insurrectionist” without due process, is the antithesis of the rule of law and the Constitution.
Congress would have to take up the question, present it as law.
Of course I would expect that law to get taken to the SC if it had some vague wording just to “Get Trump.” And I would expect the SC to also rule, even another unanimous ruling if it is clear it is just a “Get Trump” tactic.
For such the gravity of the seriousness of that kind of charge, perhaps only the SC should conduct a trial. As we have seen from other DC or NYC cases, Republicans or Trump would all be convicted guilty the day before the trial began.
Sammy who are you quoting
If you read the opinion, you would know? (Sotomayor’s concurrence)
14th Amendment section 5:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
No Sammy. SCOTUS did not change 14/3 to help Trump.
They followed the Constitution. They followed the rule of law.
Helping Trump is a Blue-anon conspiracy theory. It is the conspiracy that your MSM betters tell you and you blindly believe.
The real question is, are you and all your other Blue-anon followers going to accept the ruling by SCOTUS? Or just blindly rage against it?
Upstate, keep at my friend, you destroy them with logic.
“scathing concurrence” (whatever that means)
What’s that chant from a sporting event?
“Scoreboard, scoreboard.”
Thank goodness the Dem-leaning reporters don’t 100% approve of any of the situations/stories they cover, or we’d really be in trouble. /s
I’m curious if any other ‘journalists’ were covering the J6 ‘riot’ ~ aka Trump’s ‘Stop the Steal’ rally? It was *well advertised* .. . and the media, law enforcement, the military, Congress and the United States government had plenty of time to prepare for Trump’s alleged coup-insurrection.
*the 9-0 SCOTUS ruling against Colorado suggests there are no ‘Dem-leaning’ justices .. . but, unfortunately, does not address Dem-leaning ‘reporters’.
Scotus unanimously decides that the Colorado Supreme Court erred in its interpretation of federal law:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
“[R]esponsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States.”
So many commenters told me I was wrong to say exactly that. Ha!
OldManFromKS,
As the good professor noted, a unanimous decision was what was needed to reject the CO SC clearly un-Constitutional decision.
This was a good decision by the SCOUS
Upstate – it was good in many ways. For one thing it may go a long way toward avoiding a civil war. I hope so.
OldManFromKS,
Honestly, I could see it going either way.
As we have seen from all the lawfare/election interference, the lengths leftist Democrats will go to “Get Trump” to include changing SOL laws, and just their disregard for the rule of law, I give it even chances.
An epic smackdown of the power lusters in CO, et al.:
“For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with
Congress and not the States. The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand.
“All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.” (SCOTUS)
Smith should take careful note if this quote in today’s opinion, “Such a lack of historical precedent is generally a “‘telling indication’” of a “‘severe constitutional problem’” with the asserted (Colorado court’s) power.” Smith has also categorically asserted Trump was acting outside the perimeter of presidential powers and duties to have the election results challenged for some states playing fast and loose with election laws meant to help only his opponent, and results investigated for accuracy. I hope this Court draws the same conclusion it did here: lack of precedent being a telling indication of a severe consitutional problem with Smith’s case.
Once again, the Biden admin and their corrupt DOJ and FBI put it on full display for all to see how they have brought America down to third world country status.
The publicly subsidized NPR declared that reporters could join political protests when the editors believe the causes advance the “freedom and dignity of human beings.” Apparently, NPR has already decided that Conservative journalists are not entitled to join THEIR political protests and should be arrested. Merrick Garland has officially turned the FBI into the Cheka. It’s going to take a lot of effort to excise this metastasized cancer, but it will be worth it in the end. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
I get up-close and personal images and reporting from every major lefty insurrection from democrat strongholds: PDX, MN, C’ville, B’more, Philly, austin,…
The left never seems to riot in non-lefty strongholds, wonder why that is? (just kidding, we kn ow exactly why that is, political cover for their riots)
Jonathan: They’re picking on us! You claim Steven Baker was selected for arrest because he is a conservative. MTG was quick to condemn Baker’s arrest: “The Biden regime just arrested journalist Steve Baker for covering Jan. 6. Free Press is dead in America when the government jails journalists who refuse to report the regime’s political agenda and lies”. MTG’s complaint was repeated in the right-wing media and on Fox.
So who is Steven Baker? He is an investigative reporter for Glenn Beck’s “Blaze Media”–a right-wing news outlet. He practices “advocacy journalism” from a right-wing perspective–something you decry in the mainstream media. What did Baker do to get arrested on Friday? He entered the Capitol with the other supporters of DJT and video-taped himself expressing support for the insurrectionists. He said about Nancy Pelosi: “The only thing I regret is that I didn’t, like steal their computers {those is Pelosi’s office] because God knows what I could’ve found on the computers if I’ve done that”. In an interview inside the Capitol Baker added: ” Do I approve of what happened today? I approve 100%!”. So Baker was not in the Capitol to engage in “neutral” or “objective” reporting. He was there to support the insurrectionists.
Was Baker singled out? Nope. Pen has complained that 6 other journalists were arrested on J. 6 and charged with felonies. Baker has only been charged with four misdemeanors. It’s a problem for journalists generally in trying to cover events like J. 6.
Now Baker is a cause celebre for those on the right. You try to portray Baker as just part of “a citizen protest defying the government and demanding justice”. Jan. 6 was not about “demanding justice”. The assault on the Capitol was an attempt to overthrow a legitimate election to keep DJT in power! Talk about “advocacy journalism”. You practice it every day in your columns.
What is curious is that neither you nor MTG expressed outrage when WP journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered by agents of the Saudi Crown Prince. Nor have you expressed the same outrage by the deliberate killing of 94 journalists by the Israel military trying to cover the carnage in Gaza. Seems there is a double standard at play in your column.
“94 journalists by the Israel military trying to cover the carnage in Gaza”
– says some far left wing journalist society about as reliable as the Hamas Health Agency
– everyone (journalists AND Arabs) has been completely warned by IDF where to stay away from in Gaza and you especially can have no pity on some “media person” (your source counts Arabs who carry bags for the European press; those Arab bag carriers far outnumber those who anyone would call a journalist) who entered Gaza post 10/7 without IDF protection (which all American press have smartly done)
– the damage is very straightforward and no journalist is required to cover it; every location that harbors the Arab terrorists, provides them a tunnel for egress from their dens, and participated in staging the carnage in Israel on October 7, 2023, etc. is going to be bombed back to its Philistine state (when the Israelis first fought the invading Philistines – not Arabs – 35 centuries ago; the Arabs only invaded Israel 13 centuries ago)
Never again
and video-taped himself expressing support for the insurrectionists.</b
There's the lie we all know Dennis is forced to scream, because the facts never support his conclusion.
The statement was never delivered by Baker
And exactly why is Dennis bringing in MTG, into the story. She has nothing to do with the DoJ persacuting conservative voices. (Right to Life supporters, Parents attending school, boards, Journalist reporting the facts live)
“And exactly why is Dennis bringing in MTG, into the story.”
Because if he is a real human being, expressing his actual ideas here, then the decision was something else that disconfirms his belief system. Disconfirmation leads to cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance leads to discomfort, and therefore he distracts to alleviate the discomfort. If he/she/it is an alcoholic, then they are hitting bottle heavily right now too.
Professor Turley,
It is disingenuous to compare Andrea Sahouri to Steven Baker. The charges were not the same because the events they were covering were different. Sahouri was not trespassing on government property. She was in the public location. If Baker reported from outside of the Capitol, he would not have been charged.
Freedom of the press does not include the freedom to violate trespassing law. Sahouri’s charges, such as “failure to disperse,” are directly related to event she was covering.
Think of it this way: if a riot occurred outside Clarence Thomas’s home, and liberal protestors broke in, would it be appropriate for a NYT reporter to follow the protesters into his home to cover the events INSIDE the Justice’s home? Of course not. Steven Baker’s actions are much closer aligned with this hypothetical than with Sahouri’s actions.
This is a new low of both sides-ism for you.
If Baker reported from outside of the Capitol, he would not have been charged.
If Authorities invite you into the building, it is not trespass.
Even if that were true, that would be a fact-based inquiry that would be relevant at trial. That has no bearing on whether Baker should have been charged.
Prosecutors have the video evidence. Its called ignoring exculpatory evidence.
There are also ~100 other journalist, never charged inside the Capitol reporting. Not charged.
Do you have the list of 100 other journalists who were officially working on behalf of a news outlet and inside the Capitol, who the police have stated officially have not charged and/or intimated they will not charge? I have not seen such a list.
“. . . a conservative journalist who was arrested after the January 6th riot.”
Some three years later.
Must be an election year.
Theory: the feds are doing all this on purpose to foment a civil war, in which they will have the upper hand and use it as an excuse to impose martial law and a new form of government.
“All this” includes the selective anti-conservative prosecutions, the open border, suppressing adequate energy production, giving billions to state sponsors of terrorism, encouraging local prosecutors to go soft on crime, and serial $2T deficits so as to kill the American currency.
If anyone wants to respond: where’s your proof? My answer is: as noted above, this is a theory, and it is put forward for discussion. It may be false … but it also may be true, as it would explain the obviously counter-productive policies of our central government, in which the interests of America and Americans are of no concern at all, but the interests of almost everyone else besides America and Americans are top priority – in short, the exact opposite of what a national government is supposed to do.
If libs succeed in turning IOUMerica, into a $hithole country, will US citizens, become illegal immigrants in Mexico? Last year was the 1st time I had to show my passport, to a Mexican border security officer. They searched my wife’s purse. If they had found 1 bullet, she would still be in jail, awaiting trial. US customs, on our way out of Mexico, did about the same thing, but no jail, if they found a bullet, for now anyway.
“Advocacy journalism” seems to meet the Merriam-Webster definition of propaganda: “the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person.” We know that such “journalism” does not have to be fact-based as shown by the media’s delusional obsession with Russia and Trump, and its attacks on those whose now validated ideas about the pandemic differed from the Administration’s claims. Advocacy journalism as practiced by Joseph Goebbels and others helped convince God-fearing Germans that the mass murder of Jews was a good thing. Those who teach and promote advocacy journalism have no concept either of history or the critical role that objective reporting can play in the survival of a democracy.
Honestlawyermostly,
Well said.
January 6th 2021 Where does it Rank?
Anarchy – Highest
Insurrection
Rebellion
Riot
Rally
Protest – Lowest
What it really was, a rally that became a protest that became a minor level riot.
The rest is MSM propaganda.
The riot did not start until police used rubber bullets and flashbang grenades.
Ah Anonymous, you took my quote from just a few columns ago. You did not even credit me for using it before you. Now we are both plagiarists but on the side of light. Maybe we should all start flying the Gadsden Flag and back it up. I had been following this story also. The DOJ had told him to surrender, over the phone, but would not even tell what the charges were before doing the staged arrest. Maybe that’s why the people were there on January 6 and not to just hear a speech but to register their disgust at the 2 tier system present in politics and the administration of the law.
Also now we have Merrick Garland declaring that the Justice Dept is going to declare war on Voter Identification.
Seems that the higher Trump goes in the polls, the greater the hysterics in Washington.
Some day the FBI is going to arrest someone who is going to take personal offense to these staged arrests and a true tragedy will ensue. Then we might have a true conflagration. The people will only stand for this so long.
I just waiting for a governor of a red state to kick the FBI out of their state as an AGENT of OPPRESSION and use the national guard to do it. Same for the so-called Dept. Of Justice.
I was not sure which thread to put this on. Riots and double-standards journalism, or the Judkis story about dismissing looting, when it fits Das Narrative. Anyway, guess I will put it on both of them:
Speaking of “zombies” and “late-capitalism horror shows” , This, is why you would never have found me, or my family, at the Super Bowl Victory Parade. Or, now, even Six Flags. Perhaps we can get some free tickets for Madame Judkis, though??? Oh, yes, there are several short videos of the people from whom land was stolen, and who are oppressed – – –
“After opening for only one day, a Six Flags amusement park near Atlanta, Georgia was overrun by a mob of up to 600 rioters who proceeded to fight each other and destroy property. The incident led to a shootout involving the Cobb County Police Department and resulted in the hospitalization of an alleged assailant.
“As officers followed the crowd out, ensuring they left the property, an unknown number of suspects fired at officers. An officer returned fire, striking one of the suspects,” Cobb County Police Department said.
The establishment media has decided to focus primarily on the shooting of the unnamed 15-year-old involved in the police altercation, and many outlets have ignored the events leading up to the incident.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/chaos-georgia-six-flags-violent-mob-invades-ends-shootout-police
JT says “became the Jan. 6th riot”
Nice play on words there JT. Weren’t several people convicted of Seditious Conspiracy? How the heck is this just an “out of hand riot” when there is Seditious Conspiracy involved?
Anonymous, go check out LIBERAL FASCISTS bombing police stations and federal courthouses with the VP offering up bail money. Go see two IVY LEAGUE ATTORNEY’S throwing a Molotov cocktail INTO A POLICE CAR. Go see the May 2020 riot that forced the president into the bunker. Were any of those “seditious”?
The intent of the “riot” was to keep the person in power that lost the election. That is treason.
Wrong.
The intent of the protest was to challenge what they felt was a rigged election. They have that right.
Unfortunately it then became a low level riot. Based off the recently released video of that day, it was much more peaceful than the Jan6th Committee would have everyone believe.
Then there were the number of paid informants the FBI had on the scene. There were so many, the FBI lost track and had to conduct an audit.
The intent of the “riot” was to keep the person in power that lost the election. That is treason.
The intent of Jan 6 protest was to urge congress to exercise their Constitutional power.
I don’t recall Hillary and Comey and 50 Intelligence fuks being convicted of any of their seditious crimes.
Having a side gig as a journalist does not give you immunity to commit crimes, especially the “lets put the election loser in power” type of crime.
Sammy, what crimes did he commit? Remember, he had a camera crew that filmed him continuously. Why did they arrest him and not the 60 other journalists?
“especially the “lets put the election loser in power” type of crime. ”
What crime is that? I noted your definition of a coup earlier. I quoted something better that contained an explanation. Why didn’t you respond after reviewing it?
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/03/recalibrating-colonel-brocks-sentence-d-c-circuit-ruling-for-j6-rioter-could-impact-hundreds-of-cases/comment-page-1/#comment-2376616
Are you here only to repeat hyperbolic talking points from the left, or do you have an opinion of your own?
Imagine the shame fbi agents must feel on a daily basis knowing what they do on a daily basis. Imagine realizing that what you have worked for your entire career is a lie and that you are simply another chapter in history’s dark side.
obamma and his chicago organized crime affiliates are the absolute worst thing to happen to this nation since slavery.
The agents that actually arrested him should be put in prison for the rest of their lives.
Can anyone name one Democrat that was arrested ON VIDEO and in hand cuffs? You know, the Roger Stone treatment.
Informative interview with Steve Baker:
https://youtu.be/nJ8ybuN9wV8?si=YY08ehKV0qmFyAn6
no he is just an EXAMPLE of Democrat Fascism and the GESTAPO
meanwhile NJ Senator has numerous crimes documented over his entire Senate career, his wife recently murdered a man while driving drunk(sprinted from the scene no DUI test by the CHEIF of POLICE) neither are in jail.
Democrats is a STAY OUT OF JAIL CARD!
Anyone go to jail for the Russian Hoax Conspiracy a DOCUMENTED conspiracy from Hillary Clinton across the ENTIRE DEMOCRAT establishment of government….who worked a RUSSIAN and a Foreign Spy to overthrow the elected president!
The USA is in FREE FALL! We need to jail Democrats from across government for their many crimes….BY THE THOUSANDS!
Gestapo? Really? You need to stop watch NewsMax.
Aww, Wally, the truth hurts, doesn’t it?
Wally, are you supporting the arresting of reporters?
Asking for a friend, (DJT)
Does your friend have make believe friends?
https://petapixel.com/2024/03/04/ai-images-of-trump-with-black-people-are-being-circulated-by-his-supporters/
THIS wasn’t AI. There are a lot of pictures of Trump with black people but keep believing the propaganda they are shoving down your throat. YOU are a good little serf. You serve your masters well. https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=c13JrV%2bi&id=F3B470BABC41BAB57B7109EFF6036D1C62D15264&thid=OIP.c13JrV-iTQyEJlWI8c3SrgHaEK&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fichef.bbci.co.uk%2fnews%2f640%2fcpsprodpb%2fA3BC%2fproduction%2f_114761914_gettyimages-1203781831.jpg&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.735dc9ad5fa24d0c84265588f1cdd2ae%3frik%3dZFLRYhxtA%252fbvCQ%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=360&expw=640&q=trump+being+honored+by+sharpton+and+jackson+and+other+black+leaders+before+he+was+president&simid=608046075641081625&FORM=IRPRST&ck=F86A3B024CAD19C86CA02889607E2AC4&selectedIndex=20&itb=0&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0
I know Al Sharpton Presented DJT with an award recognizing is work to advance Black interests.
And the Criminal Feds made journalist Stephen Baker do a perp walk like he had just robbed a bank and was captured. The Criminal Feds love these visuals because they want the message to be clearly understood–and feared. If you express any views contrary to the State-approved views–or even thoughts–the all-powerful hand of the Fascist Police State will come crashing down on, destroying you life.
When President Trump becomes President again, as he should, I hope that he understands that he will have to immediately fire hugh swaths of Criminal, Degenerate Deep State operatives in the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA, and Homeland Security, just for starters. These Criminal Cockroaches must be rooted out immediately and Terminated. Ideally, Trump should already be making such a list now of the Cockroaches for Termination. That way, he and his team will be ready to go from day one.
Do you really think the Powers That Be will ever allow Trump to be President again – even if he wins in a landslide? If you believe that, you are naive.