Share This Episode
The Charlie Kirk Show Charlie Kirk Logo

The Unfree Nation Of Canada

The Charlie Kirk Show / Charlie Kirk
The Truth Network Radio
March 4, 2024 6:06 pm

The Unfree Nation Of Canada

The Charlie Kirk Show / Charlie Kirk

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 739 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.

March 4, 2024 6:06 pm

Canada has long been more liberal than America, but ever since Covid hit Justin Trudeau has dragged the country full-speed into tyranny. Canadian Viva Frey describes the Canadian government's plan to expand "hate speech" laws so broadly that virtually all kinds of political dissent could get people convicted of "genocide" and sent to prison for life. And speaking of tyranny, Steve Baker joins to discuss the Biden Administration's sick effort to toss him behind bars for reporting on January 6.

Support the show:

See for privacy information.


Hey everybody, it's The Charlie Kirk Show. Aviva Frey talks about the downfall of O Canada. It's very sad.

And then Steve Baker joins the program, recently arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for doing journalism. Email us as always, Become a member, That is Get involved with Turning Point USA at Start a high school or college chapter today at Email us as always,

Buckle up everybody. Here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks. I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy. His spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here.

If you want to see where America is headed, just turn your eyes to the north. Joining us now is Viva Frye. He's terrific. He has a huge page on Rumble. You should check it out.

Viva, thank you for joining the program. There are a fair amount of whispers out there about what is happening in Canada and this proposed legislation. Tell us the facts. What is going on in the, I don't want to say once free country, but now unfree country of Canada? I think we can start calling it what it is and it's been a long time in the making and then it happens all at once like bankruptcy.

We're dealing with political bankruptcy in Canada. Under COVID, Justin Trudeau has been cramming through a bunch of laws that seek nothing more than to regulate thought itself in Canada. The latest is what is now called Bill C-63, which it's being passed off as an online harms act or online harms act to protect the children.

Someone's got to think of the children. And it wants to make it easier to, I guess, remove CP from Twitter, order platforms to take down objectionable content. And in so doing also, it proposes to revamp or amend the criminal code to add a definition for the term hatred so that they can add hate speech as aggravating factors and standalone crimes basically in Canada. And so they want to amend the criminal code to add a definition for hatred, which I got to read it because it'll make you laugh with the silliness of it.

Hold on here. Hatred, subsection 319 of this act, which is the criminal code, defined by adding hatred means the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike. And so they want to add an idiotic, unenforceable, ambiguous definition for the term hatred while authorizing people to go to the human rights tribunals for hate speech, all these things.

It's Orwellian beyond our wildest dreams and it really is intended to basically just, you know, shut people up and be weaponized against political dissidents. And what is the potential penalty? Life in prison, is that right? That is for promoting or advocating genocide, a potential imprisonment of life in prison. It's scary because it's gotten past the first stage where, you know, they have this coalition government with the NDP, the New Democrat Party, and, you know, it's gotten past a first reading. And they've tabled this. I mean, yeah, to promote or advocate genocide, punishable by life in prison.

And I'm reading this and I'm like, okay, well, I've got three questions. What is promoting? What is advocating? And what is genocide? Because if we go by the UN definition of genocide, which is much broader than I think people appreciate, you know, suppressing linguistic freedoms or displacing peoples is a form of genocide.

And so born and raised in Quebec, there's been a lot of people who say, you know, Quebec should be a French-speaking only province. Is that going to be hate speech or promoting genocide? Who the hell knows? But to have a penalty of life in prison for words, call me radical, I don't think it should be even criminalized to say, deny genocide. People want to deny genocide.

I want to know who they are, first of all. But promoting and advocating genocide, what the hell does that even mean? There are people out there who sincerely assert that misgendering someone is a form of genocide.

And so it's basically, you know, back in the day, Bill C-16, which was adding gender expression and gender identity to aggravating factors into the criminal code. Jordan Peterson came out and said this is going to result in compelled speech and he's proven to be more right than wrong. This is literally just providing the weapons for people to run around snitching on their neighbors, trying to take them to human rights tribunals, trying to get $20,000 penalties and try to shut them up or lock them up for life. So the resistance in Canada, I can't imagine that it's spirited at this point because everyone's afraid that they're going to end up in prison. Is this kind of chilling of the centralized chilling from the government, is it effective?

Does it work? It's an interesting thing. I mean, it's a discussion I have often as to why Canada would even be amenable to this in the first place. You know, we're a polite, subservient people.

We're not like the Wild West fighting for our freedom like America is. Our history is sort of more being subjects of the crown. And so, you know, you're taught deference to authority, you're taught be polite.

It's an attribute. And then you politely, silently sit back while your country is taken over by a tyrant who cloaks his tyranny in liberalism, progressivism, benevolence. And so it's been one law after another and especially since COVID. Firearm restrictions, enhancing those, increasing those by order and council. There's no legislation.

They just pass it by order and council because they have the authority under the enacting legislation. Then you get the Online Streaming Act, which looks to control the internet the same way the government monopolizes and controls radio and television. And then in the passing of that law, the Liberal government says, well, we're not going to come after individual content creator accounts.

That's not the purpose of the law. And then lo and behold, they remove that exclusion from the law and they will go after and regulate and fine and create impose Canadian content requirements on independent individual social media user accounts. And now they're coming in with this. What it is basically, this is my underlying theory here, is that it's basically just an attempt to prop back up a flailing government subsidized propagandist media entity organization captured media that we have in Canada. CBC is the Canadian, I call it, subsidized by the government. The other print media has been subsidized by bailouts. The digital media is subsidized by COVID ads, government spending, and they're under the control of the government.

The only place they're losing because, you know, quality tends to succeed is on the internet. And so you come in with the Online Streaming Act to try to govern independent creators. You come in with this hate speech law that is going to basically criminalize tweets and not not hypothetically, not hyperbolically.

In reality, the Bill C-63 is so wild that if you have access to deleting a tweet and don't, and someone else republishes it, that a retroactive tweet that predates the enacting of this legislation, if it ever comes to be, would be verboten, would be a crime or be sanctionable under this law. And so it's basically an attempt to suppress control and weaponize all aspects of the government against dissidents while propping up the flailing captured media that is beholden to the liberal government. I'm sure that in some ways you wish you had some form of a First Amendment that we have in the United States. What speech protections do you have in Canada, if any?

I mean, look, I've discovered something under COVID. We have a Charter of Rights. In theory, it was based on a Bill of Rights. We've got a Charter of Rights that says we've got freedom of expression, freedom of mobility, freedom of association, freedom of religion.

We discovered under COVID, those are not worth the digital paper on which they're written. It's a very, very sad thing. I don't, we don't have, people are going to say, look, you don't get locked up for, I have the freedom of speech to complain against the government, so you have freedom of speech.

No. I mean, you don't have freedom of speech when you have bills that are seeking to criminalize or compel a certain type of speech. You know, hate speech. We have hate speech laws in Canada.

And some people say it's a great thing. And I'm saying hate speech, as unpopular as this might sound, is the speech that needs protection. You don't need to protect, you know, poetry.

You don't need to protect complimenting the smell of flowers. You need to protect people's right to express their hatred. You don't control it by suppressing it. And you sure as heck don't contradict it by suppressing them.

All that you do is legitimize in the minds of those who cannot speak freely anymore the thoughts that led to their suppression. So, do we have freedom of speech? I mean, we have more than North Korea, I guess, for now. Do we have as much as the U.S.?

Hell no. Do we respect the fundamental rights that are God-given rights under our charter? I've come to realize that as Canadians, we don't. We would prefer to have security. We would prefer to be told what to do than make our own decisions and suffer the consequences of our own risky freedom. Canada is a perfect example of when you prioritize security and comfort over liberty.

And this is what you get. You get massive restrictions on speech, restrictions on mobility, restrictions on the ability to flourish. But there is the promise that we're going to keep you safe. Universal healthcare, universal basic income.

We will keep you comfortable, but you will not be free. And that is exactly where they want to take the entire West, and it's easier to control a society if government is making them comfortable. Folks, so many people I know are disheartened that our country seems to have forgotten the importance of citizenship, and they wonder how a strong sense of citizenship might be revived. That's why my friends at Hillsdale College have produced a free online course on this topic, American Citizenship and Its Decline, taught by historian Victor Davis Hanson. The course traces the history of citizenship and explains how it is undermined in America, today by open borders, by identity politics, by the administrative state, and by globalization.

Americans taking the course will gain a deeper insight about the connection between citizenship and freedom, an insight they can share with their family members, friends, and neighbors. Hillsdale's free online courses are an important component of Hillsdale's mission to reach and teach increasing millions of people on behalf of liberty and the American way of life. So sign up today for Hillsdale's free online course, American Citizenship and Its Decline, by visiting That is

Start your free course today at So, Viva, you mentioned this earlier, but I want to play this out. Is it because Canadians are so nice that the bad guys have been able to take over? Is it the temperament of agreeability that allows this parasitic movement to envelop a once great country? I don't, I could chalk a lot of it up to history and the history of what Canada was when it was founded. You could also blame a little bit on culture, where, you know, culturally, people think Canadians are polite. And it might, I say, might influence who comes to Canada versus Americans are brash and, you know, gun-toting, whatever. And it might affect who comes to America and why, but without getting into something that I can't possibly explain away fully. The bottom line, you said it before the break, you know, you sacrifice liberty for security. The irony is you end up getting neither. And in Canada, I just tweeted it out.

Actually, I had to double check during the break. Gun-related violence has been going up year over year under Trudeau's regime, despite increasingly strict gun laws. It's a very weird thing. Under Trudeau's regime, when we sacrificed all of our rights to the government, what happens then? We don't have the security to donate to charities of our choice without the risk of the government freezing our accounts. You don't have the right to leave your house if the government says health measures warrant you being locked in your house or locking up your child because they're not vaccinated.

And they're told to quarantine. So the irony is you end up sacrificing liberty for security. You end up with neither because you've got bad faith actors like Justin Trudeau, like I'd say most politicians in general, who thrive on the power. And they want more and more control.

They'll justify it under their own psychology for the betterment for the greater good. At the end of the day, though, you see what's happening in Canada. Increasingly restricted freedom of speech, criminalized speech. No Second Amendment rights whatsoever. And yet it might be safer than America in some sense.

But the gun violence is going up and up and up year over year despite stricter laws. So you end up getting neither. And then you have to rationalize having sacrificed more freedoms than you can stand to yourself.

It's sort of like the gambler's loss paradox. I have to be honest with you. Have you ever thought about leaving?

I mean, is there is there a moment where Canada becomes so dangerous, where you as an outspoken freedom lover, liberty lover can no longer live there? Oh, Charlie, I'm in Florida now. Oh, OK. I am. I'm not. I can't. No, I mean, I came down. I, I, I came to the right spot.

It would be about a year and a half. I know there's no question. And it's the joke is that, you know, at one point in time, I started joking around with my family like it was during COVID. We're going to have to leave. I'm not living in a place that's going to tell me what I have to put in my kids in order for them to have a normal childhood. This is also an era where, like, my wife goes to a kid's play and they're wearing face masks. And my kid, who's 12 at the time, is being berated for not showing her vaccine passport, even though she didn't have to show one. I was like, this is not a this is not a country where we can live and raise children normally. And so whether or not it turns out to be permanent temporarily, it's not a place where I would feel comfortable doing what I'm doing now. It's not a place where I'd be able to continue doing what I'm doing now because they're going to go regulate content online and say and, you know, impact its exposure under this, the Online Streaming Act. If you don't satisfy Canadian content requirements and they deem you to be a publisher or a distributor, whatever they call it under the law, you know, they'll either fine you, they'll suppress you algorithmically.

And if you say mean tweets that they deem to be promoting hatred, if this law passes, they'll literally fine you into bankruptcy. Once upon a time, I don't know if you know this guy, there was a stand up comic named Mike Ward. A French Canadian guy made a joke about a celebrity team who was also mentally ill.

It suffered from Treacher Collins syndrome, a handicap. And the kid got famous by singing for the pope. And this stand up comic made a late night bit making fun of, you know, joking about the kid. And the kid took him to a human rights tribunal that granted the kid and his mother, I think it was like 40, $50,000 for jokes that violated his dignity and that of the mother. The guy took it up to the Supreme Court of Canada and it barely, barely succeeded in getting overturned five to four.

A joke a stand up comic made about a young celebrity kid who happened to be handicapped. What this law is trying to do now is basically succeed or legislate where the Supreme Court ruled. No, you can still make jokes and no, you don't get to criminalize words.

You don't get to use human rights tribunals like proverbial political jackpots to go sue, get money, snitch out to the government so they can suppress their political adversaries. So, bottom line, like the likes of Rebel News, post millennial, whatever's left in Canada, it's going to be a problem. And then what ends up happening is you get the financial exodus, you get the intellectual exodus, and then Canada ends up being a country where you can't link to news sources anymore.

Because they say we're not doing business, but that's what they want. You're not going to get Trudeau and absolutely Trudeau and his gang have always wanted the one party state. They've wanted to complete totalitarianism. You've been ahead of the curve. Jordan Peterson's been ahead of the curve. Ezra has been ahead of the curve, but that window is closing.

And my advice to all the patriots of Canada. Hey, here's a question in closing. Will the American government approve their asylum claim? Probably not. You make the joke. And I actually was thinking about the other day. It's like I every time I go back, I get concerned.

Are they going to stop me at the border? No, that's right. All right. Thank you, Viva. Terrific. Thank you, Charlie.

Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here. What an unbelievable start to 2024. We had last month saving babies with preborn by providing ultrasounds. And we're doing again this year what we did last year. We're going to stand for life because remaining silent in the face of the most radically pro-death administration is not an option.

As Sir Edmund Burke said, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. And we're not going to do nothing. Your gift to preborn will give a girl the truth about what's happening in her body so that she can make the right choice. Two hundred eighty dollars can save 10 babies. Twenty eight dollars a month can save a baby a month all year long. And a fifteen thousand dollar gift will provide a complete ultrasound machine that will save thousands of babies for years and years to come.

And will also save moms from a lifetime of pain and regret. Call 833-850-2229. That's 833-850-2229 or click on the preborn banner at That is and click on the preborn banner.

Also save moms from a lifetime of pain and regret. I'm a donor of this organization. They're terrific. Go to

Click on the preborn banner. Last week we had Glenn Beck on the program talking about the unacceptable and evil story of how the federal government mobilized against a journalist who was there on January 6th, Steve Baker. Steve Baker is now officially a January 6th defendant investigative reporter for Steve, welcome to the program. Steve, I wish it was under better circumstances, but I will say that the grassroots of this country are behind you. God will turn this into a blessing, and it's a terrible thing that is occurring. Steve, walk us through it.

Hey, Charlie. Well, obviously I got to do something on Friday that I hope nobody else has to do, at least certainly not for the reasons that I had to do it. But, you know, I am officially now what they call a J-6er. It was my misdemeanor, glorified trespassing activities while I was wielding a camera and writing stories about everything that I work on on January 6th three years ago that finally led to this place, to where the government decided that in order to make a show out of my case in particular, either to send a message to me or send a message to everyone else, kind of on our side of the political spectrum, is that if we don't comport with the narrative and we don't behave exactly in the manner in which they want us to do, whether nonviolent or not, as is the case with me, that they will put you in leg shackles and belly chains and march you into a courtroom in front of a magistrate. So, Steve, what exactly are you accused of? What is the federal government, what were in your charging documents?

We have the B-roll here. They're treating you like you're some sort of 9-11 terrorist. Steve, what did the government accuse you of? It's the four basic misdemeanors that everyone is getting charged with. As I said, there's the glorified trespassing charge of entering a restricted space. Then there are two charges that seem to be on the face redundant.

It talks about abusive or loud language while in the Capitol, which did not happen, by the way. Both of those charges are completely false and we'll be able to prove that. We have the video to prove that.

And then, of course, the fourth charge is that infamous picketing and parading charge, which, again, we'll be able to prove that by virtue of the video. So the first charge, technically, was I in a restricted space? Yes, I was. Was I there doing the work of a journalist? Yes, I was. Were there 60 other journalists in there doing the work of a journalist?

Yes, they were. They crossed the same barrier that I did. They went through busted open doors or broken windows in order to go in and recover and cover the event. But so far, only about six or eight of us have actually been charged with any type of crime. All misdemeanors that were doing journalism that day and all of us that have been charged.

We have come from a more right leaning perspective in either what our perception of the day was or whatever organization we submitted our work to. So, Steve, it's just I'm going to say this facetiously, like, did you burn a Wendy's or like put a pipe bomb down or something? I mean, it's just they're treating you like as if you're Timothy McVeigh.

Can you walk us through the last couple of years? Because this was a little bit of a like a cat and mouse routine. They were chasing you. Part of the part of the punishment was the process. And Steve, I wouldn't fault you if you told me that you had sleepless nights or if you heard a creak in the attic, you were wondering if the FBI was knocking on your door. The delayed the delayed indictment was torture, I'm sure.

And I believe that's intentional torture by this regime. Steve, Charlie, I had to look for two and a half years. I didn't need to set an alarm because I would wake up every morning at six o'clock looking for the red dots through my bedroom window. And what I mean by that, obviously, is the targeting scopes of a M4 rifle from a FBI SWAT team. And don't think for a minute that I'm exaggerating because other defendants, including other journalists who were charged with the exact same four misdemeanors as I am, they have been swatted by as many as 20 or 25 agents at a time for these same four nonviolent misdemeanor charges. And so I had every reason to anticipate the potential that that would happen to me. But yes, that cat and mouse game began last, not last July, but July of 21 when I got my first call from the FBI. And I wasn't hiding from them. I mean, as soon as they caught the first time the agent called me, I said, hey, what took you so long? And then the next game that was played was they had to go and get specific permission from the United States Attorney General's Office to interview me because as a member of the press, as a working journalist, even independent, they have to get permission. They had to acknowledge that, that they had to get permission from the U.S. Attorney General's Office to interview me or any other member of the press.

And so that finally happened. So we did an interview in October and November of 21. My attorney then got an email from the Department of Justice saying that they were going to charge me within the week. So now the cat and mouse game really began in earnest because then we launched a media offensive on myself and my attorneys. And then when we came out on the other end of that within the week period, the Department of Justice went silent for 20 months. We didn't hear a peep out of them, not a word. So after telling me that I was going to be charged within the week for what?

We don't know. But whatever it was going to be, the point being is they went silent until August of last year. And then I get a grand jury subpoena for my work, for the work I did on January 6th.

And we complied to that as well. But you probably know, Charlie, that grand juries are not seated for misdemeanor offenses. So a grand jury would only be looking at me because the government had brought to them the idea or an allegation that there was a felony possibility that they needed to investigate. Well, apparently we can only conjecture because grand juries are their hearings are private. So we don't know what was said or what their ruling was.

We can only conjecture that whatever that felony or felonies were that the DOJ wanted to bring, the grand jury rejected that. So they finally came around with this misdemeanor batch. But we heard from them in mid-December. I was actually sitting in Representative Thomas Massey's office on December 14th when I got another call from my attorney. And he said, OK, this is the big one. They're doing it again. They're doing it this time for sure. And they told me that I had to self surrender the next week, which would have been the week before Christmas of last year. And then they went silent again for two months until we heard from them last week and they said, OK, now it's time. And so we agreed to self surrender to be here in Dallas because obviously I'm working for Blaze, even though I don't live here.

I spend most of my time between D.C. and Dallas, even though I live in North Carolina. So we complied with that. We've been compliant all along. The government could have very easily just issued me an order to appear. I could have shown up in my jacket, my coat tie. I could have gone in with my attorneys and done a quick order, gone through the arraignment, you know, as a nonviolent misdemeanor charge. But they chose to go the different route and actually issue an arrest warrant, which meant that the FBI had to process me. They had to put me in cuffs. They had to take me down to the federal courthouse, hand me over to the U.S. Marshals, who then proceeded to put me in leg chains and belly chains and then put me in a cell with methamphetamine dealers. How long were you in that cell?

A total of about five hours. And this was while you were waiting for bail to be posted or you were waiting for the paperwork to be processed? We didn't have to do bail, but it was a paperwork process. I had, you know, I got out for a while to actually go sit in the hearing because they marched me in those leg chains before the magistrate. Where, coincidentally, by the way, another felony defendant was sitting in there on a simple order to appear in the gallery, was called up right after me to answer her charges. She pleaded not guilty and she was in her nice dress and with her attorney on a felony charge.

And she was not required to be in leg chains. So, Steve, how much in legal fees has this currently cost you, this entire debacle? Charlie, I've been really blessed. I've had some fees, but as it is right now, my team of attorneys, which currently holds, has six guys on the team, are all volunteers. It's all pro bono. And I don't know if you heard, but Friday morning on Glenn's show, Alan Dershowitz threw his hat into the ring and said, if we want him on the team, he'll come on pro bono as well.

That's remarkable. And so, Steve, then what I'm sure you're tempted to plea, what is the maximum prison time that you're facing with all of this or the maximum penalty, I should say? Yeah, I could get six to 12 months out of this. There have been people convicted of these exact four. In fact, a journalist out of Pensacola, he was convicted for the same four misdemeanors because he refused the plea deal. Well, when you refuse the plea deal, they typically punish you, and he refused. He went and did a bench trial in D.C., and then he was sentenced to eight months in a medium security facility where they don't house misdemeanor defendants at all, zero, unless you're a J-6 defendant. He spent his first two months in solitary confinement for the crime of wasting the government's time and making them work and actually have to try him rather than him taking the plea deal officer. On the other hand, just a couple of months ago, another independent journalist by the name of Stephen Horn, also from Raleigh, North Carolina, coincidentally, he went and took a jury trial on the same four charges, was convicted on all four, but that judge, Judge Kelly, the same guy who sentenced the Proud Boys to so many years, Judge Kelly actually had mercy on him and only gave him probation and a $2,000 fine, but gave him no prison time. We're behind you 100%. God's going to use this for good, and this just infuriates me. More than 50% of all murders in America go unsolved, 50%.

And federal law enforcement spends hundreds of man hours chasing you around the country like you're some sort of hardened criminal to book you like you're El Chapo in leg irons in a prison cell. It's outrageous. For years, I've been talking about how our nation's public schools have been captured by progressive ideologues, especially true of your Christian family. For those of you worried about the best educational path for your kids and grandkids, I want to tell you about how Turning Point Academy is working with the Herzog Foundation, how you at home can also benefit from it. They have an online publication called The Lion, and also Making the Leap, the Herzog Foundation offers a wide range of advice and information for Christian parents to make the best education decisions for your kids.

Go to, that is, so check it out right now, Portions of The Charlie Kirk Show are brought to you in part by the Stanley M. Herzog Foundation, that is So Steve, has this lessened or weakened your resolve to fight for truth as a journalist with the blaze? What has this done for you personally?

It's not really affected my resolve at all. My resolve has been from the beginning of this to get to the bottom of the truth and to reveal it to the American people. We've been pretty successful at some of that effort so far. We were able to show perjury in the Oath Keepers trial by two United States Capitol Police officers. We've been able to do more work and more revelation on the DNC pipe bomb than anybody else. We were able to actually show the detonation or the destruction of that bomb by virtue of a camera that the Capitol Police had forgotten about because we now know that they turned three.

I originally reported that there was only two, but Joe Hanneman from the Epoch Times, he has found a third camera that was turned away from the investigation scene. So obviously, we're getting to the heart of the cover-up there. What are they trying to cover up in that particular circumstance? I'm the first one to show or tell the American people that it wasn't a quote-unquote passerby, as the FBI has said for three solid years, that it was in fact the United States' plainclothes Capitol Police officer who discovered the pipe bomb. And we know more. We know more about that situation than we can yet tell.

We know more about the Agent Lazarus and Officer Harry Dunn stories than we can yet tell. We are still waiting to receive evidence that we know that exists from Congress. And we're talking about friendly Congress members, but the Capitol Police are powerful. They're resisting. They're doing everything they can to keep from handing this evidence over. I don't know if you know this, Charlie, but the Capitol Police are not subjected to Freedom of Information requests. So we can't FOIA for these documents that we know exist and that we need to continue revealing that story. And part of the problem is that it's not just the Capitol Police, but once we have those documents in our hands, we're only one more very thin layer around from going to the heart of where this setup happened on January 6th and who put it together. I love the resolve. And Steve, as this continues, what does the timeline then look for you with these trials? Sometimes they could be stretched on forever. What does your trial potentially look like?

Look, we have no idea yet because we still have no idea what our strategy is going to be. We have a hearing on March the 14th, which basically is a repeat of what I did last week without the leg chains, because it will be a Zoom hearing with a magistrate in D.C. This hearing I did here in Dallas was what they call an out-of-district hearing or arraignment or whatever the rule is. There's too many things that the lawyers tell me that I can't keep up with.

But this is basically a repeat of that. We'll see if there's any modifications to my non-detention rules and restrictions that I'm operating under right now. And then the real work begins, because we'll find out who our judge is. The judge, who that judge is, will be a big and major factor into what our strategy will be going forward. But I don't mind saying, because I've been very open about this, we're going to go to the heart of this long before we ever get to trial. We're going to try this case in the court of public opinion long before it ever hits the courtroom, and then we're going to start burying them in motions regarding change of venue. We're going to bury them in motions regarding selective prosecution and many, many more.

And I don't mind saying those first two, because they know those two are coming, but there will be more than that as well. Steve, we applaud you for your resolve. We're behind you 100 percent. Keep fighting. Thank you for the time. Thank you, Charlie.

Really appreciate it. This is not a free country. He's a normal American looking for the truth.

As I said before, he looks like a high school algebra teacher. He's not a threat to the country. He walks into the Capitol and does journalism. By the way, New York Times does the exact same thing. They don't get arrested. This is not a free country. I don't care if you're a right-winger, a left-winger. If you're a communist, I don't care what you are. This is a diseased nation, one that will hunt down Steve Baker for multiple years, put him in leg irons. By the way, there was a New York Times journalist in the Capitol, and they're free right now. This is entirely about privilege. There is no equal application of the law. It's just the fact that Steve Baker works for the blaze. We need a constitutional reset big time. This is a sick state of affairs.
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-03-04 20:11:34 / 2024-03-04 20:26:03 / 14

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime