MN - Journalist Don Lemon arrested for church protest, Minneapolis, 18 Jan 2026

[Smelly Squirrel]

Because of the addition of the 30 more defendants, the court has now ordered the case to be designated complex. The disclosure deadline for the state remains March 26, 2026. The parties will submit a joint status report and the judge will then set the other deadlines.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72212459/390/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/

 

[Betty P]

Because of the addition of the 30 more defendants, the court has now ordered the case to be designated complex. The disclosure deadline for the state remains March 26, 2026. The parties will submit a joint status report and the judge will then set the other deadlines.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72212459/390/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/

I was wondering why they suddenly went out and arrested 30 people, most of whom weren’t really involved in the protest. Most, if not all of them will be acquitted, for constitutional reasons.

Dragging 30 more people into the charges might have been an attempt to slow things down and keep Lemons’s name in the news media. The prosecution’s case against the protestors and reporters isn’t strong. So, the prosecution just going to make it a “show” trial in hopes of discrediting and publicly harassing the defendants. JMO. Lemon must have said something to make Trump angry in the past because he’s really trying to get revenge against him. The trial also keeps his base riled up and distracted.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I was wondering why they suddenly went out and arrested 30 people, most of whom weren’t really involved in the protest. Most, if not all of them will be acquitted, for constitutional reasons.

Dragging 30 more people into the charges might have been an attempt to slow things down and keep Lemons’s name in the news media. The prosecution’s case against the protestors and reporters isn’t strong. So, the prosecution just going to make it a “show” trial in hopes of discrediting and publicly harassing the defendants. JMO. Lemon must have said something to make Trump angry in the past because he’s really trying to get revenge against him. The trial also keeps his base riled up and distracted.

If this is true, there should be consequences for prosecutors who waste the time of the courts and taxpayers' money to grandstand.

MOO.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

If this is true, there should be consequences for prosecutors who waste the time of the courts and taxpayers' money to grandstand.

MOO.

There should be consequences for people that barge into a church to disrupt, harass and intimidate. It’s good they were arrested. imo

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

It's more than a load of hooey. It covers for ICE by pretending the church was the target.

They have to know that they were not "insulted for the name of Christ." It's just gaslighting to claim that the protesters were there because the church was a Christian church. Some of the protesters were deeply religious Christians. They were protesting ICE in the name of Christ. (Others were protesting ICE for secular reasons.)

When Jesus tossed tables in the temple, according to a few gospels, it was not to prevent faith things from happening, it was to protest abuse taxes and tolls.

When the protesters protested in that church, it was not to prevent faith things from happening, it was to protest a recent, inexcusable murder by ice.

how selfish, to focus on your disrupted service while Renee's blood was probably still on the street.

And, always, journalists are journalists. We need them to preserve what is left of our democracy. I can't wait for this to get to trial because then it has to be about facts, not pearl-clutching complaints that a day at church went sideways.

MOO

Yes, it's like he thinks we can't see the videos. The videos disprove his and the indictment's allegations.

I just read through the new indictment and it's basically the same as the first one, it mostly just added the new names wherever they list all the defendants. Though it did include new paragraphs with evidence from the phones they had since seized, but all the phone texts prove is what was already known and not denied by anybody, that the defendants planned to go to the church to do a protest. It's a far step to meet the elements of the face act of interference and physical obstruction, let alone proving anyone had the specific intent to deny anybody of their rights.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Constitutional scholar's thoughts on First Amendment and so-called advocacy journalism and journalists

A bunch of clownish comments from Turley, what I would expect from him. He acts as if putting the word "advocacy" in front of "journalism" somehow removes any first amendment protections. Cite same case law, counselor. He really does seem to hate advocacy journalists, which is very funny since he is sitting there talking to one, an oblivious one.

Yet even he believes the case against Lemon is weak. He thinks there is a good case against the protestors though, but it's clear he has very little knowledge about the case. As does Megyn Kelly, who is likewise embarrassing herself as a lawyer, pretending anything she describes about what Lemon has done violates the Face Act. At one point they both seem to realize that maybe there should be trespassing charges instead, but that's a state charge, and they can't let go of standing with this trumped up federal prosecution instead.

moo

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

There should be consequences for people that barge into a church to disrupt, harass and intimidate. It’s good they were arrested. imo

It's not good when the charges don't fit the actions. moo

 

[Betty P]

There should be consequences for people that barge into a church to disrupt, harass and intimidate. It’s good they were arrested. imo

People can sue in civil court if they feel they’ve been harmed. There’s no need to attempt to make it a criminal case. Of course, that would have prevented them making it a federal case, something they wanted for a show trial.

 

[Ontario Mom]

I was wondering why they suddenly went out and arrested 30 people, most of whom weren’t really involved in the protest.

I'm curious how you know that most of those 30 "weren't really involved" as you state?
Where is that information coming from?

 

[Ruminations]

I was wondering why they suddenly went out and arrested 30 people, most of whom weren’t really involved in the protest. Most, if not all of them will be acquitted, for constitutional reasons.

Dragging 30 more people into the charges might have been an attempt to slow things down and keep Lemons’s name in the news media. The prosecution’s case against the protestors and reporters isn’t strong. So, the prosecution just going to make it a “show” trial in hopes of discrediting and publicly harassing the defendants. JMO. Lemon must have said something to make Trump angry in the past because he’s really trying to get revenge against him. The trial also keeps his base riled up and distracted.

It sounds exactly what happened. The prosecutors wanted to designate this case as complex so it can be stretched out and tried in the press.




It tells me that the prosecutors had nothing more for the grand jury than they gave the judges that rejected the arrest of Lemon and journalists.



The prosecutor was able to meet the judges demand to scrambled to meet the criteria for a complex case.

Why didn't the prosecutor go get more information to show the judge evidence to justify arresting Don Lemon? They were willing to scramble. But they did not, because the facts were not on their side. Release the grand jury transcripts.

MOO

 

[tlcya]

It's more than a load of hooey. It covers for ICE by pretending the church was the target.

[Snipped]

SB&BBM for focus. Whether you support ICE (I don't) or strongly disagree with their tactics (I do), the church was the target.

There is no way around that. They went into a church and disrupted service. That happened. It is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. MOO

 

[Ontario Mom]

SB&BBM for focus. Whether you support ICE (I don't) or strongly disagree with their tactics (I do), the church was the target.

There is no way around that. They went into a church and disrupted service. That happened. It is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. MOO

The protestors themselves don't even deny that's exactly what they did.

 

[Ruminations]

People can sue in civil court if they feel they’ve been harmed. There’s no need to attempt to make it a criminal case. Of course, that would have prevented them making it a federal case, something they wanted for a show trial.

There might be an argument for trespassing. The doors were open for new people, so it is tricky to get charges to stick, until after protesters were told they are no longer welcome. But, I think at the very least, some protesters could have gotten hit with some violation.

IMO, civil court is almost harder, because, real talk? People weren't harmed. Their feelings were hurt. There isn't a lot of civil money there. And, also real talk? Lawyers would quickly turn their greedy eyes to the church itself for allowing any injury that is worth $$$ to occur.

Let's consider the hypothetical that the broken arm person exists, and they had private insurance but spent their own money on copays, over the counter meds and wraps, took an unpaid day off work to recuperate, and is also looking at 10 sessions of PT in the future for which they make a copay. How much money is that really worth? For the most part, the medical insurance company will take back its expenses, the patient won't get that money back.

So, I am thinking, there isn't much civil action here. Although someone tried it, and we will see how it goes.

The protesters may think it is worth it, indeed they may think they should have done more, being that they were protesting ICE killing Renee Good, and promptly after the protest, ICE killed Alex Pretti, but they may be vulnerable to legal action. A little trespassing violation is insignificant if it gets ICE to stop. But IMO, the protesters are a little vulnerable to criminal legal action.

I am looking forward to the administers of ICE, such as a pastor of the church, and ICE agents on the ground being held responsible for extrajudicial killings in criminal court. It will happen. There is no statute of limitations on murder.

MOO

 

[tlcya]

The protestors themselves don't even deny that's exactly what they did.

exactly - that was their stated intention. Don Lemon himself said "you have to make people uncomfortable"

Lemon narrates: “Activists are now in the church. … They’ve surrounded the church from the inside.” Protesters chant “Justice for Renée Good,” calling out the name of the woman who was fatally shot by an ICE officer in her vehicle in Minneapolis on Jan. 7, and “Hands up, don’t shoot.”
[snip]
“When you violate people’s due process, when you pull people off the street and you start dragging them and hurting them and not abiding by the Constitution, when you start doing all of that, people get upset and angry,” he says. “That’s the whole point of it. It is to disrupt, it’s to make [people] uncomfortable and that’s what they’re doing and that’s what I believe when I say everyone has to be willing to sacrifice something.”

He goes on to say that “you have to make people uncomfortable in these times.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2026/01/23/don-lemon-minneapolis/

 

[Ruminations]

exactly - that was their stated intention. Don Lemon himself said "you have to make people uncomfortable"

Lemon narrates: “Activists are now in the church. … They’ve surrounded the church from the inside.” Protesters chant “Justice for Renée Good,” calling out the name of the woman who was fatally shot by an ICE officer in her vehicle in Minneapolis on Jan. 7, and “Hands up, don’t shoot.”
[snip]
“When you violate people’s due process, when you pull people off the street and you start dragging them and hurting them and not abiding by the Constitution, when you start doing all of that, people get upset and angry,” he says. “That’s the whole point of it. It is to disrupt, it’s to make [people] uncomfortable and that’s what they’re doing and that’s what I believe when I say everyone has to be willing to sacrifice something.”

He goes on to say that “you have to make people uncomfortable in these times.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2026/01/23/don-lemon-minneapolis/

And there can be consequences if people were made uncomfortable in an illegal way. Any part of the protest that was illegal can be charged. I doubt there is anything on the journalists, being that judges couldn't even find pretext to arrest, but let that play out in court.

Nobody is against enforcing laws. But, speaking for myself, I am against murder, kidnapping, and assault by masked marauders going on with no legal consequences.

MOO

 

[tlcya]

And there can be consequences if people were made uncomfortable in an illegal way. Any part of the protest that was illegal can be charged. I doubt there is anything on the journalists, being that judges couldn't even find pretext to arrest, but let that play out in court.

Nobody is against enforcing laws. But, speaking for myself, I am against murder, kidnapping, and assault by masked marauders going on with no legal consequences.

MOO

I agree wholeheartedly with you on the BBM. My issue is where the protest happened and the manner in which it was done. I feel like too much in recent years we are being told to honor some rights while ignoring those of another group. In my mind, that is what landed us with those masked marauders running unchecked. I am all for supporting the right of citizens to protest. Where this one lost me was when they decided to trample on another groups right to make their point. JMO

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Let's consider the hypothetical that the broken arm person exists, and they had private insurance but spent their own money on copays, over the counter meds and wraps, took an unpaid day off work to recuperate, and is also looking at 10 sessions of PT in the future for which they make a copay. How much money is that really worth? For the most part, the medical insurance company will take back its expenses, the patient won't get that money back.

The person with the alleged broken arm might have a better case against the church for liability, because Dhillon has said that the lady "ran out a side door that actually had a cone in front of it because it was dangerous to go in and out that door, slipped and injured themselves." Sounds like the church knew that exit was hazardous.

 

[Ruminations]

The person with the alleged broken arm might have a better case against the church for liability, because Dhillon has said that the lady "ran out a side door that actually had a cone in front of it because it was dangerous to go in and out that door, slipped and injured themselves." Sounds like the church knew that exit was hazardous.

Right. But that person may choose not to sue because they don't want to sue their own church. I wouldn't sue my own church, either. Unless I found out that the pastor was up to no good. So, I guess if this were my church....eh....too hypothetical.


The person that did sue- evidently not the broken arm person- is pro se. It could be because they had sticker shock from the retainer for an hourly attorney. If they were able to find anyone willing to work this case on contingency it would be unlikely that the lawyer would be okay with being restricted against adding the church, and any other entity with pockets, as a respondent.


MOO

 

[tricia]

ATTENTION GUARDIAN MEMBERS, PLEASE SIGN UP FOR THE ZOOM CALL THIS FRIDAY AND SATURDAY​

Hey Guardians,

It’s time for the next Guardian Zoom call, and we’re splitting it into two sessions so more people can join.

Friday, March 20
11:00 AM – 3:00 PM Eastern

Saturday, March 21
11:00 AM – 3:00 PM Eastern

Drop in anytime during those hours.
What will we talk about? Plenty.

You’ll get the inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes at Websleuths. Guardians always hear it first.

We also want to hear your wildest true-life story. And yes, I’ll be telling the story about how Dick Van Patten once saved my life. I realize that’s a tough act to follow, but I’m confident someone out there has something just as good.

And of course, we’ll cover a whole lot more.

CLICK HERE to register.
Remember, you do not need to use your real name. Just use your Websleuths username.

Want to join the Zoom call and help keep Websleuths ad-free? Become a Guardian for just $3 a month.
CLICK HERE for more information.
Tricia