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

[witchway]

People do leave in the middle of services. The doors are generally not locked.

He had to know in order to go in sit and wait. Try again.

He didn’t sit ever. He walked through a side door, as the protesters started their thing.

 

[Ruminations]

People do leave in the middle of services. The doors are generally not locked.

He had to know in order to go in sit and wait. Try again.

Gosh. I would think that NOT sitting in that church church would be the problem.

It was not an Orthodox Christian church.

MOO

 

[Betty P]

It is a federal crime according to the FACT Act which the protesters violated and are now facing criminal charges. And the protest in the church was in no way "peaceful."

It's ok if we disagree. These are only charges presented, without evidence.

Unlike a bank robbery, viewing the reporters interviewing church members does not manifest itself as a criminal act. No journalist is brandishing weapons, making threats, behaving violently or in a menacing manner.

A peaceful protest is not the same as armed robbery. It doesn't appear criminal in any way. The comparison made by JJ in Phila is false equivalency and inflammatory. I'm not criticizing here, just making a point. JMO

 

[Sundog]

Plenty of pastors have protested recently, especially against ICE. Lots of them have even been arrested for it.

Clergy arrested protesting ICE at MSP Airport share story: "It was holy."

Nearly two weeks after 99 clergy members were arrested and charged during a protest at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, three are sitting down to share their story.

www.cbsnews.com

We're talking here about pastors protesting in a church. I haven't seen an example of that in the news.

 

[Summerliz03]

We're talking here about pastors protesting in a church. I haven't seen an example of that in the news.

My point was that some pastors are willing to break a law to make a point for something they feel strongly about, so I was showing an example of that.

 

[Deleted member 117884]

Kind of like the "pastor" who led the protest in the Church.

Not really. It's one thing, imo, to condemn cruelty to strangers (foreign born), children, and residents of the city. It's another thing to condemn calling out that cruelty.

But I pay more attention to those calling for reconcilation and finding common ground with each other. There is always common ground, even if it's literally the earth we live on. My opinion.

jmo

p.s. I don't condone disrupting a church service.

 

[Hexe]

People do leave in the middle of services. The doors are generally not locked.

In this particular case though people were leaving, because service prematurely ended.

He had to know in order to go in sit and wait. Try again.

All he had to know that there would be demonstration soon. But during the service? After? Not necessarily.

MOO

 

[Ontario Mom]

I think it may be important to point out that Don Lemon's live stream isn't the only source of video (or info) available. In the affidavit FBI Affidavit in Suport of Arrest Warrant | PDF | U.S. Immigration And Customs Enforcement | American Government we have this info:

Page 2 Info from other LE officers, reports, written materials, multiple recordings

Page 3 Lemon's live stream with closed captioning

Page 12 Other livestream video footage from another agitator

Page 13 Broadcast video from Cities Church

Page 14 Open source social media videos

Page 14 Incident reports from St. Paul PD

Point 36 may be critical to this entire thing if the redacted name is Lemon.

There are 6 males named on the indictment but in the affidavit only 1 is named and that's Kelly, so it's not him. That leaves:

LEMON
RICHARDSON
LUNDY
CREWS
AUSTIN

The redaction is a fairly short name so we can reasonably cross Richardson off the list. That leaves Lemon and 3 others.

The way it's worded is pretty curious since Lemon claims he was there as a journalist and not with protestors. The recording appears to show (according to the affidavit) that he (whoever that is) was engaging in the same activity, along with them.

It seems pointless to say "so and so was seen on video chanting with the agitators" if, whoever that someone is, is already admitting to being a protestor. There's really no reason to point this out unless it's someone claiming they were not with the protestors, just there to report on it. And there's video evidence documenting it.

jmo

 

[J. J. in Phila]

In this particular case though people were leaving, because service prematurely ended.



All he had to know that there would be demonstration soon. But during the service? After? Not necessarily.

MOO

No, they, including Lemon, were continuously disrupting the service.

After they would not be in sanctuary. This wasn't Lemon and Fort standing on the sidewalk.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I think it may be important to point out that Don Lemon's live stream isn't the only source of video (or info) available. In the affidavit FBI Affidavit in Suport of Arrest Warrant | PDF | U.S. Immigration And Customs Enforcement | American Government we have this info:

Page 2 Info from other LE officers, reports, written materials, multiple recordings

Page 3 Lemon's live stream with closed captioning

Page 12 Other livestream video footage from another agitator

Page 13 Broadcast video from Cities Church

Page 14 Open source social media videos

Page 14 Incident reports from St. Paul PD

Point 36 may be critical to this entire thing if the redacted name is Lemon.

View attachment 642508

There are 6 males named on the indictment but in the affidavit only 1 is named and that's Kelly, so it's not him. That leaves:

LEMON
RICHARDSON
LUNDY
CREWS
AUSTIN

The redaction is a fairly short name so we can reasonably cross Richardson off the list. That leaves Lemon and 3 others.

The way it's worded is pretty curious since Lemon claims he was there as a journalist and not with protestors. The recording appears to show (according to the affidavit) that he (whoever that is) was engaging in the same activity, along with them.

It seems pointless to say "so and so was seen on video chanting with the agitators" if, whoever that someone is, is already admitting to being a protestor. There's really no reason to point this out unless it's someone claiming they were not with the protestors, just there to report on it. And there's video evidence documenting it.

jmo

I post a link to the unredacted GJ indictment. That might help.

 

[Hexe]

No, they, including Lemon, were continuously disrupting the service.

After they would not be in sanctuary. This wasn't Lemon and Fort standing on the sidewalk.

No, they, including Lemon, were continuously disrupting the service.

After they would not be in sanctuary. This wasn't Lemon and Fort standing on the sidewalk.

How do you want a journalist to document an event without being on the scene? That's literally what journalists do, they get to the places where something is happening, record it and interview the witnesses/victims.

MOO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

How do you want a journalist to document an event without being on the scene? That's literally what journalists do, they get to the places where something is happening, record it and interview the witnesses/victims.

MOO

They don't, but they cannot trespass.

A reporter does not have a right to be on the scene.

 

[Ontario Mom]

I post a link to the unredacted GJ indictment. That might help.

In the indictment, Read the DOJ indictment of Don Lemon and other journalists, activists OVERT ACT #15 does say Lemon engaged in these things. Chanting, among other things. So, there's that.

I do believe there's video evidence documenting that Lemon was engaging in the protest while in the church.

jmo

 

[Hexe]

It seems pointless to say "so and so was seen on video chanting with the agitators" if, whoever that someone is, is already admitting to being a protestor.

The excerpt you displayed says also:

Based on the video footage, it appears that the conduct of [redacted], Allen and other agitators is intimidating and physically obstructing some of the parishioners' freedom of movement.

That sentence pretty clearly counts the redacted person as one of the agitators.

MOO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

In the indictment, Read the DOJ indictment of Don Lemon and other journalists, activists OVERT ACT #15 does say Lemon engaged in these things. Chanting, among other things. So, there's that.

I do believe there's video evidence documenting that Lemon was engaging in the protest while in the church.

jmo

Here is the unredacted presentment: https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2026/01/CASE-026-cr-00025-LMP-DLM.pdf It is from PBS.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

He deprived others of their First Amendment rights.

No, he didn't. He filmed the protesters doing that.

MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I am aware of that, but that was not the question.

They have a very good case on Lemon, because there is video of him blocking people in the church. Conspiracy, which includes Fort,may need more evidence.

I suspect that the AG either has their electronic communications, or they someone inside, or both.

There is a 7-hour video of his livestream posted earlier in this thread by Ontario Mom. Can you please give a timestamp of when he blocked people in the church? Because while I didn't sit there for 7 hours to watch that whole thing, I certainly did watch much of it and saw no such thing.

MOO.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

No, he didn't. He filmed the protesters doing that.

MOO

When he helped disrupt the service, Lemon deprived others of their 1st Amendment right to practice religion.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

There is a 7-hour video of his livestream posted earlier in this thread by Ontario Mom. Can you please give a timestamp of when he blocked people in the church? Because while I didn't sit there for 7 hours to watch that whole thing, I certainly did watch much of it and saw no such thing.

MOO.

As already pointed out, the GJ used a number of sources, including the church's video. It would not be in the presentment w/o evidence.

 

[Ruminations]

As already pointed out, the GJ used a number of sources, including the church's video. It would not be in the presentment w/o evidence.

You do not know what happened in the GJ. Nobody "pointed out" what nobody except the jurors know.

MOO