- Joined
- Jan 26, 2023
- Messages
- 541
- Reaction score
- 5,605
I added the link for the court documents related to the federal magistrate and Appeals court rulings for anyone interested
Several names in the affidavit in support of arrest warrant are redacted. However, nine people are mentioned in both documents. That is, Don Lemon's name is in the indictment only because it his name must be in the affidavit (blacked out).That particular page, however, doesn't name him at all, so the attachment that you posted doesn't relate to DL at all.
The link is fine and important, but that attachment is about Kelly's alleged actions, not Lemon.
IMO.
It's in the affidavit, and in video footage. Four names are included in describing who "cornered" the pastor while Lemon was speaking to him.Lemon, among others stood in close proximity to the pastor in an attempt to oppress and intimidate him, and physically obstruct his freedom of movement while Lemon peppered him with questions to promote the operation’s message.
While talking to the pastor Lemon stood so close, causing the pastor’s right hand to graze him and then admonished him “please don’t push me”.
This doesn’t seem like the actions of a reputable journalist. imo
This is what I’ve seen in the video and also in the indictment as linked throughout this thread. imo
Thank you for providing a link.It's in the affidavit, and in video footage. Four names are included in describing who "cornered" the pastor while Lemon was speaking to him.
View attachment 641276
View attachment 641277
![]()
FBI affidavit in suport of arrest warrant | PDF | U.S. Immigration And Customs Enforcement | American Government
This affidavit, submitted by Special Agent Timothy Gerber, outlines the investigation into a group of agitators who disrupted a religious service at Cities Church in St. Paul, MN on January 18, 2026. The group, led by Nekima Valdez Levy-Armstrong and Chauntyll Louisa Allen, coordinated their...www.scribd.com
I added the link for the court documents related to the federal magistrate and Appeals court rulings for anyone interested
I understand that there is a preference for Don Lemon to be considered separate from the protesters, but, according to legal documents, he is charged as a participating protester. Legal documents related to Don Lemon are not separate at this time.
I assume that charges are based on eye-witness testimony, CCTV, video footage from eye-witnesses and victim statements (including children). That is, charges are not based exclusively on youtube videos shared by participants at the protest.
The debate is whether Don Lemon, an independent journalist, participated as a protester, independent journalist, or both. Current evidence is legal documents.
The church is private property so DL going in uninvited for filming/interviewing during a service is obstruction?How can they charge obstruction for reporting/recording the protest? Is DOJ saying he was PART of the protest? Cuz, that ain't so. From the stream I saw, he was off to the side, out of the way of the protesters and parishioners, not near them.
Just read the indictment finally. Big nothing burger. The protesters may have some issues, but doubt Lemon will get caught in that net. What they (protesters) could and should have done, is protest on the sidewalk in front of the church with signs to get the story out about the pastor and ICE connection. JMO Read the full indictment against Don Lemon, Georgia Fort and others charged in Minnesota
www.womenspress.com
Color me cynical cinnamon, but....Two of the redacted names in the charging documents are of defendants. There are numerous other redactions throughout the document but it's not certain in many cases who those people are.
It's my speculation that at least some of the people involved in this may have had a drastic change of heart. I'd hope seeing terrified kids and elderly folks would have been enough to stop them in their tracks. Maybe it did.
There is no question that DL speaks with the organizer before about the intent to "disrupt" the service. That is a crime. <modsnip: off topic>. But he walked in there himself and interviewed people in what he knew was a worship service, the pastor saying he had asked them to leave and they would not. There are kids in tears. There is NO question the organizers of the even should be convicted under the FACE act.Just my own impressions from the few short videos I was able to find, but it didn’t seem like DL was physically obstructing or intimidating the pastor. They were standing close together but that likely was due to how loud the space was around them due to the protests of course. Also, their conversation was more amicable than I pictured based off the affidavit.
It also didn’t look like DL was obstructing the doorways or parishioners as they worshipped or moved about the church.
Also, he seemed more empathetic or understanding than I originally thought based off the affidavit when speaking of the child who became visibly upset. At least to me, at first, his words at first came off as cold but his tone and expression conveyed warmth or at least he cared or was concerned.
Of course, more recordings and testimony is likely to be made available during the trial, I had just wanted to see if there was any more information out there to compare to the affidavit.
MOO/my own speculation
Yes. My bet is that this argument is going to be a big part of the government's case in demonstrating the 'obstruction' component.The church is private property so DL going in uninvited for filming/interviewing during a service is obstruction?
<modsnip: Quoted post was modsnipped> In order to get the full scope of the story he was working on, he talked to the protestors both before and after the protest. You say that is a crime, I say the DOJ will have a hard time proving that is a crime, given that the man has been a journalist for 30 years and was there to cover a news story. All MOO.There is no question that DL speaks with the organizer before about the intent to "disrupt" the service. That is a crime. <modsnip: off topic>. But he walked in there himself and interviewed people in what was supposed to be a worship service, the pastor saying he had asked them to leave and they would not. There are kids in tears. There is NO question the organizers of the even should be convicted under the FACE act.
Will DL? He knew he was not there to worship, so why did he go in? Could he not have covered the news story from outside without actually participating?
How do you know they contacted Lemon? I hadn't heard that. Thanks. I understand the protesters' motivation, but think they made a misstep by entering the church to protest. They would have been just as effective, if not more so, had they lined the sidewalk in front with signs. JMOThe protesters may have known they could have an issue. One of the protesters, Nekima Levy Armstrong, is a civil rights attorney.
Protesters can be well aware when they are breaking the law in their protest. This protest seemingly focused on outing a church that hired a senior ICE person as a pastor. (Remember this protest happened 11 days after Renee Good was shot and killed by ICE).
Don Lemon happens to be one of the journalist they contacted about their protest, in order for their protest to be recorded and published.
Georgia Fort was the other journalist. One local (Georgia) and one national (Don Lemon).
imo
Link that states that Nekima Levy Armstrong is civil rights attorney ...
![]()
Nekima Levy Armstrong: Why We Protested at Cities Church in Saint Paul, and What Our Arrests Mean
Instead, Armstrong and Allen were taken to the Sherburne County Jail using three sets of restraints “as if we were hardened criminals and murderers. We had ankle shackles on our ankles, we had belly chains around our waist, and we had handcuffs with bars in the middle. As someone who majored in Afwww.womenspress.com
Churches are private property because they are not owned by the govenment, but members of the public walk into churches worldwide, every single day. AFAIK, the Cities Church does not have a "No Trespassing" or "Private Property" sign (although we know churches ARE privately owned). A church is not normally closed to members of the public, of which the group, including Lemon, were members of the public.The church is private property so DL going in uninvited for filming/interviewing during a service is obstruction?
Thanks for the objective analysis.Could he not have covered the news story from outside without actually participating?
With due respect, I don't think this argument is applicable. Churches are private property- full stop period.Yes, churches are private property because they are not owned by the govenment, but members of the public walk into churches worldwide, every single day. AFAIK, the Cities Church does not have a "No Trespassing" or "Private Property" sign (although we know churches ARE privately owned). A church is not normally closed to members of the public, of which the group, including Lemon, were members of the public.
Here’s an interview with Nekima Armstrong regarding Don Lemon’s involvement. She mentions that Don saw a flyer posted with basic details about the event and he reached out to her to ask questions about the protest.How do you know they contacted Lemon? I hadn't heard that. Thanks. I understand the protesters' motivation, but think they made a misstep by entering the church to protest. They would have been just as effective, if not more so, had they lined the sidewalk in front with signs. JMO