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

[SouthAussie]

As is always the case with discussions here, we have to wait for trial to see the evidence. Until then, we can discuss evidence that is available - which at this time includes the first amendment, FACE Act, youtube footage, an affidavit, an indictment, and interviews with those involved in the incident.

And the legal opinions of the involved judges. Which seem to be disregarded. They are designated as the upholders of the law.

A magistrate, an appeals court, and a chief judge.
(With one member of the appeals court dissenting.)

imo

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

As is always the case with discussions here, we have to wait for trial to see the evidence. Until then, we can discuss evidence that is available - which at this time includes the first amendment, FACE Act, youtube footage, an affidavit, an indictment, and interviews with those involved in the incident.

For purposes of respect for victims, my position is that their statements should be understood to be truthful until such time as proven otherwise. They deserve the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, at this time, I believe that the described experiences presented by witnesses in the affidavit are truthful.

~ in my humble opinion ~​

Let me clarify that when I say something is a lie, I'm talking about the administration and DOJ. From all the videos I've seen, all the news articles I've read, and from skimming the charging documents, I don't believe the administration's claim against LEMON is truthful, and I believe the things said don't rise to the charge, which again, is why two separate judges refused to sign the warrant.

And I'm aware that nothing has been proven in court, but if we're talking about what the question is for the court and obstruction seems to be the prominent theme, then I'm curious what evidence you're looking at, even if it hasn't been presented in court, to make obstruction be what seems to be a done deal.

IMO, this case is about Lemon's role in this event. Journalist or protestor. IMO, he was a journalist and as such, he is protected. I have seen nothing in the countless video clips I've seen from his livestream or the articles I've read about the event that suggest he was a protestor or that he was out of line in his questioning to the point of crossing a line into intimidation, threats, or use of force.

MOO.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I understand, but the thread is about Lemon and that's who I am talking about.



How so?

Because just claiming to be a journalist does not make him one.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

And the legal opinions of the involved judges. Which seem to be disregarded. They are designated as the upholders of the law.

A magistrate, an appeals court, and a chief judge.
(With one member of the appeals court dissenting.)

imo

In the US, grand juries indict and we have seen many do so. They do it based on evidence. There is no defense at that point, but the prosecutor has to convince the the jurors thatthe person should be accused.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Because just claiming to be a journalist does not make him one.

Don Lemon's credentials are not in dispute as far as I know. Are you talking about whether or not he was acting in the role of journalist? Because if not, then my next question is what you mean by "claiming to be a journalist"? It's a fact that DL is a professional journalist. He has a degree in broadcast journalism and worked for CNN as a journalist for nearly 20 years.

MOO.

 

[SouthAussie]

Because just claiming to be a journalist does not make him one.

I think that all of the support from other journalists does. If you read back, you will see many links about that support have been posted.

imo

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

In the US, grand juries indict and we have seen many do so. They do it based on evidence. There is no defense at that point, but the prosecutor has to convince the the jurors thatthe person should be accused.

And there's a saying that grand juries will indict a ham sandwich. It takes very little to get GJ indictment.

MOO.

 

[K9Enzo]

I saw the majority of his livestream through clips in the media and on social media. Is his original livestream still up anywhere? I only looked a few days after the arrest and could find tons of clips but didn't find the OG.


MOO.

Zero snark coming from me here…. It’s been frustrating not being able to post the original unedited video Don Lemon shared when this incident happened way back in January. I cannot find it. There have been several things I heard him say that were shocking to me before he even went into the church but I cannot bring it to our discussion without back up, which is fair. IMO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Don Lemon's credentials are not in dispute as far as I know. Are you talking about whether or not he was acting in the role of journalist? Because if not, then my next question is what you mean by "claiming to be a journalist"? It's a fact that DL is a professional journalist. He has a degree in broadcast journalism and worked for CNN as a journalist for nearly 20 years.

MOO.

No, he does not have any. He is not employed as a journalist currently.

 

[Rolypolyoly]

@otto I have to ask, why keep referring to Lemon as an "independent journalist" and not just journalist, or Don Lemon? Would your stance be different if he wasnt independent and was there covering the story for a network?
Not picking a fight, just noticed that it seems pointed and I wondered.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

And there's a saying that grand juries will indict a ham sandwich. It takes very little to get GJ indictment.

MOO.

Tell that to Jerry Sandusky and Graham Spainer.

BTW: The guy who said that was convicted and did time.

 

[SouthAussie]

In the US, grand juries indict and we have seen many do so. They do it based on evidence. There is no defense at that point, but the prosecutor has to convince the the jurors thatthe person should be accused.

My feeling is that the judges who declined to charge Don have seen the evidence.
The grand jury has seen the allegations in whatever form they were presented (which we likely will never know).

imo

 

[J. J. in Phila]

My feeling is that the judges who declined to charge Don have seen the evidence.
The grand jury has seen the allegations in whatever form they were presented (which we likely never know).

imo

They would not have seen all the evidence.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

No, he does not have any. He is not employed as a journalist currently.

He does not have any credentials? What? He has decades of work in professional journalism. I'm unsure what you're saying here.

Him working for himself right now doesn't mean he isn't a professional journalist. That's like saying a doctor in private practice isn't a doctor.

MOO.

 

[Inthedetails]

Because just claiming to be a journalist does not make him one.

He has been a journalist for literally decades. It is how he makes his living and has been doing so for decades.

The lack of respect and basic understanding of the job of journalist, as well as how important it is to democracy, is astounding, to be frank.

I guess it's because random youtubers call themselves "press" that the profession AND ROLE has been diminished in some people's eye.

Dark ages we live in.

jmopinion

 

[J. J. in Phila]

He does not have any credentials? What? He has decades of work in professional journalism. I'm unsure what you're saying here.

Him working for himself right now doesn't mean he isn't a professional journalist. That's like saying a doctor in private practice isn't a doctor.

MOO.

No, but a doctor with an office or patients, may not be, especially when writes prescriptions.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

He has been a journalist for literally decades. It is how he makes his living and has been doing so for decades.

The lack of respect and basic understanding of the job of journalist, as well as how important it is to democracy, is astounding, to be frank.

I guess it's because random youtubers call themselves "press" that the profession AND ROLE has been diminished in some people's eye.

Dark ages we live in.

jmopinion

Doing is a few years does not constitute doing it now.

 

[Ontario Mom]

I saw the majority of his livestream through clips in the media and on social media. Is his original livestream still up anywhere? I only looked a few days after the arrest and could find tons of clips but didn't find the OG.



That's fine, but at the same time, the impact to the pastor and church has little relevance to this particular thread, IMO, which is about Lemon's role in what happened and whether or not he's protected by press protections.

MOO.

My advice is to go to his YT page and watch the entire video, from the source. I don't know if it's still there but that's where he posted it.

The impact this event had on the pastor and the congregation is exactly why there are US federal laws protecting the freedom of worship, and from the impact this kind of obstructive interference has on those in a house of worship. It's literally the only reason Lemon was federally indicted along with the rest of them there that day. So yes, I believe how it affected the folks at Cities Church matters a great deal.

jmo

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

No, but a doctor with an office or patients, may not be, especially when writes prescriptions.

So if a doctor with patients is still a doctor, why isn't a journalist with viewers still a journalist?

 

[Rolypolyoly]

Because just claiming to be a journalist does not make him one.

No, his 30 years of proven career and his press credentials do!