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

[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

 

[J. J. in Phila]

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

MOO

But I do know that they can only at evidence presented. That is in the grand jury manual that was posted.

 

[AppleTreeGreen]

The disruption was continuous, and Lemon was part.

If Lemon didn't know that they were planning a disruption, why did he sit there? If he knew, that is evidence of conspiracy.

According to cornelllaw.edu an accomplice is someone who intentionally or voluntarily assist another in the commission of a crime. IMO, based on the video and the statements by the Judge Micko and Judge Schiltz, DL’s conduct in the church was not that of a accomplice because he did not participate in the protests or aid assist the organizers when they interrupted to speak at the pulpit or when they shouted at, and IMO wrongly verbally harassed, various members of the congregation, including the kids. As a reporter, his role was more of that as a witness, IMO, and as such is not criminally liable for knowing of the event beforehand and choosing to conceal or not disclosing it instead. Furthermore, Armstrong, DL and the affidavit have argued or demonstrated that DL did not play a role in the planning, organizing and leading of the protest as he only learned about it the day before he occurred and he was focused on recording the events around him and interviewing consenting church members. As a result, by acting acting in the role of a witness instead of a participant or accomplice, likely DL wouldn’t be considered part of the conspiracy thar led to protesters obstructing parishioners from continuing their services, thereby inhibiting their exercise of their First Amendment rights of religious freedoms. MOO

DL not leaving the church immediately upon request by the pastor may constitute trespassing but if charged such violations would likely be that of local and state law, not federal ones such as the FACE Act, according to to FIRE.org. Not saying he was not wrong if found to have broken the law but just sharing my understanding while reviewing of what I have read so far.

As for why DL stayed if Easterwood wasn’t there, likely his decision stemmed from the premise that journalists are responsible for recording on and reporting events, like the protests taking place in front of him, that would be of public concern and interest according to CPJ and FIRE. This expectation does not change even when it means documenting illegal conduct such as protesters causing disruption in Cities Church and impeding on congregants’ First Amendment rights.

Don Lemon's arrest is attack on press freedom, advocates say

Lemon was arrested on Jan. 29 in relation to a Minnesota church protest. His attorney called it an "unprecedented attack on the First Amendment."

www.usatoday.com

The federal charges against Don Lemon raise serious concerns for press freedom

Don Lemon faces federal charges after entering a Minnesota church with disruptive protesters to cover the event. What does this mean for press freedom and First Amendment rights?

www.thefire.org

accomplice witness

www.law.cornell.edu

JMO/MOP

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

IIRC from reading the opinion of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals it was stated that if the federal prosecutors did not have all the evidence AT THAT TIME and wanted to pursue the matter further then they should take the case to a grand jury.

So the Circuit Court judges were basically saying that when you finish gathering evidence, THEN you might be able to get an arrest warrant, but on an emergency basis the arrest warrant was denied.

That's very different from stating that the Appeals Court agreed there was no evidence.

It's actually not different at all. The judge is saying there is no evidence. Period. Sure, if they get more evidence, they can bring it back. But at the time the judge was asked to issue the warrant, he refused because there was no evidence. There is no indication that evidence somehow appeared after the refusal.

MOO.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

According to cornelllaw.edu an accomplice is someone who intentionally or voluntarily assist another in the commission of a crime. IMO, based on the video and the statements by the Judge Micko and Judge Schiltz, DL’s conduct in the church was not that of a accomplice because he did not participate in the protests or aid assist the organizers when they interrupted to speak at the pulpit or when they shouted at, and IMO wrongly verbally harassed, various members of the congregation, including the kids. As a reporter, his role was more of that as a witness, IMO, and as such is not criminally liable for knowing of the event beforehand and choosing to conceal or not disclosing it instead. Furthermore, Armstrong, DL and the affidavit have argued or demonstrated that DL did not play a role in the planning, organizing and leading of the protest as he only learned about it the day before he occurred and he was focused on recording the events around him and interviewing consenting church members. As a result, by acting acting in the role of a witness instead of a participant or accomplice, likely DL wouldn’t be considered part of the conspiracy thar led to protesters obstructing parishioners from continuing their services, thereby inhibiting their exercise of their First Amendment rights of religious freedoms. MOO

DL not leaving the church immediately upon request by the pastor may constitute trespassing but if charged such violations would likely be that of local and state law, not federal ones such as the FACE Act, according to to FIRE.org. Not saying he was not wrong if found to have broken the law but just sharing my understanding while reviewing of what I have read so far.

As for why DL stayed if Easterwood wasn’t there, likely his decision stemmed from the premise that journalists are responsible for recording on and reporting events, like the protests taking place in front of him, that would be of public concern and interest according to CPJ and FIRE. This expectation does not change even when it means documenting illegal conduct such as protesters causing disruption in Cities Church and impeding on congregants’ First Amendment rights.

Snipped for brevity.

The grand jury may have and probably did have more information. They had other sources than Lemon's video and that was posted. Again is blocking a pastor in a church fall under the act.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

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.

So his 7-hour livestream does not show him obstructing anything, but we are to believe the DOJ (who tried unsuccessfully TWICE to get a judge to sign the warrant and was refused due to lack of evidence) has some mysterious other evidence that shows such things?

Yeah, no. I think the DOJ is full of it.

MOO.

 

[SouthAussie]

So his 7-hour livestream does not show him obstructing anything, but we are to believe the DOJ (who tried unsuccessfully TWICE to get a judge to sign the warrant and was refused due to lack of evidence) has some mysterious other evidence that shows such things?

Yeah, no. I think the DOJ is full of it.

MOO.

Probably used hearsay, which they are allowed to do in their grand jury presentation, but are only allowed to do in limited situations in a courtroom.

It will be interesting to read the pre-trial motions, and see if these charges make it to trial.

Kyle Boynton (who recently departed as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division) was unimpressed with the legal reasoning in the indictment. It may be his opinion, but he prosecuted FACE Act cases and crimes committed against houses of worship while at the Justice Department. So I think it is a valid opinion.


Eg: Virginia Man Sentenced for Attempted Church Shooting
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Nicholas A. Durham and Troy A. Edwards Jr., for the Eastern District of Virginia and Trial Attorney Kyle Boynton of the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division prosecuted the case.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

So his 7-hour livestream does not show him obstructing anything, but we are to believe the DOJ (who tried unsuccessfully TWICE to get a judge to sign the warrant and was refused due to lack of evidence) has some mysterious other evidence that shows such things?

Yeah, no. I think the DOJ is full of it.

MOO.

I have no idea, but the presentment says that they have evidence of it. A grand jury would not put that into a presentment without evidence. The reason is that they are required to only use evidence that came before them.

 

[AppleTreeGreen]

Snipped for brevity.

The grand jury may have and probably did have more information. They had other sources than Lemon's video and that was posted. Again is blocking a pastor in a church fall under the act.

But was he blocking the pastor in? It seemed to me that they were pretty much having amiable conversation as DL conducted his interview and the pastor presented his insights and side of things, which was just as important to capture and include as it was to share as the protesters. If DL and the pastor seemed to stand close to each other it was likely due to better hear one another as they continued the interview using that small mic rather than DL trying to obstruct or block the pastor’s movement. However, I did not see DL physically block the pastor from walking away when he had to check on his family nor use physical force to keep him from leaving that spot. I did not overhear him threaten to use force against the church leader or his congregants to keep him from moving. Rather, I heard DL say thank you and the pastor freely walk away to the left towards the left of him, unobstructed and not imposed upon by physical force or the threat of it made against his person or raising reasonable apprehension of bodily harm. I think this important to note and question in light of the parameters of the FACE Act and this specific interaction being both recorded by DL and noted in the affidavit. IMO, the pastor seemed very comfortable asserting himself in concluding and walking away from the interview when he was no longer interested in talking to DL anymore. I don’t think we should dismiss his own agency or that he clearly established boundaries for himself and his engagement with the journalists in that situation as was his right to.

Of course this is just my interpretation and we will learn more during trial.

Also, since it appears that evidence in an affidavit is meant to establish that there is probable cause cause to believe that a crime occurred not that one was committed by the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, and additionally also often contain hearsay, according to FLEC.gov, I think it is still okay to debate over or interpret differently the evidence and facts presented to us in the document.

JMO/MOO

https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/senate-bill/636

18 U.S. Code § 248 - Freedom of access to clinic entrances

www.law.cornell.edu

https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/affidavit_writing_made_easy.pdf

Rule 4. Arrest Warrant or Summons on a Complaint

www.law.cornell.edu

https://id.fd.org/client-resources/faqs

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Probably used hearsay, which they are allowed to do in their grand jury presentation, but are only allowed to do in limited situations in a courtroom.

It will be interesting to read the pre-trial motions, and see if these charges make it to trial.

Snipped for emphasis.



Hearsay does not appear to be admissible, except as done in a regular court: Rule 6. The Grand Jury

Anything in the presentment has to be based on what evidence they received in the grand jury.

 

[SouthAussie]

Snipped for emphasis.



Hearsay does not appear to be admissible, except as done in a regular court: Rule 6. The Grand Jury

Anything in the presentment has to be based on what evidence they received in the grand jury.

Quote from .... US Department of Justice - Title 9: Criminal - - Grand Jury

As a general rule, it is proper to present hearsay to the grand jury, United States v. Calandra 414 U.S. 338 (1974). Each United States Attorney should be assured that hearsay evidence presented to the grand jury will be presented on its merits so that the jurors are not misled into believing that the witness is giving his or her personal account. See United States v. Leibowitz, 420 F.2d 39 (2d Cir. 1969); but see United States v. Trass, 644 F.2d 791 (9th Cir. 1981).