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

[Hexe]

Does Don Lemon change hats before entering the church? Why would he change hats when the first one clearly identifies him as a journalist, which is how he wanted to be received by the congregation.

I'd say that a mic and a cameraman identified him later clear enough.

MOO

 

[Inthedetails]

Is it unusual that an unsigned indictment has been filed with the court? It is stamped that it was filed on 1/29/26, and yet both signature lines have not been signed.

View attachment 642723

Don Lemon indictment

www.documentcloud.org

I don't know as I've never served on a Grand Jury or had occassion to question why a GJ document online wouldn't be signed (there might be a reasonable reason). But, I found a Federal Grand Jury handbook, bbm

The grand jury is not completely free to compel a trial of anyone it chooses. The United States Attorney must sign the indictment before one may be prosecuted. Thus, the government and the grand jury act as checks upon each other. This assures that neither may arbitrarily wield the awesome power to indict a person of a crime.

https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/HandbookFederalGrandJurors.pdf

To me, this is just general info to know rather than a smoking gun. imo

jmo

 

[SouthAussie]

I don't know as I've never served on a Grand Jury or had occassion to question why a GJ document online wouldn't be signed (there might be a reasonable reason). But, I found a Federal Grand Jury handbook, bbm

The grand jury is not completely free to compel a trial of anyone it chooses. The United States Attorney must sign the indictment before one may be prosecuted. Thus, the government and the grand jury act as checks upon each other. This assures that neither may arbitrarily wield the awesome power to indict a person of a crime.

https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/HandbookFederalGrandJurors.pdf

To me, this is just general info to know rather than a smoking gun. imo

jmo

I have been looking all over the place. Yes, lots of general info out there ... eg: an indictment must be signed by the grand jury foreperson and the prosecutor. Yes, it must be filed with the courts.

So how does the court timestamp a date of filing on an indictment if it not yet signed by anyone?

A bit odd. I can't seem to find a reason for it.

imo

 

[Inthedetails]

I have been looking all over the place. Yes, lots of general info out there ... eg: an indictment must be signed by the grand jury foreperson and the prosecutor. Yes, it must be filed with the courts.

So how does the court timestamp a date of filing on an indictment if it not yet signed by anyone?

A bit odd. I can't seem to find a reason for it.

imo

I'm honestly less concerned about the signatures (I'm assuming they were signed) than I am about people not understanding the difference between a journalist and a protester.

jmopinion

 

[Ontario Mom]

I'm honestly less concerned about the signatures (I'm assuming they were signed) than I am about people not understanding the difference between a journalist and a protester.

jmopinion

I believe most people understand the difference just fine.
I also believe that many, many people don't think Lemon was there just to cover a story, while other people do.
Fair enough. It's easy to understand that folks disagree.

I also believe there is video (and audio, and statements made by those who were there) evidence showing he actively participated in the chaos that went on inside the church during their regularly scheduled time of worship.

jmo

 

[SouthAussie]

I'm honestly less concerned about the signatures (I'm assuming they were signed) than I am about people not understanding the difference between a journalist and a protester.

jmopinion

I think that the courts will understand the difference ... judging by the majority of judges who declined to charge Don.

It is concerning that an unsigned indictment can be filed with the court. The foreperson's signature is supposed to certify that the correct amount of jurors were present, and that they agree with the indictment.

Seeing that the feds were obviously in a rush to arrest Don on the 30th, it seems they probably needed to file by the 29th. Didn't manage to get the qualifying and required signatures first?

Maybe we are seeing a filed "draft" indictment, and not the actual filed signed indictment. If so, are they the same, and was it signed prior to them arresting Don? Could it be a technical legal error presented by the defence, if it wasn't signed prior to arresting Don?


imo

 

[otto]

I believe most people understand the difference just fine.
I also believe that many, many people don't think Lemon was there just to cover a story, while other people do.
Fair enough. It's easy to understand that folks disagree.

I also believe there is video (and audio, and statements made by those who were there) evidence showing he actively participated in the chaos that went on inside the church during their regularly scheduled time of worship.

jmo

If there is any video of Don Lemon chanting with protesters inside the church during the scheduled religious meeting, that will put him into the split role of protester and journalist ... at best.

 

[witchway]

If there is any video of Don Lemon chanting with protesters inside the church during the scheduled religious meeting, that will put him into the split role of protester and journalist ... at best.

Well the full live stream was provided here…

 

[Ontario Mom]

Well the full live stream was provided here…

One source among many, yes.

It will be most interesting to compare all the video evidence mentioned in the affidavit, once it all comes out, to the evidence in the Lemon livestream.

 

[otto]

Well the full live stream was provided here…

I can't watch it because it's age restricted - meaning I need to sign-in to youtube to watch it. I'm assuming that there were several people taking video in church that Sunday morning.

 

[Inthedetails]

bbm

A former Cincinnati Republican congressional candidate is the lead counsel in the prosecution of Don Lemon. ....

Orlando Sonza, who previously ran against U.S. Rep. Greg Landsman, is lead counsel in the case, according to federal court documents.

President Donald Trump appointed Sonza to the civil rights division for the U.S. Department of Justice in July. ...

Before his appointment to the Department of Justice, Sonza previously served as executive director of the Hamilton County Veterans Service Commission.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2026/02/07/former-cincinnati-candidate-handling-doj-case-against-don-lemon/88550022007/?gnt-cfr=1&gca-cat=p&gca-uir=false&gca-epti=z114139p118150c118150u002239v114139&gca-ft=49&gca-ds=sophi

About the source: The Enquirer has served Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky for more than 180 years...We're dedicated to providing essential watchdog and investigative journalism that improves our communities and holds those in power accountable. [More at the link if interested]

 

[Betty P]

One source among many, yes.

It will be most interesting to compare all the video evidence mentioned in the affidavit, once it all comes out, to the evidence in the Lemon livestream.

So we’ll wait until all the video evidence is submitted and we’ll watch it.

 

[Betty P]

bbm

A former Cincinnati Republican congressional candidate is the lead counsel in the prosecution of Don Lemon. ....

Orlando Sonza, who previously ran against U.S. Rep. Greg Landsman, is lead counsel in the case, according to federal court documents.

President Donald Trump appointed Sonza to the civil rights division for the U.S. Department of Justice in July. ...

Before his appointment to the Department of Justice, Sonza previously served as executive director of the Hamilton County Veterans Service Commission.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2026/02/07/former-cincinnati-candidate-handling-doj-case-against-don-lemon/88550022007/?gnt-cfr=1&gca-cat=p&gca-uir=false&gca-epti=z114139p118150c118150u002239v114139&gca-ft=49&gca-ds=sophi

About the source: The Enquirer has served Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky for more than 180 years...We're dedicated to providing essential watchdog and investigative journalism that improves our communities and holds those in power accountable. [More at the link if interested]

Interesting. Sonza’s work history doesn’t appear to include any courtroom or experience, typical for Ohio Republican appointments to important positions requiring legal qualifications.

Biography​

“Orlando Sonza served in the U.S. Army from 2013 to 2016. He earned a bachelor's degree from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 2013, a graduate degree from the University of Cincinnati in 2018, and a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center in 2022. Sonza's professional experience includes working as a certified public accountant, IRS enrolled agent, and executive director.”

Orlando Sonza

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

So this guy with no courtroom experience is going to prosecute these journalists. That will be interesting.

 

[Inthedetails]

This might be a repeat, and if so, apologies. bbm:


Federal prosecutors asked the judge to require a $100,000 unsecured bond for his release, but Magistrate Judge Patricia Donahue in the US District Court for the Central District of California allowed for Lemon’s release without payment, on personal recognizance. ...

The prosecutor advocated for stricter release conditions, saying Lemon should not “feel emboldened to commit similar acts.” ...

The judge granted Lemon permission to travel internationally with court permission, and to attend his annual weeklong boat trip in France in June, as long as it doesn’t conflict with the Minnesota court’s calendar.

Don Lemon Released From Custody by Federal Judge (2)

Former CNN anchor Don Lemon was released from custody Friday by a federal judge in Los Angeles.

news.bloomberglaw.com

 

[Inthedetails]

This article is an interesting take on the topic, imo, none too flattering to Lemon! (FWIW, I am not a viewer of Lemon. My interest is in 1A and the importance of the press, not in being a cheerleader for Lemon.)

Snippet, bbm:

Randazza, the First Amendment lawyer, has little sympathy for Lemon, whom he calls "a hack worthy of no respect." But he thinks charging Lemon with federal crimes was a "really stupid decision."

Randazza worries that "charging Lemon makes him a First Amendment martyr." But he also thinks the case raises legitimate free speech concerns.

"It is a close call," Randazza says, but "if it were up to me, I would not use my discretion to prosecute an enemy journalist—not even if I might win….My point is not that Lemon is innocent; my point is that we should give breathing room to the First Amendment."

Don Lemon may be a hack, but that does not make him a felon

The federal case against the former CNN anchor hinges on conduct that can plausibly be viewed as part of a journalist's work.

reason.com

About the source:
Reason is an American libertarian monthly magazine published by the Reason Foundation. The magazine has a circulation of around 50,000 and was named one of the 50 best magazines in 2003 and 2004 by the Chicago Tribune. Reason was founded in 1968 by Lanny Friedlander and offers the tagline “free minds and free markets,” covering politics, culture, and ideas with a mix of news, analysis, commentary, and reviews

Reason - Bias and Credibility

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words

mediabiasfactcheck.com

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

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

The only thing that I saw was the transcript. Overt Acts 23, 24, 25, and 28, would be FACE Act violations, specific to Lemon. A grand jury presentment is unsigned, since that point was brought up.

The video shows those allegations are garbage.

No, it does not, and the transcripts have been reported.

The allegations are garbage. The ones you cited are below.

Overt Act # 23: With other co-conspirators standing nearby, defendants LEMON, RICHARDSON, and FORT approached the pastor and largely surrounded him (to his front and both sides), stood in close proximity to the pastor in an attempt to oppress and intimidate him, and physically obstructed his freedom of movement while LEMON peppered him with questions to promote the operation’s message.

Lemon's video at 51:18 refutes this easily. Lemon and Pastor Parnell had a respectful conversation, while Parnell was plainly never blocked in by anybody. He walked away unimpeded when he chose to. The indictment is fantasyland bananas.

Overt Act # 24: While talking with the pastor, defendant LEMON stood so close to the pastor that LEMON caused the pastor’s right hand to graze LEMON, who then admonished the pastor, “Please don’t push me.”

This one is just childish and irrelevant. "Lemon made Parnell touch him," is something a child would say. Standing close is supposed to be against the law somehow??? Parnell could have walked away any time and he eventually did. This "overt act" overtly shows no violation of any kind whatsoever.

Overt Act # 2 5 : Although the pastor told defendant LEMON and the others to leave the Church, defendant LEMON and the other defendants ignored the pastor’s request and did not immediately leave the Church.

He was asked to leave and did not leave immediately, he meandered about. But that hardly meets the standard for breaking the law. Has to be willful. He didn't refuse to leave while someone was telling him to do so. This would not even hold up as a trespassing charge.

Overt Act # 28: At one point, defendant LEMON posted himself at the main door of the Church, where he confronted some congregants and physically obstructed them as they tried to exit the Church building to challenge them with “facts” about U.S. immigration policy.

He talked to a couple of people near the entrance for a few minutes but nobody was blocked at all. This claim of obstructing is just stupid. People talked to him voluntarily and left when they wanted to, unimpeded. Another clearly false claim.

I have to doubt whether the prosecutors even played the video for the grand jury, because anybody who watches it could possibly go along with these allegations. There is zero possibility of Lemon being convicted over this. moo

 

[Betty P]

This article is an interesting take on the topic, imo, none too flattering to Lemon! (FWIW, I am not a viewer of Lemon. My interest is in 1A and the importance of the press, not in being a cheerleader for Lemon.)

Snippet, bbm:

Randazza, the First Amendment lawyer, has little sympathy for Lemon, whom he calls "a hack worthy of no respect." But he thinks charging Lemon with federal crimes was a "really stupid decision."

Randazza worries that "charging Lemon makes him a First Amendment martyr." But he also thinks the case raises legitimate free speech concerns.

"It is a close call," Randazza says, but "if it were up to me, I would not use my discretion to prosecute an enemy journalist—not even if I might win….My point is not that Lemon is innocent; my point is that we should give breathing room to the First Amendment."

Don Lemon may be a hack, but that does not make him a felon

The federal case against the former CNN anchor hinges on conduct that can plausibly be viewed as part of a journalist's work.

reason.com

About the source:
Reason is an American libertarian monthly magazine published by the Reason Foundation. The magazine has a circulation of around 50,000 and was named one of the 50 best magazines in 2003 and 2004 by the Chicago Tribune. Reason was founded in 1968 by Lanny Friedlander and offers the tagline “free minds and free markets,” covering politics, culture, and ideas with a mix of news, analysis, commentary, and reviews

Reason - Bias and Credibility

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words

mediabiasfactcheck.com

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

Libertarians are interesting. I interpreted this as their POV as conservatives causes them to dislike Lemon for his political views, but they still want to defend their strong beliefs about the First Amendment. They offer no justification for calling Lemon a hack. He has a degree in journalism and a substantial résumé. It’s just an ad hominem attack.

I also don’t condone interrupting a worship service, but as yet have to see any evidence that Lemon helped plan it. JMO, these charges were brought against the journalists because Lemon is a high profile public figure and the Trump Administration wanted to use them to intimidate, discredit and control other journalists and generate negative publicity. Otherwise, there’s no rational explanation for arresting them. MOO. It would be dangerous to allow this administration to falsely create a precedent that would allow them to conduct mass arrests of journalists.

 

[Ruminations]

The allegations are garbage. The ones you cited are below.

Overt Act # 23: With other co-conspirators standing nearby, defendants LEMON, RICHARDSON, and FORT approached the pastor and largely surrounded him (to his front and both sides), stood in close proximity to the pastor in an attempt to oppress and intimidate him, and physically obstructed his freedom of movement while LEMON peppered him with questions to promote the operation’s message.

Lemon's video at 51:18 refutes this easily. Lemon and Pastor Parnell had a respectful conversation, while Parnell was plainly never blocked in by anybody. He walked away unimpeded when he chose to. The indictment is fantasyland bananas.

Overt Act # 24: While talking with the pastor, defendant LEMON stood so close to the pastor that LEMON caused the pastor’s right hand to graze LEMON, who then admonished the pastor, “Please don’t push me.”

This one is just childish and irrelevant. "Lemon made Parnell touch him," is something a child would say. Standing close is supposed to be against the law somehow??? Parnell could have walked away any time and he eventually did. This "overt act" overtly shows no violation of any kind whatsoever.

Overt Act # 2 5 : Although the pastor told defendant LEMON and the others to leave the Church, defendant LEMON and the other defendants ignored the pastor’s request and did not immediately leave the Church.

He was asked to leave and did not leave immediately, he meandered about. But that hardly meets the standard for breaking the law. Has to be willful. He didn't refuse to leave while someone was telling him to do so. This would not even hold up as a trespassing charge.

Overt Act # 28: At one point, defendant LEMON posted himself at the main door of the Church, where he confronted some congregants and physically obstructed them as they tried to exit the Church building to challenge them with “facts” about U.S. immigration policy.

He talked to a couple of people near the entrance for a few minutes but nobody was blocked at all. This claim of obstructing is just stupid. People talked to him voluntarily and left when they wanted to, unimpeded. Another clearly false claim.

I have to doubt whether the prosecutors even played the video for the grand jury, because anybody who watches it could possibly go along with these allegations. There is zero possibility of Lemon being convicted over this. moo

My favorite is the accusation that Lemon "challenge[d] them with 'facts' about US. immigration policy." Asking for people's point of view and information about the real life impact of occurances in the environment is more or less what journalists do.

And "facts" in quotes is interesting. Only a writer who works for an administration afraid of real facts would put the word "facts' in quotes.

It's a nonsense accusation against Fort and Lemon.

Maybe some protester(s) were bratty enough to charge with some kind of citation. But I'm not sure. Not all distasteful behavior (and I agree telling children their parents are going to hell is distasteful) rises to the level of illegal. While I would hate it if someone approached me and said mean things once, I don't see a charge against the offender sticking if I called the police on this behavior once. It would likely have to happen at least twice. And a civil suit? The parishioners didn't lose anything material. AFAIK, nobody even called the appropriate authorities. And they should have, so that if the protesters came back, there'd be some chance of calling it harassment.

This indictment will never stick. I don't think the intention is for it to stick. The intention is to normalize denying first amendment rights in this country, while the gespacho ignores all habeous corpus laws. The intention is to mock "facts" and replace them with martial law.

Bondi, etc., were just trying to get some faux outrage clips pretending to care even a tiny bit about an act the very same administration is trying to gut or overturn, so we don't notice ourselves slipping into a police state.

MOO

 

[Inthedetails]

This indictment will never stick. I don't think the intention is for it to stick. The intention is to normalize denying first amendment rights in this country, while the gespacho ignores all habeous corpus laws. The intention is to mock "facts" and replace them with martial law.

Bondi, etc., were just trying to get some faux outrage clips pretending to care even a tiny bit about an act the very same administration is trying to gut or overturn, so we don't notice ourselves slipping into a police state.

MOO

snipped

^^This^^

My Opinion

Edited to add: And I think the protestors handed this faux case right into the DOJ's hand. It was an ill-conceived protest from the start and what I assume was their intended message about ICE did not land.

I don't condone disrupting a worship service while at the same time I think the prosecution of journalists is wrong.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Maybe some protester(s) were bratty enough to charge with some kind of citation. But I'm not sure. Not all distasteful behavior (and I agree telling children their parents are going to hell is distasteful) rises to the level of illegal. While I would hate it if someone approached me and said mean things once, I don't see a charge against the offender sticking if I called the police on this behavior once. It would likely have to happen at least twice. And a civil suit? The parishioners didn't lose anything material. AFAIK, nobody even called the appropriate authorities. And they should have, so that if the protesters came back, there'd be some chance of calling it harassment.

You may want to carefully read pages 14 & 15 of the PC affidavit. FBI Affidavit in Suport of Arrest Warrant | PDF | U.S. Immigration And Customs Enforcement | American Government