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

[J. J. in Phila]

If there is any evidence he was doing in that church anything else but documenting the protest and interviewing the witnesses/victims, I'd love to see it. As for now I've seen nothing of this kind.

MOO

It is cited in the indictment. I have heard some tapes that sound like Lemon chanting, which we cannot post here.

 

[Hexe]

It is cited in the indictment.

Indictment, as stated multiple times in this thread, is not exactly evidence.

I have heard some tapes that sound like Lemon chanting, which we cannot post here.

Was it forensically proven it is Lemon's voice on these tapes? If not it is just your subjective feeling they sound like Lemon. Not much of evidence either.

MOO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Indictment, as stated multiple times in this thread, is not exactly evidence.



Was it forensically proven it is Lemon's voice on these tapes? If not it is just your subjective feeling they sound like Lemon. Not much of evidence either.

MOO

The question was "If there is any evidence he was doing in that church anything else but documenting the protest and interviewing the witnesses/victims, I'd love to see it." My answer is yes, IMO

If that is him, then he his participating.

 

[Rolypolyoly]

A woman swore under oath that she suffered a broken arm while fleeing the church with crying children.

A journalist was present. A journalist should report on injuries suffered during the loud, disruptive incident in the church. Because the journalist did not report the injury, we should disbelieve that it happened?

paragraph 43; affidavit in support of arrest warrant

We have absolutely no evidence to suggest that either journalist present witnessed the woman slipping over, and it would appear that she left through a separate door in a different part of the church to where either journalist was located at the time of the incident. Neither journalist present at the scene could report on something they didnt know about .
They are journalists, not psychics!.

 

[waldojabba]

That case is a good contrast to Lemon's to show how much weaker this one is.

Here is Handy's indictment. First of all it's written with much more neutral objective language, compared to the highly politicalized language in Lemon's (like calling defendants "agitators"). The Handy one lists lots of specific acts that are clearly violations of the law, whereas the Lemon indictment has mostly either allegations irrelevant to the charges or describes the acts in vague terms, not specific actions. And where it is in specifics it is contradicted by the video evidence we can see.

It's not surprising since this indictment has been drafted by inexperienced, political appointee hacks, as the career prosecutors in that division either all quit or refused to work on this case. Same goes for the investigator who signed the Affidavit, who is also very inexperienced. He's not even in the FBI, he's a member of ICE and DHS, and only since March of last year. Why the hell is an ICE employee working on a civil rights law case? I guarantee he has no experience in this area. He is very hacky too, he also uses the "agitator" term, and he describes the Renee Good case as: "Good was recently involved in an illegal protest to disrupt immigration enforcement activities, which led to an officer involved shooting as a result of her assault on an immigration officer," when none of that has been adjudicated, nor even investigated. Such gross gaslighting.

The prior cases were also typically filed months, even years, after the incident, but this one was filed within days. Another sign of a hacky hit job, that it's foremost for political purposes not a legitimate pursuit of justice.

Below are some of the overt acts alleged in the Handy case.



An easy open and shut case that plainly violates the FACE Act law.

Here's another case, US v. Citizens for a Pro-Life Society, et al. Handy was charged in that case as well. Many of the defendants in these prior cases are repeat offenders, this complaint details the numerous times each defendant has been arrested for similar acts. So they knew exactly what they were doing, that they're breaking the law, showing clear willful intent, which is quite absent in the Lemon case. Here are some of the allegations in this one:



Another case is US vs Thomas, with another similar fact pattern. This one was filed in 2017, in Trump's first term, back before the recent mass purge of anyone who wouldn't go along with his obscenely corrupt weaponization of the DOJ.

The Lemon indictment doesn't come close to alleging or substantiating anything comparable against Lemon or the protestors. Lemon will easily not be convicted of the charges. And I have doubts about convicting the protestors as well, or if they are, that it will be for light sentences.

Very informational thoughtful post - chock full of old fashioned logic - appreciate it @Smelly Squirrel
jmo

 

[J. J. in Phila]

We have absolutely no evidence to suggest that either journalist present witnessed the woman slipping over, and it would appear that she left through a separate door in a different part of the church to where either journalist was located at the time of the incident. Neither journalist present at the scene could report on something they didnt know about .
They are journalists, not psychics!.

That was not the question that Otto asked.

If something was not reported, does that mean it did not happen. Of course not!

Reporters or observers can miss things. MMO.

 

[Hexe]

The question was "If there is any evidence he was doing in that church anything else but documenting the protest and interviewing the witnesses/victims, I'd love to see it." My answer is yes, IMO

If that is him, then he his participating.

So that's possible evidence that needs to be investigated. Until it isn't it cannot prove anything.
I'd really want to know though how it was possible for Lemon to livestream with the mic on and not record himself chanting.

MOO

 

[Hexe]

That was not the question that Otto asked.

If something was not reported, does that mean it did not happen. Of course not!

Reporters or observers can miss things. MMO.

A journo who missed something does not stop being a journo though.

MOO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

So that's possible evidence that needs to be investigated. Until it isn't it cannot prove anything.
I'd really want to know though how it was possible for Lemon to livestream with the mic on and not record himself chanting.

MOO

That is why there is a grand jury. I will note that Lemon may not have been speaking directly into the mic or the mic may have been turned off.

MOO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

A journo who missed something does not stop being a journo though.

MOO

Otto did not suggest that. I hope that we can agree that thinks happen that are not reported.

MOO