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

[imstilla.grandma]

Formal / News style: Former U.S. attorney joins Lemon’s defense team amid controversy over federal immigration enforcement policies. Ex-prosecutor who resigned in protest of immigration policy now represents the former CNN anchor in high-profile case. Move highlights tensions within the Justice Department over immigration and civil rights prosecutions. Professional & engaging: A rare switch from prosecutor to defender brings new weight to Lemon’s legal battle. The hiring underscores growing debate over press freedom and federal enforcement priorities. Short & impactful: A controversial resignation turns into a powerful legal alliance. From government watchdog to Lemon’s defender​

In a notable twist, Lemon has added Joseph H. Thompson, a former interim U.S. Attorney for Minnesota, to his defense team. Thompson had served nearly 17 years in the Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s Office and held senior leadership positions, including acting U.S. Attorney, before resigning in January amid internal disagreements over how federal authorities were handling immigration-related cases and certain investigations.

A court filing earlier this week confirmed that Thompson will appear as counsel of record for Lemon, joining powerhouse defense attorney Abbe Lowell in representing the journalist in federal court. Lowell is known for representing high-profile clients in politically charged cases and is expected to lead the defense strategy.
I
Thompson’s decision to switch sides — from federal prosecutor to defense counsel — against the very office he once helped lead adds an unusual dynamic to the case. It pits Lemon’s defense team directly against seasoned federal attorneys with whom Thompson once worked, potentially reshaping legal tactics and courtroom dynamics.

Don Lemon Hires Federal Prosecutor Who Quit Over Immigration Crackdown

Formal / News style: Former U.S. attorney joins Lemon’s defense team amid controversy over federal immigration enforcement policies. Ex-prosecutor who resigned in protest of immigration policy now represents the former CNN anchor in high-profile case. Move highlights tensions within the Justice...

vocal.media

 

[Ruminations]

Almost like they want to tank it from the start. Interesting tactic.

jmopinion

I don't think they are concerned with tanking the case or not.

Because the point is not to win in court.

The point is to distract from the extrajudicial killings on the streets of Minnesota and to chill protesters and journalists.

BTW, thank you for your well-researched posts. I loved reading about why the Bush-appointed judge rejected prosecuting this case.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

Curious what DOJ lawyers will be in court on Friday?

Lol, the herd has been reverse-culled. Many ethical legal professionals left.

I guess that's better for them since the strategy appears to be to try this case over twitter. Fewer attorneys will be there saying, we can't do that!

MOO

 

[imstilla.grandma]

Thompson will now represent Lemon as he looks to fend off federal civil rights charges.

The indictment stems from Lemon’s coverage of a Jan. 18 demonstration in which protestors interrupted a St. Paul church service to oppose a pastor who reportedly serves as a federal immigration officer.

Lemon maintains he was acting as a journalist and denies wrongdoing.

https://www.kxan.com/news/national-news/don-lemon-hires-federal-prosecutor-who-resigned-over-minnesota-probes/

 

[Izzylizzy]

What happens at an arraignment in Federal court:

The defendant enters a plea to the charges brought by the U.S. attorney at a hearing known as an arraignment. The defendant is read or given a copy of the charge and is asked to plead guilty or not guilty. Typically at an arraignment, a defendant enters a plea of not guilty. The Court will then set a docket call/jury trial date in accordance with the Speedy Trial Act.

https://mie.fd.org/clients-and-families/federal-court-process

I'm curious if by Trump/DOJ having had pardoned 23 convicted and pending people charged under the FACE ACT for breaking the abortion clinic laws under FACE if Abbe Lowell can put this before Judge as exculpatory evidence citing political and revenge motivation for charging Lemon & Fort and ask for a dismissal of the charges?
imo

 

[mickey2942]

I always think when a private citizen takes on federal government, the deck is stacked against them. Like, stacking deck chairs on the Titanic.

The government has unlimited resources, unlimited time, and if they want to throw their weight against a private citizen, it can be crushing. To the point of futility. Few private citizens have access to financial resources to take on federal government.

 

[Izzylizzy]

I always think when a private citizen takes on federal government, the deck is stacked against them. Like, stacking deck chairs on the Titanic.

The government has unlimited resources, unlimited time, and if they want to throw their weight against a private citizen, it can be crushing. To the point of futility. Few private citizens have access to financial resources to take on federal government.

Granted but the recent rulings by judges against these types of politically motivated lawsuits being thrown out due to lack of evidence is encouraging.
I think the main purpose of the DOJ is to cause financial hardship and get opportunist attention against the defendants.
Then again this DOJ may actually have believed they had the goods and if so proves their legal incompetence and no care for wasting time and tax-payers money.
imo

 

[Inthedetails]

Lol, the herd has been reverse-culled. Many ethical legal professionals left.

I guess that's better for them since the strategy appears to be to try this case over twitter. Fewer attorneys will be there saying, we can't do that!

MOO

Yes, many experienced lawyers, committed to the Constitution, have left office and lawyers don't want to apply. That leaves...who? BBM


The Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s office is under unusual pressure because it operates at the eye of the ICE storm. Nationwide, since the start of the Trump administration, the Justice Department has lost thousands of experienced attorneys and replaced only a fraction of them. In the past, applications from judges’ law clerks, lawyers at prestigious law firms, and top-of-the-class law school graduates poured into the department, but not anymore.
https://thehill.com/opinion/

https://thehill.com/homenews/5729776-so-few-good-lawyers-want-to-work-for-trump-that-doj-is-recruiting-on-fox/

About the source:
The Hill is an American political journalism newspaper and website published in Washington, D.C., since 1994. The Hill focuses on politics, policy, business, and international relations. Their coverage includes the U.S. Congress, the presidency, and election campaigns.

The Hill - Bias and Credibility

LEAST BIASED These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or

mediabiasfactcheck.com

The author is a former federal prosecutor.

p.s. I do not condone disrupting a worship service. This post is about the case against a journalist.

 

[Inthedetails]

I always think when a private citizen takes on federal government, the deck is stacked against them. Like, stacking deck chairs on the Titanic.

The government has unlimited resources, unlimited time, and if they want to throw their weight against a private citizen, it can be crushing. To the point of futility. Few private citizens have access to financial resources to take on federal government.

But this isn't a private citizen taking on the federal government. It's the other way around.

In this case, Don Lemon is fortunate to have a lot of money, earned over decades as a journalist. I am concerned about the other journalists who are charged. For most working journalists, they are not earning as much as someone like Lemon.

jmo

p.s. I do not condone disrupting a worship service.

 

[Ruminations]

What has been cited here does not. Discussing what is in a public indictment is not "materially prejudicing a jury trial in a pending criminal matter." Saying something like "Lemon beats his dog" would be, because he is not charged with that, for example.

Well, the indictment is already prejudicial with vague anecdotes. Considering how rushed it was, there is less confidence that the claims in the indictment will even be allowed in court, or that the quoted victims will survive cross-examination, etc.

But, even the emotional indictment affidavit is not nearly as extreme as things in the twitterverse, so, yes, it can prejudice a jury even more than the indictment. And, I think the defense might make the point that the emotional indictment itself was prejudicial, being that it was not make up of facts.

There is not a single witness who is going to be able to testify as to the intentions or approval of any deity or dark prince. Nobody saw the devil giving a thumbs up, so the word "demonic" is way out of line, especially for a democracy. (An autocratic theocracy might bring this up in court.)

The protesters are clearly not trying to do harm to their country. Their own statements are very pro-American and pro democratic freedoms, so to claim otherwise is 100% to prejudice a jury. But the jury can't convict or acquit entirely on intentions. Any charges would be for their behaviors, not their beliefs, even if their beliefs were benevolent.

The affidavit is packed with untested claims. Usually, prosecutors wait to say things until they are confident they will survive cross examination.

It is very likely the actual evidence that gets to court will be very different. The only evidence that will change little is from the videos directly. However, for the journalists, in court, unlike for the GJ, the context of the videos will be different. The affidavit does not differentiate journalists from protesters, so that context of the videos is very much going to be mentioned in court.

So yes, it is very prejudicial to use a sloppy affidavit, so sloppy that it itself, public or not, could ultimately be considered prejudicial and harm the prosecution. And more prejudicial still to go beyond the affidavit to tweet to the world loaded words like "demonic."

MOO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Well, the indictment is already prejudicial with vague anecdotes. Considering how rushed it was, there is less confidence that the claims in the indictment will even be allowed in court, or that the quoted victims will survive cross-examination, etc.

But, even the emotional indictment affidavit is not nearly as extreme as things in the twitterverse, so, yes, it can prejudice a jury even more than the indictment. And, I think the defense might make the point that the emotional indictment itself was prejudicial, being that it was not make up of facts.

There is not a single witness who is going to be able to testify as to the intentions or approval of any deity or dark prince. Nobody saw the devil giving a thumbs up, so the word "demonic" is way out of line, especially for a democracy. (An autocratic theocracy might bring this up in court.)

The protesters are clearly not trying to do harm to their country. Their own statements are very pro-American and pro democratic freedoms, so to claim otherwise is 100% to prejudice a jury. But the jury can't convict or acquit entirely on intentions. Any charges would be for their behaviors, not their beliefs, even if their beliefs were benevolent.

The affidavit is packed with untested claims. Usually, prosecutors wait to say things until they are confident they will survive cross examination.

It is very likely the actual evidence that gets to court will be very different. The only evidence that will change little is from the videos directly. However, for the journalists, in court, unlike for the GJ, the context of the videos will be different. The affidavit does not differentiate journalists from protesters, so that context of the videos is very much going to be mentioned in court.

So yes, it is very prejudicial to use a sloppy affidavit, so sloppy that it itself, public or not, could ultimately be considered prejudicial and harm the prosecution. And more prejudicial still to go beyond the affidavit to tweet to the world loaded words like "demonic."

MOO

An indictment is not an extrajudicial comment.

The material is based on testimony and/or video.

The rest of your comment starts from false premises and descends from there.

IMO.

 

[Ruminations]

I'm curious if by Trump/DOJ having had pardoned 23 convicted and pending people charged under the FACE ACT for breaking the abortion clinic laws under FACE if Abbe Lowell can put this before Judge as exculpatory evidence citing political and revenge motivation for charging Lemon & Fort and ask for a dismissal of the charges?
imo

Yes. It weakens their case a lot to use a law they are trying to gut.

But what choice did they have. They REALLY wanted an indictment and most laws like trespassing are local.

MOO

 

[Inthedetails]

I don't think they are concerned with tanking the case or not.

Because the point is not to win in court.

The point is to distract from the extrajudicial killings on the streets of Minnesota and to chill protesters and journalists.

BTW, thank you for your well-researched posts. I loved reading about why the Bush-appointed judge rejected prosecuting this case.

MOO

100% agree the DOJ doesn't care if they win the case. The charges are in themselves punishment, and goals achieved:

The base has been riled up.

Lemon has been demonized and his professional career attacked for political and revengeful purposes.

Other journalists might be intimidated (I hope not).

Role of free press in a democracy is ignored as if it doesn't matter when, in fact, it is essential.


All of this is In My Opinion.

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

 

[Ruminations]

I always think when a private citizen takes on federal government, the deck is stacked against them. Like, stacking deck chairs on the Titanic.

The government has unlimited resources, unlimited time, and if they want to throw their weight against a private citizen, it can be crushing. To the point of futility. Few private citizens have access to financial resources to take on federal government.

It gets scary when your own government is using those awesome resources against journalism.

Because when freedom of press is gone, our freedom is gone.

And that awesome federal power is now more awesome and more abusive.

MOO

 

[Izzylizzy]

Minnesota Court Rules: Professional Conduct. bbm

Rule 3.6: Trial Publicity

A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a criminal matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement about the matter that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a jury trial in a pending criminal matter.



Despite the clear rules of conduct, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon re-posted on a public platform a comment that included, "Nobody is above the law. Especially not today's klansmen-like Don Lemon-who storm churches and terrorize Christians."

View attachment 644003

Dhillon re-posted Mike Davis of all people
which shows that like attracts like.
And Dhillons the US's Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights to boot.
imo

 

[Inthedetails]

Curious what DOJ lawyers will be in court on Friday?

Orlando Sonza, I'm assuming, since he is apparently heading the team, but I don't know.

We'll find out tomorrow, I suppose.

jmo

 

[Izzylizzy]

Snips but the article needs to be read from the beginning.


"The constitutional problems with the law, as related to worshipers, are part of the reason prosecutors have never attempted to use it in a religious freedom case.

The problem, some former Civil Rights Division lawyers say, is that the section in the FACE Act criminalizing interference at houses of worship fundamentally misstates the rights people have under the First Amendment.

The First Amendment protects individuals' religious freedom from government interference. But it does not protect them from interference by private individuals, like the protesters and journalists charged in the indictment, they say.

It's also just one in a series of red flags that former Justice Department officials believe could spell trouble for the case and lead to a quick dismissal.

"This is not a legitimate use of the FACE Act. This is wholly outside the core purpose that the law was passed, and I will not be surprised if these cases are quickly thrown out," said Kristen Clarke, the former Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division.'

Civil rights attorneys predict charges against Don Lemon, others will be dismissed, citing flaws in FACE Act

Inexperienced prosecutors are testing FACE Act in their case against Don Lemon. But the law has constitutional problems that make it untenable to charge misconduct in a house of worship.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Inthedetails]

Reminder: no cameras in federal courts. Lemon has his arraignment tomorrow.

jmo

 

[Inthedetails]

The indictment against journalist Don Lemon and eight others will likely be dismissed because it hinges on a charge that is viewed as so constitutionally flawed that the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division has never attempted to use it to prosecute interference in a house of worship, legal experts say. ...

The First Amendment protects individuals' religious freedom from government interference. But it does not protect them from interference by private individuals, like the protesters and journalists charged in the indictment, they say.

Civil rights attorneys predict charges against Don Lemon, others will be dismissed, citing flaws in FACE Act

Inexperienced prosecutors are testing FACE Act in their case against Don Lemon. But the law has constitutional problems that make it untenable to charge misconduct in a house of worship.

www.cbsnews.com

p.s. I do not approve of disrupting a worship service

 

[Inthedetails]

This is regarding this case:

The affidavit in support of the complaint was made by an ICE agent with less than a year of experience. Affidavits in cases like this are usually filed by FBI agents, since they are the ones investigating criminal civil rights violations.

Civil rights attorneys predict charges against Don Lemon, others will be dismissed, citing flaws in FACE Act

Inexperienced prosecutors are testing FACE Act in their case against Don Lemon. But the law has constitutional problems that make it untenable to charge misconduct in a house of worship.

www.cbsnews.com