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

[Ruminations]

Yes, and we saw it Federal Jury Convicts Six Defendants of Obstructing Access to Reproductive Health Services Facility in Violation of the FACE Act and Other Civil Rights Statutes | ArentFox Schiff

IMO.

Then, they were pardoned.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2025/01/27/abortion-protesters-pardoned-in-mt-juliet-carafem-blockade/77970952007/

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Then, they were pardoned.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2025/01/27/abortion-protesters-pardoned-in-mt-juliet-carafem-blockade/77970952007/

And?

 

[Ruminations]

That was a conspiracy to blockade a clinic.

And they were pardoned.

That is another weakness of this indictment.

MOO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

And they were pardoned.

That is another weakness of this indictment.

MOO

That has nothing to do with the indictment. A future POTUS could pardon a convicted Lemon.

 

[witchway]

Take a look at the link you posted.

From that:

"Provide three (3) letters on original business letterhead, signed by a news director, editor, or person in charge, stating the applicant has completed assignments requiring the need to cover news events at which police and/or fire lines within the City of Los Angeles are established, OR; provide three (3) examples of work credited to the applicant from the last six (6) months. The samples must show the applicant performed work that required access passed established police or fire lines. Such examples can include articles, photographs, videos, or other forms of media. The examples can be provided in print, PDF format, or through links to sites where the example can be viewed."

A person would have to show that he has a need to cross the lines by showing previous stories within the last 6 months. Lemon would probably not quality.

There were no police or fire lines that he needed to cross to cover that protest in the church. btw

 

[J. J. in Phila]

There were no police or fire lines that he needed to cross for to cover that protest in the church. btw

He still would not qualify. Many journalists would not.

IMO.

 

[witchway]

He still would not qualify. Many journalists would not.

IMO.

He didn’t need to qualify.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

He didn’t need to qualify.

I am pointing out that it is very limited.

The site notes, for example, that someone covering City Council does not need a card (and probably would not be eligible).

IMO and ITOOLAPD.

 

[Ruminations]

That has nothing to do with the indictment. A future POTUS could pardon a convicted Lemon.

It is very troubling what you are suggesting.

Are you saying that it is okay with you that the same administration who pardoned violations of the FACE act could and should then use the act? Because a pardon suggests that the pardoning person does not think the act is just or fair. Are you suggesting that law should not be used to be just and fair, but just as a way to pick on enemies?

One of the facts that Lemons lawyers have brought out to suggest that he is being targeted is that this administration has not shown support to the FACE act, and in fact is trying to gut it. Therefore, it seems like they were not working from legal principles when they pulled this act out to attempt to over charge journalists and protesters. They were just trying to get an arrest by any means possible.

When you casually say this hypothetical conviction can just be pardoned in the future, you suggest you want to live in a country where the goal is not justice and fairness, but the goal is to use the criminal justice system to prosecute your enemies and pardon friends.

MOO

 

[witchway]

I am pointing out that it is very limited.

The site notes, for example, that someone covering City Council does not need a card (and probably would not be eligible).

IMO and ITOOLAPD.

The full text is
Persons who regularly report from Council or committee meetings, on sporting events or activities, on entertainment news, or write or produce investigative news stories do not require an LAPD media card. These types of stories do not occur passed established police or fire lines, and do not fall under the criteria defined in LAMC Section 52.16(A).

Where do you see how would not be eligible?

I am pointing out that it is very limited.

The site notes, for example, that someone covering City Council does not need a card (and probably would not be eligible).

IMO and ITOOLAPD.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

It is very troubling what you are suggesting.

Are you saying that it is okay with you that the same administration who pardoned violations of the FACE act could and should then use the act? Because a pardon suggests that the pardoning person does not think the act is just or fair. Are you suggesting that law should not be used to be just and fair, but just as a way to pick on enemies?

One of the facts that Lemons lawyers have brought out to suggest that he is being targeted is that this administration has not shown support to the FACE act, and in fact is trying to gut it. Therefore, it seems like they were not working from legal principles when they pulled this act out to attempt to over charge journalists and protesters. They were just trying to get an arrest by any means possible.

When you casually say this hypothetical conviction can just be pardoned in the future, you suggest you want to live in a country where the goal is not justice and fairness, but the goal is to use the criminal justice system to prosecute your enemies and pardon friends.

MOO

It is not something I suggest it is something in the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, the President shall "...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." The 2nd Article of the U.S. Constitution

Just like this one: https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-12/biden_warrant.pdf The gent in question was found guilty of buying a gun while an addict. The fact that he was pardoned doesnot mean that no one else can be charged.

IMO.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The full text is
Persons who regularly report from Council or committee meetings, on sporting events or activities, on entertainment news, or write or produce investigative news stories do not require an LAPD media card. These types of stories do not occur passed established police or fire lines, and do not fall under the criteria defined in LAMC Section 52.16(A).

Where do you see how would not be eligible?

He has not covered any of the stories in LA over the past 6 months where he needed to get across the line. I did post the section.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

"
Following his arraignment, Lemon told reporters the case reflects what he views as a troubling trend toward targeting journalists for doing their jobs.

“This isn’t just about me. This is about all journalists, especially here in the United States,” he said. “For more than 30 years I’ve been a journalist, and the First Amendment has been the underpinning of my work.”

Are you saying he is NOT claiming journalism as a defense? If you are, you are not being very honest.

I am not who you responded to, but yes, of course. Lemon is NOT claiming journalism as a defense and I'm being very honest.


You are conflating two issues.

1) the FACE act. Lemon appears not to have violated it in any way. The allegations in the indictment are not supported by what is depicted on video. Instead, he was lawfully doing what a journalist does.

2) That Lemon and journalists are targets of this weaponized criminal justice charge. Here he is stating that he is being targeted because he is a journalist.

Lemon is not saying he follows a different set of laws because he is a journalist. He is saying that prosecutors are inventing a new criminal justice procedure to harass journalists and protesters protected by the first amendment.

Lemon is not claiming journalism as a defense. He is saying being a journalist makes him a target.

See the difference?

MOO

 

[witchway]

He has not covered any of the stories in LA over the past 6 months where he needed to get across the line. I did post the section.

MOO

He did not need to cross a line anywhere I can see in the last 6 months. What are you talking about? What is your point?

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Yes he is, if he claims he is not guilty because he is a journalist. MOO

I think that is exactly what he is claiming. Being a journalist doesn’t protect you from breaking the law. imo

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I am not who you responded to, but yes, of course. Lemon is NOT claiming journalism as a defense and I'm being very honest.


You are conflating two issues.

1) the FACE act. Lemon appears not to have violated it in any way. The allegations in the indictment are not supported by what is depicted on video. Instead, he was lawfully doing what a journalist does.

Snipped for emphasis.

Lemon was unlawfully in the church, being part of the disruption. No one can do that, including a journalist.

As for an attack on journalists, what attack?

IMO.

 

[Ruminations]

It is not something I suggest it is something in the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, the President shall "...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." The 2nd Article of the U.S. Constitution

Just like this one: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-12/biden_warrant.pdf The gent in question was found guilty of buying a gun while an addict. The fact that he was pardoned doesnot mean that no one else can be charged.

IMO.

Not analogous. Not current. A deflection.

MOO

 

[Rolypolyoly]

He is claiming that because he is a journalist, his actions there cannot be illegal.

Can a journalist cover a fire? Sure. Can he run stop sign on the way their and get out of a ticked because he was doing journalism? Nope.

IMO.

The things in your example dont make your argument. Running a stop sign would have nothing to do with covering a fire. Being on your way to work, even as a journalist, wouldnt cover you for running a stop sign, thats just ridiculous.
Maybe if you said, can he report on a fire that he started?, I would agree with the point you were trying to make, because of course setting a fire is illegal, and covering it for the news wouldnt make him not guilty for starting it.

In this instance though, as far as I am aware at this time, he did not plan or participate in any protest, he stood back and reported on events as they happened. He isnt claiming he is allowed to break the law because he is a journalist, he is stating that he was there for work, reporting on and not participating in any crimes, this is an important distinction.

All MOO.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The things in your example dont make your argument. Running a stop sign would have nothing to do with covering a fire. Being on your way to work, even as a journalist, wouldnt cover you for running a stop sign, thats just ridiculous.
Maybe if you said, can he report on a fire that he started?, I would agree with the point you were trying to make, because of course setting a fire is illegal, and covering it for the news wouldnt make him not guilty for starting it.

In this instance though, as far as I am aware at this time, he did not plan or participate in any protest, he stood back and reported on events as they happened. He isnt claiming he is allowed to break the law because he is a journalist, he is stating that he was there for work, reporting on and not participating in any crimes, this is an important distinction.

All MOO.

The reporter is driving to a fire. He runs the stop sign, so he can get there to quickly cover the story.

Lemon entered the church knowing that there would be some action taking place inside. MOO.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

I agree on the lead statement. But.... we have very different views regarding the rest of your post.

The FACE Act clearly states that it is illegal intimidate people at a place of worship from practicing first amendment rights- period.

Neither the ACLU nor the SPLC, nor any other established civil liberties group has questioned the applicability of the charges to the protesters. That is pretty telling and could well indicate that they are in big trouble.

Then factor in the idea that people have protest rights, but need to stay out of churches, mosques, synagogues and temples might resonate pretty deep with a certain number of jurors.

In regards to the charges against Lemon, I think he is going to get squeezed, but I my confidence is lower. Two judges refused to issue warrants. Yet, neither judge rejected the applicability of the charges out right.

In the end, the fact that the protest and target were plastered all over Minneapolis, but none of the big boy networks decided to respond to: "Hey CNN, FOX and CBS wanna get the inside scoop on our protest at the Church? We are rolling out soon!!" could be telling. Little voices might have told them it was legally a bad idea.

As to the loyalty of the protesters to their cause and to each other. Humans and humans and groups of humans usually fragment. Not all of them might have signed up for the risk of criminal charges.

RBBMFF

In my opinion Don Lemon knew it was not a good idea to enter the church, but he did it anyway. He was practically vibrating with excitement, like a kid on Christmas morning.

imo