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

[Betty P]

I think this is going to squeeze Lemon and also why only two journalists- one of whom was there only because Lemon was there covered the event.

There were lots of attempted disruptions at Catholic churches following the SCOTUS decision to return abortion to the states.

I don't remember any news service hooking up with protesters in advance, then following them to a Church, then entering to minutes later to conduct interviews. My guess is that there is a reason for that. In the end, this whole thing seems more than a little middle school ala:

CNN News Services: Go Lemon, Go!!! We back you 100% in the way you covered that Church disruption. Heck, you can do it again- if you want.

Hypothetical Quiet voice of Lemons Videographer: So, Uhhmmm..... why were you CNN guys not there? And why have you not done something similar?

CNN News Service: Because you are the punk fall guy (girl), not us.

Hypothetical Videographer question: Will I get a cool, cutting edge legal eagle to defend me? (Best left unanswered)

That's highly inflammatory speculation with zero basis in fact.
JMO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Either the parishioners were running away from the church, scared by the protesters, breaking their limbs in the process (wasn't that what you claimed earlier in the thread?) or they were ready to stay and comtinue. You cannot have it both ways.

MOO

Had the protesters not continuously disrupted the service, it could could have continued.

MOO.

No, I do not recall making a broken limb reference, except possibly to say that it is not material to Lemon's reporting.

 

[Hexe]

Had the protesters not continuously disrupted the service, it could could have continued.

We are not talking about the protesters here.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

That's highly inflammatory speculation with zero basis in fact.
JMO

Speculation, yes. Inflammatory, no.

Lemon raised the **Trump is targeting journalists** issue. No one seems to be able to find any other journalist Trump is targeting other than those that invaded the church, allegedly.

IMO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

We are not talking about the protesters here.

Yes we are, as Lemon and Fort were part of that disruption.

A reporter cannot follow home invaders into a house and claim that they are being journalists when they try to interview the terrified homeowners.

IMO.

 

[Hexe]

Yes we are, as Lemon and Fort were part of that disruption.

Have I missed something and it got proven in any way already?

ETA:

A reporter cannot follow home invaders into a house and claim that they are being journalists when they try to interview the terrified homeowners.

Is it proven Lemon knew there would be a crime commited? Entering the church as such is not a crime, protesting in polite fashion without disrupting service neither is one. So again, is there any evidence Lemon knew how would the events unfold?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Have I missed something and it got proven in any way already?

ETA:



Is it proven Lemon knew there would be a crime commited? Entering the church as such is not a crime, protesting in polite fashion without disrupting service neither is one. So again, is there any evidence Lemon knew how would the events unfold?

Protesting in a church is criminal, just like protesting in someone's house, if it disrupts.

Lemon knew that there was going to be some action and could see that it was a church. He also stayed after it started and contributed to the disruption.

MOO.

 

[Ruminations]

Imo -- chronology matters. If we focus only on Lemon until after the service is disrupted, do his individual acts prior to and including that point in time meet the letter of the law? I have not seen evidence to that effect.

2 judges reviewed the affidavit by the prosecution and the video evidence who concluded that there was no probable cause to arrest Don Lemon. They asked the prosecutors for more evidence or information and prosecutors could not give it to them.

Probable cause is just for an arrest, it's not a trial- but the judges didn't think there was cause even for an arrest of Lemon.

So yes, I think that is evidence that Lemon did not break the law.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

The grand jury sits for a term, as a rule; they are not picked for a specific case: Rule 6. The Grand Jury

It isunlikely that this grand jury is "suspect."

I have read the motion and there appears to be nothing related to being suspect. IMO

Since one poster thinks it is, can he articulate it.

Oh, my, please stop posting deflections.

I am not talking about the seated jurors being defective.

I am talking about the process the prosecution appears to have used in giving the GJ incorrect facts, incorrect laws and incorrect instructions.

The motion to release the grand jury transcripts lays out a very compelling case that the GJ was abused.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

Have I missed something and it got proven in any way already?

ETA:



Is it proven Lemon knew there would be a crime commited? Entering the church as such is not a crime, protesting in polite fashion without disrupting service neither is one. So again, is there any evidence Lemon knew how would the events unfold?

Not only was it not proven that Lemon knew there would be a crime committed (and btw, there was no adjudicated crime committed).

There was not even probable cause that Lemon might have committed a crime such that it would be proper to arrest him per two judges.

MOO

 

[Hexe]

Protesting in a church is criminal, just like protesting in someone's house, if it disrupts.

Yes, that's what I wrote.

Lemon knew that there was going to be some action and could see that it was a church.

Some action, yes. Did he know though there would be a crime commited?

He also stayed after it started and contributed to the disruption.

How could he disrupt more a service that just ended? Mind you, when he started interviewing, people were already leaving. The service was over.

MOO

 

[Betty P]

Speculation, yes. Inflammatory, no.

Lemon raised the **Trump is targeting journalists** issue. No one seems to be able to find any other journalist Trump is targeting other than those that invaded the church, allegedly.

IMO

One year of Trump’s war on the press

Peter Vandermeersch took a closer look at what one year of Trump’s second term has meant for the media. Here's his status report.

wan-ifra.org

Alongside this legal pressure, Trump continued to target individual journalists publicly. On 14 November he snapped “Quiet, piggy” at Bloomberg reporter Catherine Lucey. Four days later he called ABC News journalist Mary Bruce “a terrible person and a terrible reporter.” Entire newsrooms were repeatedly branded “enemies of the people,” “sick,” or simply “fake news.” Critical reporting is systematically framed by the president as malicious opposition.

The pressure has not been limited to rhetoric, lawsuits or access restrictions. In recent weeks, a line was crossed that until recently seemed unthinkable in the United States: a search of a journalist’s home. Hannah Natanson, an investigative reporter for The Washington Post, was visited by federal investigators as part of a leak investigation. Her home was searched and her laptops were seized.

USA: 8 ways Trump is shrinking the space for press freedom – literally

The attacks against the press carried out by President Donald Trump since the start of his second term have increasingly stretched beyond rhetoric and policy and turned into physical limitations for journalists. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is highlighting eight ways the US administration is...

rsf.org

Trump's moves against media outlets mirror authoritarian approaches to silencing dissent

Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has waged an aggressive campaign against the media unlike any in modern U.S. history, making moves similar to those of authoritarian leaders that he has often praised.

www.pbs.org

https://www.npr.org/2026/02/16/nx-s1-5704347/extremist-racist-messaging-trump

 

[Cryptic]

Yes, this might be part of the defence's case. imo

On the one hand, in this instance, the administration (DOJ) charged protesters and journalists with violating the FACE Act.

And the administration (president) had previously pardoned 23 protesters convicted of FACE Act violations.

Conservatives tried that comparison by citing that Biden was ignoring hundreds of leftist ideologically motivated incidents of church vandalism, bomb threats etc. (possible FACE act violations) while zealously Facing down (get it, get it) say.... a pro life protester who was quickly found not guilty by a Phillidelphia jury- not exactly a conservative arena.

That aside, I doubt comparisons from either side will be allowed in Court. Rather, the only evidence permitted will likely be what each protester or journalist did on that day, in that Church and in support of that specific incident.

Evidence such as: Well, Trump pardoned "A", "B" and "C". Or an earlier comparison of.... Hey, Biden ignored this and that and FACED down hard against "E" will be denied.

A judge, however, might discreetly consider Trump pardoned "A-K" at sentencing as she or he can consider the totality of the circumstances. Likewise, such comparisons might be able to be presented at an appellate court.

Perhaps an appeal based on Due Process: Your honor: Trumps pattern of pardons for similar offenses while I get FACE fast and furiously in my face denies me due process?

 

[Ruminations]

But you brought up your belief that convicting the protesters would be difficult.

The ACLU is not contesting the applicability of the charges to the protesters.

I still believe that convicting the protesters would be difficult.

If I were chief of St. Paul police, I'd have had my officers tell each protesters whose name I knew, to stay on the sidewalk and allow a path in and out of the church, or they will be charged with trespassing. I'd ask the church to revise an "all welcome" sign to say something like "all welcome to worship and pray; do not use this time to interrupt those who are doing so."

Then I'd make arrest if behavior continued.

I don't think trespassing violations on an open, unlocked, all welcome property would make it through court on a first violation in this case. (If the church ordinarily was "members only" it would be easier.)

As for the FACE act, any conviction has probably been jeopardized by all the above (first time, open doors, welcome mat) plus the recent pardons, plus the appearance of malicious prosecution against the journalists which taints the whole case.

But I don't argue with two things:

1) the protest was rude
2) the protesters may feel arrest or conviction would be worth it-"good trouble"- given that the pastor leads an agency that kills, assaults and kidnaps.

So maybe the protesters will be in some legal trouble. And maybe they were rude. But maybe, if it stops one murder of a citizen, it is worth it to them.

MOO

 

[shotgun09]

Watching the Don Lemon Live stream from 1/18, I noticed that post church disruption, DL met with several of the large group of protesters outside of the church. He interviewed some of them, and also said that he would meet up with some later at the Whipple Facility ( where other protests were continuously going on ). What struck me, was the statement made "Live" from DL, and that was " I might get arrested people ". ... " One never knows" ( at 1:22 in DL's livestream from 1/18/26 )
He said this as he was walking back to his car and noticed three Police vehicles on scene parked. Why would he say THAT??

Also, he commented on the fact that none of these LE officers ever made it inside the church ( That he had seen ), nor had they been interviewing and or questioning the large group of protesters gathered outside the church. ( That I had observed ).

My other nagging question is, was there a sort of 'Stand down' order given to LE that morning?

Stay tuned.....( It might very well be a highly coordinated effort, from the top down)

Just my musings, and therefore IMO.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Imo -- chronology matters. If we focus only on Lemon until after the service is disrupted, do his individual acts prior to and including that point in time meet the letter of the law? I have not seen evidence to that effect.

Let's start with the fact that the church's doors were open that morning for a specific purpose: Sunday morning worship service.

Was Don Lemon there to worship?
No, he stated clearly that he was there to cover the protest inside the church.
He 100% knew the protestors were going to be inside, and interrupt the church service.
He was present at a meeting where it was layed out exactly how it would happen.

Right then and there, admitting why he was there in the first place he made it perfectly clear he was not inside that church for the stated purpose the church was open, but instead had his own agenda for being there. Once the service was initially interrupted by a protestor, he did in fact participate with the on-going interruption by attempting to "interview" people. The church wasn't open to host random journalists to bombard worshippers with questions about civil rights and the US Constitution, but that's exactly what Lemon was doing.

How anyone can say Lemon wasn't part of the disruption is kind of bizarre to me, since he filmed himself doing it.

jmo

 

[Hexe]

Right then and there, admitting why he was there in the first place he made it perfectly clear he was not inside that church for the stated purpose the church was open, but instead had his own agenda for being there.

That is not a crime.

Once the service was initially interrupted by a protestor, he did in fact participate with the on-going interruption by attempting to "interview" people.

No need to put interview in parentheses, it was what Lemon was doing, a part of his job as a journo. Service has ended by the protests, people were leaving. There was nothing to interrupt.