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

[Smelly Squirrel]

Is anyone saying that?

Yes, YOU are saying it, still, in this same post even.

Have not the statutes been cited saying that the actions are a violation?

The statutes don't say it, you only claim they do.

Just cited it.

Interfering and intimidating are crimes. I would say that most protests in a church are interfering. IMO

Wrong again. That code defines interfering and intimidating as:

(2) Interfere with.—The term "interfere with" means to restrict a person's freedom of
movement.
(3) Intimidate.—The term "intimidate" means to place a person in reasonable apprehension of
bodily harm to him- or herself or to another

Neither Lemon nor Fort commit either of those actions. If you are going to keep accusing them of crimes, please cite some specific proof, it's only polite to do so. Thanks in advance.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Thank you for quoting laws that show you are wrong. Nowhere does it say that protesting in itself is a crime. It says certain actions are crimes, but not protests alone, since protests don't necessarily include those actions.

This “protest” includes those actions and since that’s what the thread is about, I would call it a crime.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Go back and look at the language again. Standing in their way, on three sides, obstructs. A group of people yelling and not leaving threatens, to the point of intimidation. Not leaving when requested intimidates.

Also 241 deals with "threaten, or intimidate." Same situation.



MOO

Not only that, they were blocking the stairway to where the children were located.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Not only that, they were blocking the stairway to where the children were located.

In fairness Lemon and Fiort were primarily blocking the pastor

 

[witchway]

Not only that, they were blocking the stairway to where the children were located.

Don Lemon was not. This thread is about Don Lemon, not what the protestors were doing or not doing. jmo

 

[witchway]

In fairness Lemon and Fiort were primarily blocking the pastor

Blocking the pastor? Don Lemon was on his side asking questions. Does this really need to be rehashed again?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Blocking the pastor? Don Lemon was on his side asking questions. Does this really need to be rehashed again?

That triggers the statute. IMO.

 

[bearfossils]

That triggers the statute. IMO.

Wild how that “triggers” the statue that the administration previously found as being an affront to their freedoms to the extent that the anti-abortion terrorists who violated it in the past were all pardoned. What is the difference between them and what Don Lemon did as a journalist, outside the fact that he was a black journalist who was complicit in the horrifying crime of sympathizing with protestors he was covering.

Tell me, why is it important he be prosecuted under the FACT act while others who clearly violated it were pardoned? What is the difference between him and those who happily tormented and hurt others at abortion clinics?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Wild how that “triggers” the statue that the administration previously found as being an affront to their freedoms to the extent that the anti-abortion terrorists who violated it in the past were all pardoned. What is the difference between them and what Don Lemon did as a journalist, outside the fact that he was a black journalist who was complicit in the horrifying crime of sympathizing with protestors he was covering.

Tell me, why is it important he be prosecuted under the FACT act while others who clearly violated it were pardoned? What is the difference between him and those who happily tormented and hurt others at abortion clinics?

The pardon is not the issue. Under the Constitution, POTUS can pardon anyone convicted of a federal crime, except for an impeachment.

It could not even be introduced in court and another POTUS could pardon people convicted here.

IMO.

 

[bearfossils]

The pardon is not the issue. Under the Constitution, POTUS can pardon anyone except for impeachment.

It could not even be introduced in court and another POTUS could pardon people convicted here.

IMO.

It’s relevant because one group is being excused from prosecution while the other isn’t. Stop pretending like this is a court case removed from the political and social issues surrounding it. All you’re doing is affirming that you think a certain group should be punished with said act, an act which was put in place to protect abortion clinics and women’s healthcare,— basic rights that are being regularly and vocally denied by this administration; while others should be exempt from it.

Or do you believe that anti-abortion terrorists are entitled to violate medical centers? This law only matters when a white Christian church is somehow “hurt” by it?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

It’s relevant because one group is being excused from prosecution while the other isn’t. Stop pretending like this is a court case removed from the political and social issues surrounding it. All you’re doing is affirming that you think a certain group should be punished with said act, an act which was put in place to protect abortion clinics and women’s healthcare,— basic rights that are being regularly and vocally denied by this administration; while others should be exempt from it.

Or do you believe that anti-abortion terrorists are entitled to violate medical centers? This law only matters when a white Christian church is somehow “hurt” by it?

Not admissible. The court case, by its nature, is removed from politics.

I think that POTUS can pardon. I don't agree with some of Trump's pardons; I don't with some of Biden's pardons. Neither is relevant to this criminal trial.

 

[bearfossils]

Blocking the pastor? Don Lemon was on his side asking questions. Does this really need to be rehashed again?

Storming abortion clinics, screaming at women trying to access basic healthcare, being violent toward doctors at those clinics: acceptable in the name of a Christian god and furthering an extremist right-wing agenda.

Black journalist covering a protest in a Christian church that makes some members uncomfortable: terrible violation of American rights.

Let’s not look into that deeper or pontificate on it more. This is totally not a racist or biased prosecution. Obviously.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Storming abortion clinics, screaming at women trying to access basic healthcare, being violent toward doctors at those clinics: acceptable in the name of a Christian god and furthering an extremist right-wing agenda.

Black journalist covering a protest in a Christian church that makes some members uncomfortable: terrible violation of American rights.

Let’s not look into that deeper or pontificate on it more. This is totally not a racist or biased prosecution. Obviously.

I did not say it was acceptable. I said that it was not relevant to this case.

IMO.

 

[bearfossils]

Not admissible. The court case, by its nature, is removed from politics.

I think that POTUS can pardon. I don't agree with some of Trump's pardons; I don't with some of Biden's pardons. Neither is relevant to this criminal trial.

You’re being purposely ignorant to other court cases. Those matter. This supposed “crime” didn’t happen in a vacuum, and it’s hypocritical beyond belief to pretend the prosecution against Lemon isn’t biased. Previous cases matter because they set a standard. Ignoring the circumstances around this case is the legal equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going, “Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!”

 

[J. J. in Phila]

You’re being purposely ignorant to other court cases. Those matter. This supposed “crime” didn’t happen in a vacuum, and it’s hypocritical beyond belief to pretend the prosecution against Lemon isn’t biased. Previous cases matter because they set a standard. Ignoring the circumstances around this case is the legal equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going, “Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!”

The other was not a court case. The had been found guilty and were pardoned. The fact that Hunter Biden was pardoned for gun and tax charges cannot be used as a reason not to convict others of the same thing.

Since you did raise this issue, do you know the race of the people pardoned by Trump? I don't, but I do know many people of color that are pro-life.

IMO.

 

[bearfossils]

Donald Trump has a very extensive and well documented history of racism. His administration is open and obvious with their racism. And yeah, all of the anti-abortion terrorists he pardoned were white Christians.

Again: tell me why Lemon’s prosecution is something worth pursuing under the same act that this administration pardoned people over and felt was some kind violation of their freedom. What is the difference, Why are abortion clinics not worth defending but churches are? Why does making sure Lemon goes to jail so important but anti-abortion terrorists who violate the same act deserve to be free and unpunished?

Nevermind the whole “separation of church and state” part of the constitution is regularly and continuously being violated.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Donald Trump has a very extensive and well documented history of racism. His administration is open and obvious with their racism. And yeah, all of the anti-abortion terrorists he pardoned were white Christians.

Again: tell me why Lemon’s prosecution is something worth pursuing under the same act that this administration pardoned people over and felt was some kind violation of their freedom. What is the difference, Why are abortion clinics not worth defending but churches are? Why does making sure Lemon goes to jail so important but anti-abortion terrorists who violate the same act deserve to be free and unpunished?

Nevermind the whole “separation of church and state” part of the constitution is regularly and continuously being violated.

Which, even if not part of TDS, has nothing to do with this case.

IMO.

 

[Sundog]

I did not say it was acceptable. I said that it was not relevant to this case.

IMO.

Exactly, totally irrelevant to this case.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Here are the prosecution's motion to designate the case complex and the defendants' reply.

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TODESIGNATE CASE ASCOMPLEX UNDER THESPEEDY TRIAL ACT OR, INTHE ALTERNATIVE, EXTENDDATE FOR DISCLOSURE OFDISCVOVERY

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TOGOVERNMENT’S MOTION FORCOMPLEX CASE DESIGNATIONAND NINETY DAY SPEEDY TRIALEXCLUSION

If granted, it would extend certain deadlines and prolong the case, which the prosecution wants because imo they know they have a bs case and brought it in bad faith.

 

[303gmf]

Which, even if not part of TDS, has nothing to do with this case.

IMO.

TDS?
Is that actually part of the vernacular?