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

[BeginnerSleuther]

I will remind all of us that the guy who made the "ham sandwich" analogy did time in federal prison.

IMO IR

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

MOO.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

MOO.

Not if the hands have fallen off.

Grand juries, though not absolute, are a good indication of the strength of the case.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

In my opinion Don Lemon knew he was doing something he shouldn’t be doing when he entered that church.

He said he couldn’t go in the church and that he would stand outside. He even said he wouldn’t be able to get the initial impact. moo

 

[imstilla.grandma]

“I have not, I can’t bring myself to do that,” Brent Ganger, Good’s brother, told NBC News in an interview aired Friday.

“I think we’ve all intentionally just let that go,” her father, Tim Ganger, added.

Donna Ganger, Good’s mother, said the only part of the clip she has watched is when Renee Good told ICE agent Jonathan Ross, “I’m not mad at you” moments before he opened fire.

“That was so Renee,” Ganger said in the interview.

‘I can’t bring myself to do that’: Renee Good’s brother refuses to watch deadly Minneapolis shooting video

The Trump administration is yet to contact Renee Good’s family, they said

www.aol.com

Newly unsealed federal indictments level charges against 30 more people involved in an ICE protest at during a St. Paul church service last month and reveal what prosecutors say was a carefully crafted operation that terrorized and physically threatened congregants and pastors.

“At my direction, federal agents have already arrested 25 of them, with more to come throughout the day,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a social media post announcing the indictments on Feb. 27. “YOU CANNOT ATTACK A HOUSE OF WORSHIP. If you do so, you cannot hide from us – we will find you, arrest you, and prosecute you.”

Charges detail planning, execution of St. Paul anti-ICE church demonstration after 30 more indicted

Newly unsealed federal indictments level charges against 30 more people involved in an ICE protest at during a St. Paul church service last month and reveal what prosecutors say was a carefully crafted operation that terrorized and physically threatened congregants and pastors. “At my direction...

www.spokesman.com

 

[Ruminations]

Not if the hands have fallen off.

Grand juries, though not absolute, are a good indication of the strength of the case.

No, this grand jury was not used to evaluate the strength of this case.

Agreed prosecutors CAN use grand juries to try to evaluate the strength of a case in some situations. But there is no reason to believe it happened here. Please do not post stories about unrelated grand jury cases; let's stick to the facts about this grand jury process, which has been credibly questioned.

It is not likely that this grand jury had any more evidence than the judges who rejected granting the arrest warrants, and it is probable that the grand jury was mis-instructed.

A grand jury does not decide a case at all. There is no cross examination. There are few evidence rules. For example, rumors and hear-say anecdotes are allowed. Like, for example, the dribble in the charging documents and supporting affidavit. Grand juries do not have to come to a consensus. If a simple majority of jurors believed that the dribble in the charging documents and affidavit, IF PROVEN, would constitute a crime, they indict. They are supposed to be correctly educated about the law, and reminded of their duty to protect citizens from overreaching arrests. But they are not expected to evaluate the evidence, but work from the hypothetical, "if proven."

The Grand Jury does not get involved at all in the proving part. That occurs at trial.

MOO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

No, this grand jury was not used to evaluate the strength of this case.

Agreed prosecutors CAN use grand juries to try to evaluate the strength of a case in some situations. But there is no reason to believe it happened here. Please do not post stories about unrelated grand jury cases; let's stick to the facts about this grand jury process, which has been credibly questioned.

It is not likely that this grand jury had any more evidence than the judges who rejected granting the arrest warrants, and it is probable that the grand jury was mis-instructed.

A grand jury does not decide a case at all. There is no cross examination. There are few evidence rules. For example, rumors and hear-say anecdotes are allowed. Like, for example, the dribble in the charging documents and supporting affidavit. Grand juries do not have to come to a consensus. If a simple majority of jurors believed that the dribble in the charging documents and affidavit, IF PROVEN, would constitute a crime, they indict. They are supposed to be correctly educated about the law, and reminded of their duty to protect citizens from overreaching arrests. But they are not expected to evaluate the evidence, but work from the hypothetical, "if proven."

The Grand Jury does not get involved at all in the proving part. That occurs at trial.

MOO

That is far from likely. We know that the DoJ submitted 2000+ documents to the grand jury. There is no evidence of misinstruction. Getting a case through a grand jury means that it is reasonably strong, because the prosecutors have to put forward evidence and arguments. That is a good indication of the strength of the case.

IMO.

 

[Ruminations]

That is far from likely. We know that the DoJ submitted 2000+ documents to the grand jury. There is no evidence of misinstruction. Getting a case through a grand jury means that it is reasonably strong, because the prosecutors have to put forward evidence and arguments. That is a good indication of the strength of the case.

IMO.

We know that Don Lemons arrest was rejected by two judges before what is likely to be the same information went to a grand jury.

Again, please don't change the discussion to what you think generally happens with a grand jury. We are discussing this case in particular.

The number of documents is meaningless. It's the contents that matters.

In this particular case, there is no reason to think the grand jury knows more than the judges who rejected the arrest warrants, and there is reason to believe the jurors know less of the law than literal judges.

Journalist Don Lemon pleads not guilty in Minnesota First Amendment case

Independent journalist and former CNN host Don Lemon has pleaded not guilty to charges related to his coverage of a protest at a Minnesota church last month. Lemon, independent journalist Georgia Fort...

www.jurist.org

 

[Sleuth2010]

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

MOO

Does not stop being a journo…but does earn a nickname !!!

Suggestions

: jmo, moo , omo, lmnop

 

[Sundog]

dbm

Let me know what churches those are as I find that a basically insane statement. jmo

Gun toting church ushers in a house of worship?

<modsnip>

Usually parishioners or congregants who carry are not announcing that they carry but are ready to take action if needed.

 

[Sundog]

That is in dispute.

Lemon and Fort's attorneys have credibly accused the prosecutors of misleading the Grand Jury.

There is no evidence the GJ saw any more than the charging doc and supporting affidavit. And those documents are packed with hearsay, and unsupported by available evidence, such as the videos.

Those are the same items presented to two judges, who refused to allow arrests of the journalists given the information that failed to demonstrate probable cause.

MOO

And the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals advised the federal prosecutors to take the case to a grand jury. Which they did, successfully.

 

[witchway]

dbm

Usually parishioners or congregants who carry are not announcing that they carry but are ready to take action if needed.

This is disturbing on many levels. I understand well hired vetted protection. But a congregant carrying a gun into a church is just not okay. My father’s church has a posting no guns concealed or otherwise. IMO I do not want a fellow parishioner making that kind of judgement call. I don’t know how well trained etc.

But since this is about Don Lemon and the protestors at Cities Church I still believe Don Lemon and Georgia Fort will be exonerated in the end. Thankfully no guns were involved. jmo

 

[SouthAussie]

He even said he wouldn’t be able to get the initial impact. moo

Which is a really strong indicator that Don was acting as a reporter.

imo

 

[SouthAussie]

And the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals advised the federal prosecutors to take the case to a grand jury.

OR beef up their affidavit and re-present it (I know I have posted this link for you before).

They evidently decided to take their desire for charges to a group of non-judicial, everyday citizens instead.

Which says to me that the evidence that the judges saw is the same evidence that the grand jury saw.

imo

ETA link:
.... it can either improve the affidavit and present it again to the same magistrate judge or it can present its case to a grand jury and seek an indictment.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/24/doj-trump-minnesota-don-lemon-protest-00745589

 

[Betty P]

OR beef up their affidavit and re-present it (I know I have posted this link for you before).

They evidently decided to take their desire for charges to a group of non-judicial, everyday citizens instead.

Which says to me that the evidence that the judges saw is the same evidence that the grand jury saw.

imo

ETA link:
.... it can either improve the affidavit and present it again to the same magistrate judge or it can present its case to a grand jury and seek an indictment.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/24/doj-trump-minnesota-don-lemon-protest-00745589

It all seems like an overt attempt to intimidate journalists, JMO. It’s similar to pressuring media companies and manipulating the takeover of media companies like CNN. JMO.

 

[SouthAussie]

dbm

 

[Ruminations]

And the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals advised the federal prosecutors to take the case to a grand jury. Which they did, successfully.

But...was the success achieved legally and ethically?

We need time to let the motion to release the Grand Jury docs to play out.

If prosecutors are asking GJ to rubber stamp indictments, we have have achieved a component of fascism.

MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Not if the hands have fallen off.

Grand juries, though not absolute, are a good indication of the strength of the case.

Nothing could be further from the truth, IMO. A GJ is not privy to the defense's case AT ALL, nor are they privy to any evidence or information to the contrary of what the prosecution wants them to know. This joke of a case would never have even happened if not for the lax rules around grand juries. Two separate judges threw it out for a reason.

MOO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

That is far from likely. We know that the DoJ submitted 2000+ documents to the grand jury. There is no evidence of misinstruction. Getting a case through a grand jury means that it is reasonably strong, because the prosecutors have to put forward evidence and arguments. That is a good indication of the strength of the case.

IMO.

Just like in the recently dismissed (nationally known) GJ cases? There's a reason the statement that GJs indict a ham sandwich grew legs.

MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

And the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals advised the federal prosecutors to take the case to a grand jury. Which they did, successfully.

No, they didn't. They offered that as an option. I'm not aware of any language that would be consistent with "advising."

MOO.

 

[Ruminations]

Nothing could be further from the truth, IMO. A GJ is not privy to the defense's case AT ALL, nor are they privy to any evidence or information to the contrary of what the prosecution wants them to know. This joke of a case would never have even happened if not for the lax rules around grand juries. Two separate judges threw it out for a reason.

MOO.

Exactly.

I think a poster was mentioning that in other cases, the prosecution tries to present what they expect from the defense in order to field test their case. Also, in other cases, the prosecution uses the grand jury to "park" sworn testimony and bank it for witnesses that might not testify or say the same things when the case gets to public trial.

But the prosecution does not have to do either of those things. ,And there are dozens of reasons to doubt the prosecution did more than the bare minimum with this grand jury.

Actually, less than the bare minimum, per the motion to release the transcripts. The defense is accusing the prosecution of not even properly instructing as to the law or to grand juror responsibilities to protect against malicious indictments.

MOO