I assume this is your opinion only. People can and do have different opinions. God may have a different opinion as well. We don’t know. JMO
MN - Journalist Don Lemon arrested for church protest, Minneapolis, 18 Jan 2026
- Thread starter CrimeDawg123
- Start date
- Featured
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2020
- Messages
- 3,934
- Reaction score
- 34,727
Except they didn't walk free. They were arrested, held accountable, and convicted of the crime. A pardon is not the same as "walking free." It's the president saying "yes, you committed this crime, but you don't deserve to do time for it" and most of the time (IMO), that's due to partisanship, especially so in the case of the anti-abortion activists.
MOO.
- Joined
- May 21, 2013
- Messages
- 20,581
- Reaction score
- 239,789
We're simply going to have to agree to disagree. My interest in this case is seeing justice for those who violated the rights of others. Not in any other cases that people want to compare this one to.
jmo
Agree, and different administrations handle pardons differently. IIRC, the last administration pardoned criminals on death row, overturned their death penalty sentences to life in prison. Another political pardon. It happens with each president.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2020
- Messages
- 3,934
- Reaction score
- 34,727
SBMFF.
On that little bit, we can agree, because my interest is also in seeing justice for those who violated the rights of others. That was the cause of the protest in the first place. Unfortunately, we'll have to agree to disagree on who the right-violators actually are.
MOO.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,757
- Reaction score
- 41,185
Meanwhile, on Wednesday 3/18, the government filed a motion to extend deadlines, including extending discovery by 90 days and setting the speedy trial exclusion period to 90 days from the current 26.
That was followed by various defendants' responses that needed to be filed by Friday.
One pleading I liked was this one by a defendant's attorney who laid out how long it should take the government to review documents and that they have plenty of time already.
And then the judge gave a ruling on that same Friday. He extended the discovery deadline by 29 days to 4/24/26, and extended the exclusion time another 31 days (total 57 days). That's added to the Speedy Trial Act's 70 days requirement for trial start from date of initial appearance.
This paragraph of the order is quite revealing on the weakness and bad faith of the government's case. moo
The Court does not disagree that additional discovery and additional defendants make this case more complex. Indeed, that is why the Court has designated it a complex case for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. However, the Court is troubled by the inference in the government’s most recent motion that it has yet to produce any discovery to Defendants. (See Doc. 391 at 7 (describing steps taken in “preparation of discovery for production” and recounting steps necessary “to produce the discovery in this case in the manner typically done by the USAO in this district”); id. at 8 (discussing steps needed to “expedite the preparation of discovery”). That inference has been confirmed by Defendants’ responses. (See, e.g., Doc. 406 at 3; Doc. 407 at 5.) This is particularly concerning given that the pace and cadence of discovery was an issue before the Court in February, resulting in the Court commenting that “rolling discovery appears consistent with [the Court’s] interpretation of the government’s discovery obligations.” (Doc. 140 at 5.) It seems that comment has been ignored. So, here we are, months into a case that the government had an intense appetite to initiate, but cannot seem to keep up the pace when it comes to discovery obligations. This is unacceptable.
That was followed by various defendants' responses that needed to be filed by Friday.
One pleading I liked was this one by a defendant's attorney who laid out how long it should take the government to review documents and that they have plenty of time already.
And then the judge gave a ruling on that same Friday. He extended the discovery deadline by 29 days to 4/24/26, and extended the exclusion time another 31 days (total 57 days). That's added to the Speedy Trial Act's 70 days requirement for trial start from date of initial appearance.
This paragraph of the order is quite revealing on the weakness and bad faith of the government's case. moo
The Court does not disagree that additional discovery and additional defendants make this case more complex. Indeed, that is why the Court has designated it a complex case for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. However, the Court is troubled by the inference in the government’s most recent motion that it has yet to produce any discovery to Defendants. (See Doc. 391 at 7 (describing steps taken in “preparation of discovery for production” and recounting steps necessary “to produce the discovery in this case in the manner typically done by the USAO in this district”); id. at 8 (discussing steps needed to “expedite the preparation of discovery”). That inference has been confirmed by Defendants’ responses. (See, e.g., Doc. 406 at 3; Doc. 407 at 5.) This is particularly concerning given that the pace and cadence of discovery was an issue before the Court in February, resulting in the Court commenting that “rolling discovery appears consistent with [the Court’s] interpretation of the government’s discovery obligations.” (Doc. 140 at 5.) It seems that comment has been ignored. So, here we are, months into a case that the government had an intense appetite to initiate, but cannot seem to keep up the pace when it comes to discovery obligations. This is unacceptable.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 21, 2013
- Messages
- 20,581
- Reaction score
- 239,789
I have no idea what SBMFF means but even if I believed what ICE was doing was wrong (I don't, although it's definitely tragic that people have been killed), as the old saying goes "two wrongs don't make a right".
Even if I did believe what ICE was doing was wrong (the entire point of the protest at the church where an ICE agent was a member) I'd still condemn the actions of Lemon and his associates. If they wanted to make a point, they should have never gone inside the church and disrupted the service. They could have made their point from outside the building, just fine.
They made the wrong choice.
jmo
- Joined
- May 20, 2013
- Messages
- 8,273
- Reaction score
- 63,359
Snipped by me for focus .. SBMFF.
ICE agents shot and killed 2 innocent people in cold blood in broad daylight. They have never yet been charged to this day. The Director of ICE is a pastor of that church not just an attendee. Facts
Don Lemon and Georgia Forte were reporting on the protest. Which because of those efforts it got national attention or even global thankfully. jmo
Why didn’t the church condemn the actions of the ice agents? Not very christian imo
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2015
- Messages
- 3,386
- Reaction score
- 31,042
Exactly.The Face Act that demonizes DL and these defendants was also violated by groups that protested abortion. They were later pardoned by the president, who also made clear that future prosecutions would only happen in "extraordinary circumstances." Same law. One group was pardoned and protections put in place for future arrests; another group villianized.
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
MOO.
This was a law conceived because there were protesters physically blocking access to clinics where health services including abortions were given. When the law was proposed, the right said, "But surely it's our right to protest abortions," and legislators on all asides agreed. The law had to be designed to allow protest AND access to clinics. The right was bummed, being that some people actually did want to avoid criminalizing preventing access to clinics, so they tried to kill the bill with an additional protection they weirdly imagined the left would be against: they started with churches. Soon, the bill, with protections for clinics and protesters and houses of worship was ultimately passed, to the chagrin of people who still wanted to block access to clinics.
Then, people got into serious legal trouble blocking access to clinics.
Then, in the spirit of project 2025, and since the act couldn't be overturned, this administration started to gut it in part by pardoning people who were convicted. Those pardons weaken the law and chill prosecution of it because one solid defense is, "Hey, someone who did worse was pardoned."
So, for the very same administration that threw out pardons and complained about the law to try to use it for a prosecution is rather feckless. They pulled out the teeth, and are now trying to use it to bite.
MOO
- Joined
- May 31, 2012
- Messages
- 5,105
- Reaction score
- 34,291
Dismissing millions of people as ‘brainwashed’ isn’t an argument—it’s just labeling, meant as an insult. imo
Similar threads
- Locked
Guardians Monthly Goal
Staff online
-
GhostwheelPyrrhonist
Online statistics
- Members online
- 144
- Guests online
- 10,116
- Total visitors
- 10,260