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

[Ontario Mom]

DBM

 

[PrairieWind]

Yes, but as a reminder, the official organizations that many many law enforcement people join are much more includsive, and specifically non-Christian for reasons of inclusivity. (FOE, NAPO, FLEOA) . Inclusivity is a more powerful reason for joining in my mind. BUT the freedom to have the more exclusive membership, is the basic right we are all talking about here.

moo,of course.

They didn't go after other organizations though. They went after the church. I think it pretty much been admitted that the goal was not to confront the ICE agent they believed was a pastor, but to attack the church and its congregants that morning. If the ICE agent was also a substitute teacher, would it have been ok to do this to a school he taught at? Regardless, I think the case against the defendants is clear. DL and his buddy can make their journalist claim, we will see where that goes, but the others are cooked.

 

[Sundog]

Yes, but as a reminder, the official organizations that many many law enforcement people join are much more includsive, and specifically non-Christian for reasons of inclusivity. (FOE, NAPO, FLEOA) . Inclusivity is a more powerful reason for joining in my mind. BUT the freedom to have the more exclusive membership, is the basic right we are all talking about here.

moo,of course.

Agree, but the church isn't an official organization, it is Christians who are members of the church. These are personal choices and affiliations. And the church is not exclusive, by any means. All are welcome to join the church and worship along with others who have the same beliefs. Same with law enforcement officers who are of the Jewish faith, Muslim faith, etc. These are personal affiliations where LE, like all of us, worship and practice our faith.

 

[PrairieWind]

" It's truly mind blowing that anyone can defend this guy."

Defending freedom is a long game. I can't imagine anyone not being behind this overall.... even with some of the tactics.
The loss is just too great these days.

I have never really loved Don Lemon. But I,, personally, do now. Journalists are suffering more and more with the consolidation of so much media under single entities. No one benefits from single voice.... WE NEED MANY VOICES.

Former CNN anchor and independent journalist Don Lemon hopes that his arrest will be an example of the sacrifices that journalists must be prepared to make — including being willing to fight for freedom of the press nationwide.

Don Lemon is ready to stand up for press freedoms. Are the rest of us? - Poynter

The former CNN anchor and independent journalist spoke about attacks on the free press while advising student journalists

www.poynter.org

Press freedom has never been higher than right now. Yes, corporate media has consolidated. But internet and podcasts allow for soooooo many more new sources now. It is ridiculous to say freedom of the press is threatened. DL CHOSE to be part of a criminal action that he took part in. He should have been more careful, stayed outside, but he chose to enter and participate in the disruption of the church service. Being a journalist doesn't mean you get a free pass on criminal actions.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

A couple of docket text orders were entered yesterday. They require the government to respond by March 27 to defendants' motion for grand jury proceedings and the motion for Brady materials and reconsidering discovery extension. So, hopefully we should have rulings on those motions soon.

(Text-Only) ORDER. Before the Court is Defendants Lemon and Fort's 125 Motion for Disclosure of Grand Jury Proceedings. The government shall file any response to Defendants' motion no later than 3/27/2026. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko on 3/23/2026. (LC1) (Entered: 03/23/2026)

(Text-Only) ORDER. Before the Court is Defendants Lemon, Fort, Beute, and Bollman's 413 Motion for Immediate Release of Brady Material and For Permission to File a Motion to Reconsider the Extension of the Discovery Deadline. The government shall submit any response to Defendants' motion no later than 3/27/2026. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko on 3/23/2026. (LC1) (Entered: 03/23/2026)

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72212459/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

I think what’s truly mind-blowing is that we can’t all agree that disrupting a religious service is not an appropriate form of protest. There’s been a growing trend of anti-Christian sentiment along with increasing hostility.

As for journalists—using that term loosely in the case of Don Lemon—they shouldn’t be participating in that kind of protest. Cornering and questioning a pastor during a service was completely out of line, along with filming crying children.

imo

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Here's an interesting filing. ORDER granting in part and denying in part 341 Motion to Modify Conditions of Release as to William Scott Kelly.

Kelly is the very loud and combative protestor. If you haven't seen him, this is his video.

Apparently, he had been given more release conditions than the other defendants and asked to modify them. The judge removed some of those conditions and left some in, including: "condition 7(h)which requires Mr. Kelly to undergo a mental health assessment and follow any recommendations of that assessment if the supervising officer considers it advisable."

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72212459/417/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I think what’s truly mind-blowing is that we can’t all agree that disrupting a religious service is not an appropriate form of protest. There’s been a growing trend of anti-Christian sentiment along with increasing hostility.

I personally do have problems with the whole idea of this protest. Mainly for me, since Easterwood was supposedly the main point, the most suitable protest location would be at his government office building. If you wanted church members to find out (and most didn't seem to know he worked for ICE), it would surely make the news.

You called the protest anti-Christian, but the main organizer is Christian, and I do see some justification for it from a religious perspective (even if not my own), which may or not affect legality. Armstrong seemed to be motivated to do the protest out of feeling deeply offended as a Christian that Easterwood was a pastor of her religion, which I respect as a valid religious sentiment. And Christians may and do feel moved to correct other fellow Christians unbidden at times as they see fit, which is a common enough form of religious expression, and which can be poorly or well received depending. Posting a litany of complaints to a church door has been historical practice so I've heard, and perhaps showing up at a church and shouting from the pews might be accepted in some circumstances. Sometimes churchgoers used to even be invited to vocally object while in the middle of a solemn ceremony, or to forever hold their peace. So the idea of Christians protesting or criticizing other Christians is not absolutely out of line within Christianity. Whether the form of the protest crosses any lines of decorum or decency is obviously in the eye of the beholder believer.

For me though, if Armstrong had asked for my opinion, I would tell her she is not the Pope of all Christians, she is not in charge of every Christian's beliefs, she is not their pastor nor mother. They don't all answer to her or the other protestors, they do have a right to practice as they wish within the law, even as Christian Nationalists if they are. And then something about planks and eyes. But I am also not in charge of her religious beliefs.

As for journalists—using that term loosely in the case of Don Lemon—they shouldn’t be participating in that kind of protest. Cornering and questioning a pastor during a service was completely out of line, along with filming crying children.

Lemon didn't participate in the protest, he reported on it. I can repost the evidence if needed.

jmopinion

 

[PrairieWind]

I personally do have problems with the whole idea of this protest. Mainly for me, since Easterwood was supposedly the main point, the most suitable protest location would be at his government office building. If you wanted church members to find out (and most didn't seem to know he worked for ICE), it would surely make the news.

You called the protest anti-Christian, but the main organizer is Christian, and I do see some justification for it from a religious perspective (even if not my own), which may or not affect legality. Armstrong seemed to be motivated to do the protest out of feeling deeply offended as a Christian that Easterwood was a pastor of her religion, which I respect as a valid religious sentiment. And Christians may and do feel moved to correct other fellow Christians unbidden at times as they see fit, which is a common enough form of religious expression, and which can be poorly or well received depending. Posting a litany of complaints to a church door has been historical practice so I've heard, and perhaps showing up at a church and shouting from the pews might be accepted in some circumstances. Sometimes churchgoers used to even be invited to vocally object while in the middle of a solemn ceremony, or to forever hold their peace. So the idea of Christians protesting or criticizing other Christians is not absolutely out of line within Christianity. Whether the form of the protest crosses any lines of decorum or decency is obviously in the eye of the beholder believer.

For me though, if Armstrong had asked for my opinion, I would tell her she is not the Pope of all Christians, she is not in charge of every Christian's beliefs, she is not their pastor nor mother. They don't all answer to her or the other protestors, they do have a right to practice as they wish within the law, even as Christian Nationalists if they are. And then something about planks and eyes. But I am also not in charge of her religious beliefs.



Lemon didn't participate in the protest, he reported on it. I can repost the evidence if needed.

jmopinion

First, DL DID participate in the disruption of the service. His own video is Exhibit 1.
But the choice to attack the church was done for the purpose of disruptions. Armstrong talks about it before in the parking lot. DL talks about how the trauma is necessary.
But as for Armstrong being "Christian" and this being a Christian church so it is no big deal to tell me you don't know much about denominations. Does a Catholic get to tell a Methodist what do to in his church? Does a Baptist get to disrupt a Catholic mass? And notice that in spite of the wide differences in these groups, they do NOT disrupt each other's services. Armstrong invaded this church for the purpose of disrupting the service. She is going to get convicted.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

First, DL DID participate in the disruption of the service. His own video is Exhibit 1.

His video exonerates him.

But the choice to attack the church was done for the purpose of disruptions. Armstrong talks about it before in the parking lot. DL talks about how the trauma is necessary.

Disruption does not equal illegal. And Lemon has the right to comment his opinion about it as a broadcaster. Sympathizing or agreeing with the protesters doesn't imply his guilt about any crime in the least.

But as for Armstrong being "Christian" and this being a Christian church so it is no big deal to tell me you don't know much about denominations.

LOL, such a strawman and a leap.

Does a Catholic get to tell a Methodist what do to in his church? Does a Baptist get to disrupt a Catholic mass? And notice that in spite of the wide differences in these groups, they do NOT disrupt each other's services.

I don't know this. There is no one universal Christian rule about any Christian practice. And your point is self refuting, since you don't then get to tell her what her denomination believes or practices.

Armstrong invaded this church for the purpose of disrupting the service. She is going to get convicted.

Then cite the law that says disrupting a church service is illegal, and how what they did violated it.

moo

 

[PrairieWind]

His video exonerates him.



Disruption does not equal illegal. And Lemon has the right to comment his opinion about it as a broadcaster. Sympathizing or agreeing with the protesters doesn't imply his guilt about any crime in the least.



LOL, such a strawman and a leap.



I don't know this. There is no one universal Christian rule about any Christian practice. And your point is self refuting, since you don't then get to tell her what her denomination believes or practices.



Then cite the law that says disrupting a church service is illegal, and how what they did violated it.

moo

Smelly, We have been going round and round and round. The complaint states the reasons for the charges that I think will lead to convictions. DL's own videos will provide the evidence for the conviction of Armsrtong and her group. DL can make his claim to immunity as a journalist. I don't care. But his video provides the proof for the others (why I think they should dismiss his charges and use him as a witness).

 

[SouthAussie]

But his video provides the proof for the others (why I think they should dismiss his charges and use him as a witness).

Nekima Levy Armstrong (who organised the protest) is a civil rights lawyer and activist. I feel pretty sure that she knew that the protesters could be charged.

I think protesters feel so strongly about the matter they are protesting that facing charges for the protest is a risk they are willing to accept. The charges also keep the matter they are protesting about in the news - which is the point of the protest. Publicity for their cause.

imo

Nekima Levy Armstrong | Immigrant Legal Resource Center | ILRC

www.ilrc.org

 

[PrairieWind]

Nekima Levy Armstrong (who organised the protest) is a civil rights lawyer and activist. I feel pretty sure that she knew that the protesters could be charged.

I think protesters feel so strongly about the matter they are protesting that facing charges for the protest is a risk they are willing to accept. The charges also keep the matter they are protesting about in the news - which is the point of the protest. Publicity for their cause.

imo

Nekima Levy Armstrong | Immigrant Legal Resource Center | ILRC

www.ilrc.org

An attorney cannot advise people to engage in illegal activity. So I guess we can all agree that Armstrong's license to practice law is gone. Agreeing to commit a crime against innocent people is in no way advancing the effort as they wanted. In fact it has done the opposite. I'd like to see DL come out and say, this was a bad idea.

 

[sunshineray]

An attorney cannot advise people to engage in illegal activity. So I guess we can all agree that Armstrong's license to practice law is gone. Agreeing to commit a crime against innocent people is in no way advancing the effort as they wanted. In fact it has done the opposite. I'd like to see DL come out and say, this was a bad idea.

Can you please provide a link to the statute that says what occured by definition was illegal and the language of what crime was committed. TIA

 

[PrairieWind]

I find it ridiculous to refer to Armstrong as an attorney or a minister. She has clearly violated ethical rules of an attorney, committed crimes/felonies and encouraged others to do so, and invaded houses of worship for her own purpose. I doubt any religious group would see her as anything other than a charlatan. where is her law license even from?

 

[PrairieWind]

Can you please provide a link to the statute that says what occured by definition was illegal and the language of what crime was committed. TIA

You may reference the charging documents. Good grief! They are all over this thread..
But here is the PBS link to the original charge. As for most, it isn't changed.

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2026/01/CASE-026-cr-00025-LMP-DLM.pdf

 

[SouthAussie]

I'd like to see DL come out and say, this was a bad idea.

I think I posted just yesterday that Don was explaining (very recently) to budding journalists that they need to be willing to fight for freedom of the press.

Don Lemon is ready to stand up for press freedoms — and he has some advice — CollegeJournalism.org

The former CNN anchor and independent journalist speaks about attacks on the free press while advising student journalists

www.collegejournalism.org

 

[Ruminations]

This isn't about "silencing" journalists. Has DL been allowed to post his reports? Yes. Has reporting on the event continued? Yes. Most of it against the administration. There is no silencing. What this is about is whether or not a person claiming to be a journalist can commit crimes and get away with it by claiming to just "be reporting it."

Well, DL has been "allowed" to publish reports because it is too hard to legally suppress them.

If a dictator wanna-be is trying to destroy freedom of press, it has to be done in baby steps.

Things like frivolous lawsuits. Frivolous arrests. Frivolous prosecutions.

Lemon and others are at the receiving end of a frivolous prosecution intended to chip away at free journalism.

MOO

 

[waldojabba]

Lots and lots of people are doing it ... defending Don Lemon. Because they don't want the media silenced. They don't want the media to be afraid to be live-on-scene and report what is going on.

imo

yes @SouthAussie you can count me in as a total defender of Lemon and the rights of the press and YES I WATCHED THE VIDEO's - the truth dies in the dark - and we would be in the total darkness without the press
This whole thing is a total witch hunt
And I am neither party - smack dab in the middle just fyi

JMO

 

[PrairieWind]

Well, DL has been "allowed" to publish reports because it is too hard to legally suppress them.

If a dictator wanna-be is trying to destroy freedom of press, it has to be done in baby steps.

Things like frivolous lawsuits. Frivolous arrests. Frivolous prosecutions.

Lemon and others are at the receiving end of a frivolous prosecution intended to chip away at free journalism.

MOO

Or like how moms showing up at school board meetings were declared terrorists. or people posting about not wanting vaccine requirements were removed from various platforms for "misinformation." Right? THAT is what destruction of your free speech is about, not what Trump is doing. DL in those cases did NOTHING to defend those rights.
In THIS case, a case well documented by existing media, chose to participate with protesters in a criminal act. He could have just reported from the fringe, but he CHOSE to go in and interview people during the scheduled worship time, knowing it was disrupting the service. He COULD have just reported what he saw and interviewed pasters and worshipers later. But he CHOSE to be INVOLVED. Not to just report.