I would hardly call Don Lemon's badgering of the pastor an interview during the extreme duress the pastor was facing with a live protest of loud and abusive protesters emerging from out of the blue in his church with crying children and other congregants terrified that at any minute they could be shot.
MN - Journalist Don Lemon arrested for church protest, Minneapolis, 18 Jan 2026
- Thread starter CrimeDawg123
- Start date
- Featured
- Joined
- May 21, 2013
- Messages
- 20,599
- Reaction score
- 239,831
I'd call it exactly what it was, exploitation for clicks & attention.
Also, in my personal opinion, disgusting.
Anyone, I don't care who they are, badgering someone for a response in the midst of a high stress, uncertain situation like this, is revolting. Zero basic human dignity or compassion. The pastor was afraid, the kids were afraid, the adults were afraid and Lemon just... blathered on with his questions, giving zero compassion or concern.
100% disgusting.
jmo
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2015
- Messages
- 3,399
- Reaction score
- 31,155
Why the reporters?
To further dismantle freedom of the press.
I know I'm preaching to the choir and some authoritarian apologists here. But it's obvious: the point is to dismantle freedom and democracy.
MOO
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2020
- Messages
- 10,606
- Reaction score
- 76,145
At least $9B billed across 14 Medicaid services in Minnesota may be fraudulent, top prosecutor says
A top prosecutor suggested on Thursday that the total amount of fraud in Minnesota could be $9 billion or more.www.cbsnews.com
Attorney General Ellison announces over $3 million in fraud charges against Medicaid provider
Minneapolis Man’s Agency, Guardian Home Health Services, defrauded multiple programs recently identified as high riskwww.ag.state.mn.us
Individual who pleaded guilty in fraud scheme reportedly met with Minnesota AG
Five individuals pleaded guilty in the "Minnesota Feeding Our Future Fraud Scheme," according to the Department of Justice on Friday.katu.com
I'm sorry, did you need more than the obvious?
Such selectivity. --constantly bringing up this medicaid case in MN.
Should we REALLY list all the fraud cases......
Repeating this one so often does get rather monotonous... if you ask me.
We are talking about Don Lemon, I believe.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2020
- Messages
- 3,941
- Reaction score
- 34,800
Is it? When we spent pages upon pages arguing that podcasters and "independent journalists" weren't real journalists. I'm not sure how anyone who's up on current events can say that press freedom has never been higher than right now. In a world where the Chair of the FCC can threaten media outlets if they don't serve the public interest (without defining what that "public interest" is), I thank journalists like DL for standing up for their Constitutional rights. And shame on this administration and the DOJ for trying to turn public airwaves into state-run media through intimidation and bullying tactics. That is not what America stands for.
FCC Chair Brendan Carr threatens to revoke broadcasters' licences over Iran coverage
After Trump criticised media coverage of the Iran war, Carr says he can remove licences if they do not serve the public interest.
www.bbc.com
The only thing that gives me peace is that this will not go on forever. Eventually, adults will be at the helm again and realize that the erosion of rights, such as freedom of the press, cannot be tolerated in this country.
I can't wait to see DL exonerated.
MOO.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,778
- Reaction score
- 41,421
Defendant Pineda-Moreno filed a MOTION to Retain Rough Notes Motion for Government Agents to Retain Rough Notes.
They are specifically asking for:
All recordings or memorandum regarding a conference call in late January 2026 involving Justice Department Official Aakash Singh concerning efforts to prosecute individuals exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of expression, a/k/a “protestors, ”including but not limited to protestors in the State of Minnesota. Upon information and belief, the conference call may contain evidence pertinent to a defense of vindictive prosecution. “Vindictive prosecution occurs when a prosecutor seeks to punish a defendant solely for exercising a valid legal right.” United States v. Williams, 793 F.3d 957,963 (8th Cir. 2015). “A prosecution designed solely to punish a defendant for exercising a valid legal right violates due process.” United States v. Leathers, 354 F.3d 955, 961 (8th Cir. 2004). A summary of the call is set forth at “’Go Big and Go Loud’: Inside the Justice Dept’s Push to Prosecute Protesters,” New York Times, March 19, 2026 (the article may be found athttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/19/us/politics/justice-dept-prosecuteprotesters.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share)
This is the NYT article referenced.
www.nytimes.com
And it says,
In a conference call in late January, the official, Aakash Singh, laid out the department’s basis for prosecuting demonstrators: National Security Presidential Memo 7, a sweeping directive issued by President Trump last September. It expanded the definition of domestic terrorism to include not only violent crimes like assault, but also relatively minor ones, like revealing the personal details of agents or getting in the way of immigration enforcement.
Mr. Singh said that “coordinators” in U.S. attorneys’ offices responsible for charging protesters under NSPM-7 should be “hounding” federal agents to make cases, according to people familiar with his remarks. He also suggested that the department wanted headlines along with indictments, promising that officials in Washington would be “blasting out” prosecutors’ work.
“Go big,” Mr. Singh said, “and go loud.”
.....
In his conference call in January, Mr. Singh referred to another high-profile action by the Justice Department against immigration protesters: a conspiracy case in St. Paul, Minn., in which 39 people — including the former CNN anchor Don Lemon — have been charged in connection with a demonstration at a local church where a pastor also worked as an ICE employee.
Mr. Singh referred to the protest as among the worst attacks on a house of worship in American history, resulting in the defendants being accused of plotting to deprive the congregants of their rights and of interfering with religious freedoms. And yet no career prosecutors at the U.S. attorney’s office in Minnesota are litigating the case, which is unusual. It is being handled instead by lawyers from the Justice Department’s civil rights division in Washington.
They are specifically asking for:
All recordings or memorandum regarding a conference call in late January 2026 involving Justice Department Official Aakash Singh concerning efforts to prosecute individuals exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of expression, a/k/a “protestors, ”including but not limited to protestors in the State of Minnesota. Upon information and belief, the conference call may contain evidence pertinent to a defense of vindictive prosecution. “Vindictive prosecution occurs when a prosecutor seeks to punish a defendant solely for exercising a valid legal right.” United States v. Williams, 793 F.3d 957,963 (8th Cir. 2015). “A prosecution designed solely to punish a defendant for exercising a valid legal right violates due process.” United States v. Leathers, 354 F.3d 955, 961 (8th Cir. 2004). A summary of the call is set forth at “’Go Big and Go Loud’: Inside the Justice Dept’s Push to Prosecute Protesters,” New York Times, March 19, 2026 (the article may be found athttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/19/us/politics/justice-dept-prosecuteprotesters.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share)
This is the NYT article referenced.
‘Go Big and Go Loud’: Inside the Justice Dept.’s Push to Prosecute Protesters
Prosecutors have struggled to prove in court what the president and his aides have repeatedly said in public: that a network of leftist activists presents a serious threat to national security.
And it says,
In a conference call in late January, the official, Aakash Singh, laid out the department’s basis for prosecuting demonstrators: National Security Presidential Memo 7, a sweeping directive issued by President Trump last September. It expanded the definition of domestic terrorism to include not only violent crimes like assault, but also relatively minor ones, like revealing the personal details of agents or getting in the way of immigration enforcement.
Mr. Singh said that “coordinators” in U.S. attorneys’ offices responsible for charging protesters under NSPM-7 should be “hounding” federal agents to make cases, according to people familiar with his remarks. He also suggested that the department wanted headlines along with indictments, promising that officials in Washington would be “blasting out” prosecutors’ work.
“Go big,” Mr. Singh said, “and go loud.”
.....
In his conference call in January, Mr. Singh referred to another high-profile action by the Justice Department against immigration protesters: a conspiracy case in St. Paul, Minn., in which 39 people — including the former CNN anchor Don Lemon — have been charged in connection with a demonstration at a local church where a pastor also worked as an ICE employee.
Mr. Singh referred to the protest as among the worst attacks on a house of worship in American history, resulting in the defendants being accused of plotting to deprive the congregants of their rights and of interfering with religious freedoms. And yet no career prosecutors at the U.S. attorney’s office in Minnesota are litigating the case, which is unusual. It is being handled instead by lawyers from the Justice Department’s civil rights division in Washington.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,778
- Reaction score
- 41,421
Is it? When we spent pages upon pages arguing that podcasters and "independent journalists" weren't real journalists. I'm not sure how anyone who's up on current events can say that press freedom has never been higher than right now. In a world where the Chair of the FCC can threaten media outlets if they don't serve the public interest (without defining what that "public interest" is), I thank journalists like DL for standing up for their Constitutional rights. And shame on this administration and the DOJ for trying to turn public airwaves into state-run media through intimidation and bullying tactics. That is not what America stands for.
FCC Chair Brendan Carr threatens to revoke broadcasters' licences over Iran coverage
After Trump criticised media coverage of the Iran war, Carr says he can remove licences if they do not serve the public interest.
The only thing that gives me peace is that this will not go on forever. Eventually, adults will be at the helm again and realize that the erosion of rights, such as freedom of the press, cannot be tolerated in this country.
MOO.
There's been a definite established pattern of the government targeting media it doesn't like. Just yesterday was yet another example,
Pentagon will remove media offices after judge reinstates NYT's press credentials
The U.S. Defense Department will remove media offices from the Pentagon after a federal judge sided with The New York Times in a lawsuit challenging limits on reporters' access to the building, a department official announced Monday.
www.pbs.org
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2018
- Messages
- 37,746
- Reaction score
- 251,114
According to the Minnesota Reformer, federal lawyers sought approval three times before they found a jury that would agree there was enough probable cause for arrest — three times to find cause to arrest a journalist for carrying out her constitutionally protected job.
www.poynter.org
When covering a protest leads to arrest, what protections do journalists really have? - Poynter
From Texas to Minnesota, recent cases show how easily legal protections for journalists can collapse in chaotic protest scenes
www.poynter.org
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,778
- Reaction score
- 41,421
According to the Minnesota Reformer, federal lawyers sought approval three times before they found a jury that would agree there was enough probable cause for arrest — three times to find cause to arrest a journalist for carrying out her constitutionally protected job.
When covering a protest leads to arrest, what protections do journalists really have? - Poynter
From Texas to Minnesota, recent cases show how easily legal protections for journalists can collapse in chaotic protest scenes
To be clear, they didn't try three different grand juries. What happened was Judge Micko initially declined to charge Lemon, and then they tried to go to an appeals court to overrule (an unusual move) and were declined, and then tried a writ of mandamus (also unusual) to overrule and were declined again. Then they went to a grand jury and got their indictment. We don't know what they presented to the grand jury but we might found out soon.
The long winding path of the indictment is laid out here.
'When Life Gives You Lemons': A Minnesota Case Study in How the Trump Administration Warps Justice
The bizarre saga that unfolded in the weeks leading up to Don Lemon’s indictment illustrates just how far the Justice Department has fallen.
www.lawfaremedia.org
Really good article. Facts. Thanks @Smelly Squirrel for all your research you provide to this thread.To be clear, they didn't try three different grand juries. What happened was Judge Micko initially declined to charge Lemon, and then they tried to go to an appeals court to overrule (an unusual move) and were declined, and then tried a writ of mandamus (also unusual) to overrule and were declined again. Then they went to a grand jury and got their indictment. We don't know what they presented to the grand jury but we might found out soon.
The long winding path of the indictment is laid out here.
'When Life Gives You Lemons': A Minnesota Case Study in How the Trump Administration Warps Justice
The bizarre saga that unfolded in the weeks leading up to Don Lemon’s indictment illustrates just how far the Justice Department has fallen.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2010
- Messages
- 10,546
- Reaction score
- 70,476
And this is criminal? As opposed to people being killed in the street for simply protesting a supposed police force who won't provide ID...who mask up...who beat people, or worse, who are demanding they prove who they are if they are going to grab people out of the homes, places of work, and places of worship?
Did you speak up on behalf of the people that were killed by ICE? I'm sure you can understand why people in Minnesota are/were upset with people in a church who were ok with that.
This thread is about Don Lemon. I may not be a fan of his, but I stand for his right to report on what is going on. It's clear that most major networks have been bought out by corporate right-wing interests and they are being asked to tow the line.
- Joined
- May 21, 2013
- Messages
- 20,599
- Reaction score
- 239,831
According to the charging docs, yes.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2010
- Messages
- 10,546
- Reaction score
- 70,476
Allegedly criminal (based on charges from a federal government who defended their own employees killing non-threatening protesters).
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2010
- Messages
- 10,546
- Reaction score
- 70,476
You forgot to answer the question on whether you spoke up on behalf of the people killed. Sorry if I missed it. I don't believe there have been criminal charges in those cases, yet those people are dead. For simply protesting.
Don Lemon was reporting on a protest.
It seems to me that the government is focused on shutting down protestors through whatever means possible. JMO.
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2008
- Messages
- 23,641
- Reaction score
- 173,215
“Go Big and “Go Loud” sounds a lot like “All Hat and No Cattle” or as we always called it, being a “blowhard”.Defendant Pineda-Moreno filed a MOTION to Retain Rough Notes Motion for Government Agents to Retain Rough Notes.
They are specifically asking for:
All recordings or memorandum regarding a conference call in late January 2026 involving Justice Department Official Aakash Singh concerning efforts to prosecute individuals exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of expression, a/k/a “protestors, ”including but not limited to protestors in the State of Minnesota. Upon information and belief, the conference call may contain evidence pertinent to a defense of vindictive prosecution. “Vindictive prosecution occurs when a prosecutor seeks to punish a defendant solely for exercising a valid legal right.” United States v. Williams, 793 F.3d 957,963 (8th Cir. 2015). “A prosecution designed solely to punish a defendant for exercising a valid legal right violates due process.” United States v. Leathers, 354 F.3d 955, 961 (8th Cir. 2004). A summary of the call is set forth at “’Go Big and Go Loud’: Inside the Justice Dept’s Push to Prosecute Protesters,” New York Times, March 19, 2026 (the article may be found athttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/19/us/politics/justice-dept-prosecuteprotesters.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share)
This is the NYT article referenced.
‘Go Big and Go Loud’: Inside the Justice Dept.’s Push to Prosecute Protesters
Prosecutors have struggled to prove in court what the president and his aides have repeatedly said in public: that a network of leftist activists presents a serious threat to national security.
And it says,
In a conference call in late January, the official, Aakash Singh, laid out the department’s basis for prosecuting demonstrators: National Security Presidential Memo 7, a sweeping directive issued by President Trump last September. It expanded the definition of domestic terrorism to include not only violent crimes like assault, but also relatively minor ones, like revealing the personal details of agents or getting in the way of immigration enforcement.
Mr. Singh said that “coordinators” in U.S. attorneys’ offices responsible for charging protesters under NSPM-7 should be “hounding” federal agents to make cases, according to people familiar with his remarks. He also suggested that the department wanted headlines along with indictments, promising that officials in Washington would be “blasting out” prosecutors’ work.
“Go big,” Mr. Singh said, “and go loud.”
.....
In his conference call in January, Mr. Singh referred to another high-profile action by the Justice Department against immigration protesters: a conspiracy case in St. Paul, Minn., in which 39 people — including the former CNN anchor Don Lemon — have been charged in connection with a demonstration at a local church where a pastor also worked as an ICE employee.
Mr. Singh referred to the protest as among the worst attacks on a house of worship in American history, resulting in the defendants being accused of plotting to deprive the congregants of their rights and of interfering with religious freedoms. And yet no career prosecutors at the U.S. attorney’s office in Minnesota are litigating the case, which is unusual. It is being handled instead by lawyers from the Justice Department’s civil rights division in Washington.
People who make a big noise, but have nothing to back it up are doing great damage to our democracy, JMO.
If you have a strong legal case, you don’t need to make a lot of noise. Your work will speak for itself.
The struggles Trump’s DOJ has encountered in trying to to create a criminal case against Don Lemon haven’t yielded much. It’s time for them to step up and make their case instead of intimidating potential witnesses and trying to delay, delay, delay. Show the judge and jury what you have or drop the charges.
<snipped for focus>
It seems to me that the government is focused on enforcing federal law and enforcement of the FACE act. Protecting our rights to worship freely in our churches without harassment, intimidation or violence.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2020
- Messages
- 3,941
- Reaction score
- 34,800
Two judges said it wasn't criminal. They were lucky to find a GJ to say the opposite. I eagerly await the GJ records.
MOO.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2010
- Messages
- 10,546
- Reaction score
- 70,476
Thank you for your reply Sundog. I appreciate it.
I agree that it is important to protect those rights. I want everyone to be able to worship freely. And it should be a right that is upheld.
But I'm guessing that you and I disagree on Don Lemon's role in the protest. I also think it's important that media be free to report what is going on. So many media organizations have been muzzled if they dare say anything against the administration. If we lose the free press we are no longer free or democratic.
And protecting the right to protest against the government,, and the right to free speech, is critical. A democratic government must be transparent and stand for all citizens. Unfortunately people have been killed by the government for protesting against doing just that. I think we can agree that killing people is more extreme than reporting on a protest.
Similar threads
- Locked
Guardians Monthly Goal
Staff online
-
GhostwheelPyrrhonist
Online statistics
- Members online
- 87
- Guests online
- 1,352
- Total visitors
- 1,439