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

[Cryptic]

It's not "blatantly false." It's interpretation of federal law. That interpretation may not agree with yours, but not everyone interprets the law the same. Courts exist for just this reason (among others).

MOO.

No, its blatantly false. There has never been an inherent right in the United States to protest on private property- period.

The broad and sweeping assertion in the post I quoted is that protesting in churches is not a criminal act.

This sweeping assertion is false. Such a right to protest in churches, or any form of private property,s has never existed in the United States.

Arguments as to whether or not specific law "L" applies to specific protester "P" are different matters- but that is not what the post asserted.

 

[Ruminations]

US is a democracy. The inherent right to protest on any form of private property has never existed. This goes double for places of worship.

Granted- the consequences for protesting on private property can vary from the nominal (Martin Luther King's sit in protest at diners in Greensboro, NC) to years of imprisonment in the cases regarding places of worship.

In short, while @Smelly Squirrel presents opinion contesting the applicability of the charges to this specific cases (as does my counter opinion that they do apply), your analysis is based on a broad assertion of a "right" that has never existed in the United States.

Though moderators usually allow opinions to be broadly defined, the over all interests of the forum are not served by allowing blantantly false information to be advanced as fact- even in the form of an opinion.

Wow.

Did you not read the materials Apple Tree found for us?

Because they are factual and contradict what you have posted. There is private property and there is private property. One can be disinvited, but one can not be told what to say and not to say.

The church doors were open. The congregation was excited at first that their numbers seemed to be growing. The protesters were welcome until they were not.

Now, what behavior did you observe in Don Lemon that was a crime? "Conspiracy to do legal journalism" does not count.

MOO

 

[Cryptic]

Journalists have always done things that would be seen by lay people as illegal. It's only after the courts specify that it is covered under freedom of the press that we learn it wasn't actually criminal (i.e. The Pentagon Papers).

Evidently, the Pentagon Papers ruling only asserted that publishing the leaked documents was not a criminal act. The act of leaking them, however, may well have remained criminal.

"Always" is a broad term. I would bet that the exceptions journalists enjoy from the same criminal prosecution that lay people can face are pretty limited- as evident in the Pentagon Papers incident.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Conspiracy might just need two core elements:
A. A stated intent (going to enter the church to protest)
B. Acting on that intent (driving to the chuch, then going in)

Likewise, disrupting a worship service in and of itself constitutes intimidation of those practicing amendment rights.

The fact that direct statements like the following do not exist, might not matter: Ok guys and girls, our specific and exact purpose is to: A. Enter the church B. Then intimidate those inside it from conducting a worship service.

Rather.... once they went in an disrupted the service, they intimidated people from practicing amendment freedoms.

Holy moly, you forgot to add that that's your opinion only. Or at least give some citations, like I have above.

The intent for §2 has to be to commit a crime. Intending to enter church to protest is not a crime. They may have intended to stay there despite being told to leave which would be a crime but it would just be trespassing. Or they may have intended to interfere with the churchgoers' religious worship which might violate §241 the KKK Act, because unlike §248 the Face Act, the terms in §241 like "intimidate" are not defined so narrowly as the terms in §248 and have a more general meaning, so they could be violating someone from exercising a right as referenced in §241.

But the problem there is again "specific intent" to obstruct the right in question must be proved. And I haven't even mentioned another big problem which is that the right being violated must be specifically defined by the underlying law referenced by the charge as protecting that right. You might think that the right being violated is obviously the First Amendment right to religious freedom, but the First Amendment protects from interference by the state not by private persons. So the indictment tries to base the underlying right for violating §241 on a right established within §248 the Face Act. §248 does apply to violations by private persons, but the problem there is that §248 refers to "any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom" and again the First Amendment only applies to the government, and §248 does not clearly establish any other right beyond that as would be required to be specified as the underlying right for using §241. And then even at that, as said before §248(a)(2) might be unconstitutional which would make all the above about §241 moot.

So it's not that simple to specify any federal violation actually committed by the protestors. That anyone is offended by the protest doesn't make it a federal crime. It's just a wee tad bit more complicated than that. See below for better explanations.

Minnesota FACE Off: A Deep Dive Into the St. Paul Church Protest Case

Unpacking the Don Lemon indictment, its factual allegations, the elements the government must prove to convict, and the potential defenses available to the accused.

www.lawfaremedia.org

Three Questions About Section 241, the Conspiracy Against Rights Statute

A short primer on the Trump Jan. 6 indictment’s most surprising statute

www.lawfaremedia.org

moo

 

[Cryptic]

Holy moly, you forgot to add that that's your opinion only. Or at least give some citations, like I have above.

I remembered. My use of the words "might" and "might not" indicate that my post is an opinion.

I do agree that my post lacks citations- and its a good point. I"ll get back to you on that.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I remembered. My use of the words "might" and "might not" indicate that my post is an opinion.

I do agree that my post lacks citations- and its a good point. I"ll get back to you on that.

There was no "might" in these parts: "Likewise, disrupting a worship service in and of itself constitutes intimidation of those practicing amendment rights." and "Rather.... once they went in an disrupted the service, they intimidated people from practicing amendment freedoms."

And you replied 2 minutes after I posted, so I would hope you can respond to the rest of what I said later when you've finished reading.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Yesterday the government did reply to the Motion for Grand Jury Proceedings and the Motion for Brady Materials and Reconsidering Discovery Extension. I don't know if the defendants will be replying to these responses or when the judge might rule.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72212459/480/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72212459/481/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/

I just want to quote one part where they are giving their usual twisted interpretation of the evidence.

In a conversation with two co-defendants, Lemon openly admitted that he did not “think we can go inside” but proceeded to enter the Church anyway.

The context of the discussion makes it clear Lemon is not saying he doesn't think he has the legal right to go in, he is waiting to go inside because he might be recognized and doesn't want to bring attention before the protest begins.

The rest of it is in their typical overreaching writing style. I can't predict how the judge will rule and it's rare to have the materials released, it's a longshot. And if they do release them, it will be only to the parties and not to the public, except for maybe some excerpts quoted in pleadings.

moo

 

[Cryptic]

There was no "might" in these parts: "Likewise, disrupting a worship service in and of itself constitutes intimidation of those practicing amendment rights." and "Rather.... once they went in an disrupted the service, they intimidated people from practicing amendment freedoms."

Any you did not preceed each and every sentence nor each and every paragraph in your long post with opinion affirmations either.

That aside, my post was two short parts. Each part was preceded by the use of "might" and "might not". Again, clear indications that I was posting an opinion.

 

[witchway]

Any you did not preceed each and every sentence nor each and every paragraph in your long post with opinion affirmations either.

That aside, my post was two short parts. Each part was preceded by the use of "might" and "might not". Again, clear indications that I was posting an opinion.

Thats just an insult IMO to @Smelly Squirrel, long post? I have read those posts, there are links and facts. A few times I have read an opinion. Did you read? Did you read the links? I doubt it. I guess they are too long for you. MOO Sad because they are very factual. Not skewed just facts. MOO

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Thats just an insult IMO to @Smelly Squirrel, long post? I have read those posts, there are links and facts. A few times I have read an opinion. Did you read? Did you read the links? I doubt it. I guess they are too long for you. MOO Sad because they are very factual. Not skewed just facts. MOO

Thanks witchway but I'm not offended. I did include an "moo" but it was at the very bottom of the long post and they might have missed it. I do think it's accepted practice here that an moo at the bottom covers the whole post. If not, that's what I mean when I put one at the bottom.

And a lot of it is definitely just my opinion. I'm not a lawyer and I'm just trying to give my best understanding from what I've gathered from legal experts. I'm sure I am misconstruing something at times. This is a complex topic.

 

[witchway]

Thanks witchway but I'm not offended. I did include an "moo" but it was at the very bottom of the long post and they might have missed it. I do think it's accepted practice here that an moo at the bottom covers the whole post. If not, that's what I mean when I put one at the bottom.

And a lot of it is definitely just my opinion. I'm not a lawyer and I'm just trying to give my best understanding from what I've gathered from legal experts. I'm sure I am misconstruing something at times. This is a complex topic.

You do put a lot of work and research in your posts. I appreciate that. Moo

 

[Cryptic]

Thats just an insult IMO to @Smelly Squirrel, long post?

No insult intended what so ever.

Following a claim that I had posted an opinion a fact ( I did use opinion indicating language on two occasions in a short post)....

Smelly Squirrel accurately pointed out that I did not preceed each and every sentence / paragraph in my post with a disclaimer stating that it was an option. This is a fact.

I then accurately pointed out that Smelly Squirrell also did not preceed each and every sentence, nor each and every paragraph is his longer post with an opinion diclaimer.. This is also a fact.

I just don't think its an insulting fact. Rather, its just a follow on observation to the one made by Smelly Squirrel. How can that be insulting?

In fact, go back and look at post

 

[witchway]

Thats just an insult IMO to @Smelly Squirrel, long post? I have read those posts, there are links and facts. A few times I have read an opinion. Did you read? Did you read the links? I doubt it. I guess they are too long for you. MOO Sad because they are very factual. Not skewed just facts. MOO

My apologies, I have not been feeling good today, I guess I overreacted.

 

[sunshineray]

Interesting question.

The answer is: It depends on what country the church is in.

If the church is in an authoritarian county, the protest is illegal. If the protest is in a democratic country, the protest is legal.

So, I'm a US citizen, and like to think my country is still democratic. I know looking at the USA from the outside, not everyone agrees.

This very case could answer the question: Is the USA a democracy, and protesting in churches is legal, or is it authoritarian, and protesting in churches is illegal?

MOO

Bravo It's been stated this case cannot be addressed in the political sense, that's not what it's about. In my most adamant opinion, and proven by two recent and very informative posts by Smelly Squirrel and Rumminations, this case wouldn't even be a thing if not for the weaponization of our DOJ against many longstanding and fought for American freedoms endowed to us by our Constitution. AJMO

 

[sunshineray]

Why don’t you test this theory. And see what happens. I haven’t seen a lot of in church protests, especially while a service is going on. Does this also apply to synagogues and mosques?

Testing any rights given under The Constitution these days is indeed risky behavior. AJMO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Evidently, the Pentagon Papers ruling only asserted that publishing the leaked documents was not a criminal act. The act of leaking them, however, may well have remained criminal.

But the journalists were not held criminally liable, which is the point.

"Always" is a broad term. I would bet that the exceptions journalists enjoy from the same criminal prosecution that lay people can face are pretty limited- as evident in the Pentagon Papers incident.

That isn't what I meant with the word "always." I meant historically, journalists have done things that lay people believe to be illegal in the past, such as not revealing a source. The courts will eventually weigh in on DL and GF. I suspect many will be surprised by the final outcome.

MOO.

 

[Cryptic]

But the journalists were not held criminally liable, which is the point.

Had they violated federal regulations by personally leaking the information, instead of simply publishing it, they may well of been.

The courts will eventually weigh in on DL and GF. I suspect many will be surprised by the final outcome.

My position is that journalists cannot fundamentally break laws, then claim immunity as journalists.

Subjectively, my amateur vibes tell me that this is going to be doubly so in an age where everybody with a phone and a social media account can claim to be an independent journalist of some sort.

Lets make a charity bet. I"ll bet you a $25.00 donation to the United Way under with the following terms:

- If DL is convicted of any federal charge during pursuant to the trial, you make the donation.
- If DL is not convicted of any federal charges pursuant to the trial, I"ll make the donation.

I would include GF as well, but..... I am thinking that she might present states evidence and be given a deal.

Once I win my bet (one needs to believe in yourself- right), I"ll give you a chance to reinstate the wager terms for any appeal that DL makes.

 

[Ruminations]

Had they violated federal regulations by personally leaking the information, instead of simply publishing it, they may well of been.



My position is that journalists cannot fundamentally break laws, then claim immunity as journalists.

Subjectively, my amateur vibes tell me that this is going to be doubly so in an age where everybody with a phone and a social media account can claim to be an independent journalist of some sort.

Lets make a charity bet. I"ll bet you a $25.00 donation to the United Way under with the following terms:

- If DL is convicted of any federal charge during pursuant to the trial, you make the donation.
- If DL is not convicted of any federal charges pursuant to the trial, I"ll make the donation.

I would include GF as well, but..... I am thinking that she might present states evidence and be given a deal.

Once I win my bet (one needs to believe in yourself- right), I"ll give you a chance to reinstate the wager terms for any appeal that DL makes.

Don Lemon has not broken a law. Please familiarize yourself with the evidence, and cite a time stamp or reference that is a behavior of his breaking a law.

Nobody is saying that Don Lemon can "fundamentally break laws, then claim immunity."

Professionals in law and journalism say that Don Lemon did not break a law. There are many citations in this thread.

Repeatedly, posters on this thread who claim or imply that Don Lemon has broken a law are asked to show this. Repeatedly, they do not show this, and they just continue on as if wishing that Don Lemon broke a law were enough.

2 judges refused to authorize arrest of Don Lemon because they read the charges, watched the video evidence, and could not find behaviors on the video that matched the charges.



The defense is Don Lemon did not break the law.

There is no claim that Don Lemon has a privilege.



If I did not express that clearly enough, please let me know.

MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Had they violated federal regulations by personally leaking the information, instead of simply publishing it, they may well of been.

I don't understand the relevance of the point you're making. They were journalists, they acted as journalists. They were not held criminally liable. The same can be said for DL. What could have happened is irrelevant. MOO.

My position is that journalists cannot fundamentally break laws, then claim immunity as journalists.

That's fine, but the only law DL *may* have broken is trespassing and he wasn't even charged with that.

Subjectively, my amateur vibes tell me that this is going to be doubly so in an age where everybody with a phone and a social media account can claim to be an independent journalist of some sort.

This argument already ran its course. This thread isn't about everyone else. It's about DL, who is an established journalist. Discussing what others *could* do in the future in different cases is irrelevant to this case.

Lets make a charity bet. I"ll bet you a $25.00 donation to the United Way under with the following terms:

- If DL is convicted of any federal charge during pursuant to the trial, you make the donation.
- If DL is not convicted of any federal charges pursuant to the trial, I"ll make the donation.

That's not a fair bet. I'll take the bet if -- and only if -- DL is convicted of what he's accused of at this time, as noted in the indictment.

I would include GF as well, but..... I am thinking that she might present states evidence and be given a deal.

Once I win my bet (one needs to believe in yourself- right), I"ll give you a chance to reinstate the wager terms for any appeal that DL makes.

See above.

MOO.

 

[Sundog]

2 judges refused to authorize arrest of Don Lemon because they read the charges, watched the video evidence, and could not find behaviors on the video that matched the charges.

<snipped for focus>

And one judge on the appeals court disagreed with the other two judges on the appeals court so it wasn't a slam dunk by any means. And the judges of the appeal court recommended that the prosecution take the case to a grand jury. Which they did. And here we are. Let's see what happens.