4 ms·

You missed that a judge denied the arrest warrant for Don (while approving some others) citing insufficient evidence. Govt appealed, appeals court denied again.

by hoten 8mo ago

You missed that a judge denied the arrest warrant for Don (while approving some others) citing insufficient evidence. Govt appealed, appeals court denied again. They arrest him anyways.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
xiphias2 8mo ago
I see, I found a video about it, actually it was not a protest, I thought people were outside the church, but they went inside. https://youtu.be/s7jsQKRoNEY?si=gmHgnnxBrbgXR525 https://youtu.be/s7jsQKRoNEY?si=gmHgnnxBrbgXR525 It was clearly not a protest but obstruction by others. And he was not taking part of the obstruction, just documenting it. I can understand DOJ charging him with conspiracy if he took part of the planning, but arrasting him was probably not needed (whether conspiracy took part or not), as he didn't seem to disrupt the church.
- aftbit 8mo ago
  FACE covers "physical" obstruction or threats of violence or force. Standing in the room and yelling is not physical obstruction, and none of what was yelled was threatening violence. Regardless, Don Lemon himself didn't take part in any of that - he just went there to film it. The DOJ just wants to scare people out of protesting or reporting on crimes, score some points with their religious base, and "own the libs" by turning the FACE act around, probably in retaliation for the (IMO overcharging) of the "Pro Life Grandmother" aka Paula “Paulette” Harlow: >“[The defendants] forcefully entered the clinic and set about blockading two clinic doors using their bodies, furniture, chains, and ropes,” the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia said.
  - zahlman 8mo ago
    [flagged]
- stogot 8mo ago
  I lean more toward DOJ here. He knew in advance, showed up, and went inside. That’s participation. Not standing outside or peering through the door, but occupying the building. Having a camera doesn’t make that journalism. There’s no freedom of speech to defend here
  - hoten 8mo ago
    That's still no more than a state-level misdemeanor trespass. The federal charges are insane.
    - zahlman 8mo ago
      [flagged]
      - hoten 8mo ago
        Yes. Note, I'm not using my own judgement. I'm no lawyer. But the judge refused Don's arrest on grounds of no probable cause [1][2]. I agree it seems the protestors may have violated that law by forcibly stopping the service (though I think the judge only found cause for 18 USC section 241: conspiracy against rights), but it seems the judge applied some reasonable discretion to exclude a reporter only there to document it and interview those willing to speak to him. I'd be interested in reading his exact reasoning, but I'm not sure he's shared it. > than a pastor suspected by the left of being involved with ICE This is besides the point, but: it's not some secret, it's a fact. He works for ICE, and is a pastor. [1] https://x.com/JonahPKaplan/status/2014435110209122785/photo/2 https://x.com/JonahPKaplan/status/2014435110209122785/photo/... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/248 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/248
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 8mo ago
        > Federal charges are appropriate where federal law is violated, and the Supremacy Clause ensures that federal government has the right to bring them. And the first amendment ensures (er, well, it should) that charges which violate it are dismissed. > "Protest" actions like this violate the first amendment rights of the church attendees. They don't; the first amendment strictly protects against government persecution. > If it were Tucker Carlson instead of Don Lemon, and a mosque rather than a church, and an imam suspected by the right of being involved with a terrorist cell rather than a pastor suspected by the left of being involved with ICE, would you have the same response? Is this any better than an ad hominem? What if they would have a different response? Do you mean that we should then conclude something about this event or the other commenter's messages?
- zahlman 8mo ago
  > I can understand DOJ charging him with conspiracy if he took part of the planning The story includes a link to the entire livestream. You may be interested in the interview with protest coordinators before they enter the church. I remember seeing an edited video on the order of 5 minutes long on Don Lemon's own channel that seems to be gone now, although the livestream is still there.
kcplate 8mo ago
No, A grand jury indicted him. Nothing untoward here. It’s how these things work.
- hoten 8mo ago
  You're right, there was a grand jury. Thanks for the correction. I hadn't seen the unsealed indictment. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/30/don-lemon-appears-in-los-angeles-federal-court-00757998 https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/30/don-lemon-appears-i...

by hoten 8mo ago

You missed that a judge denied the arrest warrant for Don (while approving some others) citing insufficient evidence. Govt appealed, appeals court denied again. They arrest him anyways.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

xiphias2 8mo ago

I see, I found a video about it, actually it was not a protest, I thought people were outside the church, but they went inside. https://youtu.be/s7jsQKRoNEY?si=gmHgnnxBrbgXR525 https://youtu.be/s7jsQKRoNEY?si=gmHgnnxBrbgXR525 It was clearly not a protest but obstruction by others. And he was not taking part of the obstruction, just documenting it. I can understand DOJ charging him with conspiracy if he took part of the planning, but arrasting him was probably not needed (whether conspiracy took part or not), as he didn't seem to disrupt the church.

aftbit 8mo ago
FACE covers "physical" obstruction or threats of violence or force. Standing in the room and yelling is not physical obstruction, and none of what was yelled was threatening violence. Regardless, Don Lemon himself didn't take part in any of that - he just went there to film it. The DOJ just wants to scare people out of protesting or reporting on crimes, score some points with their religious base, and "own the libs" by turning the FACE act around, probably in retaliation for the (IMO overcharging) of the "Pro Life Grandmother" aka Paula “Paulette” Harlow: >“[The defendants] forcefully entered the clinic and set about blockading two clinic doors using their bodies, furniture, chains, and ropes,” the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia said.
- zahlman 8mo ago
  [flagged]
stogot 8mo ago
I lean more toward DOJ here. He knew in advance, showed up, and went inside. That’s participation. Not standing outside or peering through the door, but occupying the building. Having a camera doesn’t make that journalism. There’s no freedom of speech to defend here
- hoten 8mo ago
  That's still no more than a state-level misdemeanor trespass. The federal charges are insane.
  - zahlman 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - hoten 8mo ago
      Yes. Note, I'm not using my own judgement. I'm no lawyer. But the judge refused Don's arrest on grounds of no probable cause [1][2]. I agree it seems the protestors may have violated that law by forcibly stopping the service (though I think the judge only found cause for 18 USC section 241: conspiracy against rights), but it seems the judge applied some reasonable discretion to exclude a reporter only there to document it and interview those willing to speak to him. I'd be interested in reading his exact reasoning, but I'm not sure he's shared it. > than a pastor suspected by the left of being involved with ICE This is besides the point, but: it's not some secret, it's a fact. He works for ICE, and is a pastor. [1] https://x.com/JonahPKaplan/status/2014435110209122785/photo/2 https://x.com/JonahPKaplan/status/2014435110209122785/photo/... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/248 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/248
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 8mo ago
      > Federal charges are appropriate where federal law is violated, and the Supremacy Clause ensures that federal government has the right to bring them. And the first amendment ensures (er, well, it should) that charges which violate it are dismissed. > "Protest" actions like this violate the first amendment rights of the church attendees. They don't; the first amendment strictly protects against government persecution. > If it were Tucker Carlson instead of Don Lemon, and a mosque rather than a church, and an imam suspected by the right of being involved with a terrorist cell rather than a pastor suspected by the left of being involved with ICE, would you have the same response? Is this any better than an ad hominem? What if they would have a different response? Do you mean that we should then conclude something about this event or the other commenter's messages?
zahlman 8mo ago
> I can understand DOJ charging him with conspiracy if he took part of the planning The story includes a link to the entire livestream. You may be interested in the interview with protest coordinators before they enter the church. I remember seeing an edited video on the order of 5 minutes long on Don Lemon's own channel that seems to be gone now, although the livestream is still there.

kcplate 8mo ago

No, A grand jury indicted him. Nothing untoward here. It’s how these things work.

hoten 8mo ago
You're right, there was a grand jury. Thanks for the correction. I hadn't seen the unsealed indictment. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/30/don-lemon-appears-in-los-angeles-federal-court-00757998 https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/30/don-lemon-appears-i...