[Maru]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

When we say "breaking the law” are we talking about a law being broken that should concern everyone because it's the law being broken ended up harming someone else, or Trump using a law to shut someone up with a dissenting opinion? Because the latter should not be being classed as a "lawbreaker” in any democratic, civilised, first world country that America does like to claim itself to be.

Instead of guessing, we can read the indictment... I linked it above:

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

That's what I was thinking.

The primary argument seems to be that he and others impeded on the rights of others, ie their rights to religious freedom/freedom of expression which are contained also within the 1st amendment. That would be an issue only if it is found that Lemon was "working with" them to achieve this goal rather than "just" documenting, which makes him part of the operation itself. In the charging documents, they point out that he is seen to be cornering individuals for interviews and questioning, not allowing people to leave. So the streaming aspect of it is very much active in what is going on, if interpreted that way...

I think yes he's technically guilty, but it's border enough to fall outside of being fully explicit. It'll be legally tenuous because historically US courts are hyper-conservative when it comes to the handling of 1st amendment. Cases are often struck if it even barely touches 1st amendment in places.

I don't think the goal is to suppress his speech as his speech is still being maintained. (His videos however are his own worst evidence). He's not being charged for opinions being said. He is being charged for intent to obstruct a church proceeding and still has full protections to speak out. And let's be honest, he'll very easily profit from continuing to do so.

Edit: It's a stretch to say because someone is charged that the other person doesn't like that automatically means "silencing" them. That can easily be said for any politician that is charged (including Donald Trump) and that's a major problem I have with that argument, because vast majority of Americans want to see justice in some form with any of the corruption that runs rampant.. This broad argument is why politicians can skate free from under a judge because this is what they rely on to political maneuver around their own responsibility to hold other politicians to account. We see that logic in federal rulings in writing frequently... Judges don't want to be involved in high profile spats like this and err on the side of caution. Consider they're politically appointed by the parties and it's not unknown in the US for a judge to be targeted for "bad rulings". (See: members of SCOTUS being targeted for their decisions...)

On appeal, they did determine the charges should've been fine, but refused to sign:

In a brief concurring statement, however, Graz said that prosecutors had “clearly establish[ed] probable cause for all five arrest warrants … [but] the government has failed to establish that it has no other adequate means of obtaining the requested relief.”

“The reason why this never happens,” Schiltz added, “is likely that, if the government does not like the magistrate judge’s decision, it can either improve the affidavit and present it again to the same magistrate judge or it can present its case to a grand jury and seek an indictment.”

^^ and they did just that, they went through grand jury.

Their main concern via a derisive party:

In response to the government’s insistence that failure to arrest Lemon and the remaining four demonstrators would cause “copycat” church invasions, Schiltz sarcastically told Colloton: “Apparently, the government believes that the arrests of the leaders of the Cities Church invasion — whose arrests have received widespread international attention — will not deter copycats, but arresting five additional suspects will.”

Well yes... the people involved in these activities are stupid enough to see these obstacles as a huge win if it is seen the courts will help with pushing back. The leaders don't mind going to jail, it's theater for them.

The people it really deters are the small content creators on both ends of it looking to profit off of filming live action/action hero-style journalism — and there are quite a few of them after watching hours of protests myself...

There were already a few more incidents of protesters harassing churchgoers (people in parking lots) that I'd seen today, including illegal entry into churches within the past 24 hours.

Back to the charges... I didn't look into why yet, but it is weird they separated their charges from the "ring leaders", but it may be their cases will be tried differently. Stuff the media doesn't explain to everyday people because it wants you mad and stuff.

*edit/correction: Oh interesting, they're on the same indictment, but it was just unsealed after they submitted it differently so they could sign off on the other arrest(s). It's just odd it only led to the 2 arrests on the 24th and yet the others weren't picked up until Lemon was, so was there a problem with their charges?

Anyway, an interesting case for comparison (or contrast) is Project Veritas:

FBI raid on Project Veritas founder’s home sparks questions about press freedom
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/1...n-press-521307

The Biden administration’s effort to establish itself as a committed champion of press freedom is facing new doubts because of the Justice Department’s aggressive legal tactics against a conservative provocateur known for his hidden-camera video stings.

A predawn FBI raid last weekend against Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe and similar raids on some of his associates are prompting alarm from some First Amendment advocates, who contend that prosecutors appear to have run roughshod over Justice Department media policies and a federal law protecting journalists.

Adding to the drama surrounding the brewing court showdown: It stems from a politically sensitive investigation into the alleged theft of the diary of President Joe Biden’s daughter Ashley.

That document made it into the hands of O’Keefe’s organization, Project Veritas, which never published anything on the subject and eventually turned the document over to police.

“The Department of Justice’s use of a search warrant to seize a reporter’s notes and work product violates decades of established Supreme Court precedent,” O’Keefe lawyer Paul Calli wrote to prosecutors.

O’Keefe’s lawyers are demanding that the court appoint a special master to supervise the review of the information on his phones, which they contend contains sensitive details about confidential sources, as well as privileged communication with Project Veritas’ attorneys.

Such a process is uncommon, but has been used in recent years to sift through information seized in federal investigations into two of Trump’s personal attorneys, Michael Cohen and Rudy Giuliani.

Veritas is certainly more directly involved in activism than Don. But consider they used the Biden diary to "open the door" legally to a warrant to his home. If they had found anything, they could've charged him. They didn't have to do this with Lemon because he live streamed himself committing a crime. Though it will be interesting if they use this to get access to greater evidence for their case. Veritas acts as an intermediary for whistleblowers, but arguably they way they recruit such people to infiltrate valuable targets may make them less of an intermediary depending on how one sees their marketing.

Lawsuit they lost in 2025:

Federal Judge Confirms $120K Verdict Against Project Veritas for Undercover Sting on Democracy Partners
https://publiclawlibrary.org/federal...racy-partners/

Anyone can be a reporter that uses interesting tactics to get the story, but just be ready with funds for when it backfires.

Edit: Added more above (it's labeled)

[bots]

entering a church was a dumb move by the protestors

[arista]

He is still has a Court date

[Maru]

Here is my favorite example of a streamer pushing the limits of independent journalism to generate content (read: create propaganda)... meet Nick Sortor...

The booth he walks through is the tent that Antifa/Anti-ICE had setup in front of the Portland ICE facility.

How do far we really want to go to say this is "journalist" activity protected by 1st amendment before we simply start to say it's some dude with a camera filming himself being a jack*ss and getting involved with those other activities?

This is, by the way, the premise behind the "legal" part of "legal observer" and the intent is to use 1st amendments activities as a cudgel to evade any such consequences of being an agitator.

S: https://antidotezine.com/2026/01/27/...please-advise/

In Minneapolis, we have found that citizen observers have mostly been released quickly and without charges after being detained by ICE.

It is worth noting that across the country, several instances of trumped-up charges faced by observers have been dropped, because observing is, for the most part, a perfectly lawful activity.

More information on Sortor, which I think is useful for analysis:



Rightwing influencer with White House ties turns focus to Minnesota
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ing-influencer

A rightwing influencer, who appeared to admit that he recently drove his truck at protesters in Minneapolis, has for years cooperated with the Trump administration even while he has been repeatedly accused of escalating conflict for video content he pumps out to 1.2 million followers on X.

Nick Sortor has received the full-throated support of the Trump administration after an October arrest in Portland, and attended an October White House influencer roundtable on “antifa”.

Nick Sortor says ‘Somali thugs’ robbed him of $1K camera and 'dragged' him by car in Minneapolis
https://news.meaww.com/nick-sortor-s...in-minneapolis

A lot of the content he and people like him produce is valuable. There's not many people with the time and money to attend these protests 24/7 and get an accurate picture of what is actually happening. However, it's also true that many of them are at least passively intimate with one side or the other (the side they agree with) ... usually they have podcasts or panels where they broadcast people "on the ground".

Don Lemon is inserting himself as being part of this field, imo.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Maru

Instead of guessing, we can read the indictment... I linked it above:





The primary argument seems to be that he and others impeded on the rights of others, ie their rights to religious freedom/freedom of expression which are contained also within the 1st amendment. That would be an issue only if it is found that Lemon was "working with" them to achieve this goal rather than "just" documenting, which makes him part of the operation itself. In the charging documents, they point out that he is seen to be cornering individuals for interviews and questioning, not allowing people to leave. So the streaming aspect of it is very much active in what is going on, if interpreted that way...

I think yes he's technically guilty, but it's border enough to fall outside of being fully explicit. It'll be legally tenuous because historically US courts are hyper-conservative when it comes to the handling of 1st amendment. Cases are often struck if it even barely touches 1st amendment in places.

I don't think the goal is to suppress his speech as his speech is still being maintained. (His videos however are his own worst evidence). He's not being charged for opinions being said. He is being charged for intent to obstruct a church proceeding and still has full protections to speak out. And let's be honest, he'll very easily profit from continuing to do so.

Edit: It's a stretch to say because someone is charged that the other person doesn't like that automatically means "silencing" them. That can easily be said for any politician that is charged (including Donald Trump) and that's a major problem I have with that argument, because vast majority of Americans want to see justice in some form with any of the corruption that runs rampant.. This broad argument is why politicians can skate free from under a judge because this is what they rely on to political maneuver around their own responsibility to hold other politicians to account. We see that logic in federal rulings in writing frequently... Judges don't want to be involved in high profile spats like this and err on the side of caution. Consider they're politically appointed by the parties and it's not unknown in the US for a judge to be targeted for "bad rulings". (See: members of SCOTUS being targeted for their decisions...)

On appeal, they did determine the charges should've been fine, but refused to sign:





^^ and they did just that, they went through grand jury.

Their main concern via a derisive party:



Well yes... the people involved in these activities are stupid enough to see these obstacles as a huge win if it is seen the courts will help with pushing back. The leaders don't mind going to jail, it's theater for them.

The people it really deters are the small content creators on both ends of it looking to profit off of filming live action/action hero-style journalism — and there are quite a few of them after watching hours of protests myself...

There were already a few more incidents of protesters harassing churchgoers (people in parking lots) that I'd seen today, including illegal entry into churches within the past 24 hours.

Back to the charges... I didn't look into why yet, but it is weird they separated their charges from the "ring leaders", but it may be their cases will be tried differently. Stuff the media doesn't explain to everyday people because it wants you mad and stuff.

*edit/correction: Oh interesting, they're on the same indictment, but it was just unsealed after they submitted it differently so they could sign off on the other arrest(s). It's just odd it only led to the 2 arrests on the 24th and yet the others weren't picked up until Lemon was, so was there a problem with their charges?

Anyway, an interesting case for comparison (or contrast) is Project Veritas:

FBI raid on Project Veritas founder’s home sparks questions about press freedom
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/1...n-press-521307







Veritas is certainly more directly involved in activism than Don. But consider they used the Biden diary to "open the door" legally to a warrant to his home. If they had found anything, they could've charged him. They didn't have to do this with Lemon because he live streamed himself committing a crime. Though it will be interesting if they use this to get access to greater evidence for their case. Veritas acts as an intermediary for whistleblowers, but arguably they way they recruit such people to infiltrate valuable targets may make them less of an intermediary depending on how one sees their marketing.

Lawsuit they lost in 2025:

Federal Judge Confirms $120K Verdict Against Project Veritas for Undercover Sting on Democracy Partners
https://publiclawlibrary.org/federal...racy-partners/

Anyone can be a reporter that uses interesting tactics to get the story, but just be ready with funds for when it backfires.

Edit: Added more above (it's labeled)

Thanks for the information Maru, it's much appreciated.

I personally still stand by that I wouldn't want Lemon to be punished over this, but I do get that I don't live there tbf so my opinion is irrelevant.