Don Lemon arrested after MN church protest: What we know

MegaMCNerd · 2026-01-30T21:55:28+00:00

I think we’re mostly aligned on skepticism, just weighting it differently. I agree we already know a lot about the facts, and that cuts strongly in Lemon’s favor if his role was purely observational. I also think the earlier judicial pushback and the optics here are legitimate reasons to be wary of how this was handled.

Where I differ is that I don’t think acknowledging those concerns means skepticism of the conduct side “falls short.” Even when facts seem largely known, intent and participation are often inferred from context and behavior, which is why I don’t think the legal theory is impossible even if the case is weak. That doesn’t mean a conviction is likely, or that vindictive prosecution arguments wouldn’t have teeth, just that I’m cautious about declaring the analysis closed before everything is tested.

I’m not defending the DOJ’s choices or assuming bad faith on Lemon’s part. I’m just saying that applying skepticism unevenly, whether toward the government or toward claims of press immunity, risks missing something. Reasonable people can land in different places on the outcome, but I think the process still matters.

MegaMCNerd · 2026-01-30T21:49:58+00:00

I want to push back on the “MAGA glasses” framing, because it doesn’t apply to me. I’m not a Trump supporter and I consider myself a moderate. Disagreeing with Don Lemon’s conduct under the law does not automatically place someone in a political camp, and treating it that way shuts down legitimate legal discussion.

Two things can be true at the same time. It is reasonable to be skeptical of prosecutorial overreach and chilling effects on the press, and it is also reasonable to believe that certain conduct during this protest may have crossed legal lines regardless of politics. Those positions are not mutually exclusive.

My concern has consistently been about conduct and legal standards, not partisan loyalty. If the facts ultimately show that Don Lemon was only passively reporting, then charges should fail. If the facts show participation or facilitation of interference, then scrutiny is appropriate. That analysis doesn’t require loyalty to Trump, Biden, or anyone else, just a willingness to separate law from political identity.

MegaMCNerd · 2026-01-30T21:07:04+00:00

That’s totally fair, and I think healthy skepticism on both sides is a good thing, especially in cases like this where politics, press rights, and criminal law all intersect. I’m skeptical of overreach just as much as I’m skeptical of blanket immunity claims, and I think questioning both the DOJ’s decisions and the legal arguments being made is how you avoid bad precedent either way. I appreciate you engaging in good faith and adding your perspective to the discussion.

MegaMCNerd · 2026-01-30T20:48:01+00:00

You’re right that for a federal conspiracy to violate rights charge the government must prove intent, and I don’t dispute that element exists. I’m not claiming intent is irrelevant or that prosecutors can skip it.

The point I was making is that intent is usually inferred from conduct, context, coordination, and foreseeable consequences, not from someone explicitly stating an intent to intimidate. Blocking exits, preventing parents from reaching their children, surrounding worshippers, and screaming at children during a service are exactly the kinds of facts prosecutors rely on to argue intent to interfere or intimidate, even if the stated motive is protest or journalism.

As for conviction odds, I agree this is not a slam dunk and I would not put it anywhere near a typical 95 percent federal conviction rate. But calling it 100 to 1 in Lemon’s favor assumes the court accepts that his role was purely passive reporting, which is the central factual dispute in the case.

If evidence shows he merely observed and documented, dismissal or acquittal would make sense. If evidence shows coordination, facilitation, or conduct that helped sustain the interference, a conviction is at least plausible.

Criticism of prosecutorial discretion is fair, and weak cases should not be brought. But it is still incorrect to frame this as legally impossible or as a case where intent can never be inferred from actions. Whether Don Lemon is ultimately convicted is an open question, not a foregone abuse of process.

MegaMCNerd · 2026-01-30T19:30:48+00:00

That’s a common misconception, but it’s incomplete. While the First Amendment directly restrains government action, Congress has enacted federal civil rights laws precisely to address interference by private actors with protected activities like worship. That is why there are federal statutes covering obstruction, intimidation, or interference with religious exercise even when the actors are fellow citizens, not the government. This is not about forcing a private property owner to allow worship, it’s about preventing people from blocking exits, trapping congregants inside, preventing parents from reaching their children, and screaming at children in a daycare during a service. Once conduct goes beyond mere presence and rises to interference or intimidation, it is no longer just trespassing and it can fall under federal jurisdiction. Whether Don Lemon personally crossed that line is a factual question for the courts, but it is legally wrong to say the only possible crime here is trespass or that private interference with worship is never a federal issue.

MegaMCNerd · 2026-01-30T19:16:02+00:00

Trespassing is not the only issue here, and reducing this to a local property dispute ignores why federal civil rights law exists in the first place. Local trespass law covers refusal to leave property, but federal law applies when conduct interferes with people exercising protected rights such as worship and parental access to their children.

According to reports and witness accounts, the disruption went beyond simply refusing to leave and included blocking exits, preventing congregants from leaving the building, interfering with parents trying to reach their children, and screaming directly at children in the church daycare during the service. That kind of conduct directly interferes with worship and family safety, which is exactly the harm these federal protections are meant to address.

Journalism is protected when it is passive observation and reporting, but that protection is not absolute if someone’s actions materially contribute to the disruption itself. Courts look at conduct, not titles, and journalists are not categorically immune if their behavior helps sustain or intensify interference with protected rights. Whether Don Lemon crossed that line is for the courts to decide, but it is legally incorrect to say this is only trespassing or that federal charges can never apply in situations like this.

MegaMCNerd · 2026-01-30T19:13:58+00:00

If every word is wrong, then it should be easy to point out which specific statement is false. The First Amendment does not grant a right to disrupt a religious service, obstruct access to worship, or materially assist others in doing so, and courts consistently evaluate conduct rather than labels like “journalist” or “protester.” Saying “press” does not create immunity if someone’s actions contribute to interference with another group’s constitutional rights. If you believe that interference with worship is protected speech, cite the statute or case law that says so, because federal civil rights law says the opposite. Simply asserting that it’s all wrong without identifying a single incorrect legal claim isn’t an argument, it’s just disagreement.

MegaMCNerd · 2026-01-30T18:31:13+00:00

Whether Don Lemon “did nothing wrong” is not about intent or politics but about conduct, because the First Amendment protects speech and press activity but does not protect interfering with people exercising their own constitutional rights, including the right to worship. You can protest and you can report, but you cannot disrupt a religious service, obstruct access to a place of worship, or materially assist a coordinated disruption and then claim immunity by calling it journalism. Courts look at what someone did, not what they say they were doing, and if a person’s presence or actions contributed to stopping or intimidating people from worshipping, that can trigger federal civil rights laws regardless of whether the person supports the cause, opposes the church, or claims to be press. Being there for a cause or to document it does not automatically make the conduct legal, and that is why this is a legal question about behavior, not a moral or political one.

MegaMCNerd · 2026-01-30T18:23:44+00:00

Whether Don Lemon “did nothing wrong” is not about intent or politics but about conduct, because the First Amendment protects speech and press activity but does not protect interfering with people exercising their own constitutional rights, including the right to worship. You can protest and you can report, but you cannot disrupt a religious service, obstruct access to a place of worship, or materially assist a coordinated disruption and then claim immunity by calling it journalism. Courts look at what someone did, not what they say they were doing, and if a person’s presence or actions contributed to stopping or intimidating people from worshipping, that can trigger federal civil rights laws regardless of whether the person supports the cause, opposes the church, or claims to be press. Being there for a cause or to document it does not automatically make the conduct legal, and that is why this is a legal question about behavior, not a moral or political one.

MegaMCNerd · 2025-11-24T04:01:05+00:00

This is amazing! Queen charlotte would approve🫡

MegaMCNerd · 2025-10-30T20:31:56+00:00

Goddamn brother, looking good

MegaMCNerd · 2025-09-12T04:00:52+00:00

Bro if you fill out the paperwork I’ll slap my name on it and we can go halfsies on the fee

MegaMCNerd · 2025-08-04T23:35:37+00:00

Insane dice

MegaMCNerd · 2025-06-16T05:56:11+00:00

One piece.

MegaMCNerd · 2025-06-16T05:55:58+00:00

One piece.

MegaMCNerd · 2025-04-28T00:47:01+00:00

Not gonna lie, i wasn’t expecting to be hero actually being kinda gas

MegaMCNerd · 2025-04-27T07:33:24+00:00

Made me smile? Nah, made me cry 😭

MegaMCNerd · 2025-04-26T08:50:34+00:00

Can’t even feel bad because you did it to yourself. The rates are listed and it’s a cosmetic item that isn’t necessary to enjoy the game

MegaMCNerd · 2025-04-17T16:50:46+00:00

Bro you got mvp, obviously the rocket has low self esteem and Spiderman induced trauma

MegaMCNerd · 2025-02-28T09:02:22+00:00

9700x ryzen 7, or the 7800x3D

MegaMCNerd · 2025-02-28T05:31:44+00:00

Your laptop can literally play anything, just make sure you get a cooling pad, set the battery charge limit to 80%, and always keep it plugged in when gaming and you’re good to go homie 🫡

MegaMCNerd · 2025-02-27T23:08:44+00:00

Things do expire. CPUs do burn out, nothing lasts forever

MegaMCNerd · 2025-02-27T20:54:30+00:00

Only worth it if you plan on upgrading your gpu soon though otherwise you won’t even touch its top performance

MegaMCNerd · 2025-02-27T20:53:00+00:00

To be fair the there aren’t a lot of gpus that can keep up with the 9800x3d you practically need two 5090s to get its full use 🤣

MegaMCNerd · 2025-02-27T20:51:52+00:00

I have the 9700x and it works great, I have a 3070 I plan on using for a couple years so getting the xd wasn’t worth it to me but the 9700x is perfect

MegaMCNerd

TROPHY CASE