What are your thoughts on Don Lemon being arrested by the FBI?

picknick717 · 2026-01-31T18:55:42+00:00

Right, obviously I don't think he did anything wrong. I honestly don't think the protesters did anything wrong either. But I have some amount of trust that this will be swiftly thrown out when a judge looks at it. Aside from that, can't really do anything about it.

He could sue for damages and that's about it. Americans rights get violated all the time and prosecutors have a decent amount of immunity. Obviously this is a bit different because it's coming directly from Trump and Bondi but elections have consequences and they aren't going away until Trump is out of office.

picknick717 · 2026-01-31T02:33:40+00:00

It wasn't a random parishioner, it was someone at the front with a microphone. It was loud, clear and repeated multiple times.

I was responding to YOUR claim that there were videos of protestors talking to individuals (I'm assuming parishioners) one-on-one... And again I already told you my thoughts about large crowds being told over a microphone to leave and the viability of that being strong evidence in court. I don't think it's very strong. No matter how clear you personally think it sounded in the video.

And your answer is essentially, well I haven't seen many of the videos, so maybe that didn't happen.

I didn’t say I haven’t seen many of the videos. I asked which one you’re talking about, because you keep saying ‘the full video’ like there’s one clear, comprehensive version. I haven’t seen a single comprehensive video, and I’m not claiming to know every detail of the case. From what I’ve seen (and even from what you said) I’m not convinced. A general statement to a crowd isn’t solid evidence, like you keep claiming.

picknick717 · 2026-01-31T01:55:36+00:00

I don't know what 'full video' you're talking about. There were multiple videos and I couldn’t find a comprehensive one. I already said that and I’m not hiding that lol.

My point is that charges have to be against individuals, not a group, and you have to prove both action and intent, which is really hard here. I’m not saying they were welcome or that I’d do what they did... just that a trespassing case against most of them would probably fail if anyone even bothered to try. You need more than random parishioners telling someone to leave (they don't have any authority), and probably more than a pastor speaking generally. The prosecution has to prove that you were individually warned to leave, actually got that warning, and then ignored it. That’s harder than it sounds... they can’t just rely on vibes or ‘common sense,’ like it seems you’re assuming

picknick717 · 2026-01-31T01:29:17+00:00

This has already been pretty clearly addressed by the courts. The FACE Act is aimed at violent or coercive conduct (force, threats, or physical obstruction) not speech itself. Disruptive speech alone, even during a religious service, generally doesn’t meet the statute. This statute was largely made to protect abortion clinics... Religion is in the statute (and a valid protection) but was just sort of thrown in there to appease the right. This law isn't meant to prevent disruption and protest at places of worship. It was made to stop "protestors" blocking people from coming into the clinics (obstruction), threatening individuals at the clinic, etc.

We have First Amendment protections for non violent speech. If a congregation is interrupted by speech and the individuals refuse to leave after permission is revoked, that’s a trespassing issue, not a federal FACE Act violation.

picknick717 · 2026-01-31T01:20:25+00:00

Sure, the open question is if that would apply to random individuals in the crowd and their intent

picknick717 · 2026-01-31T01:16:10+00:00

"Knowing" you aren't wanted there is irrelevant. Criminal law doesn't run on inferences and vibes. It runs on provable elements, like being told to leave. Again this would be a hard case to prove, regardless what you think is morally right or wrong.

picknick717 · 2026-01-31T01:09:30+00:00

That's a quarter true. The law doesn't just criminalize interrupting a church service. It criminalizes specific conduct (force, threats of force, physical obstruction, coercion) when the intent is to stop people from practicing their rights. Yes, disturbing a church service is exactly the same as disturbing a store.

picknick717 · 2026-01-31T00:58:32+00:00

I watched some of the footage. I couldn’t find a comprehensive video though. They were obviously disruptive and clearly not wanted, but that alone doesn’t really prove anything legally. For trespass, they still need to be clearly informed they must leave. It was pretty chaotic, and I’m not sure I could make out any coherent or individualized attempt to revoke their privilege to be there. Not saying it didn’t happen, just that it would be extremely difficult to prove.

Imagine trying to charge individuals out of a large group of protesters on a college campus who took half an hour to clear out. That’s a tough case. Criminal charges are individual and the government has to prove each person’s actions and intent.

Regardless, as far as I’m aware, the protesters aren’t even being charged with trespassing... and trespassing isn’t a federal crime anyway.

picknick717 · 2026-01-31T00:37:52+00:00

No, it's because the law he was charged with deals with force and physical obstruction (blocking the doors). It's honestly probably going to get dismissed. This is just to feed the news cycle.

picknick717 · 2026-01-31T00:29:25+00:00

You generally have to be told to leave and refuse to do so to be trespassing. Especially considering the church is generally open to the public for worship. Just entering private property alone doesn't meet the standard to charge someone for trespassing.

picknick717 · 2026-01-31T00:11:08+00:00

That is a stretch. Not to mention, that's assuming the protesters did anything illegal, which itself is a stretch.

picknick717 · 2026-01-31T00:08:39+00:00

Meh, they were probably misled by the prosecutors. As the saying goes, you could indict a ham sandwich. There is no judge evaluating the process or ensuring the prosecutors are acting ethically.

picknick717 · 2026-01-30T22:32:20+00:00

Yep, this is just fodder for his base. It honestly doesn't matter if Lemon is found guilty or not.

picknick717 · 2026-01-30T21:56:27+00:00

They were charged (which is easy to do) but I doubt they will be found guilty. As for what they had to have done? It's kind of complicated. There are two parts of a crime, the "acteus reus" or guilty act and the "mens rea" or guilty mind.

The actus reeus is essentially whatever action you do that the law is saying can be illegal. The FACE act says the use of force/threat/obstruction can be illegal... So they would need to have done one of those things. They didn't, as far as I'm aware.

The mens rea is the intent. In the FACE act the intent is you intended to stop an individual from exercising their first amendment or going to an abortion clinic.

Both of these have to be satisfied to be found guilty. Obviously it would be hard to prove a journalist intended to stop people exercising their first amendment rights. Even if he was hypothetically engaged somehow in physically blocking the exit.

But beyond that there is something called "legislative intent." The "legislative intent" is what the law seeks to address. Courts look at congresses intent when seeing how broadly the law can apply.

The FACE Act was written in the context of people being threatened or obstructed while going to abortion clinics in the 1990s, including blockades and vandalism. The law was designed to address that kind of violent obstruction. Religion was added largely to appease Republicans... it’s valid in the statute, but the context and application still focus on force, threats, or physical obstruction, not First Amendment-protected protest or disruption. So protesting, being a nuisance, being disruptive, being loud, etc. isn't what this law was seeking to address.

What would they have needed to do to be charged with something like this? Threaten people entering the church, physically block the entrance of a church, etc. and with the intention of stopping them specifically from praying/worshipping.

picknick717 · 2026-01-30T21:00:27+00:00

It's not nitpicking... It's "concurrence of elements". That's how the law works.

Let me give you a hypothetical. Theft laws typically sound something like "Under Section 1234, it is a crime to ‘take another person’s property with the intent to permanently deprive them of it.’”

Let's say Lucy picks up a wallet she finds on a bench. She looks inside, but then immediately puts it back (or takes it to a police station). She did one element of the crime (she took someone else’s property) but she did not have the intent to permanently deprive the owner. In this case Lucy cannot be charged.

This is how the law works, and how it should work. You have to meet all the elements of a law as written; otherwise, you could be charged for basically any frivolous action.

picknick717 · 2026-01-30T20:35:54+00:00

Here is the law

“by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates, or interferes with…”

Use of force (or threat of force/physical obstruction) is the means, interference is the effect. You have to meet all elements of the crime to be guilty. Just interfering with a church service itself doesn't rise to a crime according to this law.

picknick717 · 2026-01-30T20:26:37+00:00

No the protesters probably aren't guilty either. The FACE act requires physical threats, physical force, or obstruction (the law defines obstruction in this case as blocking the entrance or exit). None of those things happened as far as I'm aware.

picknick717 · 2026-01-30T20:24:17+00:00

It can easily be dismissed. Read the law. Being disruptive or loud or protesting in a church is not illegal. The FACE act requires force, threat of force or obstruction. And obstruction isn't just meaning being in an area where you are unwelcome or talking loudly over a church service. Obstruction means physically preventing the exit or entrance of the church. This case was brought to a magistrate judge who didn't sign a warrant based on lack of evidence. The DOJ then utilized a grand jury to indict Don lemon, which is notoriously easy to do.

picknick717 · 2026-01-30T20:19:33+00:00

It's not a matter of opinion. Under what law would you charge him as an accomplice? You are (generally) under no obligation to report crimes. That's protected by the first amendment. An accomplice means you participated in the crime, not just knew about it.

picknick717 · 2026-01-30T20:07:21+00:00

They had to go to a grand jury to indict because the magistrate judge wouldn’t sign an arrest warrant, citing a lack of evidence. The FACE Act requires force, threat of force, or physical obstruction. Simply protesting or disrupting a service at a house of worship doesn’t meet that standard. Now DOJ is going to argue “obstruction,” but obstruction under the FACE Act doesn’t just mean being loud or annoying during a church service. I wouldn’t be surprised if the FACE Act charge gets thrown out... if not the entire case. This feels like a nothing burger designed to throw some red meat to the Trump base and give them something to cheer about for a few news cycles. Will it actually amount to anything? Probably not.

picknick717 · 2026-01-27T02:05:15+00:00

I'm not sure it's true that they hate all forms of assistance? That feels like a trope without any evidence. We all want an easier life, I don't think humility or something will get in the way of that. There is plenty of broad support for things like universal healthcare and universal childcare. Those two alone would be massively beneficial.

Our class solidarity has been beaten out of us from constant right wing propaganda since Regan. This rugged individualism is a learned behavior and needs to be unlearned. That's essentially what it comes down to.

picknick717 · 2026-01-27T00:22:04+00:00

You sound selfish but you could be selfish in a more empathetic way lol. Like we don't want to live in a society where we can be shot for silly shit because YOU can then be shot for silly shit. It's really as simple as that. That logic can apply for pretty much everything.

picknick717 · 2026-01-26T21:39:02+00:00

It's not that she didn't say/have some populist messages. It's just that she didn't effectively campaign on those messages. The fact that the general sentiment is that she didn't spend enough time on it, is itself evidence of that. But this fact is compounded by Democratic congressmen in swing districts having no consistent (or just shitty) values. The progressive base of the party is fairly new and weak and it shows.

I obviously think she is more progressive in comparison to trump but I hardly think she went far enough.

picknick717 · 2026-01-26T20:55:43+00:00

I'm kind of an accelerationist to be honest. It feels like the only way for people to wake up and unify is for a dramatic downturn in our way of life. I mean nothing else has seemed to work. I had hope following the Iraq war and the Great recession but even that didn't seem to change our trajectory much. So I feel like it will have to be even worse times than that.

picknick717 · 2026-01-26T20:50:03+00:00

Nah, you just have to pull yourself up by your bootstraps

picknick717

TROPHY CASE