Dhillon: DOJ Might Charge Don Lemon, Anti-ICE Mob Under KKK Act After Storming Minnesota Church
“He [Lemon] went into the facility, and then he began, quote, unquote, commit journalism. And as if that’s sort of a shield from being a part, an embedded part of a criminal conspiracy, it isn’t.”
Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon suggests Don Lemon and the anti-ICE mob will face charges under the KKK Act after they stormed a Minnesota church.
Here is the full transcript:
DHILLON: In other cases, the Biden DOJ used the Klan act conspiracy charges tacked on to the FACE Act in the case of protests outside abortion clinics to bring much longer sentences. So there are a number of tools available to us. Who funded this? What else? What other crimes may have occurred? Was there a use of the wires or the mails in preparing for this event? Did anyone cross state lines to do this? All of those are potential predicates for additional federal charges.
JOHNSON: I mean, I’ve just pulled up the Klan act because this is the first time that I’ve heard this mentioned. This is an Act that was passed in 1871, correction there, to come at the Ku Klux Klan and protect African Americans voting rights, especially the Enforcement Act, which is known as the Force Act. So here’s some of the information on screen. Would you mind breaking down for us because we have just read the FACE act and how this is an affinity to the FACE Act, and obvious and egregious, demonstrable violation of the FACE Act because they were entering a place of worship, harassing and threatening. We just played a video of a man, a bearded man, who was threatening to attack the Christians that were worshiping there.
So it seems like an obvious FACE Act violation, but the Klan act, here it is on screen, first time I’ve heard it mentioned. Can you unpack this for us?
DHILLON: Yeah, the Klan Act is one of the most important federal civil rights statutes, and it goes back to the time when President Lincoln emancipated the slaves, and yet the Southern states, Dixiecrats mainly, were refusing to give them even equal rights. In fact, you had sheriffs and you had law enforcement harassing the newly freed slaves.
So the Klan Act is a law that makes it illegal to terrorize citizens, to violate their civil rights, to get together and conspire to violate the civil rights. It is often used against law enforcement, but is now used against others as well. So whenever anyone conspires to violate the protected civil rights of American citizens, the Klan Act can be used to bring a conspiracy charge that we, in the federal law enforcement parlance, call this 241 and 242, civil and criminal conspiracies.
And so what the Biden administration did is if three grandmas got together to pray outside an abortion clinic for the souls of the people inside and including unborn children, they would say, “Oh, that’s not just a violation of the Klan act. That’s a conspiracy to violate the civil rights of women going in there to get abortions.”
And so we’re going to add additional charges and punish that more and make it from a misdemeanor under the FACE Act to a felony under the Klan Act.
And President Trump pardoned the pro-life protesters in those cases. I have recently defended successfully in the 11th Circuit, a case called Oropesa, a case of Jane’s Revenge, the pro abortion protesters violently attacking crisis pregnancy centers in Florida. And we had the court uphold the Klan Act, criminal enhancement to the FACE Act.
So I know it’s very deep in the weeds, but the point is, there are a number of things. The FACE Act is just the start. Like I said, you have material support for disruptive activities, you have conspiracy to violate civil rights. You have potentially the use of other instrumentalities to commit crimes. And so some of these folks who did this have self-identified.
Don Lemon himself has come out and said he knew exactly what was going to happen inside that facility. He went into the facility, and then he began, quote, unquote, committing journalism. And as if that’s sort of a shield from being a part, an embedded part of a criminal conspiracy, it isn’t.
And so, you know, we’re getting our ducks in a row. We’re putting the facts together, and this is a very serious matter.
Come next Sunday, nobody should think in the United States that they’re going to be able to get away with this.
Everyone in the protest community needs to know that the fullest force of the federal government is going to come down and prevent this from happening and put people away for a long, long time.
BREAKING: DOJ Announces Intention to Charge Don Lemon under the Ku Klux Klan Act.
The KKK Act makes it illegal to threaten, hurt, or intimidate people to prevent them from exercising their God-given rights.
HARMEET DHILLON: "The Klan Act is one of the most important federal… pic.twitter.com/GWnXAMtWc9
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) January 19, 2026
Dhillon added her own video from her appearance:
Pam Bondi and I, my boss, had already been in touch about this incident, what we’re going to do about it. I’m working hand in hand with her. We have sent federal prosecutors last night from my office in DC to Minnesota. They should be landing any moment now. We activated the FBI and the US Attorney’s Office as well.
And this has the highest attention of the Attorney General and my Department of Justice team, because it is, as you said in your intro, this isn’t actually a question of whether we’re going to stand for it. We don’t stand for it in this country, and not every case that we do at the DOJ gets the headlines, but we’ve already prosecuted numerous attacks on churches so far in the last nine months since I took office. Under Pam Bondi’s leadership, we are investigating multiple attacks on synagogues.
It is evil to attack any house of worship in America. It is illegal, and what I saw yesterday made me ashamed, frankly, for the United States, that we have an attorney general in Minnesota, Keith Ellison, a district attorney, Mary Moriarty, a mayor, Jacob Frey and Tim Waltz, Tampon Tim, who absolutely refuse to enforce their state laws. Their own state laws prohibit this very conduct.
Well, if they’re not going to enforce their laws, we will enforce our federal laws, and we are already doing that.
It is shameful that these MN officials refuse to enforce their state laws & if they’re not going to enforce their laws, @AGPamBondi will enforce federal laws!
There is zero tolerance for this kind of illegal behavior & we will not stand for it. pic.twitter.com/VuGTgb9Uoe
— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) January 19, 2026
As Elizabeth wrote this morning, Lemon and the mob interrupted the service, screaming “Justice for Renee Good” and “Who needs justice, we need justice.”
Lemon even had the nerve to compare the riots in Minnesota to the Civil Rights movement.
“This is what happens, he said, ‘when you violate people’s due process, when you pull people off the street,’ and ‘when you violate the Constitution,’” Elizabeth wrote.
Oh, honey. You violated the Constitution.
Lemon even accosted the pastor with a lecture on the First Amendment, which, um, he doesn’t appear to understand due to his actions:
Pastor: “This is unacceptable. It’s shameful to interrupt a public gathering of Christians in worship…”
Lemon: “Listen, there’s a constitution, the First Amendment to freedom of speech and freedom to assemble and protest.”
Pastor: “We’re here to worship Jesus because the hope of the world is Jesus Christ…”
Lemon: “But did you try to talk to them?”
Pastor: “No one is willing to talk. I have to take care of my church and my family so I ask that you would also leave this building.”
Imagine storming a church mid worship and thinking you are the good guys.
NEW: Don Lemon tries lecturing a pastor on the First Amendment after a mob of far leftists stormed a church in Minneapolis.
Pastor: “This is unacceptable. It's shameful to interrupt a public gathering of Christians in worship…”
Lemon: “Listen, there's a constitution, the First… pic.twitter.com/joHdCvaXe6
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) January 18, 2026
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Only fitting, as the content of character is what judges Lemon and not the color of his skin.
Don Lemon — newest Grant Muppet of the KKK.
If his resume was still relevant, that would be the crowning line.
(Grand, sorry)
Oh, how the pendulum swings.
Considering the recent carnage at synagogues, church schools, churches, and other sacred gatherings, these domestic terrorists are lucky some CCW attendees at this church didn’t provide an ugly case of lead poisoning for these terrorists.
Never happen. Minneapolis specifically (and Minnesota in general) is hostile to the Second Amendment.
In no state would deadly force have been justified for a mere intrusion and disruption. Someone in the mob would have to have been posing an actual threat to someone else’s life.
You don’t deserve the two downvotes. Your comment is legally correct and morally accurate.
Cue the amplified rattling of pearls being clutched far to tightly. Accountability with actual consequences is kryptonite to a large swath of people. Especially those who believe those should only apply to others and never themselves b/c ‘they are the good guys’ and the others are ‘bad/evil’.
Wait.
Did Don Lemon try to claim that storming and disrupting a church service is protected by the First Amendment?
If he did he is either the dumbest idiot, or the most dishonest thug.
Can’t it be both at the same time?
Not really. Dishonesty requires some modicum of intelligence. Which he has. He may be dumb, but he can’t possibly be as dumb as he pretends to be.
Lemon has never been esteemed for a vaunted intellect.
Lemon has also never been mistaken for a journalist.
He is both. But he truly believes as do almost all of the libs that blocking streets, burning buildings, assaulting police, and invading church’s is “peaceful assembly” and Free Speech.
However you calling an obvious dude in a dress Sir is violence.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds that can’t believe 6 impossible things before breakfast.
Maybe he’s been taking lunch too often with Chris Cuomo.
“And please, show me where it says that protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful.”
It’s right there in the First Amendment, *hole. “Peaceably.”
If a white man did to a black congregation what Don Lemon did to a white congregation, the white man would be arrested.
My question would be “where in Minneapolis could you find 12 people willing to convict Lemon of this crime?”
I have my doubts .
He’ll probably come out ahead financially, but it’s still important to prosecute him.
Federal charges get the venue changed to Utah or Kansas
No, they wouldn’t and couldn’t. Federal crimes must be tried within the state and district in which they are alleged to have occurred.
I see someone disagrees with the US constitution.
Except where the crime transverses multiple districts and or states.
In this case, you might be able to find evidence that Lemon received the invitation to come and invade the church while he as still in New York.
That would mean the conspiracy to commit a crime crossed multiple districts and states.
See 18 U.S. Code § 3237
A jury in NYC would be worse than one in Minnesota, where it can be selected from the entire state.
Nice shifting of the goalposts!!
I was responding to your comment of:
and…..
I quoted “chapter and verse” and instead of being gracious and saying, “yeah, I missed that,” “good point,” or even “I made a mistake,” you shifted the goalposts to another topic.
And by the way, if the crime initiated in New York City, the jury could be drawn from the entire state, just like a crime in Minneapolis could draw from the entire state.
You’re the one shifting the goalposts. You have forgotten what it is we’re discussing: Your suggestion that the jury would have to be drawn from Minneapolis, and Martin’s reply that the trial could be shifted to Kansas or Utah, thus producing a jury more likely to convict.
I pointed out that you’re both wrong. The trial can’t be shifted, but the jury pool won’t just be Minneapolis, it’ll be the whole state, much of which leans Republican.
Your suggestion that it could be moved to NYC is thus not at all helpful to your cause. A NYC jury would be worse than a Minnesota jury.
And no, if a crime is committed in NYC the jury can not come from the whole state. It can’t even come from the whole city. The constitution is extremely clear that crimes must be tried in the state and district where they’re alleged to have been committed. If Lemon were tried in NY it would have to be in the Southern district. Manhattan, the Bronx, and the lower Hudson valley counties.
18 U.S. Code § 3237 disagrees with you.
The constitution requires that the trial take place in the state and district where the offense is alleged to have taken place. That is Minnesota.
Your idea that an invitation to Lemon at his home in Manhattan could result in the entire mob being charged with conspiracy in the Southern District of New York is interesting but would not achieve a better jury for the prosecution, which is the entire point of the suggestion to shift it. A jury drawn from the SDNY would be much more biased to these defendants than one drawn from the entire state of Minnesota. And you can’t get away from that. You can not shift the trial to any other district in NY.
The jury pool wouldn’t just be Minneapolis, it would be the entire state.
Maybe from that church,
Then identify as many of the mob besides Lemon that attacked the Christian Church and charge them with violation of the KKK Act. Then round them all up and throw them in jail without hearing, bail or legal representation and let the rot a few months before dragging them out to face a trial and then throw their hind-ends in prison for a term of years when they are found guilty. In other words, treat them exactly as the J6 protesters were treated and perhaps they’ll learn a valuable lesson. But I doubt it.
The City, County and State have given tacit approval for these actions. I am sure that Milhouse will point out that there is no explicit law or statement given. In this case, actions …. or inactions speak louder than words. Minnesota is in a state of rebellion.
I don’t care what statement may or may not have been given. I certainly don’t give a hoot about most of what Milhouse says. Round ’em up, throw them in prison for for several months without bail, charges or legal representation then drag their sorry hind-ends to court and throw their butts in jail for several years. Just like the J6ers were treated. And then perhaps when they realize that there are consequences for their actions they may reconsider doing them. But I doubt. So lather, rinse, repeat for every fecking violation of the law. That is all.
eot
Put them in a tricked out moving van and cart them around the country changing jurisdictions each day to thwart progressive district court justices,
You can’t change jurisdictions. They must be tried in the same district where the offense is alleged to have occurred.
I have in on good authority that Don Lemon is offensive no matter which jurisdiction he is in.
Do that and you will quickly be arrested and in prison.
No J6 protester was denied habeas. Every single one of them was duly brought before a magistrate within 48 hours of arrest. Claims that any were held longer have no evidence.
It’s got nothing to do with the city, county, or state. The US constitution and laws require them to be brought before a magistrate without unnecessary delay — at most 48 hours — and that is what happened with all J6 defendants. There is no credible evidence that any J6 defendant was held without a hearing, or without legal representation. Bail is not a right; many pretrial defendants are denied bail.
Observers think that Ms. Armstrong’s involvement in the disruption of the church service yesterday may have constituted illegal misconduct. One criminal law that seems right on the money is 18 U.S.C. § 241.
Of course it was. Who doubts it? And what is your point? How does this help to justify the suggestion we are discussing, that the rioters be rounded up and thrown in jail for several months “without hearing, bail or legal representation”? And what have the city’s, county’s, or state’s consent got to do with it?
Remember Jussie Smollette? Loud mouthed, black, celebrity fags are immune from punishment.
The church and it’s members should sue him and every other identifiable person there for violating their religious civil rights as well as inflicting emotional distress. I will chip in to the go fund me for the lawyers. They should go after Gov Walz and Mayor Frey as well for egging on these rioters*.
(*I will never refer to them as protesters)
“Egging on” is protected speech, for which a person cannot be prosecuted or sued, unless it crosses the line into incitement as defined by Brandenburg.
In US v Hansen SCOTUS seemed to be separating protected ‘speech’ such as political advocacy v speech that can be reasonably viewed as encouraging others to commit criminal acts. We should obviously be cautious in the application to ensure the govt isn’t seeking to shoehorn unpopular speech under this distinction but we shouldn’t refuse to apply this either by pretending not to notice when the distinction does apply.
Chief, the Hansen court rescued the statute in question by interpreting it very narrowly, to ban only directly soliciting the commission of a crime, something that no one thinks is protected speech. If Walz or Frey directly and personally told someone “I want you to obstruct ICE agents making arrests”, that’s no different from telling someone “I want you to rob a bank”.
By interpreting the words “encourages or induces” in that narrow way, the statute remains valid; had it meant what you want it to mean, to include making public speeches “egging people on”, then it would have been unconstitutional even when applied to actual soliciting.
You are making my point. Where there’s room to question whether the ‘speech’ is encouraging illegal actions then Hansen is relevant. The DoJ doesn’t have to have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to open an investigation, merely reasonable suspicion. From reasonable suspicion to probable cause isn’t a huge bar. Get probable cause and you have warrants to look at communications, view documents, geo location data and so on. If there’s fire beyond the smoke then it will get found but the smoke is enough to begin the investigation.
Chief, you’re completely misunderstanding the whole topic. If “encourages or induces” can mean what you want it to mean, then the entire statute would be unconstitutional on its face.
Hansen didn’t make a public speech advocating criminal activity. He personally and directly solicited people to break the law. He challenged the law against that, because it says “encourages or induces”, and that would seem to include the sort of thing that Frey and Walz are doing, which is obviously protected speech. No one does or can dispute that. Therefore, he argued, since the statute can apply to such speeches, the whole thing is unconstitutional, and therefore his conviction should be thrown out.
What the Supreme Court said is the exact opposite of what you claim. It said you’re 100% correct that had you made a public speech encouraging people in general to commit crimes that would be protected, and any law against it would be invalid. But that’s not what this statute means. When it says “encourages or induces” it means only what Hansen did, not what Frey and Walz are doing, and that is the only reason his conviction was upheld.
Had the court understood the statute as you want to understand it, the result would not have been that Frey and Walz can be charged, it would have been that even people like Hansen would have to be let out of prison because the entire thing would have to be thrown out.
They should sue them to bankruptcy but mostly they should do extensive discovery. Let’s get funding sources, networking contacts. I wouldn’t wait for the federal case. (although they would want you to)
nope
him going in to video it cant be a crime or the rest of society will pay a heavy price
in fact we want these leftist acts video taped
I believe there is a huge difference between someone who happens to be there and something happens, to being forewarned about a criminal act and following people on their trespass.
That being said, it’s best for DOJ to say no comment on specific individuals as the investigation is ongoing and no prosecution decisions have been made yet.
there is a difference as you note
but that doesnt necessitate a crime
Incorrect. Criminal trespass for one; the invaders were directed to depart and instead remained. Deprivation of the Civil rights of the congregation by invasion and disruption of the religious service for another. Those are the easy ones.
Then there are questions about further involvement by Lemon. Did he coordinate with the mob? If not how did he know to show up at this particular Church? Did he provide any financial inducement to any member of the mob? Did he help create this action in any way? He posted his footage in order to directly or indirectly profit from a crime. If he assisted in organizing, financing or other way that’s another potential set of problems for Lemon.
The process is the penalty. Let him spend a lot of money on the process – his money.
Discovery, discovery, discovery
DOJ won’t do squat
all talk no action
I hope so. Read a few comments elsewhere if the commenter was present it would have ended well.
Somebody please correct me if I’m wrong, but my whole life I thought if an officer, federal or state, had probable cause to believe a crime was committed, they could make an arrest, and throw your a$$ in jail until you posted bond. No judicial warrant needed. It happens at traffic stops all the time, doesn’t it? So, how is this different? We have video evidence, what amounts to confessions, and names of these criminals. What’s the hold up, other than the TRUMP DOJ?
Arrest on mere probable cause, without a warrant, is only for a felony. For a misdemeanor the offense must have occurred in the officer’s presence.
There’s no rush to arrest Lemon; they know where he is. The others in the videos must first be identified, whereupon warrants can be obtained and they can be arrested wherever they may be found.
From what I saw the idiots put there names and organizations on Facebook thanking each other for there participation.
Yes, identifying them will be easy. Then they can all be arrested and prosecuted. Including Lemon.
In some States Citizens may detain/arrest for misdemeanor crimes committed in their presence. Criminal trespass is a pretty common example in Alabama. Some guy shows up on your rural property and you can detain him while waiting on the Sheriff sends Deputies to haul him off to jail. The drawback is no qualified immunity but if the Citizen doesn’t go goofy then that’s not a big issue.
Good. There is not one word in the constitution about “journalism”, let alone giving those whose trade it is any special privilege over the rest of us.
The first amendment’s “freedom of the press” refers to the act of publication, not to any particular activity or industry. It is exactly parallel to the “freedom of speech”. One is the freedom to say whatever one likes, and the other is the freedom to publish whatever one likes.
It’s exactly like the difference between slander and libel. Collectively they are called defamation; slander is defamation by speech and libel is the same thing but by publication. Likewise these two freedoms are collectively called the freedom of expression; one is expression by speech and one by publication.
And nothing in the first amendment applies on private property without the owner’s permission. When one is on private property one may not express things the owner doesn’t like, one may not worship in a way the owner doesn’t like, one may not assemble if the owner doesn’t like it, and one may not petition the government if the owner doesn’t like it. The entire amendment applies only on public property or on ones own property.
Can these church goers sue these people for money?
I would love to see that.
They’re unlikely to have any money. Prosecuting them doesn’t require them to have any money, and doesn’t cost the church anything.
What about watching and waiting to see who the DOJ actually charges? Dillon wants to identify who among the perps crossed state lines, who the organizers are, and who is funding the people who are responsible for the felonies.
It doesn’t even matter. Force them to go through the civil discovery process and tie them up in court. Lawfare? Yes, please. If they do have anything, their lawyers will get it.
There might be some pockets to get into. Some of these individuals do have assets, in particular Lemon, plus the organizations listed by name in a self congratulatory post and the financiers of the organizations. If nothing else force the lefty wokiesta financiers of BLM and other orgs listed to renounce the tactics and and the leadership of these organizations. Remove their ‘we didn’t know’ token if they continue to provide funding and these or other goons from another org they fund do something similar in the future.
“Dixiecrats” = Democrats
Same then as now
“Dhillon: DOJ Might Charge Don Lemon”
DOJ: Please stop ‘might’ arrest, charge, investigate. Let your action be his perp walk. Quit talking and start arresting.