Don Lemon: Criminal? Journalist? or Both?
My appearance on The Tony Katz Show: The church invasion is the place for DOJ to make its stand and to enforce federal criminal laws, but more needs to be known about Lemon’s role in the crime.
A group of anti-ICE activists invaded a church in Minneapolis and harassed the pastor and congregation in an incident that has given rise to a DOJ criminal investigation.
Front and center with the invaders was former CNN host Don Lemon, who seemed to know about it in advance:
INTENT: The opening to Don Lemon’s insane livestream is an admission of foreknowledge that the group he was in contact with was going to storm a church, based on his prior communications with its leader. pic.twitter.com/g0GVHB4871
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) January 19, 2026
Lemon was with the invaders in the church.
BREAKING – Anti ICE agitators, led by failed CNN host Don Lemon, stormed a Minneapolis church this morning, halting services and holding members hostage because they believed the pastor was ICE affiliated.
“The whole point of it is to disrupt and make people uncomfortable.” pic.twitter.com/ddwPwpwV5E
— Right Angle News Network (@Rightanglenews) January 18, 2026
But did he cross a legal line? Or was he, as he now claims, just doing lawful journalism?
I discussed that and related topics on the Tony Katz Show:
In this episode of Tony Katz Today, we’re diving into a pressing issue that’s been making headlines: the intersection of violence and the law. Joining Tony is William Jacobson, a Cornell Law professor and the mind behind Legal Insurrection dot com. Together, they explore the recent incident where anti-ICE protesters disrupted a church service in Minnesota, chanting “hands up, don’t shoot,” a phrase that’s been linked to the Black Lives Matter movement.
The phrase “hands up, don’t shoot” originated from the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri, where it was later found that the story was a fabrication. Yet, it gave rise to the Black Lives Matter movement, which has now been co-opted by anti-ICE protesters. William Jacobson notes, “This is a bizarre situation where anti-ICE protesters are violating the rights of people chanting ‘hands up, don’t shoot.’ But what they’re chanting is a complete fabrication.”
The incident raises questions about the limits of protest and the protection of religious freedom. Tony Katz asks, “Why was Don Lemon, a former CNN anchor, there with the protesters, claiming he was just a journalist?” William Jacobson responds, “It’s going to be very fact-intensive, and the question is going to be what was he doing there? Why did he go there? What did he know?” Jacobson points out that the government didn’t accept the claim that being a journalist protected individuals from prosecution during the January 6th incident.
The discussion also touches on the legal aspects of the incident, with William Jacobson explaining that the protesters may be violating federal laws, including the FACE Act and the Ku Klux Klan Act. He notes, “If we let those lines be breached, if we say to these protesters, you can do whatever you want, okay, which is essentially what Democrats are telling them. It doesn’t matter we hate ICE, you hate ICE. You can do whatever you want.” Jacobson emphasizes that allowing such behavior will lead to a greater escalation and that the Department of Justice should draw the line.
Throughout the conversation, Tony Katz and William Jacobson delve into the complexities of the issue, discussing the intersection of politics, law, and social justice. They explore the idea that the left’s desire for violent rhetoric and excusing violence can lead to a culture of intolerance and disregard for the law.
If you’re interested in understanding the intricacies of this issue and the potential consequences of allowing such behavior to go unchecked, this episode is a must-listen. Join Tony Katz and William Jacobson as they break down the facts and explore the implications of this pressing issue.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
As a journalist Don Lemon would be allowed to ask questions of people going in or coming out of the voting booth. However, he would not allowed inside voting areas, nor allowed to take pictures, because the voting booth is considered sacrosanct and voter privacy must be protected.
Is not a church, while conducting worship, far more sacrosanct and deserving of privacy than a voting booth? If so, Don Lemon is a criminal.
Anyone is allowed to ask questions of people going in or coming out of the voting booth. Being a “journalist” doesn’t get one anything extra. As the old saying used to go, “That and a nickel will get you a cup of coffee”.
“Sacrosanct” has nothing to do with it. Photographs that could include ballots are illegal purely to preserve the secrecy of the ballot. That’s why it’s illegal even to take a photo of your own ballot.
I’ve never heard of a Christian church service that is secret. Certainly this one wasn’t. Anyone could come in and watch. So there’s no expectation of privacy, and “sacrosanct” is a religious term, not a legal one.
The invaders’ offense was trespassing and disruption, not invasion of privacy. If he participated in that then he’s a criminal. The fact that he’s a reporter is neither here nor there.
There were no legislators meeting there, so the crowd could not have been petitioning for a change in any law. There were no ICE agents performing their duty there, so they don’t have the excuse that they were in the church to prevent some kind of “injustice.” Their purpose was solely disruptive and to make people “uncomfortable.” The KKK didn’t burn crosses to hurt people, they did so to make people “uncomfortable.” Those who invaded the church are terrorists. If Lemon had foreknowledge about what the group was planning, that’s no different than being aware of an upcoming cross burning with the idea of making people feel unsafe in community spaces in which they have a right to go unmolested.
The presence or absence of legislators is irrelevant. It’s also irrelevant whether the ICE agent at the church was on or off the clock, or even whether it’s really the same guy. They were expressing their opinions, which the first amendment absolutely protects — outside the church, and even then only without interfering with people coming in and out. Inside the church the first amendment does not apply, so it’s irrelevant. You do not have any of the first amendment rights when you’re on someone else’s property and acting contrary to his wishes.
However, merely having foreknowledge of a crime doesn’t make one a criminal. There is no duty to report a crime to the police. Someone who becomes aware of an upcoming KKK crime is entitled to sit on the knowledge, and show up to observe it without participating in any way.
The question is whether that’s really all Lemon was doing; it doesn’t seem so. If, as seems to be the case, he was a participant in the crime, then his “journalism” doesn’t do anything for him.
The “foreknowledge of a cross burning” was meant to be an indictment of Lemon’s morality, not a comment on the legality of his presence in the church. Anyone with foreknowledge of a planned crime is morally corrupt if they do not (at least) report it (anonymously, if necessary). Even the “journalist” can still show up at the scene and report on the story “police thwart crime with help of an anonymous tip.” By not reporting a planned crime, a person, regardless of profession (as you have pointed out, “profession” has nothing to do with this incident), becomes complicit in its commission by not (at least) reporting it to authorities. This is a moral failure even if it doesn’t reach criminality.
Inside the church the first amendment does not apply, so it’s irrelevant.
Well, not exactly. It applies in reverse. They were on private property, exercising their First Amendment rights (freedom of worship). And Don Lemon (regardless of what his role with the “protesters” was) came in with a bunch of people to intentionally disrupt their exercise of their rights.
And, I managed to not close the italics at the end of the quote. Grrrrr.
GWB, the first amendment only applies to state actors, not to private people. So the mob was not violating the first amendment, any more than it was protected by it. It was violating the church’s property rights, and the worshipers right to go about their business unmolested, but it wasn’t violating their right not to have the government prevent their worship.
Dave, I don’t need this incident to tell me that Don Lemon is an awful person.
Milhouse – The only quibble I have with your analysis is that Don Lemon was never a journalist. Being one of the stars on an entertainment show (masquerading as a news organization) does not make a person a journalist any more than being a secretary working for CNN makes the secretary a journalist.
The rest of you analysis is correct.
Even if there had been no people conducting worship, it would not have mattered. The church is (likely) open to the public, but just as, say, a supermarket or a library is open to the public, that invitation has an underlying expectation that the public would follow certain rules and guidelines. Open to the public is not the same as publicly owned. The First Amendment does not even apply.
The moment those who invaded the church began disrupting what had been happening within, they became trespassers.
Indeed. I miss a civil society.
These people believe it is OK to kill a newborn.
Where is off limits after that?
(Refusing medical care to a newborn after a child is born alive during an abortion procedure.)
an armed society is a polite (civil) society
I’m a little confused here. Don Lemon was a journalist?
if he was merely vid it then no crime
now him feeding the violent people could make him an accessory
was he trespassing?
no as the church is open to public would be my guess
The church is open only to those who come either to participate or to watch quietly. Not to those who come to disrupt.
but my contention is that he is filming them
so not actually participating in their act ( unless he was..other than video taping)
The church is not a “public accommodation” unless it is something like a tourist attraction. And then only during the hours noted for that activity.
And public accommodations are not required to allow anyone in, or to allow them to do whatever they want. The only restriction on public accommodations is that they can’t discriminate among customers on a handful of specific grounds specified by law; they can discriminate on any other grounds they like.
Churches don’t have customers. There are denominations that won’t have blacks still.
I will paste from above:
but my contention is that he is filming them
so not actually participating in their act ( unless he was..other than video taping)
if he refused to turn over the video that would be trouble for him…possibly
hey if Im wrong I have no problem with that
but I dont see him as a participant in their actions…merely taping it
and just think
it would be a horrible precedent to set ( if it hasnt already been set) that one cannot video an action in a public place
and yes the church is a public place
the doors wer open to the public and the rioters are in the wrong
not someone just observing/reporting/video taping
The bit I’ve seen on the inciden have this Lemon character leading the disruption, getting up in the grilles o those there as part o the church’s activities, preventing the peacephul continuation o what they were all doing prior to Lemon’s intrusion. The goal was, by all appeavances, to bing a halt to the activities ongoing and customary prior to Lemon’s little bully crew invading and disrupting.
Criminal activity,as much as I can judge. He should be criminally charged. Along with his cohorts.
He now denies he was doing that, and claims to have simply followed this group into the church and reported on what they were doing. If so then he did nothing wrong. It remains to be seen whether it is so.
if he was up in anyones face for something other than video taping
yeah nail him
The passive filming, without permission, would be viewed as disruptive of a religious service. Seems that he was doing much more than passively filming the events, such as his rather aggressive questioning.
Open to the public does is not the same as publicly owned. Had this been a public road or something similar, then yes, Lemon could have been there without any trespassing issues. However, this was a church that is merely open to the public, and subject to the rules of the church. If the church had decided against his presence, then he was trespassing.
agree up to the point where he video taped
they rioters 100% violated the public accommodations
but Lemon video taping…no ,,
Don Lemon: CNN reject, clown, criminal. Lock him up and throw away the key.
“Criminal or journalist?” This is mixing two very different categories.
“Criminal” is a legal status. Someone who commits a crime is a criminal, regardless of what he does for a living.
“Journalist” is a jumped-up name for “reporter”, which is an occupation, just like “carpenter”, “hairdresser”, or “telephone sanitizer”. It applies regardless of whether the person obeys the law scrupulously, ignores it completely, or anything in between.
Was Lemon there as a reporter, or as a criminal, or both? Well, he was definitely there as a reporter, because he was reporting. That makes no legal or moral difference, it’s just a neutral fact.
Was he also committing a crime? That depends on exactly what he was doing there. If he merely got a tip-off that this crime was going to happen, so he tagged along and reported it, not participating in it in any way, then he’s not a criminal. The church was open to the general public at that time, so he could assume he was welcome to enter, whether to worship, sit quietly and watch, or report on the scene he found there.
But if he was there as part of the invasion, an active and conscious participant rather than merely an observer, if he acted in concert with the invaders, then he is just as much a criminal as they are.
Even if he merely agreed with them in advance that they would commit the crime and he would report on it, that’s criminal conspiracy and makes him a criminal. However if they had already decided to commit the crime without him, and they merely informed him of it so that he could see it and report on it, one could argue that that would not make him part of their conspiracy. It would be a fine line in that case, probably a question for a jury.
There is not enough evidence to convict Lemon of being a reporter.
He made his living by reporting, and seems still to be living off his earnings in that industry, so I think that’s enough to say he is a reporter. It’s just irrelevant. I don’t care what his occupation is. It’s nothing special and doesn’t get him anything.
Lots of people get paid for jobs they don’t do.
But that would make Amy Schumer an “entertainer.”
People pay to see her perform, and they have a good time, so she is entertaining them.
Criminal or journalist? Democrat.
Same as criminal generally speaking.
Lemon, at best, was an apologist for the intruders, as he attempted to explain to the pastor why the intruders had a right to be there and to disrupt the service. At worst, he was defending his own participation in same. This at least means that Lemon didn’t consider his presence there, in any capacity, as criminal, because even if he considered himself one of the intruders he’s already explained why he thought what they were doing was OK. This also means he can’t now claim to have scrupulously avoided committing any criminal acts because, by his own admission, at the time of the event he didn’t consider any of the intruders’ actions (which would include his own participation) to be criminal in nature.
The facts are that Don Lemon was part of a crowd that invaded a church to terrorize those within, and during his participation in this event he acted as a spokesperson for the intruders, defending their actions to the church’s pastor. He can’t now call himself a “disinterested” party or a neutral observer/reporter.
He did make a couple of statements using we or our when talking about the other trespassers. That would at least be evidence that would point to being on the same page with them.
Yes, that is indeed how it appears. On the face of it, he appears to be a criminal. But that’s not absolute proof.
Irrelevant. If the church did not want him there, he was trespassing.
Would be rather interesting to access his electronic communications with the organizers. Appears to be probably cause that he coodinated with them on the planning, and if so, that would be the proof necessary for a conviction.
lemons lawyer argued that if don was to be punished
please let it be with a harsh spanking by a tall wht male
He has a white “husband” and is nothing more than a bunch of checked boxes. Bleech!!
Make it a female, so he won’t enjoy it.
I’d nominate Sister Mary Elephant.
class class classsssssssss
I do not know… let’s follow the process to sort this out.
A LONG process…..
I think he should be charged, then the jury can weight the evidence for the prosecution and defense.
1.) Was Lemmon being a journalist just reporting on what was going on, or was he being an advocate and therefore loses his 1st amendment protection of being a member of the press?
2.) If he was an advocate and member of the crowd, did he/they violate the law? (As someone said, this wasn’t petitioning the government, this was violating anothers exercise of their civil rights.
1. There is no such thing as “1st amendment protection of being a member of the press”. The first amendment doesn’t care what a person does for a living, or what a person is a member of.
And “being an advocate” is exactly what the first amendment does protect. It absolutely protects all advocacy, of anything at all, including advocating violent crimes.
So you have it exactly backwards.
2. This could be construed as petitioning the government. But it doesn’t matter. You don’t have that right on someone else’s property, nor do you ever have the right to commit any crime just because you happen to be expressing a message, or petitioning the government, or exercising your religion, or whatever. The crime is still a crime. And on someone else’s property the owner is the boss, and is not restricted by any first amendment.
And “being an advocate” is exactly what the first amendment does protect.
Unless, of course, you’re disrupting someone else’s right in doing so.
“Being an advocate” in this case would place him in aid of those breaking the law, IMO. Rather than just being some neutral observer.
The First Amendment is not applicable in this situation as the location was NOT publicly-owned as a street or park or government property would be. The church may have been open to the public, but it was operating under the church’s rules. If the church did not want Lemon there, he was trespassing. It does not matter if he was a journalist.
Can we agree he is a criminally stupid journalist?
A Nick, Shirley wannabe.
40 Year in prison for FACE Act violations that consisted of praying on the public sidewalk near an abortion facility without impeding anyone from entering.
Other cases, they’ve added Terrorism enhancements for politely speaking to women, again on the public sidewalk, to make them aware of their options.
By that standard, what serial credibly accused sex offender Don Lemon (he gropes random men in bars) did in this church should net him at least a billion years in prison.
I’ll be shocked if he actually spends a day behind bars.
Apparently, no one told him that you never have a right to violate someone else’s Rights.
This regardless of whether or not he was reporting or an active participant. He made himself a participant when he entered the Church.
Worse, for him, his own videos make it clear that he was in on the planning of this in advance. And, his actions inside the Church went far beyond reporting also. Again, not that this is in any way relevant.
That’s not true. Who has ever been arrested in the USA simply for peacefully praying? It doesn’t happen. In every single case I’ve ever heard of, the people arrested were blocking the entrance, or harassing people entering and leaving, or actually invading private property. Show me a case that isn’t like that.
Calling Lemon a journalist denigrates journalists everywhere and right now that profession is not in high standing.
So at most Lemon is just another person with a smartphone making videos. If it’s illegal (and it appears to my layman read that it is) then charge him and let the court decide.
Would calling him a chashier denigrate all cashiers?
In any case, even if it does denigrate them, why is that a problem?
Was it ever?
And it’s a trade, not a profession.
That’s all any reporter is. Though his equipment is probably more expensive than most people’s phones.
Of course. What he does for a living doesn’t change that.
J6 people did get to hide behind juornalism.
Yeah Journalist
‘spits’
Don Lemon conspired with the protesters to disrupt a religious service on private property. He was invited to participate and give the protesters cover as a “journalist”. He is a hate filled second rate podcaster, not a journalist. He and the other protesters deserve to have their day in court and be judged by 12 jurors. If found guilty they can be sentenced to lengthy prison terms in a federal penitentiary. There is plenty of social media evidence as to the protesters and Lemon planning and executing their terror inducing protest.
His own status/career is irrelevant. He was trespassing and disrupting on private property. The First Amendment is not at all applicable.
So internet sleuths got it all on Don Lemon and the group. They got their hands on posts prior to which linked him into the actions that were about to transpire. He is also on video on his way there and accidentally (ya right) states they are headed to the church, His comrade chides him that he just slipped up. So he had fore knowledge of the event. They were told flat out to leave by the church leaders and he refused to exit the building. Racial slurs and threats can be heard being yelled at the parishioners as well. If they do not make arrests on this one I am done voting for any party or candidate in the future.
Which video is this? The one clip I’ve seen, which the person tweeting it claims to show this, doesn’t.
Oh come on. Everyone knows what the Lemon is. He’ll get gently squeezed (somewhere….) and let go.
One word: MORON
First off, Lemon and his agitator cohort were trespassing — they were disrupting the service, terrorizing worshipers and refused to leave when asked to do so. That’s tort number one. The second tort that should be addressed in a civil lawsuit, is intentional infliction of emotional distress.
After listening for an excessive amount of time to the preliminary, oh so excited, yapping about the upcoming interview, I bailed. It’s nice to learn about current events, but turning the process into a Show rather cancels out the benefits. Whatever happened to conveying new via the printed word, in the English language?
When life gives you Don Lemon, make lemonade; just don’t forget to add ICE!
Lemon has never been and never will be a journalist. Propagandist yes, Journalist No.