Report: Magistrate Judge Refused to Sign Off on Charges Against Don Lemon
Why does Lemon get special treatment!?
I’m reading numerous reports claiming that a magistrate judge refused to sign off on charges against Don Lemon over the ambush of the Cities Church in St. Paul, MN.
A magistrate judge handles warrants, arraignments, bail hearings, and pretrial motions, hearings in civil and criminal cases. Basically, an assistant to a district judge.
The feds have arrested three people for allegedly participating in the ambush, including the organizer.
A person told CBS News that Attorney General Pam Bondi “is enraged at the magistrate’s decision.”
Lemon live-streamed the anti-ICE psychos storming into the church, interrupting the service.
Shocking footage from Cities Church in Minneapolis this morning (an SBC church) where an anti-ICE mob stormed the service and disrupted their worship, alleging one of the church’s lead pastors is an ICE agent. pic.twitter.com/hS2FhzrFc4
— Center for Baptist Leadership (@BaptistLeaders) January 18, 2026
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 even accosted the pastor, trying to lecture him on the First Amendment and free speech.
The pastor fought back, reminding Lemon that his actions were unacceptable and shameful.
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
So why does Lemon get the special treatment, but Nekima Levy Armstrong, Chauntyll Louisa Allen, and William Kelly face charges?
The FACE Act LITRALLY says in § 248(a)(2) that a person violates the act if they:
by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship;
A simple Google search tells you that journalists are not exempt from the FACE Act or other federal criminal laws, even if they are performing their job.
You are NOT allowed to break the law, no matter what, even if you’re gathering the news.
This is not hard.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Is the Magistrate Judge’s ruling reviewable by an Article III district court judge? If so, and if the district judge affirms, is that ruling subject to an appeal to the Circuit?
Yes it is subject to review. A magistrate is basically to Judge what a PA is to a Physician. They possess no power on their own and can only exercise the portions of Judicial power delegated under the supervision the District Judge. In essence they are a super charged clerk who takes care of routine things coming in that can overwhelm a Judge by sheer volume. It has always been a pet peeve of mine that the Constitution requires warrants, allows Congress to establish inferior Courts but doesn’t require actual District Judges to sign off on the warrant. IMO that’s something that shouldn’t be delegated and if the District Judges don’t like getting woken up to sign off on warrants or other Judicial responsibilities they should resign. Or we.could increase the # of District Judges putting 5 per CD which would really speed up the Federal docket along with realigning the Circuits to reflect population; 9 Circuits, collapse all the others including DC into them. If that means more populous States get partitioned into more than one Circuit well…. that’s a negative offset to their political power in apportionment.
On Monday, X messages were exchanged between Lemon and Keith Ellison. Now this.
Fox News reports that the magistrate’s wife is employed on AG Keith Ellison’s staff.
https://x.com/BillMelugin_/status/2014434382455378123?s=20
If that is true the magistrate violated the cannon of judicial ethics by not recusing themselves. Sounds like a magistrate that may find themselves unemployed and disbarred.
There is no such canon. There is no conflict of interest here, and no reason for recusal.
I doubt the magistrate’s rejection in this matter is the end of it. DOJ has alternatives
Of course it does.
What are you talking about?
https://www.uscourts.gov/administration-policies/judiciary-policies/ethics-policies/code-conduct-united-states-judges
Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.
Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities
(A) Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
(B) Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.
(C) Nondiscriminatory Membership. A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.
COMMENTARY
Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.
The #Resistance Federal judiciary strikes again!
It is a solid bet that the brownshirts who have been arrested will soon be set free. No one will go to trial, much less to jail.
Do any Minnesotans embrace the concept of street justice or vigilantism?
Maybe some old timers who still live there in St. Cloud or Alexandria or Mankato or Willmar.
Another robed retard, whose wife works for Ellison. Color me unsurprised.
Name?
Milhouse?
No, Professor
Milhouse will likely give the correct legal answer. Everyone that piles on Milhouse’s comments should try to learn from him. He is almost always correct.
That being said, I dont see a basis for the magistrate for refusing to sign off on the charges. Most likely a magistrate that is playing woke.
lol you must new around here.
No I am not new , and am quite familiar to constitutional law , vastly more familiar than most every commentator posting here. Almost no one likes what Milhouse states on the law, but I guarantee you that Milhouse is almost always correct.
there is a lot you can learn from both Milhouse and I on the law.
Based on what Lemon is saying now, there may not be a provable case against him. His story now is that he just followed this group into the church and reported on what they were doing.
If this is true, then there are no grounds for arresting him.
Are you retarded?
Yes, he is. Lemon said they were going in to disrupt the services BEFORE they did. He knew what was going to happen. He’s counting on leftist favoritism and the ignorance of what “freedom of the press” means to get away with being part of a terrorist attack.
Lemon said they were going in to disrupt the services BEFORE they did.
No he didn’t.
But you know good and well, based on his videos and statements at the time, that it is NOT true.
Do I know that? What specifically contradicts his current story?
His statements before-hand that they were going to disrupt the services.
What statements?
The key on that is “If this were true.” Since Lemon’s previous statements were to the contrary, pretty sure his current excuses are totally lies. Also, from what I understand, this Magistrate rubber-stamped every J6 arrest warrant that came across his desk, so I’d be willing to bet cash money that he’s way left of center, and rules accordingly.
There is video of him coordinating with the group outside of the church. He wasn’t interviewing them. He was coaching them. That makes him a conspirator.
The video I’ve seen shows only that they were aware that he was going to follow them. It doesn’t show him being aware of their destination, or their plans. It certainly does not show him coaching them, or conspiring with them. If he was doing those things, they’re not on video. If such a video does exist please link it, because I am not aware of it.
Milhouse, you may be correct, however it is for the court to decide. It seems however that there is enough evidence to plausibly charge Lemon. In that case, Lemon can provide the arguments you suggest for him to the court, and let them decide on which side of the scales his conduct lands.
At this stage it was for the magistrate to decide, and he decided there is not enough evidence. Was he wrong? Can you tell me specifically what evidence constitutes probable cause that he participated in or conspired at this crime?
As far as I know, no he did not. If you have evidence that he said it, produce it.
But even if he did know where they were going, and what they were going to do there, that still wouldn’t be grounds to arrest him. He can only be arrested if he was a participant or a conspirator, not if he merely knew about it in advance. There is no duty to report a crime.
“Based on what Lemon is saying now, there may not be a provable case against him.”
Are you goddamned KIDDING?!? Since when has that ever mattered in a legal sense? Oh, the accused person claims they didn’t know anything about a crime? Yeah, there’s a shock.
If you actually watch the streaming video he was up to his eyeballs with these people. He knew several of them and gives a frikkin’ kiss on the cheek to one of the organizers. He didn’t say that he didn’t know what they were going to do, he says “I can’t tell you what will happen.” When they reach the church he at no point expresses any concern. While in the car on the way he states that this is “just the beginning of this clandestine operation because of some inside information they got.” He then says “I don’t think we can go inside, right? We can stand outside.” HE THEN GOES INSIDE. He talks about how he “can’t say too much.”
Watch the video.
HE KNEW.
HE’S LYING.
Milhouse – Based on the publicly available information (and lemon’s video and statements, there may not be enough for an indictment.
That being said, I suspect Lemon’s involvement is likely much deeper that is known publicly. As such, Lemon’s involvement would have crossed the line. My comment of course is with the caveat that accurate info is not publicly available, and its my suspiscion and not hard fact.
Here is some commentary from National Review regarding Don Lemon’s involvement:
“But a review of the former CNN anchor’s “coverage” of the event suggests he was acting more like the group’s spokesman.
Lemon informed his viewers ahead of the protest that he had conducted “reconnaissance” with the activists before they stormed into Cities Church, which they targeted because they …”
Why? Nobody likes the answer. Because he’s a prominent homo married to another man.
Dylan Roof and Mother Emmsnuel in Charleston, SC..Compare and contrast if you dare….
I’ve always questioned whether Roof was another patsy, ala Cole
Of course he was.
“A person told CBS News that Attorney General Pam Bondi “is enraged at the magistrate’s decision.” Dems got a twofer then.
Hoping she sends a strongly worded letter.
Judge refused to sign off on charges against Don Lemon.
We are told that no one is above the law. Ha ha ha.
This is very misleading. Nowhere in that clip does he say that they’re going to storm a church. All he knows at that time — or at least all he admits to knowing — is that this group likes to confront people, and he’s going to follow them and film it. He now says he had no idea where they were going, he just followed them; nothing in this clip contradicts that.
Well sure that tracks ….right up until he arrived at the location selected for the ‘confrontation’ (a Church) and despite this decided to join the rest of the mob in entering a place of worship where those ‘confrontations’ disrupted the religious service unconstitutionally violating the rights of the congregation to religious liberty ….which is itself a violation of federal law under the Klan and FACE statutes.
This ‘I followed the Pied Piper’ BS might be acceptable for a minor child who lacks the mature judgement of an adult. If Lemon wants to claim he lacks the intellectual and emotional capacity to walk about in public unsupervised lest he commit more crimes then let him make that case. I’m all in favor of locking his ass up in an insane asylum instead of prison but he’s gotta stay there.
If all he did was follow them in and report on what they were doing, then what law did he break? They were breaking the law, but reporting on a crime isn’t itself a crime.
The only crime I can think of that he could still be guilty of even if he didn’t actively participate, would be if he conspired with them beforehand to commit the crime. But where’s the evidence for that? The tweeter claims this clip is evidence of it, but it isn’t. The tweeter is seriously misrepresenting it.
He took part in the crime. He didn’t have to go into the church to “report” on the attack. He didn’t need to harangue the pastor, either. HE TOOK PART. He’s only different from Hamas “stringers” in degree.
Maybe. Where’s the evidence? This video clip, that the tweeter misrepresents as evidence, isn’t.
Of course he didn’t have to. But he had every right to. It’s what reporters do.
No, he didn’t need to do that either, but the first amendment protects his right to do so.
Again, that is not in evidence in this video clip.
Oh I dunno, maybe the same law those J6 grannies broke when the just followed the person in front of the and wondered about 🤔🤷♂️
They were at least trespassing, because the Capitol was closed to the public. This church was open to the public, so he was welcome to come in for any legitimate reason. If he was part of this criminal gang, then he clearly broke the law. But if he was not part of it, then what law did he break, merely by following them and reporting on their actions?
You dont know if they Capital Hill was closed to the public. There is more than enough evidence to suggest people were invited in by the Police. This would suggest that they were at least initially welcome to come in for what ever purpose they had.
With Don Lemon he was obviously in communication with the protest organisers to be there to document their tresspassing because…well…he didnt just happen to magically be there by the grace of good and good luck did he. He actively colluded with the protesters to ENSURE he was there to document their activities.
I can guarantee you now that without the attention of Don Lemon’s attendance and his online presence, there would have been no protest. These protests dont happen without the glare of attention. They do these protests EXACTLY for attention but its pointless doing that if no one knows your out there protesting.
If nothing else, he was tresspassing,, being neither there to participate or watch the sermon.
However, this isn’t relevant. Evaluating the defense is the job of the jury, not the magistrate. If the government says they have probable cause, the magistrate’s job is to sign the warrant.
No it definitely isn’t. On the contrary, it is his duty to independently examine the government’s evidence and decide whether there is probable cause. Too many judges just rubber stamp the government’s assertions, making a mockery of their warrants.
If the US Attorney disagrees with the magistrate’s decision he is free to take it up with the judge for whom he works.
That’s not ‘all he did’. How did he know where/when? He coordinated with the mob that’s how. He has no duty to report it but he has no license to accompany the mob inside either.
He was supposedly ‘live streaming’ on his Don Lemon Show YouTube channel. He was seeking to profit from the crime(s) from ad revenue, audience growth/increased # of subscribers or indirectly by seeking ‘relevance’.
The trespassing mob, including Lemon were asked to leave, they didn’t. That’s criminal trespass at minimum. Interrupting and interference with a religious service is a violation of the right of the congregation to religious freedom.
I am unwilling to grant any patina of ‘good faith’, benefit of the doubt or accept any attempts to minimize what occurred. The mob, including Lemon, deliberately selected a particular congregation to target and disrupt their religious service.
This one is a very easy call. No nuance here. Targeting a church to terrorize a congregation by an invading mob during their religious service makes everyone associated with that deliberate action a criminal.
There are a.great many people who are growing increasingly frustrated with the tendency of some people, but especially our judiciary and political leaders, to be willfully obtuse …to pretend not to know/see what’s in front of them. At some point these same folks will very reluctantly but very decisively choose to act as vigilantes b/c they have finally lost the last bit of respect for the institutions that they increasingly view as corrupt, incompetent or impotent. It would be a much better idea for the these institutions and their defenders to reform themselves internally v having it come externally.
How do you know? The tweeter purports that this clip proves it, but the tweeter is a big fat liar. The clip does not show what he claims it does.
Did you watch the clip we are discussing? He says the group goes around confronting people, and they are going on an operation now, and he is going to follow them and report on what they’re doing. He does not say that he knows where they’re going, or what they’re planning to do when they get there. So where’s the crime?
Sure he did. The place was open to the public, so he had a license to follow them in so long as he wasn’t planning to do anything wrong there.
They were trespassing for sure. But was he trespassing? Was he specifically told to leave? At any rate the clip we are discussing sheds no light on that, because it was taken long before any of this happened.
We are not discussing what we think of him, or how much good faith we should attribute to him. We’re discussing whether there’s sufficient evidence to justify arresting him, and specifically whether this specific clip provides such evidence. And when a judge or magistrate assesses the evidence for probable cause he must assume good faith and give the subject the benefit of any doubt. If the evidence, as seen in the best light for the subject, doesn’t show probable cause, then he must not sign the warrant.
That the mob did so is clear. That Lemon did so is not in evidence, at least in this clip.
Of course it does. But you’re begging the question of whether he was associated with that targeting.
The judiciary must only look at what’s in front of them. What you want is for them to take into account things that are not in front of them; things that may be common knowledge, but aren’t in the evidence presented.
Milhouse,
Your argument is coming across as;
1. Journalists are a special class
2. That class confers immunity
3. Slap a ‘press’ sign on your hat like old cartoons/movies and like magic Presto, one is transformed from member of the mob into a member of a protected class immune from prosecution
The implied license to enter is conditional upon coming in and not disrupting the services. If you come in simultaneously with a mob and the mob gets asked to depart that includes you.
We’re not asking for a conviction in a drum head trial followed by immediate execution of the sentence. We are demanding that folks stop pretending not to notice what is going on. There’s more than enough there to grant a warrant to arrest him and search is electronics for communications/data relating to this mob act and his financial transactions to see if payment was made to support it.
The video from Lemon’s extended livestream confirms — in his own words — that he knew exactly where they were going. And that he had a good idea of what they were going to be doing. Just a few examples, all from before he even stepped foot into the church.
OK, so this is not the clip that’s in the tweet above.
But even from this it’s clear that while the driver knew where they were going Lemon didn’t. At 22:02 he asked whether they were at their destination and found out they weren’t. So obviously he didn’t know the destination at that time. Five minutes later when they arrive at the destination he can see that it’s a church, and he knows they’re planning to do something inside. By this time he can probably deduce that whatever they’re planning will not be legal (which he would not have known before). But it still doesn’t show that he planned to participate in that crime, rather than just observe it.
Now if there’s evidence that he knew when he set out that they were going to commit a crime, that would make it a closer call. It still wouldn’t make him a participant or a conspirator, but it would be closer. Conspiracy requires an agreement that a crime should be committed, not merely awareness that one is going to be committed.
But the bottom line is that this shows that he wasn’t in on the planning, at least not in any detail, because he didn’t know the destination in advance. Unless he knew it was a church but not which church or where it was; at 22:02 was his clue that this wasn’t the place that it didn’t look like a church, or merely that they weren’t stopping?
So if a J6 protester claimed to be a reporter then thats all well and good right?
Don Lemon needs to be charged along with everyone else who was present at the Church because thats HOW the law is supposed to work. Just because he claims to be a journalist is neither here nor there. He was somewhere where he was not allowed to be, carrying out something to hinder other peoples freedoms and broadcast that on the internet.
That, to me, is a thousand times worse than anything the J6 grannies got up to.
The bottom line is he was trespassing.
That is an absolutely fatuous interpretation.
Lemon knew exactly where they were going. Do you really think that a 21-year old ‘kid’ who was assisting him knew and that Lemon did not? That does not pass the straight face test. Lemon was asking so that if the driver said he wasn’t sure, then Lemon could give him the info.
Oh, and when Lemon was wondering out loud at 22:02 whether they arrived at the destination when they had not, that was a soliloquy. He recognized that they had not arrived to where they were supposed to be. He made those stream of consciousness comments out loud because he was livestreaming and, like any live broadcaster, was trying to avoid dead air.
His whole intent in being coy was expressly so that they would not tip off the destination in advance to those who were listening. “[W]e’re not going to give any, any of the information away.” … “We can’t say too much. We don’t want to give it up.” He knew that they were going to a particular church and that they would be interrupting and disturbing the church service. Get real.
“LEMON: No, but they’ll be like, “Why is Don Lemon here?””
I find it hilarious that Don Lemon thinks that random people know who he is. A washed-up CNN talking head who hasn’t been relevant for years and he believes that he’s Walter Cronkite.
Nick Sortor just posted that the magistrate is married to a Assistant AG in Keith Ellison’s office. If that’s true, seems like quite a conflict.
https://x.com/nicksortor/status/2014437441130705245
Bill Melugin is reporting the same.
How would it be a conflict? Many judges are married to lawyers. She would not be able to prosecute a case in front of him, but she’s not involved in this case at all.
Well let’s pretend his wife says “if you sign off on charges, I’m going to be fired”
Or, “If you sign off on charges, I’m going to divorce you.”
Or, “If you sign off on charges, my boss is going to make our lives extremely difficult.”
Or…etc etc etc.
You can pretend anything you like, but there’s no evidence for that. The mere fact that she’s a lawyer is irrelevant. Any judge’s wife or husband could say such things to him or her, about any case, but we don’t expect all married judges to recuse themselves from all cases just in case!
Or maybe “I’m going to recuse myself because my wife is married to the AG and any action I take may be construed as being favouritism for either side” 🤷♂️🤷♂️
I assume you meant to write “works for”, not “married to”.
But the AG is not a party to this case, so it wouldn’t even matter if his wife were also married to the AG in some sort of poly relationship. It wouldn’t matter if he were married to the AG. Do you imagine that a state AG’s spouse is barred from being a federal judge in that state?! Or even a state judge?!
It doesnt matter if the AG is party to the case. The mere appearance of inappropriate connections SHOULD be enough for this person to recuse themselves and allow someone else to make decisions in these cases.
The fact his wife has an association with a Democrat AG is a problem that the Judge created by not recusing himself from the decision making process.
His decisions SHOULD be seen as impartial and to the law. The law is supposed to be blind and applied evenly to everyone regardless of political affiliations of beliefs. This association does not help that one bit.
Apparently Don is still part of the government’s Ministry of Truth.
The confederate state of Minnesota.
correct headline:
judge gets lemon off
He’s far from “off”. The US Attorney can go to the magistrate’s boss, or to a grand jury.
But there needs to be evidence that he did more than simply report on a crime he saw happening.
You don’t understand humor or puns, do you?
No one is above the law except us Marxists
Aw, we don’t need no stinkin’ magistrate. We have an agent of AWFUL!
Affluent White Female Urban Liberal
Just like you don’t need Potatobrain, when President Autopen is available.
Was he part of a mob interfering with people exercising their First Amendment rights, said rights fortified by the FACE and KKK acts? Looked like it. Copious video documentation supports, none of which is disputed. This should be the only question.
Funny how Democrats are still the KKK. Old habits die hard.
The entire mob are felons. Pending common sense judgment. If the law will not right this wrong, then what. Anarchy?
Then what? Anarchy.
I think what Justice Milhouse does not understand is that the longer Democrats show themselves to be above the law the higher the likelihood someone will eventually take matters in to their own hands because they have no faith the law is being applied equally.
Thats when things will really start to get spicy.
This is the part where you have to do it yourself.
donna was certainly a willing participant and, at the least, was trespassing
the parsing pedant’s opinions to the contrary, there is ample evidence that donna et al were interfering with the church service, threatening and intimidating the lawful participants and frightening innocent children in the process and when courteously asked to leave the church, donna et al refused–their refusal being clear proof of their intent
a lifelong christian myself but have never had the strength to turn the other cheek–deeply admire and respect those who can but am simply not that strong–was raised to believe that good men don’t let bastards harm / harass innocent people
The pretend lawyer spams another thread in defense of a leftist.
If only we could just see how right he is because of his planet sized intellect eh?
donna had better hope he’s charged with something–otherwise, when he continues with his antics in desperate pursuit of attention, he very likely will encounter someone who’s decided (based on judicial inaction / favoritism) that donna is above the law, immune to consequences for his hoodrat behaviour–they’ll up and decide to poke him or cap him and that will be that
and many (besides his two fans) will murmur: good riddance
Leave a Comment