The bar has been lowered when it comes to journalists documenting illegal activities due to Jan. 6 and how they treated independent journalists who were there
“Based on my findings, federal prosecutors in January 6 cases claimed that shouting in favor displayed their bias and effectively removed their legitimacy as journalists.”
This is why we have laws and a court system. The prosecutors presented evidence and the defense presented evidence. Judges and jurors had the opportunity to hear both sides of the issue and their verdict was heard. Those convicted of illegal activity have the right to appeal the verdict.
Anyone that joined the protest/riot could have claimed to be a journalist and some did. The court had an opportunity to decide if the journalists’ claims were honest or simply self-serving in an attempt to take advantage of the constitutional right to free speech and assembly while committing a crime. The court had an opportunity to decide if the journalist’s were dis-associated observers or if they were there for other purposes.
Don Lemon will have the same opportunity. The trial should be available for free viewing everywhere.
And just for the record, it is clearly illegal to enter private property to interfere with a persons or a groups right to free expression and religious services whether that property is a church or a synagogue or a mosque or an abortion clinic. A public trial can do a lot to establish guidelines for further protest, and to establish all of our rights as free citizens.
I wish for a perfect legal system. But if the judge has political pressure/bias they can essentially do anything they can justify. If Jan 6 is a guideline lemon should be in jail.
To me the difference is that Jan. 6 was a protest against the government on government property. This protest that Don Lemon appears to have helped organize was supposedly against ICE but was on private property in a church disrupting a church service that had/has no part in ICE on any level. The fact that Lemon used his "reporting" as a cudgel for an illegal protest waged on private property and infringing on peoples religious rights set him up as someone other than an journalist observer/reporter.
I was comparing a specific point about J6 and this case. Both were seen as trespassing but many have made good points from a legal standpoint when it comes to private property and different statutes coming into play.
This is why I started it by saying that I'm not a lawyer or legal expert and open to being wrong.
I feel the same way you do. I don’t feel like we should stoop to the low standards used on January 6. I also believe that don lemon is thrilled he’s being arrested. It will give him press time doesn’t deserve.
No “please”? Without knowing how my glib comment landed, it's a bit of a guess what points to address. That said, Coleman's essay was top of mind when I posted that comment.
Seems to me it’s fair to let the case play out. I’d like to hear if there is factual evidence about what he knew and when he knew it-I suspect he created a lot of this evidence himself. He’s on video before the protest saying, “So that’s what we’re doing here, and after we do this operation, you’ll see it live, these operations are surprise operations… “ That sounds to me like he’s acting in the capacity of a protestor or agitator, not a journalist. A journalist would not be part of a “we.” A journalist would be an outside observer. He also made statements after the protest that indicated motive. I have a hard time believing a journalist who worked at CNN did not know there’s a difference between peaceful protest (e.g. holding signs outside the church) and going into the church to disrupt services, which they did not have a legal right to do.
People like Lemon are not journalists, they are fifth columnists. They are advocates for their Marxist and globalist masters, using our constitution as a veil to hide their true intentions. Undermining the United States and its institutions.
Don Lemon wasn't entering THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE as the doors were opened, he was storming a private church, house for worship of God & terrorizing congregants. Some congregation members of Cities Church fled through a side door. One woman slipped, suffering a broken arm.
Quoted testimony from parishioners:
Victim 2 advised the [St. Paul Police Department] that “they were terrorized, our children were weeping, college students and young women were sobbing, it was impactful and it will take time to work through.” …
Victim 4 informed agents that members of their parish attempted to retrieve their children from the childcare area located downstairs, but the agitators were blocking the stairs, and the parents were unable to get to their children. …
Victim 6 recalled people shouting and running, children crying, as well as people singing and praying. Victim 6 recalled KELLY screaming “Nazi” in people’s faces, in addition to confronting children saying, “Do you know your parents are Nazis? They’re going to burn in hell.”
1 A does not give commies the right to invade a church & disrupt worshippers exercising that freedom. In fact, federal law (under the FACE Act) prohibits it.
I asked myself many of the same questions! (Well, I asked them *after* I decided I cared. Initially, I didn't give a rat's ass because that's basically how I feel about Don Lemon. I digress...)
I think the comparison to January 6 is obvious for several reasons, but also not exactly proper as well. The biggest reason is the amount of violence, at least as far as I know. This protest was localized, and while tacky, did not result in destruction of private or public property. Nor did it result in any assaults, either of police or bystanders. Secondly, one might argue that the "credentialed journalist" gambit protects both groups about the same. IIRC, no journalists were jailed after January 6th. (If that's incorrect, I will stand corrected.) And to be precise, the First Amendment makes no claim about credentials being required. It simply states that the government cannot infringe on speech. I'm unsure how credentials enter into it, accept to muddy the waters.
For me, the bigger issue is this. The DOJ seems to be reaching, since their initial attempt to get a warrant for Lemon's arrest was thrown out while he was in MN. The statutes upon which they now seek to charge him this time seem weak. I say that despite--like you, Adam--not being a lawyer. Disrupting a church service? Meh.
So, I'm left with this. Is Don Lemon an asshole? Yes. Is BLM almost always FoS whatever do? Hellz yes. Did the protesters Lemon claims to be covering disrupt a worship service? Yes, but getting jail time for that, even for a journalist with credentials as miniscule as Lemon, seems like a stretch. Anyway, I'll stop now, before I embarrass myself even further. I refuse to place myself on team #FreeDonLemon, but I don't see Justice taking home any scalps from this one. (Have I mentioned that I detest Don Lemon?)
Tell that to the 78 year old grandma sentenced and serving a DECADES sentence for peacefully interceding in an abortion clinic hallway, lest you forgot or have not reexamined your new-found perspective on the adolescent child grown man, Don Lemon, and his rights and culpability. Grandma fighting for babies to live—-Don Lemon…doing what??? There will be justice, just not on this earth I’m afraid. If you are faithful do not be afraid to tell the truth…
Not to you. I think you are on mark. To Wiltster. This is not a First Amendment case, just because that is Lemon’s defense strategy. What he did is not constitutionally protected and he will find out in court how he violated the law in addition to common decency.
I understand your frustration. As I tried to convey, this specific scenario seems more nuanced than many might admit. (I may have also mentioned my less-than-positive view of Lemon. 😉)
I actually love the timing of this arrest… Lemon (who I’m guessing will be released from custody before sundown) and his lemmings will have a field day platforming his arrest during this Grammys Awards ceremony (yawn…) weekend. He’ll be covered 24x7 by MSM outlets and other hacks, and just imagine Hollywood and music industry loudmouths “speaking their truth to power” on his behalf the next 48 hours … hoping this becomes a huge distraction for the actual Grammys event.
You are not looking at this from the true psy op. “They” turned it around after letting the Hollywood juveniles and Elizabeth Warren spout their adolescent nonsense (now public fodder) to be shown. It was a brilliant play as you shall soon see. The grown ups are now entering the room. Thank goodness as the silliness was about to destroy our actual children. Be part of the adult team…please!!
Not to you. To Wiltster. This is not a First Amendment case, just because that is Lemon’s defense strategy. What he did is not constitutionally protected and he will find out in court how he violated the law in addition to common decency.
Mostly copy-pasting my thoughts from a different note - the analogy that comes to mind is arson.
Bunch of cars drove up to your house one afternoon, and people get out of those cars and start setting fire to your house. One of the passengers doesn't have gas or matches, just asks you calm questions about how you feel about your house getting set on fire, or maybe why you think anyone would want to set your house on fire.
This passenger obviously isn't guilty of the arson itself, that's the rest of the passengers actually setting fires.
But it definitely still looks like he had something to do with setting it up, and that's what "conspiracy" charges are meant for.
Since this is a new territory for 'citizen journalism,' the area isn't fleshed out. Hopefully Yale Law Professor Rubenfeld will cover on his YT channel “Straight Down the Middle.” Analogies can be useful to examine new territory. What comes to mind here are journalists who are embedded with the military. If the military commits an atrocity, you don't convict the journalist. On the other hand, if a citizen journalist rides with bank robbers and films the whole escapade, intuitively, we know that person should be convicted as well. Their actions were for the ego/benefit of the robbers to document the crime. As they used to say, advertising is why you pay for, and PR is what you pray for. Lemon seemed to do the latter. As a side note, I think the primary assumption of the risk analysis used in sports is a useful lens for the ICE protest. In CA, there is robust legal authority in this area going way back to a case where a woman was playing touch football. She had complained of a male player playing too roughly; yet, she continued to play. The male did indeed injure her, and she sued him. The court dismissed her action, finding that the injury incurred was of the type inherent in the sport. When deciding such cases, the specific sport involved is examined. Badminton has a low risk, and any injury, such as being purposefully hit in the head by another player, is not an inherent risk. I would put protestors protesting on sidewalks in this category. The only risk they should face is uneven sidewalks. On the other end of the spectrum, you have rock climbing. Many risks are inherent in the sport, including an instructor miscalculating where to place a climbing hook. Such miscalculation is an assumed risk. Thus, intentionally engaging in brawls with officials risks significant injuries. Primary assumption of the risk in sports is essential to protect one’s right to engage in risky behavior by protecting those who are willing to offer the sport for participation. Thus, to protect the right to protest, participants should accept the risks that accompany their type of protests. Otherwise, I fear protests will be "bubble wrapped" for our own good.
This is not the same as J-6. People conveniently forget that there were violent and destructive riots in DC not long before J-6, and nothing was done to prosecute the perpetrators. And in other riots as well, criminals were bailed out and pardoned by politicians. J-6 was a set-up. Most of the people were doing a non-violent protest of a building that as citizens, they own. Videos clearly show that most of them were respectfully and quietly following the crowd. They only saw friendly guards, they didn’t even step over the lines.
They were arrested at home, by SWAT teams and never got a press conference,or ANY press. They were kept in dungeon-like jails, denied bail, denied due process, denied food, visitors, HEAT, and decent treatment for YEARS. They were severely damaged and their story STILL hasn’t been told.
The Minneapolis church thing is more like the abortion clinic protests. They went into a private place and frightened and intimidated people who were not doing anything wrong (unlike abortion clinics). With the abortion clinic protestors, some of them that were peacefully protesting on the sidewalk outside the clinic, even across the road from the clinic, were SWATted early in the morning, with their kids sleeping nearby. Waking up,
unwarned, to a bunch of uniformed guys with big guns pointed at you and your family is a LOT worse than a ride in a police car with handcuffs. They were never given the option to turn themselves in, even though they had done nothing wrong. One young black mother was kept in jail for years!
So, I do not think these things are the same. We have too much corruption in our government and justice system right now.
I do agree, however, that there should be clearer guidelines and protections for journalists. But even great laws mean nothing if the judiciary is corrupt.
“Based on my findings, federal prosecutors in January 6 cases claimed that shouting in favor displayed their bias and effectively removed their legitimacy as journalists.”
This is why we have laws and a court system. The prosecutors presented evidence and the defense presented evidence. Judges and jurors had the opportunity to hear both sides of the issue and their verdict was heard. Those convicted of illegal activity have the right to appeal the verdict.
Anyone that joined the protest/riot could have claimed to be a journalist and some did. The court had an opportunity to decide if the journalists’ claims were honest or simply self-serving in an attempt to take advantage of the constitutional right to free speech and assembly while committing a crime. The court had an opportunity to decide if the journalist’s were dis-associated observers or if they were there for other purposes.
Don Lemon will have the same opportunity. The trial should be available for free viewing everywhere.
And just for the record, it is clearly illegal to enter private property to interfere with a persons or a groups right to free expression and religious services whether that property is a church or a synagogue or a mosque or an abortion clinic. A public trial can do a lot to establish guidelines for further protest, and to establish all of our rights as free citizens.
I wish for a perfect legal system. But if the judge has political pressure/bias they can essentially do anything they can justify. If Jan 6 is a guideline lemon should be in jail.
For me the line was crossed when they went into a religious building to harass the congregation, including the children in attendance.
To me the difference is that Jan. 6 was a protest against the government on government property. This protest that Don Lemon appears to have helped organize was supposedly against ICE but was on private property in a church disrupting a church service that had/has no part in ICE on any level. The fact that Lemon used his "reporting" as a cudgel for an illegal protest waged on private property and infringing on peoples religious rights set him up as someone other than an journalist observer/reporter.
Yes, equating this to 1/6 is comparing apples to oranges.
I was comparing a specific point about J6 and this case. Both were seen as trespassing but many have made good points from a legal standpoint when it comes to private property and different statutes coming into play.
This is why I started it by saying that I'm not a lawyer or legal expert and open to being wrong.
That was my first thought, too. But I think the two cases are more like comparing an apple to a rotten egg.
This is the nuance I sought to convey in my (much too long) post!
I feel the same way you do. I don’t feel like we should stoop to the low standards used on January 6. I also believe that don lemon is thrilled he’s being arrested. It will give him press time doesn’t deserve.
He definitely wanted to get arrested. He's an attention whore.
I'll admit to feeling schadenfreude about his arrest, but it was a bad precedent five years ago, and no better now.
Explain, Sir.
No “please”? Without knowing how my glib comment landed, it's a bit of a guess what points to address. That said, Coleman's essay was top of mind when I posted that comment.
https://open.substack.com/pub/adambcoleman/p/january-6s-implications-on-don-lemons?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=t36u0
Seems to me it’s fair to let the case play out. I’d like to hear if there is factual evidence about what he knew and when he knew it-I suspect he created a lot of this evidence himself. He’s on video before the protest saying, “So that’s what we’re doing here, and after we do this operation, you’ll see it live, these operations are surprise operations… “ That sounds to me like he’s acting in the capacity of a protestor or agitator, not a journalist. A journalist would not be part of a “we.” A journalist would be an outside observer. He also made statements after the protest that indicated motive. I have a hard time believing a journalist who worked at CNN did not know there’s a difference between peaceful protest (e.g. holding signs outside the church) and going into the church to disrupt services, which they did not have a legal right to do.
Very insightful. Thank you for drawing the comparison to J6. Appreciate you!
Tend to agree with Sean Lee, but as Jin Moore writes, Democrats will use this to proclaim its Hitler all over again.
People like Lemon are not journalists, they are fifth columnists. They are advocates for their Marxist and globalist masters, using our constitution as a veil to hide their true intentions. Undermining the United States and its institutions.
Sounds off.
Like a bad precedent.
Don Lemon wasn't entering THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE as the doors were opened, he was storming a private church, house for worship of God & terrorizing congregants. Some congregation members of Cities Church fled through a side door. One woman slipped, suffering a broken arm.
Quoted testimony from parishioners:
Victim 2 advised the [St. Paul Police Department] that “they were terrorized, our children were weeping, college students and young women were sobbing, it was impactful and it will take time to work through.” …
Victim 4 informed agents that members of their parish attempted to retrieve their children from the childcare area located downstairs, but the agitators were blocking the stairs, and the parents were unable to get to their children. …
Victim 6 recalled people shouting and running, children crying, as well as people singing and praying. Victim 6 recalled KELLY screaming “Nazi” in people’s faces, in addition to confronting children saying, “Do you know your parents are Nazis? They’re going to burn in hell.”
1 A does not give commies the right to invade a church & disrupt worshippers exercising that freedom. In fact, federal law (under the FACE Act) prohibits it.
I asked myself many of the same questions! (Well, I asked them *after* I decided I cared. Initially, I didn't give a rat's ass because that's basically how I feel about Don Lemon. I digress...)
I think the comparison to January 6 is obvious for several reasons, but also not exactly proper as well. The biggest reason is the amount of violence, at least as far as I know. This protest was localized, and while tacky, did not result in destruction of private or public property. Nor did it result in any assaults, either of police or bystanders. Secondly, one might argue that the "credentialed journalist" gambit protects both groups about the same. IIRC, no journalists were jailed after January 6th. (If that's incorrect, I will stand corrected.) And to be precise, the First Amendment makes no claim about credentials being required. It simply states that the government cannot infringe on speech. I'm unsure how credentials enter into it, accept to muddy the waters.
For me, the bigger issue is this. The DOJ seems to be reaching, since their initial attempt to get a warrant for Lemon's arrest was thrown out while he was in MN. The statutes upon which they now seek to charge him this time seem weak. I say that despite--like you, Adam--not being a lawyer. Disrupting a church service? Meh.
So, I'm left with this. Is Don Lemon an asshole? Yes. Is BLM almost always FoS whatever do? Hellz yes. Did the protesters Lemon claims to be covering disrupt a worship service? Yes, but getting jail time for that, even for a journalist with credentials as miniscule as Lemon, seems like a stretch. Anyway, I'll stop now, before I embarrass myself even further. I refuse to place myself on team #FreeDonLemon, but I don't see Justice taking home any scalps from this one. (Have I mentioned that I detest Don Lemon?)
Tell that to the 78 year old grandma sentenced and serving a DECADES sentence for peacefully interceding in an abortion clinic hallway, lest you forgot or have not reexamined your new-found perspective on the adolescent child grown man, Don Lemon, and his rights and culpability. Grandma fighting for babies to live—-Don Lemon…doing what??? There will be justice, just not on this earth I’m afraid. If you are faithful do not be afraid to tell the truth…
I feel like you didn't read my post and are asserting things I didn't say or believe.
Not to you. I think you are on mark. To Wiltster. This is not a First Amendment case, just because that is Lemon’s defense strategy. What he did is not constitutionally protected and he will find out in court how he violated the law in addition to common decency.
My mistake. I apologize.
By the way, I loved your book. I had both of my sons read it.🙏🙏.
I understand your frustration. As I tried to convey, this specific scenario seems more nuanced than many might admit. (I may have also mentioned my less-than-positive view of Lemon. 😉)
Got it👍
I actually love the timing of this arrest… Lemon (who I’m guessing will be released from custody before sundown) and his lemmings will have a field day platforming his arrest during this Grammys Awards ceremony (yawn…) weekend. He’ll be covered 24x7 by MSM outlets and other hacks, and just imagine Hollywood and music industry loudmouths “speaking their truth to power” on his behalf the next 48 hours … hoping this becomes a huge distraction for the actual Grammys event.
You are not looking at this from the true psy op. “They” turned it around after letting the Hollywood juveniles and Elizabeth Warren spout their adolescent nonsense (now public fodder) to be shown. It was a brilliant play as you shall soon see. The grown ups are now entering the room. Thank goodness as the silliness was about to destroy our actual children. Be part of the adult team…please!!
Not to you. To Wiltster. This is not a First Amendment case, just because that is Lemon’s defense strategy. What he did is not constitutionally protected and he will find out in court how he violated the law in addition to common decency.
Mostly copy-pasting my thoughts from a different note - the analogy that comes to mind is arson.
Bunch of cars drove up to your house one afternoon, and people get out of those cars and start setting fire to your house. One of the passengers doesn't have gas or matches, just asks you calm questions about how you feel about your house getting set on fire, or maybe why you think anyone would want to set your house on fire.
This passenger obviously isn't guilty of the arson itself, that's the rest of the passengers actually setting fires.
But it definitely still looks like he had something to do with setting it up, and that's what "conspiracy" charges are meant for.
Since this is a new territory for 'citizen journalism,' the area isn't fleshed out. Hopefully Yale Law Professor Rubenfeld will cover on his YT channel “Straight Down the Middle.” Analogies can be useful to examine new territory. What comes to mind here are journalists who are embedded with the military. If the military commits an atrocity, you don't convict the journalist. On the other hand, if a citizen journalist rides with bank robbers and films the whole escapade, intuitively, we know that person should be convicted as well. Their actions were for the ego/benefit of the robbers to document the crime. As they used to say, advertising is why you pay for, and PR is what you pray for. Lemon seemed to do the latter. As a side note, I think the primary assumption of the risk analysis used in sports is a useful lens for the ICE protest. In CA, there is robust legal authority in this area going way back to a case where a woman was playing touch football. She had complained of a male player playing too roughly; yet, she continued to play. The male did indeed injure her, and she sued him. The court dismissed her action, finding that the injury incurred was of the type inherent in the sport. When deciding such cases, the specific sport involved is examined. Badminton has a low risk, and any injury, such as being purposefully hit in the head by another player, is not an inherent risk. I would put protestors protesting on sidewalks in this category. The only risk they should face is uneven sidewalks. On the other end of the spectrum, you have rock climbing. Many risks are inherent in the sport, including an instructor miscalculating where to place a climbing hook. Such miscalculation is an assumed risk. Thus, intentionally engaging in brawls with officials risks significant injuries. Primary assumption of the risk in sports is essential to protect one’s right to engage in risky behavior by protecting those who are willing to offer the sport for participation. Thus, to protect the right to protest, participants should accept the risks that accompany their type of protests. Otherwise, I fear protests will be "bubble wrapped" for our own good.
This is not the same as J-6. People conveniently forget that there were violent and destructive riots in DC not long before J-6, and nothing was done to prosecute the perpetrators. And in other riots as well, criminals were bailed out and pardoned by politicians. J-6 was a set-up. Most of the people were doing a non-violent protest of a building that as citizens, they own. Videos clearly show that most of them were respectfully and quietly following the crowd. They only saw friendly guards, they didn’t even step over the lines.
They were arrested at home, by SWAT teams and never got a press conference,or ANY press. They were kept in dungeon-like jails, denied bail, denied due process, denied food, visitors, HEAT, and decent treatment for YEARS. They were severely damaged and their story STILL hasn’t been told.
The Minneapolis church thing is more like the abortion clinic protests. They went into a private place and frightened and intimidated people who were not doing anything wrong (unlike abortion clinics). With the abortion clinic protestors, some of them that were peacefully protesting on the sidewalk outside the clinic, even across the road from the clinic, were SWATted early in the morning, with their kids sleeping nearby. Waking up,
unwarned, to a bunch of uniformed guys with big guns pointed at you and your family is a LOT worse than a ride in a police car with handcuffs. They were never given the option to turn themselves in, even though they had done nothing wrong. One young black mother was kept in jail for years!
So, I do not think these things are the same. We have too much corruption in our government and justice system right now.
I do agree, however, that there should be clearer guidelines and protections for journalists. But even great laws mean nothing if the judiciary is corrupt.