> Lemon livestreamed a demonstration earlier this month that interrupted a church service in St. Paul, Minnesota, protesting President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown in the area. He said he was at the demonstration to cover it as a journalist.
> In an unusual move that drew a rebuke from the chief federal judge in Minnesota, Patrick Schiltz, the Justice Department filed emergency applications to get Schiltz and then the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to overrule the magistrate judge. Schiltz told prosecutors that if they disagreed with a magistrate judge's decision, they must instead seek an indictment from a grand jury in order to arrest Lemon.
> In a letter filed in court records, Schiltz wrote that Lemon and his producer "were not protestors at all."
> "There is no evidence that those two engaged in any criminal behavior or conspired to do so," the chief judge wrote.
> In the livestream archived on his YouTube channel, Lemon can be seen meeting with and interviewing the activists before they go to the church, and later chronicling the disruption inside, interviewing congregants, protesters and a pastor, who asks Lemon and the protesters to leave.
Popular comments on the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4ctuhv-cck) from within the first couple of days after upload make problems with the pro-Lemon narrative quite clear.
Not mentioned is that the interview with the activists discloses a clear plan to "make the [congregation] feel uncomfortable", and that Lemon's interviews were quite hostile and aimed at furthering the protesters' point of view. At one point he could be seen to lean on an interviewee while saying "don't touch me". The protesters did not leave when asked.
Everyone who watches the footage is encouraged to consider how they would perceive the actions if this had taken place at a mosque or synagogue rather than a church. It's curious that Reuters could apparently find several "Free press advocates [who] voiced alarm over the arrests", but not any freedom of speech advocates concerned with the congregation's right to freedom of association on private property.
It's also strange that the article goes into extensive detail about Lemon's background and similar actions by the Trump administration, but is silent about the apparent motivation for the choice of venue for the protest (the lead pastor, Jonathan Parnell, was suspected of having ties to ICE) which makes the action seem rather like harassment.
The church protest was cringe and garbage. I don't know what those people thought they were doing, but they basically turned even more people against them.
This whole ICE thing is a psychological operation. It's media manipulation and all the people violently protesting are useful idiots falling for it, or they're feds in disguise instigating more violence to turn around and give more crackdowns.
Don Lemon is one of the chosen media elites. He can sexually assault people and nothing happens. He's a terrible human being, but nothing will come from this. It's all smoke and mirror.
I don't know the details but it looks like one side says obstruction, which is something physical, the other side says freedom of speech, which is non-physical act.
If there is video evidence it should be easy to decide for the court.
This is a slow slide into authoritarianism. When journalists get arrested for documenting important events, it sets a dangerous precedent. Resist and Unsubscribe[0]
11 comments
[ 5.5 ms ] story [ 38.5 ms ] thread> In an unusual move that drew a rebuke from the chief federal judge in Minnesota, Patrick Schiltz, the Justice Department filed emergency applications to get Schiltz and then the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to overrule the magistrate judge. Schiltz told prosecutors that if they disagreed with a magistrate judge's decision, they must instead seek an indictment from a grand jury in order to arrest Lemon.
> In a letter filed in court records, Schiltz wrote that Lemon and his producer "were not protestors at all."
> "There is no evidence that those two engaged in any criminal behavior or conspired to do so," the chief judge wrote.
Popular comments on the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4ctuhv-cck) from within the first couple of days after upload make problems with the pro-Lemon narrative quite clear.
Not mentioned is that the interview with the activists discloses a clear plan to "make the [congregation] feel uncomfortable", and that Lemon's interviews were quite hostile and aimed at furthering the protesters' point of view. At one point he could be seen to lean on an interviewee while saying "don't touch me". The protesters did not leave when asked.
Everyone who watches the footage is encouraged to consider how they would perceive the actions if this had taken place at a mosque or synagogue rather than a church. It's curious that Reuters could apparently find several "Free press advocates [who] voiced alarm over the arrests", but not any freedom of speech advocates concerned with the congregation's right to freedom of association on private property.
It's also strange that the article goes into extensive detail about Lemon's background and similar actions by the Trump administration, but is silent about the apparent motivation for the choice of venue for the protest (the lead pastor, Jonathan Parnell, was suspected of having ties to ICE) which makes the action seem rather like harassment.
This whole ICE thing is a psychological operation. It's media manipulation and all the people violently protesting are useful idiots falling for it, or they're feds in disguise instigating more violence to turn around and give more crackdowns.
Don Lemon is one of the chosen media elites. He can sexually assault people and nothing happens. He's a terrible human being, but nothing will come from this. It's all smoke and mirror.
Go outside and turn off your phones people.
If there is video evidence it should be easy to decide for the court.
[0]: https://www.scottrlarson.com/blog/blog-resist-unsubscribe/