Don Lemon Demands Charges be TOSSED — Claims Trump DOJ “Vindictively” Prosecuted Him After Minnesota Church Disruption

Don Lemon Demands Charges be TOSSED — Claims Trump DOJ “Vindictively” Prosecuted Him After Minnesota Church Disruption
Don Lemon is seeking dismissal of federal charges related to his coverage of an anti-ICE protest that disrupted Sunday worship at Cities Church in St. Paul.

Disgraced former CNN anchor Don Lemon is asking a federal judge to throw out the criminal charges against him over January’s anti-ICE disruption at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, arguing that the Trump administration targeted him because of his journalism and political views.

Lemon and dozens of others were indicted in connection with the January 18 disruption of a worship service at Cities Church in St. Paul. Protesters stormed the church in what federal prosecutors described as a “coordinated takeover-style attack,” engaging in acts of oppression, intimidation, threats, interference, and physical obstruction against parishioners exercising their religious freedom.

One of the church’s pastors serves as an ICE official. Lemon livestreamed the chaos, followed the agitators inside, and later claimed he was merely “reporting.”

Federal prosecutors charged Lemon under 18 U.S.C. §241, conspiracy against rights, and 18 U.S.C. §248, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.

Although commonly associated with abortion facilities, Section 248 also prohibits the use of force, threats or physical obstruction to interfere intentionally with religious worship. The federal case includes 39 defendants, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ case tracker.

A magistrate judge initially refused to approve a criminal complaint against Lemon after finding insufficient probable cause. The Justice Department then unsuccessfully sought intervention from the district’s chief judge and the Eighth Circuit before taking the case to a grand jury, which returned the indictment.

Lemon’s attorneys are now using that unusual history to reinforce their retaliation claim.

Now Lemon wants the court to dismiss the charges with prejudice, preventing prosecutors from bringing them again.

Lemon filed three motions Friday seeking dismissal of the indictment.

In his latest filing, Lemon’s lawyers argue that President Trump’s “animosity towards Don Lemon and his reporting is well-documented, stretching back over a decade.”

They claim the Justice Department charged him “as punishment for his First Amendment protected reporting on protests related to Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota.”

They also point to public statements by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi and Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon, plus a White House social media post that dryly noted “When life gives you lemons…” after his arrest.

Lemon’s team filed additional motions arguing the charges are “fundamentally flawed,” that he is shielded by newsgathering protections, and that journalistic proximity to crime does not equal complicity.

They complain that after a magistrate judge initially declined to approve a criminal complaint for lack of probable cause, the government pursued a grand jury indictment.

They further object to his midnight arrest by federal agents at a Los Angeles hotel while he was covering the Grammys, after his lawyers had offered a self-surrender.

The reality is straightforward. Lemon embedded himself with the agitators, livestreamed their operation, and entered private church property during an active disruption of a religious service.

Career prosecutors and multiple judges initially found the evidence against him insufficient for a complaint, yet a grand jury still returned an indictment. The Trump administration has made clear that targeting houses of worship and interfering with Americans’ right to worship will not be treated as protected “journalism.”

Lemon has pleaded not guilty and continues to portray himself as a martyr for press freedom. His lawyers now demand discovery and an evidentiary hearing into the government’s motives if the indictment is not immediately tossed.

The First Amendment unquestionably protects journalists reporting on crimes and civil unrest. It does not, however, grant reporters a blanket exemption from generally applicable criminal laws if they cross the line from observing an event to participating in it.

Ad block users: Some site features may not work correctly while an ad blocker is enabled, because they break scripts and content this website depends on. If you can’t see comments below, for example, please disable your ad blocker.

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *