admin
The dramatic arrest of former CNN anchor Don Lemon in Los Angeles this week stunned many Americans who still believe in the First Amendment. Federal agents took Lemon into custody over his presence at a disruptive protest inside Cities Church in St. Paul on January 18, a confrontation that has spiraled into a high-stakes legal fight between the DOJ and free-press advocates. Prosecutors have charged Lemon under statutes including the FACE Act and a conspiracy-to-deprive-rights count, setting the stage for a courtroom battle over what constitutes protected journalism versus criminal conduct.
Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett didn’t mince words, arguing on air that Lemon’s own videos appear to undercut his claim that he was merely an observer. Jarrett contends the footage shows Lemon embedded with activists and even boasting about making worshippers uncomfortable, a depiction that, if true, turns a self-proclaimed journalist into an accomplice to disruption. Conservatives watching this play out see Jarrett’s point as commonsense: actions matter more than labels, and the law should look at conduct, not convenient professional titles.
The federal case has already been messy: a magistrate judge initially refused to sign off on an arrest warrant, yet the DOJ pushed forward with indictments and later made arrests in multiple cities. Lemon was released without bond after appearing in court, but the criminal counts remain and the political heat is only rising as the press freedom community rallies to his defense. This isn’t just legal theater; it’s a test of whether prosecutors will be allowed to stretch civil-rights statutes into tools to punish journalists for covering controversial events.
Let us be crystal clear: conservatives defend religious liberty and the right of Americans to worship without being harassed, and we also defend a robust press. But those principles are not mutually exclusive when a so-called reporter walks into a private worship service and appears to side with the mob intent on shutting it down. If videos show Lemon celebrating the disruption, as Jarrett and others allege, then Americans who cherish both faith and free speech have every right to demand accountability.
Meanwhile, in New York a federal judge has ruled that Luigi Mangione will not face the death penalty after dismissing capital-eligible charges related to the December 2024 slaying of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. The judge found the technical underpinnings of the federal murder count were flawed, leaving Mangione facing stalking charges that still carry the possibility of life behind bars but foreclosing execution at the federal level. For many conservatives who back law-and-order solutions, this decision will feel like a frustrating technical victory for a defendant accused of a cold-blooded, premeditated assassination.
That frustration is understandable, but it must be channeled through the courts, not through social media outrage. Mangione still faces state murder charges that could result in life without parole, and prosecutors can appeal the federal ruling if they believe the law supports a harsher outcome. Conservatives should demand that prosecutors use every lawful tool to seek justice for a murdered father and CEO, while also insisting that judges apply the law correctly and transparently.
Taken together, these two stories expose worrying priorities and inconsistencies at the Justice Department. While federal agents descend on journalists for covering protests at a church, many Americans ask why investigations into other violent incidents in Minneapolis have not been pursued with equal vigor. The perception that DOJ resources are being used selectively—whether for political theater or messaging—will only deepen the divide between everyday Americans and a federal bureaucracy that increasingly feels unaccountable.
Patriots who love this country should insist on two things at once: defend religious worship from violent disruption and protect genuine journalism from chilling prosecutions. Demand fair, speedy trials, full transparency from prosecutors, and clear standards that preserve both public safety and constitutional freedoms. If the Justice Department wants public trust, it will stop picking winners and losers and instead apply the law evenhandedly to protect victims, uphold order, and defend the liberties that make America exceptional.
