The Case Against Lemon Stronger than Media Reports

The left‑wing news media portrays the arrests of Don Lemon and Georgia Fort as an assault on a free press and the Constitution. Nothing more than retribution by President Trump. It is more fodder for their bogus rise‑of‑authoritarianism narrative. The facts tell a different story.

The basic question is whether Lemon was present as a journalist covering a news event, or whether he was a participant in the illegal disruption of a church service — a Class‑A violation of the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom. Was he documenting events as an observer, or was he embedded in the operation as a collaborator producing propaganda in support of the group?

Left‑wing politicians and pundits are quick to dismiss the case as political retribution and without legal merit. (We shall see.) But the indictment itself — a public document — lays out allegations that are far more serious than the media’s selective and biased summaries suggest.

To be perfectly clear, the attack on the church service was not peaceful protest. It was a coordinated disruption of a religious gathering, an invasion of private property, and an intentional interference with the free exercise of religion. Those actions, if proven, are criminal violations of the Constitution and the law. The Constitution does not protect journalists who break the law.

The indictment brought by a grand jury contains two counts. Count One: Conspiracy Against the Right of Religious Freedom at a Place of Worship. Count Two: Injure, Intimidate, and Interfere with the Exercise of the Right of Religious Freedom at a Place of Worship. One charge addresses the planning. The other addresses the execution. Both hinge on whether Lemon was merely present as a chronicler or whether he was an embedded part of the operation.

This is where the media narrative collapses under scrutiny. According to the indictment’s description of events, Lemon was not simply standing off to the side with a camera. Prosecutors allege that he was present during earlier planning discussions with the activist group responsible for the disruption. They cite video in which Lemon uses the phrase “after we do the operation…” — with emphasis on “we”. That wording alone raises questions that the media refuses to ask. Journalists do not typically refer to the criminal subjects of their coverage as “we.” They do not speak as members of the group they are supposedly just observing. And they certainly do not participate in operational planning.

The indictment cites a number of “overt acts” of conspiracy. The evidence was provided by Lemon’s livestreaming of the planning. He advised others to keep the target secret so they would not give way the information – to maintain the surprise nature of the attack. Lemon advised his audience, “We can’t say to much. We don’t want to give it up.” Again, the use of “we” – revelatory of his own relationship with the group.

The indictment further alleges that Lemon was physically positioned with the group as they entered the church and that he moved in coordination with them. Prosecutors claim he stood in a manner that contributed to blocking parishioners from leaving during the disruption. Yet major left-wing news outlets have largely ignored this detail, preferring to portray Lemon as a passive bystander swept up in an overzealous prosecution.

But the law is clear. The First Amendment does not grant journalists immunity from criminal conduct. A press badge is not a shield against charges of conspiracy or interference with constitutional rights. If journalists knowingly participates in illegal activities — even under the guise of documenting — they are subject to the same laws as everyone else.

The media’s refusal to grapple with these allegations is telling. Once again, Democrats and the left‑leaning press have rushed to defend individuals accused of breaking the law, framing them as victims rather than addressing the substance of the charges. They have reduced a serious constitutional case to a simplistic narrative about press freedom, ignoring the rights of the parishioners whose worship was disrupted and whose safety was jeopardized. They distort the facts solely to support their mendacious anti-Trump, anti-Republican political narratives.

The courts will ultimately determine Lemon’s guilt or innocence. But the public deserves full accounting of the allegations, not the selective and distorted reporting that has dominated coverage so far. The indictment paints a picture of a journalist who crossed the line from observer to participant — a line that, if crossed, carries serious legal consequences. The media may wish to pretend that line does not exist for them, but the Constitution says otherwise.

Under American jurisprudence, one can assume Lemon’s and Fort’s innocence until proven otherwise in a court of law. But the indictment is not meritless. The charges are not frivolous.

So, there ‘tis.