So he might get to attend a P Diddy party after all

https://x.com/captive_dreamer/.../2017488718991659496

"I’m sorry but Don Lemon is an idiot and due to his own stupidity the government might have a case

It looks like what Lemon did was this: He was informed of the protest ahead of time and met with organizers at another location. He knew they were planning to illegally occupy a church and interfere with worship services and at one point turned off his camera to avoid broadcasting the conspiracy ahead of time. He then travelled to the location with the protesters knowing they were going to occupy the church and followed them inside while (incorrectly) telling his viewers that what they were doing was constitutionally protected speech

He effectively acted as the protesters’ videographer, was invited to take part in the protest by organizers, and turned his camera off to hide evidence of a criminal conspiracy. The government is going to argue this meant he crossed the line between a neutral observer and a knowing participant in a criminal act and they already convinced a grand jury that theory might have merit

Journalism schools need to drill it into students’ heads that there could be legal consequences if you cross the line between neutral observer and activist because Lemon did everything possible to fuck himself over"

^^^ DeLuLu Lemon is gonna find out that 2026 is gonna go down in history as the year of justice, for everyone against this great country.

"You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you absolutely have been found wanting, welcome to the new world...God save you if it is right He does so" IYKYK

Taking video of yourself committing a crime is NOT journalism!

Don Lemon, when reality entered the chat.

"Fuck me..."

The Universe: "Chack-Chack, bitch..."

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
Taking video of yourself committing a crime is NOT journalism!

The lead-up and during, his giddiness was off the charts, most excitement he's had in a while.

Does a journalist have immunity if they know a serious crime will be committed and they go along as a true journalist just documenting the event?

While Lemon certainly seems to have participated in the crime, would his claim of being a journalist even matter had he just stood to the side and documented events?

Two more arrests today, bringing the total arrested so far, to nine.

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...sota-church-storming

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
... would his claim of being a journalist even matter had he just stood to the side and documented events?

I am not an attorney, but I do remember what UCMJ (military) law would have said about something like that.

The crime of “conspiracy” was committed if two or more people agreed to commit a crime, and any member of the group performed any overt act in furtherance of the crime. If I just happened to hear about the plan and showed up to watch what happened at the scene, that would not have made me guilty of that (particular*) offense.

If, however, I was involved in promoting the crime in any way, such as driving people to the scene, suggesting a suitable church to be targeted, or (I would have argued) even just saying, “Yeah, get those people,” i.e., encouraging the crime, then I would have been part of the conspiracy and guilty of an offense. I might also have been guilty of being an accessory, depending on what I did, but conspiracy only requires my agreement to be a part, and not actually doing anything else myself.

I am not aware of any special “privilege” that journalists get for being part of a crime. Even an otherwise uninvolved spouse who may not be compelled to testify against a wife or husband is still guilty of a crime if they participate in it or support its commission in any way.

* I might have been guilty of other military offenses, but not of conspiracy.

Thanks, sigfreund.

I don’t have enough interest in that person to try to follow all the ins and outs of the case against him. But unless someone decided to do something unethical such as “indicting a ham sandwich” to merely make his life unpleasant without any real hope of a conviction, I believe there must have been evidence of his actual involvement beyond, “Yeah, you do it, and I’ll be there to document it.”

As for being a journalist, there has in fact been a tendency of law enforcement or prosecutors to give them passes for things that would have landed the rest of us common folk in jail. Something about not trying to win against someone who buys ink by the gallon. This guy may have had that in mind even if it is not a legal privilege.

I’m reminded of something a mentor who worked as a prison counselor told me long ago. He asked one inmate if he would have committed his crime if he’d known he was going to get caught: “Would I put my hand on a hot stove?” Despite what some think, the police and the threat of punishment does actually deter crimes, but only to a degree because criminals convince themselves they’re different—and perhaps they often are.

Plus of course, it’s all too common for prosecutors and especially other decision-makers to screw things up when they’re motivated by a chance to make a name for themselves because the defendant is some sort of celebrity. I’m reminded of indictments that were recently overturned because the prosecutor was improperly appointed, and the Alex Baldwin and Orenthal Simpson cases.

"It doesn't work that way."

https://x.com/JasonJournoDC/st.../2020133981048471878

This cockroach needs to be in prison.

https://x.com/DavidJHarrisJr/s...lemon-after-being%2F

^^^ That broadcaster looks familiar. Wasn't she a financial reporter on CNBC or a similar channel?

I've never watched The National News Desk.

Fanny bandit's arraignment is scheduled for tomorrow.

Don Lemon Handed New Arraignment Date by Federal Judge

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
Does a journalist have immunity if they know a serious crime will be committed and they go along as a true journalist just documenting the event?

While Lemon certainly seems to have participated in the crime, would his claim of being a journalist even matter had he just stood to the side and documented events?

The short answer is no. Although the type of offense he could be charged with might change.

If he truly were an independent journalist, for example, someone gave him a tip that this might be going down, or he was walking down the street and saw it start, and he was stationed outside waiting to see what happened, he is not yet part of a conspiracy, and he hasn't committed any crime.

If he then films from outside and reports on what is going on, he has committed no crime. If he enters the building as a reporter following the protest, he has likely committed trespass (he isn't there for the purpose for which the public is generally invited, i.e., worship, and he hasn't been invited in by church leaders). Whether at this point the trespass is civil, or criminal will depend on the statutes and a lot of other factors.

When he makes himself part of the story, i.e., interviewing people during the commission of the federal civil rights crimes, he could be deemed a participant in the protest, and then COULD be liable for those federal civil rights crimes.

When he physically prevents people from leaving, he is all in, and is participating in the federal criminal civil rights violations, full stop.

Since your question is premised on no prior coordination, obviously, conspiracy is off the table.

The first amendment is not a shield against your own illegal conduct any more than the 2nd is. The clauses of the first amd., relative to speech and press are prohibitions against the government passing laws or taking actions that limit free speech, of otherwise regulate the content of the press. It is not a permission slip to participate in a crime to report on it. If, for example, you wanted to report on the perspective of a drug dealer and their customers by selling cocaine on a street corner, the fact that you are reporting on it for the evening news, or conducting research for a book are utterly irrelevant to the fact that you are now a drug dealer, in possession of federally regulated controlled substances, and engaging in the unlawful commerce thereof.

Reporting is not participating, and participating in an illegal act is a crime.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:

The short answer is no. Although the type of offense he could be charged with might change.

If he truly were an independent journalist, for example, someone gave him a tip that this might be going down, or he was walking down the street and saw it start, and he was stationed outside waiting to see what happened, he is not yet part of a conspiracy, and he hasn't committed any crime.


Reporting is not participating, and participating in an illegal act is a crime.

Thanks, Artie.

My thought process was as follows. Imagine I'm an actual journalist sitting in a cafe. I overhear folks at the next table say they'll be committing a terrible crime after they leave. Armed bank robbery, or gang rape, or some other felony.

Am I not required to notify authorities? While I can legally document their actions as a non-participant journalist, it seems to me I have an obligation to attempt to notify authorities in a timely fashion.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:

The short answer is no...

Thanks, Artie.

My thought process was as follows. Imagine I'm an actual journalist sitting in a cafe. I overhear folks at the next table say they'll be committing a terrible crime after they leave. Armed bank robbery, or gang rape, or some other felony.

Am I not required to notify authorities? While I can legally document their actions as a non-participant journalist, it seems to me I have an obligation to attempt to notify authorities in a timely fashion.

The short answer is still no. There is no general duty to report a crime that MAY happen, even if you are aware of a potential conspiracy. Now, this isn't an absolute rule. If your silence can be determined to be aiding and abetting, or a crime has been committed and you don't report the crime for an illegal reason, such as you might benefit from the crime, (misprision of felony) you could still be charged.

In your scenario, you may have a moral or citizen's duty, but neither of those can be criminally charged. You could even witness an armed robbery, or even a murder, and decide that you are better being somewhere else so that you aren't targeted by the criminals. That is a decision you have to make for yourself. The law does not presume to make that decision for you.

Now, if you are a "reporting person" under federal or state statutes, such as a doctor, teacher, social worker, etc., then you do have a duty in certain circumstances, and you can be prosecuted if you fail in that duty.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
Don Lemon, when reality entered the chat.

"Fuck me..."

He probably says that in all of his favorite chat rooms.



.