Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett has raised serious concerns regarding the potential legal ramifications for former CNN host Don Lemon following an incident at a church service in St. Paul. Lemon reportedly participated in a disruption during a service at Cities Church, which was chosen due to its pastor’s connection with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Jarrett highlighted that Lemon’s livestream account of the event could play a pivotal role in legal proceedings.
The rejection of an application for an arrest warrant against Lemon has raised eyebrows. Jarrett commented on this decision, suggesting, “Rejecting the charges against Don Lemon smells fishy to me.” He expressed skepticism about the magistrate’s motivations, hinting at possible bias. This skepticism is significant given the legal standard that must be met for issuing an arrest warrant. Jarrett emphasized that a magistrate typically reviews cases from a procedural standpoint, and the refusal to approve charges reflects more than just a cursory examination.
Jarrett projected that Attorney General Pam Bondi has two clear paths available. She might opt to elevate the matter to a grand jury for possible indictment or seek the attention of a district court judge. His description of a magistrate as essentially a “ministerial assistant” underscores his belief that significant legal decisions should bypass this lower court level.
Further complicating the narrative, Jarrett asserted that Lemon’s actions went beyond mere journalistic observation. Instead, he described Lemon as an active participant in the protest who fully engaged with the crowd and challenged the pastor directly. “In fact, Lemon’s own videotape incriminates him,” Jarrett explained, drawing attention to how Lemon defended the protestors and questioned the church’s right to hold a service uninterrupted.
The conversation took a legal turn when Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon pointed out Lemon’s potential violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. This suggests that claiming journalistic intent may not shield Lemon from legal consequences, as the conduct exhibited in the church is what both the law and Jarrett scrutinized. The clear implication is that Lemon’s behavior has serious implications for how his role as a journalist is viewed legally.
Jarrett’s commentary does not shy away from highlighting the potential for added charges based on Lemon’s remarks, particularly his description of the congregants as “entitled white supremacists.” This statement could prove detrimental, not only to his public image but also from a legal standpoint. Jarrett characterized these comments as “despicable” and indicative of targeting the church’s congregants based on both race and religion. Such targeting, in his view, amplifies the likelihood of civil rights violations under existing statutes.
In summarizing the situation, Jarrett firmly stated, “Simply calling yourself a journalist is not a defense. Your behavior is what counts.” This underscores a fundamental legal principle: intentions are evaluated against actions. In Lemon’s case, those actions—as described by Jarrett—paint a troubling picture that could lead to serious consequences should federal prosecutors pursue charges.
Overall, the discussion serves to illuminate the complexities surrounding freedom of expression, particularly as it intersects with the law, civil rights, and the consequences of public behavior. With high stakes involved, the evolving legal landscape surrounding Lemon’s actions will be closely watched in the days to come.
"*" indicates required fields
