Former CNN anchor Don Lemon taken into custody, sources say

Ramrouser said:
John Sullivan and Steve Baker are two of them. Sure, they're not as well know as Lemon but certainly as well known as Georgia Fort.
Click to expand...
This Steve Baker? Try again dumbass.
After the riot erupted, Baker entered the Capitol through a broken door and joined the mob at the barricaded doors to the House chamber, according to an FBI agent’s affidavit.

In another part of the Capitol, the affidavit says, Baker “antagonized” police officers who tried to keep him on the other side of a doorjamb, repeatedly asking, “Are you going to use that (gun) on us?” He remained inside the building for approximately 37 minutes before police led him out of the Capitol, according to the FBI.

The affidavit cites statements that Baker made during and after the riot. After leaving the Capitol, he told a local television station that he was “quite excited to see this going on.”

“Do I approve of what happened today? I approve 100%,” he said, according to the affidavit.
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

The way I understand it no FACE act violation here has been alleged nor charged, nor does the video show any FACE act violation (nobady was physically impeaded). I think something like conspiricay to commit a FACE act violation has been charged instead. Maybe video exists where during the palnning somebody suggest physically impeading someone, but I honestly doubt it. Occam's razor says the charges are straight up bullshit.
 
theel4life said:
This Steve Baker? Try again dumbass.
After the riot erupted, Baker entered the Capitol through a broken door and joined the mob at the barricaded doors to the House chamber, according to an FBI agent’s affidavit.

In another part of the Capitol, the affidavit says, Baker “antagonized” police officers who tried to keep him on the other side of a doorjamb, repeatedly asking, “Are you going to use that (gun) on us?” He remained inside the building for approximately 37 minutes before police led him out of the Capitol, according to the FBI.

The affidavit cites statements that Baker made during and after the riot. After leaving the Capitol, he told a local television station that he was “quite excited to see this going on.”

“Do I approve of what happened today? I approve 100%,” he said, according to the affidavit.
Click to expand...
ram lies like he breathes.
 
Ramrouser said:
Potential FACE Act violation for interfering and disrupting a Church service - so much more than trespass. Fact question as to whether Lemon was a participant in the "protest" or acting solely as a journalist.

Multiple right ring journalists claimed 1st Amendment protections on J6 when they filmed and commented on the J6 activities in the Capital. They were convicted and jailed without a peep of protest from the mainstream press and media.
Click to expand...
The Capitol was not open to the public. The people used force to enter. I wouldn’t know how the law should interpret a journalist who gained entry to the Capitol after the forced entry but did so only to cover the story but this is far different.

Lemon was in a public space to cover a protest. He did not force his way into that space. If he did not take part of the protest then he could not be charged with interfering with the service.
 
Ramrouser said:
Potential FACE Act violation for interfering and disrupting a Church service - so much more than trespass. Fact question as to whether Lemon was a participant in the "protest" or acting solely as a journalist.

Multiple right ring journalists claimed 1st Amendment protections on J6 when they filmed and commented on the J6 activities in the Capital. They were convicted and jailed without a peep of protest from the mainstream press and media.
Click to expand...
Wow this is news to me !

Can you let us know which conservative journalists were arrested and jailed for covering the J6 insurrection ?
 
Re the FACE Act, this appears to be the operative provision (18 USC 248(a)(2)):

(2) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship;​

Did Don Lemon by force or threat of force injure, intimidate (defined as "to place a person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm to him- or herself or to another"), or interfere (defined as "to restrict a person’s freedom of movement") with worshippers in the church? Or by force or threat of force attempt to do those things?

Now, I've not watched the video, but my guess is probably not.

The FACE Act is not simply about "interfering and disrupting a Church service" as others claiming to be lawyers might tell you. "Interfere" in this case is a defined term in the statute - "to restrict a person's freedom of movement." "Disrupt" does not appear in the statute.
 
heelinhell said:
Wow this is news to me !

Can you let us know which conservative journalists were arrested and jailed for covering the J6 insurrection ?
Click to expand...
abc3340.com

Some Jan. 6 defendants try to use journalism as riot defense

The Trump supporters who stormed the U. S. Capitol in January created a trove of self-incriminating evidence, thoroughly documenting their actions and words in videos and social media posts. Now some of the camera-toting people in the crowd are claiming they were only there to record history as...
abc3340.com abc3340.com
 
TangledUpInBlue06 said:
Re the FACE Act, this appears to be the operative provision (18 USC 248(a)(2)):

(2) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship;​

Did Don Lemon by force or threat of force injure, intimidate (defined as "to place a person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm to him- or herself or to another"), or interfere (defined as "to restrict a person’s freedom of movement") with worshippers in the church? Or by force or threat of force attempt to do those things?

Now, I've not watched the video, but my guess is probably not.

The FACE Act is not simply about "interfering and disrupting a Church service" as others claiming to be lawyers might tell you. "Interfere" in this case is a defined term in the statute - "to restrict a person's freedom of movement." "Disrupt" does not appear in the statute.
Click to expand...
He did none of those.
 
TangledUpInBlue06 said:
Re the FACE Act, this appears to be the operative provision (18 USC 248(a)(2)):

(2) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship;​

Did Don Lemon by force or threat of force injure, intimidate (defined as "to place a person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm to him- or herself or to another"), or interfere (defined as "to restrict a person’s freedom of movement") with worshippers in the church? Or by force or threat of force attempt to do those things?

Now, I've not watched the video, but my guess is probably not.

The FACE Act is not simply about "interfering and disrupting a Church service" as others claiming to be lawyers might tell you. "Interfere" in this case is a defined term in the statute - "to restrict a person's freedom of movement." "Disrupt" does not appear in the statute.
Click to expand...
Victims, in sworn affidavits, claim the "protestors" prevented them from going to the basement daycare to retrieve their children and otherwise prevented them from leaving the sanctuary. These rioters got in their faces yelling obscenities (reasonable apprehension of bodily harm?). Also, there' s no doubt that their actions interfered with the parishioners lawfully exercising their right of religious freedom at their place of religious worship, i.e. "interfering and disrupting a Church service."

A jury will determine whether Lemon was a participant who violated the CARES Act or merely a journalist. He's getting his due process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top