Thursday’s arrests of Lemon and Georgia Fort, an independent journalist – like the recent raid on Hannah Natanson, the Washington Post reporter – demonstrate the administration’s lawless crusade against routine journalism. In normal times the expectation is that even when a journalist’s conduct might technically fit the legal elements of a crime – jaywalking to get footage of a protest, for example – prosecutors will exercise their discretion and judgment to not apply the law in a manner that chills the free press.
That is, journalists are above the law. But it’s above some laws, not all of them. And it’s a privilege, not a right, to be above those they are.
I’ve not bothered to find out what Lemon’s alleged to have done nor why that’s different or not different. Why would I bother? For my working assumption is that as his reputation deflates to it’s proper position there’s been a specific attempt to gain a new one. After all, the NGO network of speeches on how I were oppressed is a perfectly profitable one even if not quite as fun as being a lauded reporter.
The claim that the Constitution (peace be upon it) accords special privileges to journalists is balls. It’s not The Press, in the sense of newspapers etc., that gets protection, it’s use of the press. That is, anyone can print whatever he likes – a book, a poster, a leaflet, a letter, … even a newspaper.
So much this.
And of course it’s only those people working for the goodthinkful outlets that are journalists. The guy who uncovered the Somali learing centers wasn’t doing journalism at all, no sirree.
Yep.
I’ve now gone on Amazon and found “PRESS” stickers for one of my jackets. I figure that wearing this in my hometown of Minneapolis should give me immunity for any transgressions that occur to me.
Wish I had known about this back when I was doing crim defense. I would have bought my clients Press Vests and saved them a lot of hassle. (“Sorry, copper, he’s immune.”)
I know it’s terribly wrong and archaic but I’ve always thought that the law applied to everyone equally in most civilised countries. Of course, I understand that in the 21st century there are groups that maintain that laws are, in fact, meant to apply differently depending on the person’s skin colour, politics and sexuality but it’s too complicated for a simple old brain like mine…
Interesting re-definition of the word “lawless”
Well, quite. It’s not exactly death squads knocking on the door in the middle of the night, is it?
“I’ve not bothered to find out what Lemon’s alleged to have done…”
He led a bunch of thugs into a church to disrupt the service, to protest the Trump policy of removal of illegal aliens.
It’s not clear (to me) why that church and why disrupting a service was an appropriate “protest”. However it did contravene a Federal Law – hence arrest.
There’s a certain amount of added amusement that one of the laws he’s being charged under is one that was originally intended to ‘protect’ people attending abortion clinics from seeing protests. That law also covers places of worship…
I believe the intention was originally to protect “Black” churches from being invaded by KKK types. disrupting services and all that. Also so often knowledgeable commenters note that this was possibly intended as a “sugar coating” to remove the impression that this was purely to protect abortions. Rather amusing that Lemon has been arrested under a law probably intended to protect black worshippers. Of course it is in fact protecting churches from fascist extremists, more or less as intended.Lemon also gets a special award for videoing and publicising his own complicity in the law breaking.
Why do you call them fascists? Besides being wrong, it adds nothing.
The assistant pastor of the church (possibly) works for ICE.
Amusingly, the laws under which Lemon is being prosecuted were brought in to stop people protesting at abortion abattoirs, and mosques.
Whatever it was he was doing, it wasn’t journalism.
Worse – he didn’t lead them. He followed them as a hanger-on, desperately trying to maintain relevance.
I don’t have to agree with (or like) the organizer of this idiocy, but at least she was active and not a parasite on other activists like Lemon is.
I’m of the opinion that the old adage “the Devil is in the details” may be more applicable than ever. This is just one of the latest examples:
“They’re arresting journalists!!!”
Well, they arrested one former journo who broke the law and charged him appropriately and did it openly, you know, none of that disappeared in the middle of the night stuff.
“They shot a mother of three!”
Well, they shot a woman who was about to run over a law enforcement officer after being placed under arrest, and the incident is being investigated, just BTW.
And on, and on, and on.
One fun bit, a lot of lefties in the US are now arguing that police shouldn’t have bodycams. You can probably guess why.
See also ‘ICE agents shouldn’t wear masks!’
But you’re actively trying to dox them and you’re threatening them and their families including with death. Plus – you’re also often wearing masks.
‘But we need masks to stop the Feds identifying us!’
But fuck it, it’s hardly news that they’re liars, frauds, hypocrites and simpletons.
A couple of things about the Pretti case – He was a nurse, but had been sacked three months prior for alleged “perverted actions towards vulnerable individuals under the hospitals’ care”.
His parents had noted strange behaviour and told him not to “do anything stupid”.
There’s more, but this is interesting about the ‘law’ and the ‘rights’ of people to conceal carry, and protest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QePoawDA_48
There has been so much information/disinformation about the saintly or perverted Mr Pritti (depending on your viewpoint).
Even the video of him previously kicking an ICE SUV and dislodging the tail-light begs questions, principally why the hell didn’t they arrest or at least detain him having justifiably wrestled him to the ground?
AI has really complicated matters for those of us who were previously happy to accept the evidence of our own eyes
principally why the hell didn’t they arrest or at least detain him
It’s a revolving door criminal justice system for lefty criminals and illegal immigrants. Corrupt leftwing states like MN and CA have Soros prosecutors who make sure they’re released same day.
Untrue. He was not fired – that was an AI story: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/alex-pretti-fired/
He was a habitual troublemaker who had previously attacked police though.
Pretti got what he deserved. ⚰️
NO. Kicking in the tail-light of a SUV is not a capital offence. If had *actually* drawn a gun on a US cop that would approach “suicide while the absence of brain is disturbed” but it appears that the cop made a mistake and thought he was drawing a gun whebn he drew his phone.
He brought a handgun to a violent protest where he and other idiots were trying to prevent armed law enforcement officers carrying out their lawful duties by getting in their faces and screaming at them.
And the reason for his foolish and risky behavior was a desire to support massive scale illegal third world migration to the formerly nice American state he lived in.
His own stupidity is the capital offense.
Many such cases!
If stupidity was a capital offence the extreme environmentalists would have their way with the human population of the planet being shrunk by three-quarters to allow space for “nature” and for the end of “anthropomorthic global warming”. But it ain’t!
Kids playing chicken on the railway don’t deserve to die. But they do!
Steve
Not clear that you’re correct is saying: “And the reason for his foolish and risky behavior was a desire to support massive scale illegal third world migration to the formerly nice American state he lived in.”
I’s suggest it was because he was fully subscribed to the “Trump is a fascist dictator and ICE is the Gestapo” idiot meme. And the “because Trump is a fascist dictator, I’m immune to any effects of breaking the law” accompanying idiot meme.
And I’d would have thought that he was fully subscribed to those because he was a loony, but the evidence suggest that he’s hardly the only one to have gone nuts. Perhaps it’s the water?
I stand corrected.
To be fair, ICE has invaded churches that harbor illegals, perhaps not while services were under way. OK so ICE had warrants, but there’s nothing sacrosanct about a church per se.
Two thoughts that come to mind:
Well, if your wife had wheels I could ride her like a bike.
So ICE have acted entirely legally? I’m not sure what point you think you’re making here.
There actually is something sacrosanct about a church being invaded *during a service* – it’s illegal under the FACE Act.
I would stick pencils in your ears and ride you like a bike smack into the nearest shithouse. If you want a flame war I’ve been at this for over thirty years. Be fucking careful not to get so personal in the future.
Yet still display your thin skin. Which everyone here has noted.
That is an embarrassing and pathetic riposte.
oh, oh, *sensitive* !
” . . . but there’s nothing sacrosanct about a church per se.”
Ummm . . . .
“ . . . made holy by a sacred rite. “
Sounds kind of churchy to me.
OT, but there’s no comments on Not sure I read this right but. The names are in the pu lic domain, and a mere allegedly would cover it. Not sure what this bunch might comment if it was open though. And why is this comment all initial caps when I didn’t type them?
The alleged executive: is he one of those chaps who poses as an ethical giant who will save us all from Green Doom and many another malaise of mankind?
It goes with the territory. Grasping narcissism posing as altruism and philanthropy. As is usually the case.
Apparently, ‘Microsoft’ is now a double entendre…
Allegedly a double entendre . . . .
The existence of ‘Microsoft’ as a double entendre is now a fact. Only its origin is alleged.
I’d merely muse that from everything I’ve seen (and I’ve not paid much attention), this time there’s no mention of underage shagging and the only unlawful or illegal activities might be pimping, and accepting payment for “favours”. That picture of Andy crouching over a woman. Hilarious and tawdry, yes, but illegal?
As for alleged executive wick-dipping, what a bummer that this safe-as-houses beauty and her pimps hadn’t arranged for a clap test first, eh? That is remarkably unprofessional. I’m sure BiS will be along to tell us how it’s done, being a man who knows about this stuff.
Last, the pic in the DT of Ghislaine with her legs out. Lordy, I would have. Probably regretted it, mind. Of course an oik like me would have had no chance, so it’s entirely notional.
Ghislaine? Met her in the mid-80s. Yes, you would have, no you couldn’t have.
As I thought.
“the pic in the DT of Ghislaine with her legs out”
Interesting, isn’t it. A pilot who has consensual (bdsm) sex with a cabin crew is prosecuted years later for allegedly sharing a photo of said encounter without her permission, also any number of similar claims/prosecutions…
Yet the DT openly publish an intimate pic of Ghislaine without her permission.
So clearly some are above the law.
Or, perhaps, below it. GM is no longer in a position to object, is she? I also wonder why this picture is of public interest, apart from prurient? There’s nothing obscene or incriminating about it. JE is also alleged to have had “a six foot nude portrait of GM”. Cool. Why not? She was hot, and his girlfriend. Was it a snap, or a Lucian Freud?
Maybe not so much “above the law” as “some reputations can’t be further harmed.”
If you’re referring to the Torygraph story about Epstein having given Randy Andy’s e-maill addy to a 26 old Russian woman, that’s so thin it’s transparent.
And yes, I do know something about this business. Enough to know there is a great deal about the Epstein/Ghislaine doesn’t make any sense to me. Sure they may have introduced guys to attractive willing totty. Some of them may inadvertantly have been under the age they might be legitimately “working”. But that’s a long way from from what they’ve been accused & convicted of. What doesn’t make sense is that they’d be doing this in any way “professionally”. The most they could earn out of it is the standard 40% of the trick money. People who do it as a business run a dozen girls seeing 4 or 5 clients a day each. And they don’t get rich on doing it because the overheads eat money.. And it’s a full time occupation 24/365, not a minute’s your own. Point being, for people like them with their other interests, what they’d make out of it would be trivial. Not worth bothering about. So why would they?
I can see that they might benefit from it by building a network of useful & remunerative contacts for other things.Being trustworthy in one thing implies being trustworthy in others.
Regarding the DT photos. “Three unidentified women”(kissing). I took an identically posed photo lunchtime. My girls the one in the middle. It’s her birthday FFS!
BiS, I was referring to the other thread that doesn’t allow comments, where Tim says: Allegedly a software executive got the clap from a bird organised for him by a disgraced financier. Which could, you know, explain the ex-wife’s rage etc.
Ah, a development. The story is – hotly denied – that the s/ware guy then tried to slip his wife antibiotics without her knowledge in order to…..hotly, hotly, denied.
I can’t imagine JE thinking of making money from pimping but I can imagine him deliberately doing this to create compromat on people, and thereby gaining power over them. If that was the case, the compromat on the notional software exec was to have evidence that he’d shagged the Russian, not that she’d given him the clap. Were I said software exec I’d have assumed a bird arranged by JE would have been clean in every way, and would not give me a nasty I’d inadvertently pass to the missus, leaving me with a very difficult problem.
That’s the unprofessional bit. The notional software exec wasn’t cruising the streets; he was cruising in a private jet. He’d have assumed, at that level, that everyone was vetted, clean and discreet, and he was safe.
Can’t help you with what you do if you get the clap. Never have. I should think go to a clinic, if it matters give a false name, get sorted.These people are used to the guilty of misdemeanors. He’d just be yet another one.
As for the compromat thing, you make money out of people being your friends, not creating enemies. They pay out for longer & more..
Why would a billionaire need another billionaire to get him antibiotics?
Plausible deniability? Were he to ask one of his entourage, that person would immediately think: “Interesting. I wonder what they’re for? Oh, they’re for the clap… I wonder why he needs them… and whether the wife knows.”
More likely: people are fucking with us.
I’ve just done my tax return, ask me how I know.
OK, how do you know?
It was revealed to me in a dream.
Also there’s a funny, but fake, email exchange with Elon Musk circulating
Most likely the dead disgraced financier was. If you have a reputation for “knowing shit” about people then you also have the power to just make shit up about people.
In the case of these files, I would only accept direct evidence (emails from, etc) about third parties. I would not trust anything said by the dead disgraced financier about third parties.
Epstein was a 4chan shitposter and Maxwell was a Reddit powermod. Andrew probably read b3ta in its day
And the disgraced financier made these allegations in an email beginning “Dear Bill” but sent only to himself…
Why not just ask his doctor? A billionaire might have a good one.
With the kind of money these guys have, they can get prescribed anything they want at any time.
If, as a result of having done something you perhaps shouldn’t, you end up with a little problem that requires prescription medicines to fix, for both you and your innocently unsuspecting significant other, then you’re handing knowledge and power to whomever you ask to get them for you. Medicines for STDs tend to be fairly specific. Whom do you trust?
In that situation, trying to keep your life hermetically compartmentalised, I can certainly see how one wealthy man might ask another wealthy man, who already knows everything, to acquire those medicines for him, on the assumption that the other wealthy man already has a trustworthy doctor who might have done this before, for that wealthy man, and others.
In that way you’re not leaking knowledge and power beyond those who already have it, and I would imagine that those whose lives revolve around the acquisition of power are sensitive to such things.
I just don’t believe it. It’s too funny to be true.
It’s funny all right. The more I think about the scenario the funnier it gets. And a certain high-profile software exec did end up getting acrimoniously divorced.
Except Norm, for the general range of nasties going around, the remedy’s a perfectly common broad range antibiotic. His problem’s surreptitiously dosing the missus. It’s not one magic pill. It’s a ten day course of twice a day. And the pills are the size of ibuprofen. Hefty. I doubt if he could get away with crushing them & slipping them into her feed bag with her hay.
Like I said in my earlier comment, everything connected with this saga sounds highly unlikely..
You tried to copy/paste something before typing? This field seems sensitive to what you might have in the clipboard.
I don’t know why the all initial caps. But why did my reply to Steve suddenly decide to wipe out the paragraph I was typing, not just once but several times? [Fixed by writing it in BBEdit and pasting the whole thing]
Relatedly, humour (unitentional?) in the DT.
It appears that being best buddies with a certain disgraced financier is bad enough but survivable; compounding that embarrassment by also being a member of the Labour Party is too much… so he stopped being a member of the Labour Party.
Reposted in the correct thread:
Those poor, innocent journalists arrested by the authoritarian Drumpf regime for just doing their jobs!
Oh:
A grand jury in Minnesota indicted Lemon and others on charges of conspiracy and interfering with the First Amendment rights of worshippers during the Jan. 18 protest at the Cities Church in St. Paul, where a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement official is a pastor.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/read-the-full-indictment-against-don-lemon-georgia-fort-and-others-charged-in-minnesota
Must admit that if someone wants to protest, I insist it’s where it doesn’t bother me. So I sympathise with the church goers.
Of course, if it doesn’t bother me, I’ll simply ignore the drongoes.
Which is naturally the thing that annoys them most of all!!!
If you go to the bother of organising and attending a confrontational and obstructive protest you do really really want media attention to amplify to the world. So then, to what extent is it ok to collude with media figures and high follower accounts. The old we’re going if you’re going, are you going? If they do that and some or all of the protesters overstep a legal line, is the “media” bod on the hook? Could be quite an interesting legal question, especially if you could establish that they wouldn’t have protested if so and so couldn’t have made it that day.
We are all independent journalists.
The Washington post reporter credibly accused of leaking classified documents.
Why ‘reporter’ and not ‘journalist?’
Against routine reportering?
Gamecock advises Guardian to STFU. Trump is given to suing, and this is clearly defamation. You can’t just shoot your mouth off in Trump’s world.
Lemon, in the church, refers to “us.”
Lemon was doing legal journalsmithing until he went in the church. He could have legally stayed outside and videoed a woman with a broken arm and crying children pouring out.
Additionally, his meeting with the perps beforehand is conspiracy, likely another felony.
He should get YEARS in prison.
Gamecock has little faith that this vile turd will get what is coming to him.
I’ll just post this here:
https://x.com/JamesBlairUSA/status/2017238107020472468?s=20
In the US journalists are not above any law – there is no special category of person called ‘journalist’ or ‘press’.
Reporters have the same (no more, no less) privileges and rights as anyone else. Putting a camera in your hand or working for a ‘news agency’ doesn’t change anything.
Underlying all this ‘ICE not welcome here’ stuff there seems to me to be a rather critical point that no one seems to be addressing, namely – if a state of the USA stops allowing the US Federal government to enforce federal law in within its borders what happens next? If Minnesota is allowed to tell ICE to f*ck off, and suffer no consequences, can Texas or Florida tell the ATF or IRS to go forth and multiply also? Is this not the very thing that started the last American Civil War?
Is this not the very thing that started the last American Civil War?
The desire of greedy employers to exploit cheap brown labour instead of paying a fellow citizen a man’s wage? You’re damn right it did.
Well, that and shooting at the Feds at Ft Sumter. The Yankees didn’t like that. And it gave Lincoln cover to send troops south. SC had already been seceded for 4 months when the fracas occurred.
Republican (in Name Only) Congress critters are getting soft over the media’s one-sided coverage of the angry white women in Minneapolis. MOST Americans want the turds crushed, and the illegals captured. The contact between ICE and the womentards is because Frey ordered the police to step down, and not control the public around ICE activities. Angry White Women are shrieking over how ICE is treating them. They should have NO CONTACT with ICE. That’s the local police’s job.
Democrat mayor creates a crisis, then blames Trump.
So what happens next? Does Minnesota just get away with it? If so where does that leave any other US state that doesn’t agree with some federal law or other? What can the Federal Government do to Minnesota that teaches it a lesson, without having to get all Ulysses S Grant on them?
Don’t know what will happen. Feds should ignore the locals and crush any who interfere. FEDERAL charges, not local disorderly conduct. Mayor Frey doesn’t understand his job is to keep his citizens out of federal prisons. Or cemeteries.
Congressional Republicans are pussies and will not support the Trump administration. Already agreeing to cut enforcement budget.
Interesting times.
“if a state of the USA stops allowing the US Federal government to enforce federal law in within its borders what happens next?”
Well, here’s what happened last time (from Wokipedia):
Eisenhower took Federal control of the Arkansas National Guard, and sent in 1,000 Federal troops. Actual troops, not just border guards.
For some reason I don’t think the screaming protesters standing up for States Rights against the Feds would have objected to that massive use of Federal violence against local government and public.
Yes thats all very well. But that was the 1950s. Everyone was a bit less batshit insane then (they’d just been through WW2, the ultimate in grounding experience). If the government sent armed forces to do something, the locals had the common sense to realise they would shoot you if you f*cked about with them. Now, not so much, as we are seeing in Minnesota.
So what happens when the federal troops get f*cked about with in the same manner as ICE? Do they open fire? Or not?
Not. Not since 1970.
So I repeat my question – what happens when a state refuses to obey federal law and/or prevents federal law from being enforced? If nothing, then hasn’t the USA ceased to exist? If there’s no penalty then its a free for all between the States, right? Each one can pick and choose which bits of the Union it wants to abide by.
I – we – still don’t know.
If the state refuses to obey federal law, then it becomes a war of wills. Who will back down first.
Trump isn’t known as someone who will slink away.
But the Minnesota state leaders who are inciting the riot all realistically face significant federal prison time for fraud – the stealing of Billions of dollars of federal money from state-administered programs.
So they have their own incentives to not back down. Currently, the riots and anti-federal sentiment are their most effective defensive weapons against their prosecution.
In short, people are getting killed and a city is again being torched in order to provide legal cover for a small group of local thieving pols.
(When the trials are held for the fraud, even federal charges brought by the USA will be brought to a jury made up of Minnesota people. The more the defendants can demonize the federal government in these riots, the more poisoned that jury will be.)