Harrison Bergeron said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

A reminder about what kind of “journalist” Don Lemon is pic.twitter.com/KBpBOxZh5m

— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) January 31, 2026

---

Perfect example of why Lemon is never going to see any jail time.

---

You keep ignoring the question to define what is a journalist?

What is the definition?

---

Not going to play such a silly game.

I do not like the guy.

But the case against him is dumb.

Going to get tossed....sooner or later.

---

It's not a game. How can you call if a journalist if you do not know what is a journalist? It actually is a really important question. Again, you can say the charges are stupid, but if because he is a journalist then that term requires definition.

As I stated, I think politically charging him is a mistake because it gives him more attention than he ever has had in his life, but he clearly is guilty especially in light of the precedent set by Democrats arresting "journalists" - at least to the same extend Don Lemon is one.

---

Sit back and watch.

Prepare to be frustrated.

KaiBear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

A reminder about what kind of “journalist” Don Lemon is pic.twitter.com/KBpBOxZh5m

— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) January 31, 2026

---

Perfect example of why Lemon is never going to see any jail time.

---

You keep ignoring the question to define what is a journalist?

What is the definition?

---

Not going to play such a silly game.

I do not like the guy.

But the case against him is dumb.

Going to get tossed....sooner or later.

---

It's not a game. How can you call if a journalist if you do not know what is a journalist? It actually is a really important question. Again, you can say the charges are stupid, but if because he is a journalist then that term requires definition.

As I stated, I think politically charging him is a mistake because it gives him more attention than he ever has had in his life, but he clearly is guilty especially in light of the precedent set by Democrats arresting "journalists" - at least to the same extend Don Lemon is one.

---

Sit back and watch.

Prepare to be frustrated.

---

I am not expecting anything to come of it, which is why I thought it was a bad move. Doesn't remove the obligation to be able to define words one uses. We have a two-tiered justice system.

Journalists arrested by Democrats:
James O'Keefe
Stephen Horn
Chester Gallagher
David Daleiden
Sandra Merritt
Stephen Baker
John Earle Sullivan
Owen Shroyer

Porteroso said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Was he on the job or not? If he was, arresting journalist is peak authoritarian. No need to hedge here, we have lost our way if he was working as a journalist. Clear violation of the Constitution.

Whiterock will be around soon to tell us how shredding the Constitution to imbue Trump with more and more power is "progress."

---

You're asking if he was "on the job" when he led a group of people into a church and disrupted a worship service?

That's pretty clearly not constitutionally protected press work.

Doesn't even matter that it's a church. Would be a problem if they'd invaded a Five Guys. You can't trespass on private property to disrupt someone else's work.

---

Journalists go to church and Five Guys all the time. Has nothing to do with anything. The only thing that matters is whether he incited a riot in a church or not. Just covering it as a journalist is protected. If he planned it and incited a riot, that is not protected.

---

So in your opinion a journalist covering a crime has the protection of the first amendment no matter what?

So they can film themselves robbing a bank but claim they are on the job as a journalist and be protected because they live streamed it or recorded it for their podcast?

---

Read again! They can cover a bank robbery. They cannot rob a bank. Pretty simple! Read then comprehend!

---

Take your own advise and look at his actions here. He was not merely covering the events but was actively participating.

cowboycwr said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Was he on the job or not? If he was, arresting journalist is peak authoritarian. No need to hedge here, we have lost our way if he was working as a journalist. Clear violation of the Constitution.

Whiterock will be around soon to tell us how shredding the Constitution to imbue Trump with more and more power is "progress."

---

You're asking if he was "on the job" when he led a group of people into a church and disrupted a worship service?

That's pretty clearly not constitutionally protected press work.

Doesn't even matter that it's a church. Would be a problem if they'd invaded a Five Guys. You can't trespass on private property to disrupt someone else's work.

---

Journalists go to church and Five Guys all the time. Has nothing to do with anything. The only thing that matters is whether he incited a riot in a church or not. Just covering it as a journalist is protected. If he planned it and incited a riot, that is not protected.

---

So in your opinion a journalist covering a crime has the protection of the first amendment no matter what?

So they can film themselves robbing a bank but claim they are on the job as a journalist and be protected because they live streamed it or recorded it for their podcast?

---

Read again! They can cover a bank robbery. They cannot rob a bank. Pretty simple! Read then comprehend!

---

Take your own advise and look at his actions here. He was not merely covering the events but was actively participating.

---

But it sounds like it doesn't matter because the Judiciary branch has a left leaning bias/2 tier system.

ScottS said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Was he on the job or not? If he was, arresting journalist is peak authoritarian. No need to hedge here, we have lost our way if he was working as a journalist. Clear violation of the Constitution.

Whiterock will be around soon to tell us how shredding the Constitution to imbue Trump with more and more power is "progress."

---

You're asking if he was "on the job" when he led a group of people into a church and disrupted a worship service?

That's pretty clearly not constitutionally protected press work.

Doesn't even matter that it's a church. Would be a problem if they'd invaded a Five Guys. You can't trespass on private property to disrupt someone else's work.

---

Journalists go to church and Five Guys all the time. Has nothing to do with anything. The only thing that matters is whether he incited a riot in a church or not. Just covering it as a journalist is protected. If he planned it and incited a riot, that is not protected.

---

So in your opinion a journalist covering a crime has the protection of the first amendment no matter what?

So they can film themselves robbing a bank but claim they are on the job as a journalist and be protected because they live streamed it or recorded it for their podcast?

---

Read again! They can cover a bank robbery. They cannot rob a bank. Pretty simple! Read then comprehend!

---

Take your own advise and look at his actions here. He was not merely covering the events but was actively participating.

---

But it sounds like it doesn't matter because the Judiciary branch has a left leaning bias/2 tier system.

---

That keeps getting publicly spanked but doesn't have the sense to straighten up and fly right.

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Was he on the job or not? If he was, arresting journalist is peak authoritarian. No need to hedge here, we have lost our way if he was working as a journalist. Clear violation of the Constitution.

Whiterock will be around soon to tell us how shredding the Constitution to imbue Trump with more and more power is "progress."

---

You're asking if he was "on the job" when he led a group of people into a church and disrupted a worship service?

That's pretty clearly not constitutionally protected press work.

Doesn't even matter that it's a church. Would be a problem if they'd invaded a Five Guys. You can't trespass on private property to disrupt someone else's work.

---

Journalists go to church and Five Guys all the time. Has nothing to do with anything. The only thing that matters is whether he incited a riot in a church or not. Just covering it as a journalist is protected. If he planned it and incited a riot, that is not protected.

---

So in your opinion a journalist covering a crime has the protection of the first amendment no matter what?

So they can film themselves robbing a bank but claim they are on the job as a journalist and be protected because they live streamed it or recorded it for their podcast?

---

Read again! They can cover a bank robbery. They cannot rob a bank. Pretty simple! Read then comprehend!

---

Can they help set up a bank robbery and look out for police using their cell phone to catch all the footage and still be just a journalist covering the robbery?

---

Helping rob the bank is robbing the bank! Simple! Not protected!

---

But even if they just helped plan it and only went along to document?

---

Look I cannot keep answering basic questions. You can Google whether planning to kidnap a governor is wrong or protected by the Constitution.

Johnny Bear said:

---

Per the "bank robbery" analogy, what Lemon did was the same as yucking it up with the robbers beforehand while serving them coffee & donuts (knowing full well what's about to happen), then follow them inside and aggressively corner/distract the bank president, asking him "gotcha questions" like how can his bank enjoy "obscene profits" and not expect to get robbed - as the robbery is happening.

And then claim it's all cool because he's just a "journalist" covering a story.

---

So a journalist who met with Hitler for coffee then interviewed him, followed him into a gas chamber facility to see what was going on, is guilty of helping the Holocaust? What about Tucker interviewing Putin? Eating with Russians?

Of course not. Only a few crazy libs said Tucker was a traitor.

Im just not paying much attention to this. Too little tine. But if Lemon did what you describe, he is 100% in the clear. If he told them to disrupt this church service, he is not. But the rules will be different from robbing a bank. Robbing a bank is not the same as going to a church and disrupting a service. Babies do it every Sunday.

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Was he on the job or not? If he was, arresting journalist is peak authoritarian. No need to hedge here, we have lost our way if he was working as a journalist. Clear violation of the Constitution.

Whiterock will be around soon to tell us how shredding the Constitution to imbue Trump with more and more power is "progress."

---

You're asking if he was "on the job" when he led a group of people into a church and disrupted a worship service?

That's pretty clearly not constitutionally protected press work.

Doesn't even matter that it's a church. Would be a problem if they'd invaded a Five Guys. You can't trespass on private property to disrupt someone else's work.

---

Journalists go to church and Five Guys all the time. Has nothing to do with anything. The only thing that matters is whether he incited a riot in a church or not. Just covering it as a journalist is protected. If he planned it and incited a riot, that is not protected.

---

So in your opinion a journalist covering a crime has the protection of the first amendment no matter what?

So they can film themselves robbing a bank but claim they are on the job as a journalist and be protected because they live streamed it or recorded it for their podcast?

---

Read again! They can cover a bank robbery. They cannot rob a bank. Pretty simple! Read then comprehend!

---

Can they help set up a bank robbery and look out for police using their cell phone to catch all the footage and still be just a journalist covering the robbery?

---

Helping rob the bank is robbing the bank! Simple! Not protected!

---

But even if they just helped plan it and only went along to document?

---

Look I cannot keep answering basic questions. You can Google whether planning to kidnap a governor is wrong or protected by the Constitution.

---

it seems if you work for the FBI, its protected but if you go along with FBI agents plan then it isnt.

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Was he on the job or not? If he was, arresting journalist is peak authoritarian. No need to hedge here, we have lost our way if he was working as a journalist. Clear violation of the Constitution.

Whiterock will be around soon to tell us how shredding the Constitution to imbue Trump with more and more power is "progress."

---

You're asking if he was "on the job" when he led a group of people into a church and disrupted a worship service?

That's pretty clearly not constitutionally protected press work.

Doesn't even matter that it's a church. Would be a problem if they'd invaded a Five Guys. You can't trespass on private property to disrupt someone else's work.

---

Journalists go to church and Five Guys all the time. Has nothing to do with anything. The only thing that matters is whether he incited a riot in a church or not. Just covering it as a journalist is protected. If he planned it and incited a riot, that is not protected.

---

So in your opinion a journalist covering a crime has the protection of the first amendment no matter what?

So they can film themselves robbing a bank but claim they are on the job as a journalist and be protected because they live streamed it or recorded it for their podcast?

---

Read again! They can cover a bank robbery. They cannot rob a bank. Pretty simple! Read then comprehend!

---

Can they help set up a bank robbery and look out for police using their cell phone to catch all the footage and still be just a journalist covering the robbery?

---

Helping rob the bank is robbing the bank! Simple! Not protected!

---

But even if they just helped plan it and only went along to document?

---

Look I cannot keep answering basic questions.

---

Then stop.

canoso said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Was he on the job or not? If he was, arresting journalist is peak authoritarian. No need to hedge here, we have lost our way if he was working as a journalist. Clear violation of the Constitution.

Whiterock will be around soon to tell us how shredding the Constitution to imbue Trump with more and more power is "progress."

---

You're asking if he was "on the job" when he led a group of people into a church and disrupted a worship service?

That's pretty clearly not constitutionally protected press work.

Doesn't even matter that it's a church. Would be a problem if they'd invaded a Five Guys. You can't trespass on private property to disrupt someone else's work.

---

Journalists go to church and Five Guys all the time. Has nothing to do with anything. The only thing that matters is whether he incited a riot in a church or not. Just covering it as a journalist is protected. If he planned it and incited a riot, that is not protected.

---

So in your opinion a journalist covering a crime has the protection of the first amendment no matter what?

So they can film themselves robbing a bank but claim they are on the job as a journalist and be protected because they live streamed it or recorded it for their podcast?

---

Read again! They can cover a bank robbery. They cannot rob a bank. Pretty simple! Read then comprehend!

---

Can they help set up a bank robbery and look out for police using their cell phone to catch all the footage and still be just a journalist covering the robbery?

---

Helping rob the bank is robbing the bank! Simple! Not protected!

---

But even if they just helped plan it and only went along to document?

---

Look I cannot keep answering basic questions.

---

Then stop.

---

Basic questions answered with bull**** responses tend to get repeated.

Wangchung said:

---

canoso said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Was he on the job or not? If he was, arresting journalist is peak authoritarian. No need to hedge here, we have lost our way if he was working as a journalist. Clear violation of the Constitution.

Whiterock will be around soon to tell us how shredding the Constitution to imbue Trump with more and more power is "progress."

---

You're asking if he was "on the job" when he led a group of people into a church and disrupted a worship service?

That's pretty clearly not constitutionally protected press work.

Doesn't even matter that it's a church. Would be a problem if they'd invaded a Five Guys. You can't trespass on private property to disrupt someone else's work.

---

Journalists go to church and Five Guys all the time. Has nothing to do with anything. The only thing that matters is whether he incited a riot in a church or not. Just covering it as a journalist is protected. If he planned it and incited a riot, that is not protected.

---

So in your opinion a journalist covering a crime has the protection of the first amendment no matter what?

So they can film themselves robbing a bank but claim they are on the job as a journalist and be protected because they live streamed it or recorded it for their podcast?

---

Read again! They can cover a bank robbery. They cannot rob a bank. Pretty simple! Read then comprehend!

---

Can they help set up a bank robbery and look out for police using their cell phone to catch all the footage and still be just a journalist covering the robbery?

---

Helping rob the bank is robbing the bank! Simple! Not protected!

---

But even if they just helped plan it and only went along to document?

---

Look I cannot keep answering basic questions.

---

Then stop.

---

Basic questions answered with bull**** responses tend to get repeated.

---

LOL. I'm telling you what the law says but you think it is BS because it doesn't fit your narrative. Look I don't decide these things. No need to attack the messenger.

is he out yet?

Porteroso said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Per the "bank robbery" analogy, what Lemon did was the same as yucking it up with the robbers beforehand while serving them coffee & donuts (knowing full well what's about to happen), then follow them inside and aggressively corner/distract the bank president, asking him "gotcha questions" like how can his bank enjoy "obscene profits" and not expect to get robbed - as the robbery is happening.

And then claim it's all cool because he's just a "journalist" covering a story.

---

So a journalist who met with Hitler for coffee then interviewed him, followed him into a gas chamber facility to see what was going on, is guilty of helping the Holocaust? What about Tucker interviewing Putin? Eating with Russians?

Of course not. Only a few crazy libs said Tucker was a traitor.

Im just not paying much attention to this. Too little tine. But if Lemon did what you describe, he is 100% in the clear. If he told them to disrupt this church service, he is not. But the rules will be different from robbing a bank. Robbing a bank is not the same as going to a church and disrupting a service. Babies do it every Sunday.

---

Incorrect.

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

canoso said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Was he on the job or not? If he was, arresting journalist is peak authoritarian. No need to hedge here, we have lost our way if he was working as a journalist. Clear violation of the Constitution.

Whiterock will be around soon to tell us how shredding the Constitution to imbue Trump with more and more power is "progress."

---

You're asking if he was "on the job" when he led a group of people into a church and disrupted a worship service?

That's pretty clearly not constitutionally protected press work.

Doesn't even matter that it's a church. Would be a problem if they'd invaded a Five Guys. You can't trespass on private property to disrupt someone else's work.

---

Journalists go to church and Five Guys all the time. Has nothing to do with anything. The only thing that matters is whether he incited a riot in a church or not. Just covering it as a journalist is protected. If he planned it and incited a riot, that is not protected.

---

So in your opinion a journalist covering a crime has the protection of the first amendment no matter what?

So they can film themselves robbing a bank but claim they are on the job as a journalist and be protected because they live streamed it or recorded it for their podcast?

---

Read again! They can cover a bank robbery. They cannot rob a bank. Pretty simple! Read then comprehend!

---

Can they help set up a bank robbery and look out for police using their cell phone to catch all the footage and still be just a journalist covering the robbery?

---

Helping rob the bank is robbing the bank! Simple! Not protected!

---

But even if they just helped plan it and only went along to document?

---

Look I cannot keep answering basic questions.

---

Then stop.

---

Basic questions answered with bull**** responses tend to get repeated.

---

LOL. I'm telling you what the law says but you think it is BS because it doesn't fit your narrative. Look I don't decide these things. No need to attack the messenger.

---

Yes, you quoted the law when it clearly doesn't apply to this situation due to the previously established fact Don Lemon was more than a mere "journalist" in this case. So it's a bull**** answer.

STxBear81 said:

---

is he out yet?

---

Released almost immediately and free to travel to France (he had a vacation planned).

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

canoso said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Was he on the job or not? If he was, arresting journalist is peak authoritarian. No need to hedge here, we have lost our way if he was working as a journalist. Clear violation of the Constitution.

Whiterock will be around soon to tell us how shredding the Constitution to imbue Trump with more and more power is "progress."

---

You're asking if he was "on the job" when he led a group of people into a church and disrupted a worship service?

That's pretty clearly not constitutionally protected press work.

Doesn't even matter that it's a church. Would be a problem if they'd invaded a Five Guys. You can't trespass on private property to disrupt someone else's work.

---

Journalists go to church and Five Guys all the time. Has nothing to do with anything. The only thing that matters is whether he incited a riot in a church or not. Just covering it as a journalist is protected. If he planned it and incited a riot, that is not protected.

---

So in your opinion a journalist covering a crime has the protection of the first amendment no matter what?

So they can film themselves robbing a bank but claim they are on the job as a journalist and be protected because they live streamed it or recorded it for their podcast?

---

Read again! They can cover a bank robbery. They cannot rob a bank. Pretty simple! Read then comprehend!

---

Can they help set up a bank robbery and look out for police using their cell phone to catch all the footage and still be just a journalist covering the robbery?

---

Helping rob the bank is robbing the bank! Simple! Not protected!

---

But even if they just helped plan it and only went along to document?

---

Look I cannot keep answering basic questions.

---

Then stop.

---

Basic questions answered with bull**** responses tend to get repeated.

---

LOL. I'm telling you what the law says but you think it is BS because it doesn't fit your narrative. Look I don't decide these things. No need to attack the messenger.

---

Yes, you quoted the law when it clearly doesn't apply to this situation due to the previously established fact Don Lemon was more than a mere "journalist" in this case. So it's a bull**** answer.

---

It's not been established at all. What ultra rightie news source are you consuming?

BearFan33 said:

---

STxBear81 said:

---

is he out yet?

---

Released almost immediately and free to travel to France (he had a vacation planned).

---

No bond posted. Tells you what the judge thought.

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

canoso said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Was he on the job or not? If he was, arresting journalist is peak authoritarian. No need to hedge here, we have lost our way if he was working as a journalist. Clear violation of the Constitution.

Whiterock will be around soon to tell us how shredding the Constitution to imbue Trump with more and more power is "progress."

---

You're asking if he was "on the job" when he led a group of people into a church and disrupted a worship service?

That's pretty clearly not constitutionally protected press work.

Doesn't even matter that it's a church. Would be a problem if they'd invaded a Five Guys. You can't trespass on private property to disrupt someone else's work.

---

Journalists go to church and Five Guys all the time. Has nothing to do with anything. The only thing that matters is whether he incited a riot in a church or not. Just covering it as a journalist is protected. If he planned it and incited a riot, that is not protected.

---

So in your opinion a journalist covering a crime has the protection of the first amendment no matter what?

So they can film themselves robbing a bank but claim they are on the job as a journalist and be protected because they live streamed it or recorded it for their podcast?

---

Read again! They can cover a bank robbery. They cannot rob a bank. Pretty simple! Read then comprehend!

---

Can they help set up a bank robbery and look out for police using their cell phone to catch all the footage and still be just a journalist covering the robbery?

---

Helping rob the bank is robbing the bank! Simple! Not protected!

---

But even if they just helped plan it and only went along to document?

---

Look I cannot keep answering basic questions.

---

Then stop.

---

Basic questions answered with bull**** responses tend to get repeated.

---

LOL. I'm telling you what the law says but you think it is BS because it doesn't fit your narrative. Look I don't decide these things. No need to attack the messenger.

---

Yes, you quoted the law when it clearly doesn't apply to this situation due to the previously established fact Don Lemon was more than a mere "journalist" in this case. So it's a bull**** answer.

---

It's not been established at all. What ultra rightie news source are you consuming?

---

The videos of the attack themselves as well as the videos prior to the attack. Now, who is telling YOU what to think? MSDNC? Rachel Maddow? Don Lemon himself? Lol

Porteroso said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

STxBear81 said:

---

is he out yet?

---

Released almost immediately and free to travel to France (he had a vacation planned).

---

No bond posted. Tells you what the judge thought.

---

What matters is what the grand jury thought.

Porteroso said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

STxBear81 said:

---

is he out yet?

---

Released almost immediately and free to travel to France (he had a vacation planned).

---

No bond posted. Tells you what the judge thought.

---

not a flight risk and not a risk to society in general

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Per the "bank robbery" analogy, what Lemon did was the same as yucking it up with the robbers beforehand while serving them coffee & donuts (knowing full well what's about to happen), then follow them inside and aggressively corner/distract the bank president, asking him "gotcha questions" like how can his bank enjoy "obscene profits" and not expect to get robbed - as the robbery is happening.

And then claim it's all cool because he's just a "journalist" covering a story.

---

So a journalist who met with Hitler for coffee then interviewed him, followed him into a gas chamber facility to see what was going on, is guilty of helping the Holocaust? What about Tucker interviewing Putin? Eating with Russians?

Of course not. Only a few crazy libs said Tucker was a traitor.

Im just not paying much attention to this. Too little tine. But if Lemon did what you describe, he is 100% in the clear. If he told them to disrupt this church service, he is not. But the rules will be different from robbing a bank. Robbing a bank is not the same as going to a church and disrupting a service. Babies do it every Sunday.

---

Incorrect.

---

Yep. For starters these are apples and oranges analogies. And it's completely asinine to compare a baby crying to a group of maniacs (with one of them claiming to be a "journalist") barging into an in progress church service and terrorizing the attendees, including children.

Porteroso said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

STxBear81 said:

---

is he out yet?

---

Released almost immediately and free to travel to France (he had a vacation planned).

---

No bond posted. Tells you what the judge thought.

---

In Houston that includes people arrested for murder - but read what you want.

Heartbreaking scenes at Harvest Church in Riverside, California.

Protesters have surrounded the church, holding signs and aggressively confronting churchgoers as they try to enter or leave. Attendees reportedly needed police escorts just to make it through the crowd safely.… pic.twitter.com/doPys7qzNm

— Global Catalytic Ministries (@CatalyticMin) February 4, 2026