Transcript

All the Legal Angles After Don Lemon's ARREST and What's To Come, with Mike Davis and Bill Shipley

From Megyn Kelly · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 22 min · 3,814 words · 43 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "All the Legal Angles After Don Lemon's ARREST and What's To Come, with Mike Davis and Bill Shipley", an episode of Megyn Kelly published January 30, 2026 (22 min, about 3,814 words). It mentions 14 people, works and ideas, including Don Lemon, Megan Kelly, St. Paul, January 6, Minneapolis.

What this episode is about

The discussion focuses on the legal ramifications of Don Lemon's alleged actions during a disruption at a church service, framing it as a potential violation of federal laws such as the FACE Act and the Klan Act. The commentators assert that journalists do not have an unfettered right to infringe on legal protections for places of worship, while critiquing the perceived hypocrisy of political responses to Lemon's actions compared to previous legal actions taken against individuals at abortion clinics.

Key takeaways

  • Journalists: First Amendment warriors, but not exempt from federal law—don’t storm sanctuaries and expect sanctuary.
  • The FACE Act highlights a notable legal paradox: freedom to report doesn’t mean freedom to disrupt.
  • 'Protesting journalists' face harsher scrutiny—sympathy confuses objectivity when courtroom judgments amplify personal biases.
  • Churches offer solace; storming them for a hot take? A risky play often misunderstood as 'journalistic integrity.'
  • When the news cycle collides with federal law, the headlines can lead to more than just ratings.

Who speaks in this episode?

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 5:00: Megan Kelly, Don Lemon, Merrick Garland, Steve Baker
  2. – 10:00: Don Lemon, Facebook
  3. – 15:00: Don Lemon, St. Paul, Minneapolis
  4. – 20:00: Don Lemon, St. Paul, Minneapolis
  5. – 21:35: Birch Gold Group

Notable quotes from "All the Legal Angles After Don Lemon's ARREST and What's To Come, with Mike Davis and Bill Shipley"

  • Did here. When they stormed a Christian church during the middle of the service, Don Lemon went up to the pulpit to obstruct the service and debate the pastor during the middle of his service.
    about Don Lemon · at
  • For burglarizing necessarily, but they crossed into a facility that has an extra layer of protection and like he messed with the wrong marine to quote Colonel Jessup and that…
    about Colonel Jessup · at
  • 6th. I represented one of them and they were there recording the events, video, audio recording. they defended themselves on the basis that they were just observers of the…
    about January 6 · at
  • Mention, if you indulge me just a second, I believe this church is actually in St. Paul, not in Minneapolis.
    about St. Paul · at
  • New year means new financial goals like making sure your savings are secure and diversified. Will this be the year you decide to talk to someone from Birch Gold Group? They use…
    about Birch Gold Group · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

  • Don Lemon — Person · Primary subject of discussion (referenced figure/defendant) · 12 mentions · first at
    Central figure accused (in the discussion) of unlawfully participating in a church disruption; used as the main example in a First Amendment vs. criminal-law debate and compared to DOJ treatment of other journalists.
  • Megan Kelly — Person · Host/interviewer (as referenced in transcript) · 4 mentions · first at
    Moderates the discussion, frames legal/political angles, introduces clips, and questions guests about probable cause, selective prosecution, and media narratives.
    They terrified the parishioners, including little children. As you said, Megan, they a woman fell and broke her arm. This is textbook Facebook or face act violation. This is…
  • Merrick Garland — Person · Referenced government official (comparative example) · 2 mentions · first at
    Cited as the head of the Biden DOJ to argue alleged inconsistency: DOJ used FACE Act/§241 against anti-abortion activists and prosecuted some journalists in Jan. 6-related cases.
    Who are wailing about this today know are very familiar with these charges because the Biden Justice Department under Merrick Garland and Lisa Monaco and Venita Gupta and…
  • Steve Baker — Person · Referenced journalist/defendant used as precedent example · 1 mention · first at
    Presented as a conservative journalist prosecuted in connection with Jan. 6; used to argue selective prosecution and how courts treat journalists’ commentary as evidence of intent.
    Setting them apart from other journalists you know and I represent one of them Steve Baker who now works for Glenn Beck and Blae. we made a motion to dismiss the case against him on the basis selective prosecution. We identified 60.
  • Lisa Monaco — Person · Referenced government official (comparative example) · 1 mention · first at
    Named as part of DOJ leadership to support the argument that the Biden DOJ applied FACE Act/§241 in other contexts (abortion-clinic trespass/prayer cases).
    Who are wailing about this today know are very familiar with these charges because the Biden Justice Department under Merrick Garland and Lisa Monaco and Venita Gupta and…
  • Venita Gupta — Person · Referenced government official (comparative example) · 1 mention · first at
    Listed among DOJ leaders to argue DOJ previously pursued FACE Act/§241 charges against Christians protesting/praying at abortion facilities.
    Who are wailing about this today know are very familiar with these charges because the Biden Justice Department under Merrick Garland and Lisa Monaco and Venita Gupta and…
  • Kristen Clark — Person · Referenced government official (comparative example) · 1 mention · first at
    Named as DOJ Civil Rights Division leadership in the argument that the Biden DOJ used FACE Act/§241 in abortion-clinic-related prosecutions.
    Who are wailing about this today know are very familiar with these charges because the Biden Justice Department under Merrick Garland and Lisa Monaco and Venita Gupta and…
  • Dr. Belinda Beck — Person · Referenced media figure (employer/affiliate of Steve Baker) · 1 mention · first at
    Appears as the media personality whose organization employs Steve Baker, anchoring Baker’s current affiliation in the selective-prosecution example.
    Setting them apart from other journalists you know and I represent one of them Steve Baker who now works for Glenn Beck and Blae. we made a motion to dismiss the case against him on the basis selective prosecution. We identified 60.
  • Colonel Jessup — Person · Pop-culture reference (analogy) · 1 mention · first at
    Invoked as an analogy (“messed with the wrong marine”) to characterize the churchgoers’ protected status/response; refers to a fictional character from 'A Few Good Men.'

Companies & orgs

  • Facebook — Company · Referenced company · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned in the context of legal violations (FACE Act) related to the church incident.
    Including little children. As you said, Megan, they a woman fell and broke her arm. This is textbook Facebook or face act violation. This is textbook clan act violation under…

Places & events

  • St. Paul — Place · Setting · 3 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as the location where the church incident involving Don Lemon occurred, highlighting the legal and jurisdictional context.
  • January 6 — Event · Referenced event · 4 mentions
    Compared to the church incident to illustrate legal precedents and selective prosecution concerns.
  • Minneapolis — Place · Setting · 3 mentions · first at
    Contrasted with St. Paul regarding the legal and demographic context of the church incident.
    Mention, if you indulge me just a second, I believe this church is actually in St. Paul, not in Minneapolis.

Sponsors

  • Birch Gold Group — Company · Sponsor · 2 mentions · first at
    Promoted during the podcast as a financial service for gold investment, indicating commercial intent.

Full transcript with timestamps

Mike, let me start with you. Your your reaction to the news and to the people, the leftists all over X with their dramatic this is about the first amendment, President Trump has crossed a new line, this is an infringement and so on.

Yeah. Journalists do not have the first amendment right to violate federal law. And that is exactly what Don Lemon and his co-conspirators did here. When they stormed a Christian church during the middle of the service, Don Lemon went up to the pulpit to obstruct the service and debate the pastor during the middle of his service. They terrified the parishioners, including little children. As you said, Megan, they a woman fell and broke her arm. This is textbook Facebook or face act violation. This is textbook clan act violation under 18 USC section 248 and 18 USC section 241. And these Democrats who are wailing about this today know are very familiar with these charges because the Biden Justice Department under Merrick Garland and Lisa Monaco and Venita Gupta and Kristen Clark used both of those charges to go after elderly Christians who trespassed and prayed in abortion centers. So, if if

you're going to use the Face Act to go after elderly Christians and abortion centers, you can certainly use it to go after Don Lemon and his fellow modern-day clansmen who are terrorizing white Christian churches on purpose.

That's the thing, Bill. If if Don Lemon or Megan Kelly for that matter just trespassed into an abortion clinic uh or let's say no, into a Wraid, okay, let's pick that. It was closed, but somebody opened it like a a somebody was burglarizing it and we we walked in without permission. We could be cited for trespass as journalists, but that'd probably be it. we wouldn't be charged for burglarizing necessarily, but they crossed into a facility that has an extra layer of protection and like he he messed with the wrong marine to quote Colonel Jessup and that marine in this case was a bunch of parishioners trying to worship and which makes a big difference under the law for Don Lemon.

Oh, of course. And and thank you for having me on, Megan. I'm longtime fan. Mike and I know each other well. Um, you know, the first amendment says Congress shall make no law.

You journalists typically or generally can avoid prosecution based upon the Department of Justice's forbearance uh and tolerance for some journalistic activity that might otherwise be in violation of, you know, the strict language of a statute. Um, the FACE act however provides no journalistic exception. If you if the if the conduct of a journalist violates the text of the face act, the uh or or section 241, the um conspiracy against rights, uh the the first amendment provides it provides no protection. Um, the first amendment is in effect at its at its core a um a a a constitutional right to prevent the government from banning um publication of information. It's it's not a a a failafe. It's not a a provision that protects the actions of journalists in pursuing information. And that's what we have here. And in fact, uh, you know, Mike mentioned the the use of the face act by the Biden administration, Biden Justice

Department, Merrick Garland. There were multiple conservative uh, journalists prosecuted in connection with January 6th. I represented one of them and they were there recording the events, video, audio recording. uh they they defended themselves on the basis that they were just observers of the events. But, you know, in their background, in their history, they or or even on that day, um, they made comments that the courts view

sympathetic to like that. Uh, the comments that were sympathetic to protesters and on that basis,

correct, expressions of first amendment opinion. And the court viewed that uh sympathy with the protesters as you know uh setting them apart from uh other journalists uh you know uh and and I I represent one of them Steve Baker who now works for uh Glenn Beck and and Blae. Um we made a motion to dismiss the case against him on the basis selective prosecution. We identified 60 credentialed and and freelance journalists uh who had not been prosecuted, whereas Steve was singled out and prosecuted and Judge Cooper in DC focused on some of Steve's commentary during the event and after the event and said, "Well, you know, you really were, you know, your comments express an intention to sort of go along and be part of the protest." Well, I you know I I got to tell you, I'm watching the video you're showing and a lot of that I had not seen before and I'm just chuckling to myself thinking back to my

21 years as a prosecutor and 90 trials and thinking he can't get on the stand. He can't get on the stand and defend himself because he's going to have to eat all these words in front of a jury. Um, plus what we don't know yet, you know, what we don't know yet, which I think we will see maybe in the indictment today and certainly we'll see it in the weeks ahead, is all the communications that the government now has their hands on. emails, text messages, other kinds of communications, not on video, uh, as he did, but just his his, you know, back and forth before and after the event, not just with the organizers of the event, but anything he said to anybody else.

There there are so many sound bites of Lemon sounding like he's one of them. Mike, I mean, if if they want to make that case, as they did in the J6 prosecutions, like he he went well beyond journalism, it's not going to be hard. Um, Steve, let's play. Is it s eight? I know we converged eight and I think nine or 10, but let's play that one. S eight.

This is the beginning of what's going to happen here. When you violate people's due process, when you pull people off the street, you start dragging them and hurting them and um and not abiding by the Constitution, when you start doing all of that, people get upset and angry. And if you remember what the civil rights movement was about, the civil rights movement was about these very kinds of protests. And for some reason in our modern era, people think that in order to have protests, you got to be you know cordoned off to a certain area and uh you know what time you can protest. Look, there's nothing in the constitution that tells you what time you can protest. You can protest at any time. That's the whole point of it is to disrupt, is to make uncomfortable. And that's what they're doing. And that's what I believe when I say everyone has to be willing to sacrifice something.

You have to make people uncomfortable in these times. If you see how uncomfortable people uncomfortably harsh people are being treated on the streets, you have to be willing to go into places and disrupt and make people uncomfortable. That is what this country is about. Mike Davis, that soundbite could be played in the closing argument without much more. I mean, that should be how the prosecution ends its closing and then sits down.

Yeah, that that watching that makes my blood boil. I I I went to 13 years of Catholic school. I'm a terrible Catholic, but I remember going to Catholic mass and I just can't imagine if the mass were stormed like that by these agitators. And the mass was stormed because I went to a white Catholic church. And that's exactly why they did this. They stormed the church because it was a white Christian church. This is textbook Facebook act violation and textbook. And just just to just to interject, he said that he said that on that podcast with the angry Jennifer lady that this this isn't how I practice uh Christianity, but this is uh these are white supremacists in this church and he thinks that's why they support this ICE pastor. Sorry, Mike.

Yeah, and I was and I'm going to pick up what Bill just said about how the DOJ may have given some forbearance here as a journalist. If the guy went in there and realized, okay, we made a mistake here. We should not have gone in here. But instead, Don Limmon went out there sanctimoniously and doubled down and tripled down and quadrupled down. They had to arrest him. They had to arrest him to not only punish him, but to to deter others who think is it is acceptable to storm a place of worship during the service. Just imagine if this were a mosque or a black church or a Jewish synagogue. We I would be outraged. And it it just it's just because these are white Christians that these Democrats think it's open season.

I I would say this to Don Lemon. You Don Lemon can go to hell, but in the meantime, Pam Bondi is going to put him in prison.

Here's that sound bite of him on the podcast the Monday after he did this, which is 24 hours later.

I think that there is obviously this there's racism in it. The whole point of it is that they're trying to they're detaining people on the streets because of accents and the color of their skin. uh and they're also targeting they're targeting people of color and black people uh as well as as brown people. So there is uh a certain degree of racism there and there's a certain degree of entitlement. I think people who are you know in the religious groups like that it's not the type of Christianity that I practice but I think that they're entitled and that that entitlement comes from a supremacy a white supremacy. And they think that this country was built for them that it is a Christian country when actually we left England because we wanted religious freedom. It's religious freedom, but only if you're a Christian and only if you're a white male, pretty much. And so, yeah, I absolutely 100%.

But it's an intimidation tactic. On top of that, Bill, here he is on camera, his own, confronting the pastor of the church in in the middle of the disruption. Here it is. S

our church had gathered for worship, which we do every Sunday, and we were interrupted by this group of protesters. We asked them to leave and and they um obviously have not left. So what do you think of this? I mean this is unacceptable. It's shameful. It's shameful to to interrupt a public gathering of Christians in worship. So

but but there were folks who I have to take care of my flock. Okay. Listen, we live in a there's a constitution in the first amendment to freedom of speech and freedom to assemble and protest.

We're here to worship. We're here to worship Jesus because that's the hope of these cities. That's the hope of the world is Jesus Christ.

I want to be very respectful. Please don't push me though. We're we're here. We're here to worship Jesus. That's why we're here. Okay. That's why we're here. That's what we're about.

Don't you think Jesus would be understanding? And we're we're about love these folks.

We're about spreading the love of Jesus. But did you try to talk to them as a as a Christian?

No one is willing to talk. Okay. I I have to take care of my church and my family. So I ask that you actually would also leave this building. You don't want us to worship. You're here to worship.

I'm always worship. I'm a Christian. I mean, Bill, it's right there. Black and white. Leave. Get out. Then he tries to do the oh, but right to protest, right to And the and the pastor's right on. He keeps bringing it back to we have a right to worship. We are trying to worship. We have rights, too. Says specifically, I want them out and I want you out. And Don Lemon doesn't. He doesn't leave. He stays after that. I mean, like that's a trespass case, but it just it's all over the place. He's justifying the actions of the of the protesters. He's refusing to leave when told to. He knows the rest are there illegally. And he's justifying every single outrageous thing that they've done because allegedly First Amendment.

Well, the the the the Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion in the same first amendment. So there's absolutely no basis for Don Lemon to claim that his uh first amendment, you know, right as a member of the press is somehow superior to the first amendment rights of all those th those people inside um to exercise freely exercise the religion and and frankly I think the prosecutor or the the the the uh pastor would have been perfectly uh within his rights to shove Don Lemon out of the church uh to bit self but but uh you know there would have been nothing nothing

wrong with that in my view and you know Don Lemon's not there as a member of the press I mean we all know that he's he might as well be a videographer for the group he was capturing what they did

for their benefit very interesting comment you made uh back uh before we started discussion mentioning his finances you know him, you know, pitching for people to join his YouTube channel as a subscriber and to um, you know, help support their independent journalism. That opens up all the finances of his enterprise to not just, you know, discovery efforts, but it's all relevant now in the trial. Why was he there? you know, was he there exactly for the first amendment

or was he there for the financial well-being of his organization uh trying to build it and and promote it and and this was just it was just a content opportunity. Um that that's not going anywhere. Something else I want to mention, if you indulge me just a second,

you know, I believe this church is actually in St. Paul, not in Minneapolis. And I've done some digging. you know, there are different federal courouses in St. Paul and Minneapolis. Um, and they're in different counties. Now, as I don't think it's news to anybody here that the jury pools for federal court are drawn not just from the city where the event happens, but they're drawn from the federal district and the division within the federal district where the charges are filed. I expect what we're going to see today is an indictment not out of Minneapolis, not out of the US attorney. Well, well, it'll be out of the district of Minnesota, but it won't be filed in the Minneapolis courthouse. It'll be filed in the St. Paul courthouse. And the jury pool for that will come from not just St. Paul, but all of the counties in Minnesota that are within that division of the District of Minnesota.

Don Limmon's jury pool is going to consist of a lot of people just like the people trying to worship in that church.

This isn't a Washington DC situation that Pam Bondi has walked into. It's not a Minneapolis situation. The the the the uh demographics of Minneapolis and St. Paul, my understanding is they're quite different. You know, St. Paul is not a is not a conservative bastion by any stretch of the imagination, but it is not Minneapolis. Um, you didn't see him rioting and burning down buildings after George Floyd and St. Paul.

Good point. You know, uh, Mike, they're already trying to say over on CNN, which was hysterical this morning and so replete with misinformation. Nobody over there knows the law, honestly. Like Ellie Honig is the only guy who even makes an effort at being fair. uh and actually sticking to the facts. He's a former federal prosecutor, but um they didn't have him on this morning. In any event, they are saying he's doing this. Trump is doing this because Don Lemon is a critic because Don's been critical of of President Trump. Meanwhile, they arrested another woman there who styled herself as a quote journalist. Her name is Georgia Fort. Um she used to be a news anchor in Duth, Minnesota and in Columbus, Georgia and now has her own independent I guess media company called Black Press. Um and she was arrested too and as were several others. So it's not it isn't just about Don Lemon or critics of President Trump. They they went after

the ring leaders who were there and anybody else who they could identify and they're still working it to my understanding is on identifying all the people who participated in this. It has nothing to do with Don Lemon's politics. But but that's where they're going to go with it. And here's what I wanted to ask you. I I told the audience that originally the magistrate judge who was conflicted and wouldn't say that there was probable cause for this case. He kicked it out and said either improve your probable cause or go to a jury, a grand jury. So they tried to overrule him. the our DOJ did by going to his boss, basically the chief district judge. And that guy said, "What are you doing here? I agree with that other guy's remedy. Go and prove your probable cause affidavit or go to a grand jury.

I'm not getting involved." Then they tried to go above him to the eighth circuit. And the eth circuit said, "What are you doing here? You're premature here. We don't take these cases on appeal until they're all done. Get out." So they went to a grand jury and got the indictment. But that chief judge wrote a letter. And in his letter, he did say, "Go to a grand jury," but he also said, "I see no evidence to support a case against Don Lemon." And that's all over X this morning. All these journalists are like, "There's no evidence." Two judges said that. The magistrate judge wouldn't do it. The district judge said there's no evidence. And now this morning, just FYI, um, reports just in that the Minnesota Attorney General, Keith Ellison, who went on Don Lemon's podcast within 24 hours of this event, saying, "You didn't do anything wrong," is now saying the same via paper statement. And on top of that, we are

now told that a group of journalists have gathered outside of the federal courthouse in downtown LA, where Don Lemon is expected to be booked. Um, an anti-ICE protest is expected to be held near this afternoon. So, we're going to hear all about that judge's conclusion and the magistrate judge not finding PC to begin with. Your thoughts on those angles?

Well, that's great, but guess what? The federal grand jury uh found probable cause because that's how you get an indictment, right? So, you can either uh get an indictment under felony charges under rule seven of the federal rules of criminal procedure. You can also get a grand jury indictment for misdemeanor, right? that the right to a uh you know the right to a a grand jury indictment belongs uh to the defendant. So that that's why you have to do it for felonies. But the government can certainly go do it for a misdemeanor like under the face act and they apparently did and the grand jury agreed that there was probable cause. I don't think that anyone who watched the videos of your show today, Megan, can say that there's not probable cause to move forward with face act and clan act charges against Don Lemon and his fellow clansmen. Right. So there's there's no question there's probable cause and it

doesn't matter what these activist judges in Minnesota hand selected by Democrat senators, it doesn't matter what what what what they think about this. the grand jury has already said that there is probable cause to move forward

because people need to know that even though federal district judge may be appointed if if the opening is is there under a Republican administration yes the president can nominate the judge but they have to be Mike's saying but the Democratic senators if it's from a blue state like Minnesota you can nominate all you want you can nominate a Mike Davis but he's never going to get through with because the two blue state senators are going to say oh hell So they the even under a Republican administration in the blue states we wind up getting soft Republican or conservative judges um during administrations that are held by you know a Republican like the Bush administration. I think this chief judge is a Bush administration appointee. But your point is that you can't you can't go with that because in a state like Minnesota he would have had to be blessed by the the Democrat senators. A new year means new financial goals like

making sure your savings are secure and diversified. Will this be the year you decide to talk to someone from Birch Gold Group? They use an educational approach with a deep understanding of macroeconomics. There are forces pushing the dollar lower and gold higher, which is why they believe every American should own physical gold. So until January 30th, if you're a first-time gold buyer, Birch Gold is offering a rebate of up to 10 grand on qualifying purchases. To claim eligibility and start the process, just text MK to the number 989898. Birch Gold can help you roll an existing IRA or 401k into an IRA in gold, and you are still eligible for a rebate of up to $10,000. Consider making right now your first time to buy gold and take advantage of a rebate up to 10,000 bucks when you buy by January 30th. Text MK to the number 989898.

Claim your eligibility today. Again, just text MK to the number 989898. Thanks so much for watching. If you like what you just saw, hit the subscribe button for more clips and full episodes.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "All the Legal Angles After Don Lemon's ARREST and What's To Come, with Mike Davis and Bill Shipley"?

Megyn Kelly (Guest), Mike Davis (Guest), Bill Shipley (Guest).

What is "All the Legal Angles After Don Lemon's ARREST and What's To Come, with Mike Davis and Bill Shipley" about?

The discussion focuses on the legal ramifications of Don Lemon's alleged actions during a disruption at a church service, framing it as a potential violation of federal laws such as the FACE Act and the Klan Act. The commentators assert that journalists do not have an unfettered right to infringe on legal protections for places of worship, while critiquing the perceived hypocrisy of political…

What is mentioned in this Megyn Kelly episode?

14 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Don Lemon, Megan Kelly, St. Paul, January 6, Minneapolis, Merrick Garland. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "All the Legal Angles After Don Lemon's ARREST and What's To Come, with Mike Davis and Bill Shipley"?

The episode runs 22 min; the transcript is about 3,814 words in 43 timestamped sections.

More from Megyn Kelly

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated January 30, 2026.