Transcript

Don Lemon's ABSURD Kimmel Appearance and "The View" Hosts Don't Know the Law, with Lowry and Cooke

From Megyn Kelly · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 19 min · 3,794 words · 44 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "Don Lemon's ABSURD Kimmel Appearance and "The View" Hosts Don't Know the Law, with Lowry and Cooke", an episode of Megyn Kelly published February 3, 2026 (19 min, about 3,794 words). It mentions 7 people, works and ideas, including Don Lemon, Anna Navaro, CNN, Fidel Castro, The View.

What this episode is about

The discussion centers around the recent indictment of Don Lemon, with emphasis on the contrasting viewpoints presented by Anna Navarro on "The View" regarding the legitimacy of the grand jury process. The hosts scrutinize Navarro's stance, highlighting perceived biases in her commentary and questioning her prior reactions to similar legal situations involving public figures.

Key takeaways

  • When assumptions echo louder than evidence, we risk drowning in a sea of collective ignorance.
  • Grand juries aren't magic wands; they're human deliberations, not political punching bags.
  • The First Amendment isn't a superhero cloak; it won’t shield you from accountability for real crimes.
  • Don Lemon's case highlights that not all journalists deserve a free pass, regardless of skin color.
  • Can we stop pretending journalists are above the law? Their rights coexist with society's laws.

Who speaks in this episode?

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 3:00: Don Lemon, Anna Navaro, The View
  2. – 6:00: Don Lemon
  3. – 9:00: Don Lemon, Fidel Castro
  4. – 12:00: Anna Navaro, Birch Gold Group
  5. – 15:00: Don Lemon, CNN, Jimmy Kimmel, Anna Navaro
  6. – 18:00: Don Lemon
  7. – 19:14: Don Lemon

Notable quotes from "Don Lemon's ABSURD Kimmel Appearance and "The View" Hosts Don't Know the Law, with Lowry and Cooke"

  • I got you covered, Rich. Who looks after you better than I do? she went on the View and she discussed the grand jury indictment of Don and this was her take in SA 21B.
    about The View · at
  • Courtroom they will look at both sides of it. It is quite complicated. but the notion that Don Lemon is presumptively the victim here, I think is absurd.
    about Don Lemon · at
  • There's no obligation, just useful information. With an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau and tens of thousands of happy customers, consider letting Birch Gold help you diversify with gold. So you too can have peace of.
    about Birch Gold Group · at
  • This was a terrible thing to do. It was a violation of our civil society and other people's rights and he should be ashamed. But he I'm sure he's enjoying it because it's more…
    about Anna Navaro · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

  • Don Lemon — Person · Central referenced subject (legal controversy) · 12 mentions · first at
    The discussion centers on his arrest/indictment and whether First Amendment/press status shields him from liability for actions inside a church during a protest.
  • Anna Navaro — Person · Referenced commentator (used as foil for inconsistency) · 4 mentions · first at
    Her on-air takes (on The View) are cited to argue perceived inconsistency in how she treats grand juries depending on the political target (Don Lemon vs. Trump).
  • Fidel Castro — Person · Referenced politician (social media example) · 1 mention · first at
    He is mentioned as an example of selectively quoting the First Amendment (omitting religious clauses) to defend Don Lemon, supporting the hosts' argument about one-sided framing.
    Are making this argument don't care about the other side of the ledger. They don't think that counts. And in one case, Julian Castro, they excised it from the first amendment.
  • Jimmy Kimmel — Person · Referenced media host (platform where Don Lemon appeared) · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned because Don Lemon appeared on Kimmel and discussed the publicity around his arrest, reinforcing the episode’s theme about media attention and celebrity framing.
    Other people's rights and he should be ashamed. But he I'm sure he's enjoying it because it's more attention and he's getting celebrated by all the people he care cares about whether it's Anna Navaro or Jimmy Kimmel.

Companies & orgs

  • CNN — Company · Referenced media · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned in the context of Don Lemon's arrest and coverage by the network.
    Early in the morning, there was CNN on a monitor and on the thing I could see former CNN anchor Don Lemon arrested in Los Angeles. And I was and I said to the guy, I was is that, he goes, I said, is that happening a lot?

Media & podcasts

  • The View — Media · Referenced media · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as the platform where Anna Navaro discussed the grand jury indictment of Don Lemon.

Sponsors

  • Birch Gold Group — Company · Sponsor · 1 mention · first at
    Promoted as a service for diversifying savings into precious metals, particularly gold, during economic uncertainty.

Full transcript with timestamps

Charles, did you or did you not text Rich this morning or the morning of Don Lemon's arrest and say, "What does Anna Navaro think?"

Well, I didn't because it's just an assumption between us at this point that we wait for her take and then we both echo it and usually incorporate it into National Reviews editorial line.

If only someday you could actually get her um so you didn't have to go through this pins and needle a lot a lot easier.

I don't think Charlie or I know what she said. So, we we we need to know. We're going to come down on this issue. We need to hear the clip.

I got you covered, Rich. Who who looks after you better than I do? Uh, she went on the View and she discussed the grand jury indictment of Don and um this was her take in SA 21B.

He was at that protest like a a week ago, right, in the church and and then a week later they sent

they got a grand jury to indict him to indict him. This is this is after they had gone to three different courts trying to get

uh judges to sign off and the judges in all three previous cases said to the DOJ, "Get the hell out of my courtroom, you clowns. There is no case here." So, they basically did it themselves. They did it. They released the news at the exact same time that they released the Epstein documents. So, make no mistake about it. This was about gaslighting. This was about going against Don Lemon and other journalists. By the way, all who happen to be black, happy Black History Month. Uh, and it's and I think it's, you know, to send a chilling message,

correct, to anybody who is covering facts. So, she's not a big fan of the Minnesota Grand Jury. She doesn't appear to believe in the sanctity of that organization or the indictment it handed down. That's not how she felt when President Trump was indicted, when he was a candidate. Just just for old times sake, let's take a look at 21C.

I want to thank this special grand jury because they have been meeting for weeks and weeks. They've done this incredibly seriously. These are not people with a political agenda. These are ne regular New Yorkers. Donald Trump finally v won a popular vote yesterday. The grand jury voted to indict him.

So, there's a bit of an inconsistency there, Rich. But um for the record, she she doesn't think much of the grand jury and its indictment of Don Lemon. And um they appear to believe that it's a race thing on the set of The View.

Yeah. They seem to think he was just picked up randomly walking down the street. And if you're being arrested just for being annoying and being Don Lemon, there would have been so many offenses prior to this where they could have gone to a grand jury and got some supposedly bogus indictment. He's was indicted because he has commit likely committed a crime and whether he'll ultimately be convicted of this. I'm a little skeptical, but he was conspiring with these people. He knew about it beforehand. He was helping conceal it.

He went into the church. He was part of the disruption. He was asked by the pastor to leave. He didn't leave, at least not when requested, by the pastor. And those are the facts that led to this indictment. So, I understand saying, "Look, I don't I I think journalists have a special status or he was a journalist in this instance and it's an ambiguous case and I don't think he should be indicted." There there's some reasonable people to say that, but say he was indicted because he's black man or he's a Trump critic. No, he was indicted for what he did. And the first amendment is not this this special badge you get to hold up as a member of the press that makes you immune from laws that are applicable to everyone else in the United States. That's just not how it works.

That's so that's exactly right. That's what's so infuriating to hear these inane discussions, Charlie, because the three of us know if we said we're members of the press and therefore we can accompany this group storming an abortion clinic. We have a microphone and we have a little thing that says press pass and they are storming. They're chaining themselves to the door. They're blocking women from entering the surgery room and we're part of it. Like we're not chanting, we're not saying don't have an abortion, but we're right there. We're also looking at the women who are in the clinic and just by being there posing somewhat of an impediment to their exercise of what they want to do. Um, but we have a microphone and we said, "Well, I'm a member of the press.

I'm documenting this historic protest that they're doing inside of they're so brave. They're in here. This is what protest is all about to make people feel uncomfortable. Trauma is part of it. You crying lady over there." Does anybody think that the Joe Biden Department of Justice would have said, "Well, Charlie, Rich, and MK, you're members of the press, so we're not going to bother you."

No, I don't think so. I think one of the annoying parts of this, and I do think it will be close when it goes to trial. It's hard to convict people. It should be. There will be arguments advanced on both sides that might be persuasive to a jury. But I think the most annoying thing about this is that the defense of Don Lemon thus far has been to shout the First Amendment. And as you say, not only is it the case that that is not a blanket warrant for anyone who considers himself to be connected to the press to get away with crimes, but the first amendment is on both sides of the ledger here. The reason the faith act at least the second part of it which relates to churches was passed was to deal with circumstances in which the first amendment rights of churchgoers are being violated by protesters if you must call them that. These people went further than that. And the local government does

nothing about it. in structure. This is the sort of postreonstruction or civil rights era law that in other circumstances Democrats like and in this case for good reason. You don't want a scenario in which people can storm into a religious service and stop it and intimidate the churchgoers and then the local government because it happens to approve of the cause says ah well we're not going to deal with it. The federal government in this case is acting to uphold the civil rights of those churchgoers. So if you're going to look at the first amendment in Don Lemon's case, that will be his defense that he was merely there as a journalist, you also have to look at it on the other side of the ledger. But the people who are making this argument don't care about the other side of the ledger. They don't think that that counts. And in one case, Julian Castro, they excised it from the first amendment.

You see this? Julian Castro tweeted out the first amendment and he did dot dot dot where all the religious bits are. Um because he Yeah. So he said he said when he was asked why he thought Don Lemon was in the right the first amendment and then he said Congress shall pass no law and he went dot dot dot and then he said um respecting and then he just did the bits to do with freedom of speech in the press. He missed out the religious part. So you can't look at this if you don't look at both sides of it. Now in a courtroom they will look at both sides of it. It is quite complicated. Um, but the notion that Don Lemon uh is presumptively the victim here, I think is absurd.

Yeah. I mean, the part of the problem is many of the people who have chosen to opine on this case have not actually watched

what Don Lemon actually did inside that church, what he how he sounded, how he behaved. I mean, I saw a debate between Harvey Levven of TMZ and Mark Geragos. Harvey was on Don's side and Mark was on the prosecutor's side. And Harvey was like he he had absolutely every right to go in there. It's a public place. It's a public place. It's not. A church is not a public place. It's a private place. And you get invited for a specific reason, which is to worship here as a Baptist. You can't just storm in there and start getting a manicure. That would also be trespass. You you have a limited invitation to come in for a specific purpose. And if you're there for a different purpose, you are trespassing.

But on top of that, as everybody who's been in journalism for two minutes knows, as soon as they tell you to get out, even if you do have the right to be there, even if it were a public place, if you don't, you're in you're in trouble. Now you're in trouble. And he he was told, he was explicitly told by the pastor, I want you to leave. It's on camera. And we went back and actually watched exactly what happened after that moment. He went on to interview because he kept sticking his mic in people's faces, at least two more people. He continued his questioning. He did not even come close to immediately leaving the church. Several more minutes passed with him in the church. And then even when he finally did leave, that's when he made his infamously stupid comment watching the people run and cry, saying, "Trauma's part of it. Trauma is all part of it." Which is what the three of us are going to say with the crying

abortion seekers. Tra, sorry, you're going to have to feel the trauma. I'm just here as a journalist. This is what we journalists do. We enjoy other people's trauma that we helped cause. International disputes, inflation, rising national debt, digital currency. There is a never- ending list of reasons that gold has risen over 700% in the last 20 years. And a never- ending list of reasons smart Americans diversify a portion of their savings into precious metals with Birch Gold Group. Gold can thrive during uncertainty, which is why it's a crucial part of a balanced strategy. It gives you peace of mind given all the events that could impact the US economy. See if holding gold in a tax sheltered retirement account is right for you.

Birch Gold can help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into an IRA in gold. Just text MK to the number 989898 to receive your free info kit on gold. There's no obligation, just useful information. With an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau and tens of thousands of happy customers, consider letting Birch Gold help you diversify with gold. So you too can have peace of mind regardless of the uncertainty. Text MK to the number 989898. Here's part of what he did inside. I've played this for almost everybody because it's just so clear what he's doing. This is ST 20.

Our church had gathered for worship, which we do every Sunday, and we were interrupted by this group of protesters. Yeah. 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 there were folks who I have to take care of my flock.

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 these. 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 asked that you actually would also leave this building. you don't want us to worship. Lift your hair to worship.

I'm always worshiped. I'm a Christian. It's right there. I mean, he explicitly tells him to leave. And he starts it off by saying, "I've asked everyone to leave." And he just keeps going and going and going. And then the ongoing commentary about how this is what it's all about. This is protest. And you can you can just protest wherever you want, whenever you want. That's what the Constitution provides. Rich. Um.

Yes. He went to the Anna Navaro School of Law. Yeah. They used he used the term we at one point. We're going to do this operation. It wasn't a royal we although given his self-regard you know you might want to account for that possibility is I'm part of this group we and he he cites the first amendment with the pastor. He also showed the scene of these people again worshiping in accord with their first amendment rights getting disrupted and braided at by these protesters said oh this is the what the first amendment is okay when they're actually violating the first amendment. My other favorite moment of his from inside the church, he's talking to one of the parishioners, you know, about what's going on. He says, "Well, well, there there's a rumor that one of the pastors might be with ICE and the parishioners like, well, shouldn't you know, right? I mean, it's not you should you have no right to go in there

regardless, but why are you going in there on the basis of some idiotic rumor?" So, so the whole thing is so moronic and wrong. Again, maybe he gets off, but if he gets off, it still doesn't really mitigate the offense. Th this was a terrible thing to do. It was a violation of our civil society and other people's rights and he should be ashamed. But he I'm sure he's enjoying it because it's more attention and he's getting celebrated by all the people he care cares about whether it's Anna Navaro or Jimmy Kimmel.

Oh yeah. Also so he went on Kimmel last night and this I mean speaking of Don Lemon loving Don Lemon. Um, here's SAT 18.

When did you realize that this was a very very big story? I did. I had no idea. I had a little bit of an idea when I got when I asked to use the restroom in, you know, sort of early in the morning, there was CNN on a monitor and on the thing I could see former CNN anchor Don Lemon arrested in Los Angeles. And I was like, and I said to the guy, I was like, uh, is that, he goes, I said, is that happening a lot? He goes, "You've been on all morning."

Yeah. And he says, "This is a big deal." Uh, my attorney said to me, "I prepared a statement. You can rewrite it and edit it, but you need to deliver the statement." I'm like, "Deliver to who? Like, what are you talking about?" And they said, "The people who are waiting outside." And so I go I I my husband and I walk out and I see this like I mean, I don't know how many reporters and and paparazzi and and helicopters. I had no idea. And I um I asked my husband, I said, 'What happened with the channel today? Because I was concerned about that's my livelihood and my channel and my and my viewers. Um and he said, "The channel's been going all day."

I'm sorry. He also didn't finish either his live stream at the church or his interview with Kimmel Charlie without reminding people to like and subscribe. That clip underscores one of the other problems with the commentary around this, which is common in the media, which is the belief that the First Amendment treats journalists who have press passes and W2s differently than it does anyone else. That it applies to the press, that it's a protection of the press. It's not. The first amendment applies no differently to Walter Kankite than to some guy with an iPhone. But I do think that the way that the Walter Kankites of the world, obviously he's dead, but would expect to be treated is different than the guy with the iPhone. And I suspect that if this had been a right-wing protest, let's put it in a mosque just to make it more salient, and some guy who had never been a CNN anchor and wouldn't have been

covered by CNN subsequently went in and did every single thing precisely the same as Don Lemon, except he wasn't famous and he wasn't on the right. I don't think there would be any outcry at all if a Democratic administration brought a case under the Face Act. I think part of this claim that Don Lemon and others have made is but I'm famous. But that's not how it works. Now again, I think it will be 50/50. I do think there are strong defenses. I think that the facts will be difficult to parse out in front of a jury. But I just think the idea that there is something intrinsically wrong about this is crazy.

And the analogy I've been drawing is with the Wisconsin judge who tried to help the illegal immigrant escape. If you remember at the time the first line was, "Oh my god, the Trump administration's arresting judges as if judges are immune from being held accountable for breaking the law." She did it. She was then charged and she was convicted by a jury of her peers.

Yeah. Because she committed a crime. There's nothing about a judge that is sacrian and there's nothing about a journalist that is sacrian. They are subject to the same laws and the same protections as the rest of us. It's what Har Dylan said on this show last Friday, which was you don't have a magic invisibility cloak just because you declare yourself a journalist while you are participating in a crime. And we all know that. I mean, even just the basic prospect of trespass, which is not what he's been charged with because that's a state crime. But I mean, how many times, you know, in in our journalistic careers have we not been able to enter a a certain venue? We have to stay on the on the sidewalk. If I had a nickel for every time my photographer is like I my sticks are on the sidewalk.

They're on the sidewalk, you know, like to protect us because we we know we're going to get in trouble if we go any further. We can't. We obey that. There are laws that My point is simply not that he should be charged with trespass though he should, but just there are laws that apply to us even though we're journalists and we all know that. And when you say that to, you know, these NBCers or ABCers or CNNers who are trying to defend Don Lemon, they know that's true because that's at least one that they all know they have to abide by. Like our news organizations will make sure because they're the ones they're the ones who have to pay the bill. But somehow when it when when it's a law other than trespass, when it when it's a law that's on the books to protect a religious uh organization, they stop being able to understand. It's like, but but what do you mean? He he was just there to document the anti-ICE

protesters important work is really the unsaid piece of it, Rich. Yeah. So he could have documented it maybe not just as well, but he could have documented on on the sidewalk and waited for everyone to come out. He could have had them prior to going in and heard all their planning and whatnot and then talked to everyone when they came out. But he was part of the disruption. And I just want to underline what Charlie said. Scalia is so good on this, was so good on this as so many other things. He pointed out freedom of the press. We tend to think well it's the press like CNN but at the time of the founding that term kind of institutional press wasn't used. They were thinking more of a printing press which anyone could have access to. Was Benjamin Franklin a journalist or was he a guy with a printing press. So it's meant to protect the the freedom of speech of of everyone not just people who work at CNN. Now now Don Lemon now

is more like the guy as Charlie alluded to. He's the guy with the iPhone camera rather than the guy with CNN. He's he's just now delighted he gets covered by by CNN in an instance like like this. But again, it doesn't it's it's meant for everyone. Freedom of speech. There are all sorts of other First Amendment freedoms. And just because you have that iPhone camera and you say you're covering it doesn't provide immunity to the law and from the law and doesn't mean you can go violate other people's first amendment rights.

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 "Don Lemon's ABSURD Kimmel Appearance and "The View" Hosts Don't Know the Law, with Lowry and Cooke"?

Megyn Kelly (Guest), Rich Lowry (Guest), Charlie Cooke (Guest).

What is "Don Lemon's ABSURD Kimmel Appearance and "The View" Hosts Don't Know the Law, with Lowry and Cooke" about?

The discussion centers around the recent indictment of Don Lemon, with emphasis on the contrasting viewpoints presented by Anna Navarro on "The View" regarding the legitimacy of the grand jury process. The hosts scrutinize Navarro's stance, highlighting perceived biases in her commentary and questioning her prior reactions to similar legal situations involving public figures.

What is mentioned in this Megyn Kelly episode?

7 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Don Lemon, Anna Navaro, CNN, Fidel Castro, The View, Jimmy Kimmel. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "Don Lemon's ABSURD Kimmel Appearance and "The View" Hosts Don't Know the Law, with Lowry and Cooke"?

The episode runs 19 min; the transcript is about 3,794 words in 44 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 February 3, 2026.