🚨Trump gets HUMILIATED in Court over Minnesota CHURCH ARRESTS

What this episode is about

The Department of Justice faced a setback in federal court regarding the detention of leaders involved in a protest at a St. Paul, Minnesota church, with a magistrate judge ruling against the DOJ's claims that the protestors posed a national security threat. The case revolves around the alleged violation of the FACE Act, with the DOJ asserting that the protestors used physical intimidation to disrupt worship, while the judge highlighted that there was insufficient evidence of flight risk or serious criminal conduct to warrant extreme detention measures.

Key takeaways

• When the DOJ calls protesters terrorists, it raises eyebrows about the definition of 'violent' activism.
• Judges rejecting DOJ's claims show that legal wisdom often trumps political zeal; context matters more than outrage.
• Physical intimidation? More like a loud prayer meeting gone wrong; the church isn't exactly a terrorism hotbed.
• Reproductive rights were the FACE Act's main focus; now it’s a protest in a church stealing the spotlight.
• Protests are meant to discomfort, not disappear; after all, change rarely comes from cozy conversations.

Who speaks in this episode?

• Ben (Guest) · 11 min speaking
• Harry Litman (Guest) · 8 min speaking

What is discussed, and when

1. 0:00 – 3:00: Department of Justice, Naima Levy Armstrong, Shantel Luis Allen, Laura Provenino
2. 3:00 – 6:00: Face Act, Harry Litman, Don Lemon, Laura Provenino
3. 6:00 – 9:00: Department of Justice, Face Act, Don Lemon
4. 9:00 – 12:00: Colin Kaepernick
5. 12:00 – 15:00: Department of Justice
6. 15:00 – 18:00: Attorney General Pam Bondi, Department of Justice, Don Lemon
7. 18:00 – 19:04: Harry Litman, Talking Feds

Notable quotes from "🚨Trump gets HUMILIATED in Court over Minnesota CHURCH ARRESTS"

• The Department of Justice just suffered a humiliating loss in federal court in its effort to try to detain permanently the leaders of the protest at the church in St. Paul, Minnesota. As you will.

  about Department of Justice · at 0:00

• And here's what we've here's what we've found out thus far. a judge okayed the release of two of the Minnesota church protesters charged with civil rights violations, Nikima…

  about Shantel Luis Allen · at 2:17

• Offense as a crime of violence. I think that's important finding by the judge as well though because the face act requires physical force or physical threats. the federal judge…

  about Face Act · at 3:24

• Court will not hold its own separate revocation hearing to revoke their bail and put them back into prison. Let's call in Harry Litman from the Talking Feds podcast, Talking…

  about Harry Litman · at 4:45

• They also try to go after Don Lemon. We could talk about all of this, but here the federal judge is saying, What are you doing, DOJ? And I think it's a bigger point because the…

  about Don Lemon · at 5:56

• Really think they have a chance at that, I believe, but it's all the sort of PR kind of value of it. Pam Bondi, the attorney general of the United States, has spent the last…

  about Attorney General Pam Bondi · at 16:40

• Everybody hit subscribe to our channel. More importantly, subscribe to Harry Litman's YouTube channel, Talking Feds Substack, Talking Feds Podcast, the Talking Feds YouTube channel. So, when this video ends, you're on YouTube.

  about Talking Feds · at 18:28

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

• Naima Levy Armstrong — Person · Primary subject (defendant/protester referenced) · 2 mentions · first at 0:16
  Central figure in the DOJ/FACE Act church-protest case; discussed as arrested, released on conditions, and allegedly targeted with a manipulated AI image.
  The leaders of the protest at the church in St. Paul, Minnesota. As you will recall, the Department of Justice arrested Nikima Levy Armstrong, Shantel Luis Allen, and some…
• Shantel Luis Allen — Person · Primary subject (defendant/protester referenced) · 2 mentions · first at 0:19
  Named as arrested and charged in connection with the St. Paul church protest; discussed in the context of release conditions and DOJ 'terrorist' rhetoric.
• Harry Litman — Person · Main guest / legal analyst · 2 mentions · first at 4:52
  Brought in to analyze DOJ overreach, bail/release rulings, and First Amendment implications; provides prosecutorial perspective.
• Don Lemon — Person · Referenced journalist / attempted target of complaint (per episode) · 4 mentions · first at 0:27
  Discussed as someone DOJ allegedly tried to arrest/charge, but a magistrate judge did not sign off; framed as present filming as a journalist.
• Laura Provenino — Person · Referenced judge (decision-maker) · 3 mentions · first at 2:32
  Federal judge who found no serious flight risk and set release conditions; her order is quoted to rebut DOJ's 'crime of violence' framing.
  Civil rights violations, Nikima Armstrong and Shantel Allen. That's federal judge Laura Provenino finds no serious flight risks and sets release conditions. Then a magistrate…
• Attorney General Pam Bondi — Person · Referenced government official (Attorney General) criticized · 2 mentions · first at 16:46
  Cited as being heavily involved/visible around the case; used as an example of politicization and PR-driven DOJ behavior.
• Shannon Elkins — Person · Referenced magistrate judge (decision-maker) · 2 mentions · first at 2:41
  Magistrate judge who ordered release of a third arrested person; part of the sequence of judicial pushback against DOJ detention arguments.
  Serious flight risks and sets release conditions. Then a magistrate judge, another different magistrate judge, not a federal judge, magistrate judge Shannon Elkins ordered the…
• Colin Kaepernick — Person · Referenced example (analogy for protest/First Amendment) · 2 mentions · first at 5:38
  Used to illustrate the purpose of protest (making people uncomfortable) and to support the argument that expressive conduct is protected.
  People uncomfortable. That's the very point of protest. I remember when I represented Colin Kaepernick, people I don't like him protesting at football games. Well, that's the…

Companies & orgs

• Department of Justice — Company · Case study · 7 mentions · first at 0:00
  Central to the discussion as the entity prosecuting the church protesters, with its actions and decisions being critically analyzed.

Concepts & topics

• Face Act — Concept · Key argument · 4 mentions · first at 1:23
  The legal framework under which the DOJ is prosecuting the church protesters, with its interpretation being a major point of contention.

Media & podcasts

• Talking Feds — Media · Referenced expert · 2 mentions · first at 4:54
  A media outlet referenced for expert opinion on the legal and political implications of the DOJ's actions.

Full transcript with timestamps

0:00 The Department of Justice just suffered a humiliating loss in federal court in its effort to try to detain permanently the leaders of the protest at the church in St. Paul, Minnesota. As you will recall, the Department of Justice arrested Nikima Levy Armstrong, Shantel Luis Allen, um, and some others. and they tried to arrest Don Lemon. Uh although the magistrate judge, and we'll talk about this in a moment, did not sign off on the uh criminal complaint against Don Lemon, but a criminal complaint was signed off against Nikima Armstrong as well as Sha Till Allen. And the DOJ was not happy enough just to get the criminal complaint. They argued that these individuals are terrorists and as terrorists, they need to go into solitary. They need to go and rot in jail and never be released and that they need to be treated like they're al-Qaeda or that they're ISIS or that they're the Taliban. That's what the DOJ argued.

1:08 Now, a magistrate judge said, "No, I'm not doing that. We we will release them. They're not a flight risk. This is not a crime against a minor. These are people who showed up at a church and there was a protest at a church. That that's what the allegations are. Uh the DOJ alleges this is violations of the FACE act which says you can't use physical force or physical coercion or physical intimidation at places of worship that block people's ability to worship. It's got to be physical and it's got to be physical threats or physical actual conduct. Um, and that law was really intended to stop the physical attacks and assault on women seeking reproductive rights at abortion clinics in order to make it bipartisan. There was this provision slipped in about churches. And so that's what's being argued here that you prevented the people on Sunday from praying with physical force and physical intimidation.

2:10 Now, the DOJ says these people need to go into jail forever, and they shouldn't be released. They shouldn't get bail. And uh here's what we've uh here's what we've found out thus far. Um a judge okayed the release of two of the Minnesota church protesters charged with civil rights violations, Nikima Armstrong and Shantel Allen. That's federal judge Laura Provenino finds no serious flight risks and sets release conditions. Then a magistrate judge, another different magistrate judge, not a federal judge, magistrate judge Shannon Elkins ordered the release of a third person arrested in connection with the church protests that took place um on Sunday and the DOJ was calling these people domestic terrorists. If you go into the federal judge proven's order, she's appointed by former president former president Biden. She says the charge conspiracy is not a crime of violence, does not involve a minor

3:10 victim, and the court finds more persuasive defendants arguments that the element to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate a person in the exercise of federal rights does not require physical force as is required to qualify an offense as a crime of violence. I think that's important finding by the judge as well though because the face act requires physical force or physical threats. Um the federal judge goes on to say the United States is not entitled to a bond hearing under 18 USC section 3142 subf1. Consequently, the United States first basis for revocation of bail is unavailing. The court turns to the United States second argument and the court goes on to say that uh in conducting a doovo review it is the court's position that on this record the United States has not met its burden to demonstrate a serious flight risk for these individuals. There's no evidence that for example the defendants own

4:10 hones abroad or even outside Minnesota or that they have family abroad. To the contrary defendants have strong ties to Minnesota. The United States risk of flight evidence is speculative. Indeed, magistrate judge Mo has imposed them, including that the defendant's travel be restricted to Minnesota unless approved by a supervising officer. And uh and so on those analyses uh the court says we're not go we're going to allow the magistrate judge's order releasing these individuals to stand and the federal court will not hold its own separate revocation hearing to revoke their bail and put them back into prison. Let's call in Harry Litman from the Talking Feds uh podcast, Talking Feds YouTube channel, Talking Feds Substack. Harry was the lead United States attorney, the United States attorney from the Western District of Pennsylvania. He was also top federal prosecutor at Maine justice in Washington DC. Harry, so the DOJ

5:11 right here, you know, is, you know, yet again, I mean, I think overreaching is putting lightly, you know, with what the statute and the face act is saying. And then they overreach on the overreach, which is even after doing this charge, which I believe is still protected speech. We may have debates about whether the protest should have taken place in the first place inside a church. Protests are intended to make people uncomfortable. That's the very point of protest. I remember when I represented Colin Kaepernick, people like, "I don't like him protesting at football games." Well, that's the point of the protest. He doesn't like that you kept on disproportionately killing black and brown people with excessive force.

5:51 So, yes, the point is to feel a little uncomfortable in a protest. But Harry, you know, they also try to go after Don Lemon. We could talk about all of this, but here the federal judge is saying, "What are you doing, DOJ?" And I think it's a bigger point because the statute requires physical force. So if already the judge is skeptical that physical force and physical violence was used, the whole face act doesn't say you can't be loud or you can't doesn't say you can't protest. It says you can use physical force and intimidation. So I think that's an important point as well.

6:25 It is a bigger point, Ben, of what's going on here. Look, this is like a roarshock test. We we don't you know Don Lemon was there for seven hours filming as he says. I was just a journalist here. And that's clear that he was, which is, I think, the main reason the magistrate said, I'm not I'm not doing an an arrest on these charges of intimidation or what whatever they're trying to concoct. But, um, you know, look, Minnesota, when St. Paul police were called and at that very point the protesters left and continued on their way, they were looking at charges of disorderly conduct. It's a case that either is a sort of nothing. Uh it seems to have been a fairly short-lived protest. There were clearly a lot of people in church who were very supportive. In a sense, the pastor was they targeted that church because the main pastor who was not at the pulpit that day is an ICE official. And you know that's the reason they wanted to

7:24 come in and the that the pastor uh in the pulpit that day said shame shame. So it is there were some um parishioners who said you're interrupting things here, but as you say, that happens in every demonstration. So anyway, this could be really just run-of-the-mill um first amendment expressive conduct. It seems to have not lasted very long, but there were 40 people there. They did interrupt the the service for a time. Maybe it rises to the level of disorderly conduct for the Department of Justice. There's almost a sense of like elation uh that they think they found the crime of the century. Harit Dylan, the head of the civil rights division, issues statements that you would basically think the protesters were like the Inquisition. They were, you know, so um uh determined to suppress good, she even say the Christian conduct and and the like. They have that kind of hook that's been so important for them, you

8:27 know, including in the COVID days, like, oh, this is a whole different thing. Instead of people standing up and making a point, now they can portray it as people wanting as, you know, bad, nasty, woke, uh, dissenting Americans wanting to crush good American religious practice. It seems to me, we'll find out, but it seems completely, you know, a fictitious account, but man oh man, are they loving that religious uh angle. So, you're right. We'll see how it plays out. Obviously, the judges so far are not very impressed. And think about just the history, Ben, of protests in churches. You know, you do go, this is your Colin Kaepernick point, you go to where the people are, right? And you know, may they they did nothing violent, I don't know, disorderly conduct maybe, but the the really sort of uh bare teeth effort to just portray these people as, you know, essentially commie religious busters is uh you know, a complete kind

9:36 of and characteristic DOJ overkill. So, they could be, as you started out by saying, really going uh, you know, 100 miles an hour into a a crash and embarrassment. We'll see what happens with this case.

9:52 Another point to bring up also, you and I have been covering a lot vindictive prosecution and we saw Abrago Garcia get that finding of vindictiveness. Obviously, the Comey and Leticia James case was heading in that direction and would have been uh found. Now, the White House account uh did an AI image of Nikima uh and they altered the image that was already posted inappropriately by the Department of Homeland Security, Christy Nome Gnome censoring the face of the FBI agent or the Border Patrol, whoever was bringing Nikima into custody. Um face was blurred, but they did an AI generated image of her to look like she was crying. They also darkened her skin so she looked blacker like it was racist. It was a weird AI. It was dis it was manipulative and it was viewed millions and millions and millions of times. Now she also has a background as a civil rights lawyer. She knows her rights and I think the first

10:55 thing that she and her lawyers are going to now argue also is that there's a vindictiveness here as well. and they'll show that graphic um in terms of the manipulation of her skin color and all of that and you know that will that by itself could make a finding of vindictiveness. I mean this is not a normal thing where the DOJ pro could you imagine Harry you were prosecuting and Harry you prosecuted some of the worst of the worst people in your office drug traffickers sex traffickers extortion horrible people you know who who who actually probably deserved to be publicly scorned and ridiculed if you had anybody in your office post an AI I know it predates AI but just go with this hypothetical um if you had someone posted AI image of that criminal defendant, you know, that criminal defense lawyer would be right in there showing the judge, you could lose your you would probably defense lawyer. I

11:55 would be right in there saying what do you possibly think you're doing when you started with can you imagine I'm literally can you imagine whether by orders or not who in the department of justice you know took out the photo sovereign oh let's make her blacker let's make you know what kind of of complete sickos do something like uh like that and you know th this is really as you say look the department of justice um is supposed to prosecute cases. Department of Homeland Security does these other things. But the fact that Bondie and Todd Blanch, give me a break, have been all in here. Look what it what it results in. Remember a quaint time when possibly Hillary Clinton lost the election because Jim Comey so inappropriately made a comment on evidence. They are bringing charges.

12:50 They're bringing charges. They want to take away people's liberties and their um duties, ethical, moral, and legal are so clear that you don't you don't announce. You can recite the charges, the four corners of the indictment, but you don't dirty people up and pollute the jury pool and say all kinds of stuff. You do your talking in court. And this is a Department of Justice that does its talking everywhere but in court. Indeed, when they come to court, that's when they're in trouble. They don't have a leg to stand on. They change their arguments and and courts are starting to call them out. But that this has just become routine. And I know let's charge them. And then in addition, we will absolutely smear them in the press and call them every name in the book. You know, that's just grotesque.

13:42 And we've kind of come to accept it or maybe many people have as oh that's just the MMO of the Trump Department of Justice. It's it's it's foul,

13:53 right, Harry? Your A USA if they did that you'd probably recommend them for disparment and you'd probably or discipline. I want him out of the office and

14:06 I want him out of the office immediately and you would be worried you may have just screwed up the entire case.

14:13 Exactly. Exactly. That's my point. It's not a it you would say you screw and so when this case goes in that direction which inevitably it probably will then Trump and the DOJ will whine and they'll go oh this was just some Biden appointed judge and d and Harry for me when I speak to all of our viewers out there you know I'm hoping and I know that we're reaching out to people who are more than just Democrats or liberals and I know we have a big independent audience and even a big Republican audience but I to people who don't even like politics who watch this because they want to get into the granularities of the law that what they just understand is that even if you wanted to prosecute Nikima like if your goal was you wanted it you thought that was bad conduct then you're screwing up your own prosecution by doing this and it's bad behavior you know when when when Harit Dylan is posting about Don

15:10 Lemon and and reposting the polyarket betting odds about whether or not Don Lemon will get prosecuted or not. They were at 39%. You know, it's like even if you wanted to prosecute Don, which I don't which I think is ridiculous and totally, you know, and beyond frivolous and insane, you've now you're screwing it up because you're doing these things and then they whine. Oh, the weaponized. No, you're just you're just behaving like losers right now. You don't need to post on social media. You don't need to behave like this. Do your talking through your filings. You can do a press release when the complaint is filed.

15:46 That's fine. You can do your first press conference using the words the allegations alleged. This is an allegation. This is an investigation. But you don't do more than that. You're the DOJ. If you want to be Dan Bonino, the podcaster, be the podcaster and go on and do that. Otherwise, you have an important role to serve. And just service, man. Service. Service man. How about this little quaint idea? Presumption of innocence. Yeah, you know, so 100% and one gets the idea for Trump himself ordering up these ridiculous prosecutions of Powell and now by the way Fry and Walls and all that stuff. You get the uh real he just wants to screw with people, make them spend money, make them nervous, etc.

16:31 That the Department of Justice seems all in on that plan. You know what? They they are not, you know, try to try to keep these people in jail. They don't really think they have a chance at that, I believe, but it's all the sort of PR uh kind of value of it. Pam Bondi, the attorney general of the United States, has spent the last two days in Minnesota about this case cuz they are so hot and bothered and up in arms. I am here to tell you whether at Maine Justice and thank you for, you know, explaining the bilateral nature of my experience. I've seen it from both sides. Getting an attorney general to stop by for 45 minutes on the attorney general plane.

17:13 So, you know, it's easy enough to do is a big honking deal. She's just been there for 2 days. This is the one that they want to make a cause cbra of. And you know, it's at a minimum uh flying in the face of possible first amendment activity. I look I haven't looked at it. I can see at the end of the day thinking maybe there's some kind of minor violation here and that you know is not fully mitigated by the expressive activity and maybe there isn't again the St. call police. We're thinking disorderly conduct. You you know that's like throwing a a cigarette on the street. Um but this effort by the DOJ is so politicized and in line with the kind of Trumpian uh you know political agenda and the like and it's just one more way in which the the DOJ the my old DOJ has just gone completely arai. Well, good luck finding a federal jury in Minneapolis or St. Paul that's going to reach a conviction after you

18:20 terrorize that community. It's why they didn't go and get an indictment, but they did this by way of criminal complaint. Any

18:27 100%. Yeah. Uh, everybody hit subscribe to our channel. More importantly, subscribe to Harry Litman's YouTube channel, Talking Feds Substack, Talking Feds Podcast, the Talking Feds YouTube channel. So, when this video ends, you're on YouTube anyway. Just search Talking Feds and subscribe there right now. Thanks, Harry.

18:44 Thank you, Ben. Love this video. Support independent media and unlock exclusive content. Add free videos and custom emojis by becoming a paid member of our YouTube channel today. You can also gift memberships to others. Let's keep growing together.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "🚨Trump gets HUMILIATED in Court over Minnesota CHURCH ARRESTS"?

Ben (Guest), Harry Litman (Guest).

What is "🚨Trump gets HUMILIATED in Court over Minnesota CHURCH ARRESTS" about?

The Department of Justice faced a setback in federal court regarding the detention of leaders involved in a protest at a St. Paul, Minnesota church, with a magistrate judge ruling against the DOJ's claims that the protestors posed a national security threat. The case revolves around the alleged violation of the FACE Act, with the DOJ asserting that the protestors used physical intimidation to…

What is mentioned in this MeidasTouch episode?

11 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Department of Justice, Naima Levy Armstrong, Face Act, Shantel Luis Allen, Harry Litman, Don Lemon. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "🚨Trump gets HUMILIATED in Court over Minnesota CHURCH ARRESTS"?

The episode runs 19 min; the transcript is about 3,092 words in 26 timestamped sections.

More from MeidasTouch

• All analyzed episodes
• Books mentioned on MeidasTouch
• People mentioned on MeidasTouch
• Sponsors mentioned on MeidasTouch
• Topics mentioned on MeidasTouch