The courts can't lock up evidence from being used in other prosecutions.

You are a fool defending the prior administration.

It's not one prosecution at a time.

Are you that stupid?

Who's flailing? Stop defending Bidens admin or anyone else.

These records were known.

Both parties are deep in this coverup.

Agreed Snoofy. There is a lot of nothing being done.

Its Biden's fault for not prosecuting Trump. Trump never would have reached a ballot with federal charges.

The Biden administration protected Trump.

You all want anyone involved with Eptein to be prosecuted, but refuse to accept the Biden's admin either chose not to or was incompetent.

Lol.

Can't face the fact the Biden administration did nothing.

Maxwell's case does not prevent prosecution of other people.

What a farce. With this thinkimg,you can't prosecute more than one person at a time.

--------. Both parties hiding the crimes.

Maxwell's case didn't prevent any attempts to go after Trump.

Since when is the law prosecuted one at a time?

Face it, the Biden administration has the records and did nothing.

Same as previous administrations, Doc

So the previous administration knew all of this.

Too many lives would be ruined.

Sounds like the JFK files that are still redacted 50+ years later.

Why is the DC Madam's files still redacted.

No, it's Biden's administration's fault for not prosecuting.

Reinheitsgebot, the State prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced Trump. Why didn't the Fed do something?

8: Wait? It's weaponization to enforce the law?

Trump was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced.

Is the State the only ones allowed to enforce law?

Scream from the rooftops! The Trump administration is hiding what the Biden administration was hiding!!

But, but, the records are sealed under Grand Jury...

Which Maria? SEIU and Maria searches are coming up with lots of potential 'maria'

Can't verify the story as these other articles on Google shows undocumented Maria connected to SEIU.

When more comes out, more facts will.

So what stopped the Biden administration from acting?

Complicity from both parties

From 2021 to 2025, the Biden administration didn't have word search capacity?

What the NYT found instantly couldn't be duplicated by the govt?

Who's complicit?

So, from Jan 2021 to Jan 2025, nobody in the Biden administration could find what the NYT found with a word search.

What's the excuse? These records didn't exist until Feb 2025?

31:98% percent

No problem. If the States can overcome the Supremacy Clause and the Constitution, have at it.

So you are ok with the Trump administration being in violation of the law passed by Congress until then?

Are you okay if the administration isn't violating the law passed by Congress?

Until the case reaches a point in court,the 'violation of law' isn't known.

Since multiple sites have differing opinions on whether the law has been broken, who knows.

My opinion? Like every citizen: if the law is broken, then the consequences should happen.

If you agree the law isn't broken until court of law makes that decision, then we are in agreement.

If the law allows appeal and SCOTUS makes a final decision (or doesn't accept the case allowing the lower court decision to stand), then we should agree with that.

While we have no definitive court decision, we just spinning.

I don't believe in 2028 a change in the WH will result in the files being released in full. The Dems will redact and withhold.

The DC Madam files are still sealed. JFK and RFK still have redactions.

Both parties hide.

The pastor doesn't have to press charges for the govt to act.
Is there an established time frame from being told to leave and when you leave? I don't know. A few minutes is enough to charge?

From the FACE Act you provided:

(2)by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or

So, did any or all the protesters, including Lemon, force by physical obstruction? Interfere?, any person exercising right of freedom of religious freedom? At a place of worship?

Do you believe the answer is no? All four seem to me is yes.

When the Democrats take the White House, they can unredact and release everything.

Even if the statute of limitations expire for criminal charges,there's no statute on simply releasing the records.

So, in 2028, everything will be coming out. Won't it?

Walking up to the pulpit to ask the minister a question during church service is interfering.

This may not be known to outsiders, but a church service is normally a structured event. I prepared many of them being a retired church organist.

I would have been interferring with the service if I started playing the recessionial hymn during a boring sermon. Maybe appreciated, but not appropriate.

Did Lemon interfere? After being told to leave, he stayed and interfered. Or, did he not?

YAV, 141, Mistral, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting Systems (1978) established that the First Amendment does not protect the news media from liability for trespass or other torts committed during newsgathering.

What's my point?

That most commentators are standing in on Freedom of the Press, that the media has a right to go anywhere because the story is of great importance, and Don eas acting as a journalist.

CBS lost on Appeal. The 1st Amendment (Press) isn't absolute. Lemon's own video footage has him being told to leave, right?

Face Act: prohibiting the use of force, threat of force, or physical obstruction to injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone obtaining or providing reproductive health services or exercising religious freedom at a place of worship.

Since FotP doesn't protect him, did he violate the Act?

Le Mistral, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 61 A.D.2d 491 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978), is a landmark New York case holding that the First Amendment does not protect news organizations from liability for trespass. A CBS crew entered a restaurant without permission to film a story, resulting in a ruling that journalists are not immune from torts committed during news gathering.

AI:

Freedom of the press does not grant journalists immunity from generally applicable laws, meaning reporters can be held liable for trespassing on private property while gathering news. While the First Amendment protects the right to report, it does not allow entering private property without permission, even for public interest stories.

Key Principles: Press vs. Trespass
No Special Immunity: The Supreme Court has ruled that the press must abide by the same laws as citizens, meaningtrespass laws apply equally to journalists.
Private Property Restrictions: Journalists must have permission to enter private homes, businesses, or properties, including churches.

Public vs. Private Spaces: News gathering is generally protected in public places like sidewalks and parks, but not on private land.

Law Enforcement Access: Journalists may follow law enforcement onto private property during emergencies, but if ordered to leave by a property owner, they must comply to avoid liability.

Legal Consequences: Violating these laws can result in criminal trespass charges or civil lawsuits (e.g., Le Mistral, Inc. v. CBS).

Key Distinctions
Publicly Owned Property: Access is generally allowed in areas of public buildings intended for public access
.
Implied Consent: Often assumed for public areas but can be revoked by authorities or owners.

News Coverage Context: Even if the intent is reporting, illegal entry remains actionable.

While journalists may be allowed in certain situations by consent of authorities, they must be aware that trespassing is a significant legal risk in news gathering.