2026-08-07T09:46:00-0400 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
作者：雅各布·罗森
前CNN主播唐·莱蒙周五向明尼苏达州的一名联邦法官提出申请，要求驳回针对他的公民权利刑事指控，称自己遭到非法针对性报复性起诉。
他的律师团队写道，特朗普总统对莱蒙的敌意“有据可查，可追溯至十多年前”。
他们辩称，司法部对莱蒙提起诉讼“是对他根据第一修正案受到保护的、有关明尼苏达州‘地铁突袭行动’相关抗议活动的报道的惩罚”。
莱蒙和其他几名记者与一批抗议者一同被指控违反《获取临床服务自由法》（FACE Act），该法案禁止恐吓或干扰行使宪法宗教自由的民众。他们还被指控合谋干扰个人宗教权利的重罪。
在这份动议中，他的律师援引了司法部现任和前任高级官员以及特朗普先生在莱蒙被起诉前发表的针对他的公开言论。他们提到了时任司法部长帕姆·邦迪和民权部助理部长哈米特·迪隆的相关言论。
莱蒙的法律团队还以第一修正案为由单独提出动议，要求驳回起诉，辩称他拥有“报道全国性热点议题的权利”，并且受到第一修正案中新闻采集保护条款的庇护。
“即便假设抗议者越过了受保护言论的界限，实施了犯罪行为，莱蒙先生作为记者报道他们的行动也并未犯罪，”他的法律团队写道。“从越南战争期间随军采访的战地记者，到在国会山报道1月6日抗议活动的记者，我国长期以来一直承认，第一修正案保护媒体报道具有新闻价值的事件的权利，记者与犯罪行为的近距离接触不等于共谋。记者们经常会出现在犯罪现场。”
在周五上午提交的第三份驳回动议中，莱蒙的法律团队辩称，针对他的起诉书应当被驳回，因为“这些指控存在根本性缺陷，必须予以驳回”，原因是政府错误地在起诉书中适用了两项刑事法规。
最初，司法部试图通过刑事起诉书对莱蒙提起诉讼，但一名治安法官以缺乏合理依据为由驳回了这一诉求。
随后，司法部采取了非常规举措，先是请求首席法官介入，之后又向第八巡回上诉法院提出干预请求。当这些努力均告失败后，检察官将案件提交大陪审团，并成功获得了起诉书。
“在听到起诉书的传闻后，莱蒙先生的律师联系了司法部，协调莱蒙先生的自首事宜，”他的律师写道。
“政府没有按照正常流程在指控提出后安排自首，反而选择在洛杉矶的酒店——当时他正在那里报道音乐行业年度颁奖礼——派遣特工于午夜将其逮捕，这只能被视作是为了惩罚和羞辱莱蒙先生。”
白宫随后在X平台上发帖嘲讽莱蒙，配文“生活给你莱蒙（双关：困境）”，并附上了他被捕的照片和相关信息。
“或许是意识到莱蒙先生作为记者的身份受到第一修正案的保护，政府的案件特工在多份宣誓证词中虚假宣称，莱蒙先生‘与煽动者一同高呼，阻碍了教区居民的通行’，从而主动加入了抗议者行列，”他的律师写道。
司法部未立即回应就这些动议置评的请求。
Don Lemon seeks dismissal of criminal civil rights charges, claiming vindictive prosecution
2026-08-07T09:46:00-0400 / CBS News
By Jacob Rosen
Former CNN anchor Don Lemon asked a federal judge in Minnesota to dismiss criminal civil rights charges against him on Friday, saying he is being unlawfully targeted for vindictive prosecution.
His attorneys wrote that President Trump’s animosity toward Lemon “is well documented, stretching back over a decade.”
They argued that the Justice Department charged Lemon “as punishment for his First Amendment protected reporting on protests related to Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota.”
Lemon and several other journalists have been charged alongside a group of protesters with violating the FACE Act, which prohibits people from intimidating or interfering with people exercising their constitutional freedom to practice religion. It also charged them with a felony of conspiring to interfere with individuals’ religious rights.
His lawyers in their motion cited public statements made by senior current and former Justice Department officials and Mr. Trump that targeted Lemon in the lead-up to his indictment. They pointed to comments from then-Attorney General Pam Bondi and Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division.
Lemon’s legal team also filed a separate motion to dismiss the indictment on First Amendment grounds, arguing that he has a “right to report on issues of intense national concern” and that he is shielded by newsgathering protections under the First Amendment.
“Even assuming the protestors crossed the line from protected speech to criminal conduct, Mr. Lemon did not commit a crime in covering their actions as a journalist,” his legal team wrote. “From war correspondents embedded with the military during the Vietnam War to journalists who entered the U.S. Capitol while covering the January 6 protests, our country has long recognized that the First Amendment protects the rights of the media to cover newsworthy events and that journalistic proximity to crime does not equal complicity. Journalists routinely go where crimes are occurring.”
In a third motion to dismiss filed Friday morning, Lemon’s legal team argued that the indictment against him should be dismissed because the “charges are fundamentally flawed and must be dismissed” because the government wrongly applied two criminal statutes in the indictment.
Initially, the Justice Department tried to charge Lemon by criminal complaint, but a magistrate judge rejected the effort, citing a lack of probable cause.
The Justice Department then took the extraordinary step of asking first the chief judge, and then the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene. When those efforts failed, prosecutors took the case to a grand jury and secured an indictment.
“Upon hearing rumors of an indictment, counsel for Mr. Lemon contacted the Department of Justice to coordinate Mr. Lemon’s self-surrender,” his lawyers wrote.
“Instead of arranging the normal self-surrender after a charge would be filed, in what can only be described as an effort to punish and humiliate Mr. Lemon, the government ignored the request to arrange an orderly surrender and chose to deputize agents to his Los Angeles hotel—where he was covering the music industry’s annual awards show—to arrest him at midnight.”
The White House subsequently mocked Lemon in a post on X that read, “When life gives you lemons” and included a photo and information about his arrest.
“Perhaps recognizing that Mr. Lemon’s presence as a journalist was protected by the First Amendment, the government’s case agent falsely claimed in numerous sworn affidavits that Mr. Lemon affirmatively joined the protestors by ‘chanting with agitators and obstructing parishioners’ path of travel,’” his lawyers wrote.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the motions.
发表回复