AG Comments On Protest
In the political theater that has become America’s state governance, Minnesota has once again taken center stage—not for a bold policy move or economic win, but for a jaw-dropping defense of mob rule masquerading as free expression. Saul Alinsky, ever the spectral coach in the shadows of progressive radicalism, would be applauding this latest scene: a calculated erosion of the rule of law under the sanctimonious banner of “protest.”
Keith Ellison, Minnesota’s Attorney General and a man not unfamiliar with controversy, appeared on Don Lemon’s livestream following Sunday’s ambush at Cities Church in St. Paul. The event wasn’t a peaceful protest on a sidewalk or a robust exchange of ideas. It was an organized and aggressive disruption of a religious service—by anti-ICE agitators who stormed the sanctuary during worship. The intent wasn’t dialogue. It was dominance.
🚨 Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison justifies the anti-ICE protesters storming a church service in Minneapolis yesterday:
“None of us are immune from the voice of the public.” pic.twitter.com/sFhuD1Nm7A
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) January 19, 2026
Ellison’s response? A shrug cloaked in constitutional language. “The protest is fundamental,” he declared, wrapping the chaos in the comforting fabric of the First Amendment, as if mobbing a church during service is somehow equivalent to pamphleteering in the town square. It’s a masterclass in rhetorical sleight-of-hand: cite the Constitution while dismissing the law.
That’s where things take a sharper turn. Because while Ellison plays defense attorney for radical leftist disruptions, legal minds like Harmeet Dhillon see something far more serious. She referenced not one, but two federal statutes that could apply here—the FACE Act, designed to protect places of worship and clinics from harassment, and the Ku Klux Klan Act, aimed at preventing conspiracy to deprive people of civil rights. In other words, this wasn’t a protected protest. It was quite possibly a prosecutable conspiracy.
Hi friends, this is my Uncle Don. He is unemployed but spends most days talking into his computer, where he says people pay him to comment on the news. We believe he thinks he’s some sort of television anchor. A few days ago, he left his home in NYC then appeared on social media… pic.twitter.com/KNLPdXj23e
— Emily Jashinsky (@emilyjashinsky) January 19, 2026
And what of Don Lemon’s role? His arrival at the church, camera-ready and conveniently embedded, raises red flags. Was this journalism or collusion? If the latter, as Dhillon suggests, Lemon may soon find out that the First Amendment is not a shield for aiding criminal trespass.
But perhaps the most revealing quote came from Ellison himself: “None of us are immune from the voice of the public.” That may be true in a democratic society—but it doesn’t mean we’re immune from the law either. By excusing lawlessness under the guise of protest, Ellison implicitly endorses the Alinsky playbook: create chaos, then capitalize on the disorder.
And if these are indeed the rules of engagement, then they must apply universally. Would Ellison defend a group of Christians storming his mosque mid-prayer as “just something you’ve gotta live with”? Unlikely. Selective tolerance is not tolerance at all—it’s power, wielded arbitrarily.
