Baker was a credentialed press member who was at J6. Long story short, he got arrested and charged. During the hearing, Baker wanted the case dismissed because his claim was he was acting in his capacity as a credentialed journalist. Judge Cooper rejected that notion saying that since Baker had given opinions that aligned with the J6 rioters, he was no longer a journalist. The judge cited a comment Baker made on camera. He said: "Do I approve of what happened today? I approve 100%." Because of this, the judge ordered the case to move forward. Since there was no felony involved, Baker pled guilty just to avoid a trial.

So, yeah, there is precedent for this kind of thing. Just because you are a journalist doesn't mean you get to break laws (rioting, trespassing, etc.). Judge Cooper proved that a court gets to decide who is a journalist and who is not. Even if you are credentialed, a court has the power to decide whether you really were acting in your capacity as a journalist. Being a journalist does NOT make you immune from everything. People like to pretend that journalists are some "protected class" when they clearly are not.

Lemon was on camera giving commentary during the church invasion. At one point in his video he compared the rioters to "civil rights" marchers. He said "you have to go into places like this, disrupt them, and make them uncomfortable." Lemon was cheering it on and making it clear he was on the side of the rioters. Exactly the same thing Baker did.

Moreover, this was not some widely advertised protest like J6 where everyone in America knew it was happening days in advance. At least Baker could claim he was covering a widely publicized event. No, this was a small group of people who secretly planned to invade a church. No advertisements, no news coverage, none of that. Lemon had been "tipped off" that it was happening. That makes him a co-conspirator.