We give Don Lemon plenty of well-deserved grief, but this segment last night on the Jussie Smollett case might have surprised CNN viewers who might have expected Lemon to defend his presumed pal. Lemon discussed the verdict with CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson, conceding not only that Smollett repeatedly lied, but also that he inadvisedly did so in court. In fact, this segment stands pretty clearly as a tonic to the “Smollett got railroaded” claims that we’ll undoubtedly see in the days and weeks ahead.

“When you weave a tale and it doesn’t make sense,” Jackson tells Lemon, “it becomes problematic. I think that’s what happened here.” Jackson goes on to shred Smollett’s narrative completely, as Lemon agrees:

LEMON: All right. Let’s talk about that before I go to that, what do you think of the strategy of his to kind of throw, you know, everything against the wall, muddy everybody, mock it. What did you think of his defensive strategy?

JACKSON: You know, I think certainly from a defense perspective you have to raise the specter of reasonable doubt, but you have to do it in a way that pokes holes in a prosecution’s case. It’s difficult to do that when already you’re locked into a story.

It’s difficult to do that when you say you don’t know anything about it, but they show you a video and show you various footage where you’re at that actual scene and potentially it’s you planning for something that happened. It’s difficult for you to say I don’t know and I wasn’t involved and then they present text messages to you with certain brothers who were involved with you.

And you say I really haven’t been really communicating with them, but then there are phone records that match you with up with them. And then they say, the police, let me have your phone and evaluate them. And you say, no, I don’t think so. But we’re trying to help you. No, I won’t give you my phone today.

And when you do, you block out and redact certain things. It’s just difficult. You know, we’re going to — we want to take DNA, we want to help — I don’t think I want to give you DNA. And so, there’s just so much overwhelming evidence here. And I get the defense wanting to put the police department on trial and I don’t believe in the police department, and why would he really cooperate with them, but I just think it was too much.

And then when you testify and you tell a story, the dynamics of which just belie common sense, I think this is what the result is. Talented person, very sad state of affairs, but at the end of the day there are consequences to your actions. I think the jury pronounced him guilty I think really spoke to that. And a judge will speak to what specific those consequences will be.

LEMON: They to make too many lies as to why they didn’t want to certain things like to cover like another lie and that, you know, I guess he got caught up in that because he took the stand himself. He got angry with the prosecutor as the prosecutor poked holes in his story calling only — the only other witnesses liars. I mean, do you think that hurt him, him taking the stand?

JACKSON: It’s devastating. Now, you know, I get why he would because of the fact he’s compelling and he can tell a story and he seems sincere. And he seems as though, you know, what he says should be believed and relied upon unless you said something inconsistent prior, right, when you go on TV. I never took then you (Inaudible). But you said before that you really did.

Just so many things. And so, when you go onto the witness stand, and there are certain things, Don, you can explain, but then you have to explain. But then you have to explain. And then how many things can you possibly explain?

That’s a pretty damning distillation of Smollett’s dishonesty; it borders on the lay definition of a pathological liar. Lemon buys into that point in particular, noting that Smollett told lies to back up other lies and wound up trapping himself in his testimony. Jackson clearly thinks the jury reached the correct decision, and goes even further in predicting Smollett will get real jail time. Interestingly, Lemon offers no objection or rebuttal to that prediction:

LEMON: Is he going to get prison time?

JACKSON: I think so because he’s facing three years. A judge can give him probation. But I think when a judge looks at all those things, punishment, deterrence. You don’t want people acting this way. Hate crimes, you made it up. People really have hate crimes.

You look the issue of expending of resources. That’s a problem. You get on the stand and you lie about it. So, I think the judge has to fashion a remedy appropriate not only to him but to send a message to all others that you probably should not be doing.

And that’s a defense attorney’s perspective.

Here’s what we don’t hear from Lemon: rationalizations about supposed previous victimizing, claims that Smollett got trapped by media, or any other excuse-making. He also doesn’t amplify the execrable argument from Black Lives Matters that he’s somehow obligated to take Smollett’s word simply on the basis of skin color. Nor did Lemon postulate that the verdict makes it harder for legit victims of hate crimes, as some in the media argued today, but that Smollett himself had done that:

LEMON: Here’s what folks are concerned about, that what he did might undermine future victims, legitimate victims of hate crimes.

Lemon doesn’t go out of his way to throw Smollett “under the bus,” as the Daily Mail put it, but he’s not defending Smollett in any way here either. Kudos to Lemon for that, but a few critics still wonder why he hasn’t addressed the personal connection Lemon has to the case and trial:

What did not come up was Smollett testifying in court Monday that Lemon sent him a text message warning him that Chicago police doubted his story, which led to his resistance in handing over his phone records. Smollett’s defense attorney said he plans to appeal the conviction. …

Lemon has not acknowledged this connection since Smollett revealed it under oath, and he and CNN have faced calls for some degree of accountability .

The CNN host did say in 2019 that he reached out to Smollett following reports of the attack because they were both black, gay, and had “fame.” He claimed he only inquired about Smollett’s well-being.

This point came up earlier in the week as well. Is it a serious violation of journalistic ethics? YMMV, but at the least it’s a tactical error. It would have been very simple for Lemon to address this point on either broadcast; avoiding it makes it look like he feels it’s something to hide. But nonetheless, Lemon at least did a commendable job in framing the outcome of the case honestly last night.