Minnesotans are familiar with the perils of “snow blindness,” a temporary blindness caused by overexposure to ultraviolet rays from the reflection from snow and ice. It appears that Minnesota politicians and prosecutors have a type of mob blindness, where they cannot see crimes committed in front of them by the far left. That condition appears to be tragically evident in St. Paul, where City Attorney Irene Kao made an absurd denial of any criminal activity at the demonstration in the City Church on Jan. 18th. While claiming that there were no observable crimes, Kao’s decision just happened to be enormously popular with the mob-driven politics and polling in her state.

In January, dozens of anti-ICE protesters, and former CNN journalist Don Lemon, descended upon the church and disrupted a mass because a church official had connections to ICE.

The demonstrators could have been charged with such offenses as disorderly conduct, interfering with a religious observance, knowingly participating in a noisy assembly and making or continuing a disturbing or excessive noise.

There was a demonstrator who was able to get her misdemeanor charges dismissed earlier. However, Emily Phillips was arrested for her conduct outside of the church and actually responded to police demands that she stop using her bullhorn.

Her case is a good point of comparison. Protesting outside is vastly different from entering a church or event to disrupt it or shout down speakers.

These demonstrators entered a church, refused to leave when told to do so, and abused parishioners while stopping the services.

Kao offers little more than a shrug: “Following a careful evaluation of the video footage, investigative reports, and other available materials, prosecutors determined that the current evidence is insufficient to meet that standard for criminal charges under Minnesota state statutes.”

There are 39 people still charged by the federal government under the FACE Act.

Kao insisted, “The right to peacefully protest is protected, as is the right to exercise one’s religious beliefs. Balancing these equally important rights is paramount to our decision today.”

This is not protected free speech. It is conduct. Indeed, it is criminal conduct.

While Kao stressed that there was no property damage, it is not required under these criminal charges.

What is missing is not the basis for criminal charges but the will to prosecute them. Once again, Democratic politicians are yielding to the mob and refusing to see the criminal conduct.

It is reminiscent of CNN national correspondent Omar Jimenez reporting live from Kenosha, Wis., with a raging fire in the background over a chyron reading, “FIERY BUT MOSTLY PEACEFUL PROTESTS AFTER POLICE SHOOTING.”

These politicians and state prosecutors hope to ride this rage wave back into power in Congress and the White House. Indeed, some have told voters to “let your rage fuel you.”

We have seen this pattern before in history. Establishment figures often try to harness the rage of the mob, only to be ultimately consumed by the rage themselves.

Irene Kao’s decision is a cynical concession to the mob. It is a decision that will give the Minnesota mob a further sense of license.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of the bestselling books “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” and “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”