Listen to “Pirro Chose Justice Over Trump” on Spreaker.
Finally, something worth discussing when it comes to the reflecting pool in Washington, D.C.: our system can still work, even when it is pressured by the commander in chief. A win for democracy.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington has asked a judge to dismiss its felony case against David Hearn, a three-time Olympian accused of damaging the newly renovated Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.
The reason? Newly obtained Interior Department records substantially undermined the evidence used to indict him. Those documents indicated that the pool’s lining had been poorly installed and had begun failing almost immediately — not that Hearn had caused the widespread damage.
A subsequent inspection revealed peeling throughout the pool, including in its center, where a vandal would be unlikely to attempt to remove the lining.
“Given all of this newly discovered information, it is difficult to attribute the widespread damage to the Reflecting Pool to vandalism, let alone to establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt,” prosecutors wrote.
Hearn should never have been charged on the evidence initially available. But once prosecutors obtained the complete picture, they did what the justice system requires: they corrected course.
The system worked.
President Trump is undoubtedly furious.
“I disagree 100% with (US Attorney for the District of Columbia) Jeanine Pirro,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “I don’t know what she was thinking? To me, it was a pure case of VANDALISM.”
That post says considerably more than the president probably intended — if you take the time to digest it.
Clearly, the president’s ego, fueled in part by his inability to recognize and admit mistakes, is doing most of the talking.
“I disagree.”
Not the administration. Not the Justice Department. Not the evidence.
“I.”
This is personal to the president, and personal grievances have no place in the administration of justice. The moment a prosecution becomes personal, it risks ceasing to be an instrument of justice and becoming an instrument of revenge.
Trump’s professed inability to understand Pirro’s decision says far more about him than it does about her. The evidence necessary to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt simply was not there. Full stop. Indeed, the evidence prosecutors later received suggests the original account provided by the Interior Department was, at best, seriously incomplete.
A responsible prosecutor must distinguish between what is suspected, what can be proven and what the evidence shows did not happen as originally alleged.
Pirro obviously understands that.
Line up 100 reasonable people, allow them to examine all the evidence, and you would likely struggle to find 12 willing to convict Hearn beyond a reasonable doubt.
Despite her earlier rhetoric — and Pirro’s language when announcing the charge was emphatic — she was unwilling to continue pursuing a convenient scapegoat merely to help the president save face.
Good for her.
She presumably understands that contradicting Trump so publicly could invite retaliation, perhaps even cost her the position. But protecting her job cannot be more important than refusing to prosecute a man when the evidence no longer supports the accusation.
The notion that the president’s personal assessment should carry any weight in determining criminal guilt is equally troubling, but demonstratively not to Mr Trump.
“To me, it was a pure case of VANDALISM.”
Guilt is not determined by what something looks like “to” Donald Trump — or to any president. It is determined by admissible evidence, the applicable law and the government’s ability to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Trump’s statement reflects one of his most dangerous tendencies: the belief that his perception of events is superior to the evidence — that his version of reality should become reality simply because he declares it so. Chilling and dangerous.
More people should challenge that tendency, as Pirro has done here.
Is Jeanine Pirro a saint? Of course not. Nobody is. She has shortcomings, as we all do, and her office deserves criticism for bringing such a serious charge before obtaining the full record.
But when confronted with evidence that undermined the prosecution, she stood firm and did what was right — even though doing so may carry a personal cost.
That deserves our respect, our appreciation.
The president’s attempt to substitute his personal certainty for evidence, meanwhile, deserves our criticism and rebuke.
Because this episode is no longer primarily about a damaged reflecting pool. It is about whether evidence or ego will determine the exercise of government power… about a president’s will to see punishment unjustly handed down to satisfy his personal desires, his demons.
This time, at least, the evidence prevailed. May it always.
And one more thing: If choosing the rule of law over the president somehow infects me with Trump Derangement Syndrome, so be it. Better infected and a country stand, than healthy and a country fall.