Ex-Olympian who touched Reflecting Pool charged with felony destruction of property by Trump’s DOJ

submitted by

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-reflecting-pool-arrest-felony-b3007867.html

23
180
1

Log in to comment

Hot Top New Old
edited

Hearn “forcefully and violently” pulled the pool’s lining, she said.

But asked whether the pool’s lining was already damaged when Hearn touched it, Pirro said she was “not going to get into the evidence.”

“What I told you is what our witnesses saw and experienced,” she said. “Irrespective of whether or not we think there is some situation that preceded it, we can state and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he caused damage.”

I swear, these people somehow seem to be addicted to the sounds of their own voices and yet can’t even hear themselves talk.

 reply
57

I’m surprised Pirro even knew where she was, on the count of her being shitfaced 24/7.

 reply
21
edited

This is classic Controlling the Conversation. If they can make it about “vandalism,” then we’re not talking about the shady deals and shoddy work that actually destroyed the Reflecting Pool. Don’t fall for it.

 reply
55

What are the chances of 12 people putting this guy away for picking up a piece of the orange failures blue failure?

My guess is exactly zero

 reply
27

About to get another unanimous no-bill from the grand jury.

 reply
11

You can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride.

 reply
9

This. They still are making him have a really bad time, and all because Donvict does not want to talk about his obvious failure here.

 reply
8
edited

I would note grand juries are required to charge someone with a felony, meaning they did already get atleast (13 of 23?) a majority of the grand jury to agree he did do the crime.

However, there have already been multiple cases dismissed for incorrect procedure during grand juries under this admin, so it is possible that is the case for why the grand jury would agree to charge in this case.

Update: I was incorrect, there is generally 30 days from the time of arrest for a grand jury to be convinced to indict. See below

 reply
5

I think they still have to bring the charge to the grand jury.

 reply
2

From the article:

David Hearn, a two-time whitewater racing world champion who competed in the canoe slalom at three Olympic Games, was indicted by a grand jury Thursday in D.C. Superior Court on one felony charge, according to court records.

 reply
3

Well Thats some fuckin bs

 reply
1
edited

I became more confused upon trying to look it up.

“A grand jury focuses on preliminary criminal matters only and assesses evidence presented by a prosecutor to determine whether there is “probable cause” to believe an individual committed a crime and should be put on trial. If the grand jury determines there is enough evidence, an indictment will be issued against the individual”

Source: https://www.uscourts.gov/court-programs/jury-service/types-juries

That makes it sound to me like they would need to do that rather than charge him, as the right to indictment by grand jury for federal felonies is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5.html

My issue with assuming he has been indicted by a grand jury though is that in the article is specifically uses “charged” over and over and charges are brought by Attorneys not Grand Juries.

So maybe just admin doing crime?

 reply
1

No they aren’t. They tried to charge the sandwich guy with a felony and the grand jury refused to do it so they had to downgrade the charge to a misdemeanor.

 reply
2

And then the jury said not guilty to that, despite the full confession in court lol

 reply
3
edited

You are correct.

Nowhere did I see it said on my sources on grand juries but I looked up the Wikipedia for the DC Sandwich Guy case and: “U.S. law typically gives the Justice Department 30 days to secure an indictment after an arrest.”

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/grand-jury-declines-indict-man-arrested-throwing-sandwich-us-agent-source-says-2025-08-27/

(this is the source cited by Wikipedia but seems to just be stated without source itself in the article)

 reply
3
edited

What is insane to me is that there are still Americans that think they live in a normal country. If I was an American I would crawl to Canada or Mexico.

 reply
26

Moving to another country is complicated and difficult even under normal, stable circumstances. Doing it successfully (not ending up broke and homeless with no support) requires a lot of planning and money, or else a lot of help from someone else.

Even if the other country is willing to let you immigrate, and you have good prospects for a regular income and a stable living situation, you have to leave friends and family behind. That means leaving your support system. If you have children that’s going to be very difficult. If you have aging parents that you support, or other family with medical issues, it may be impossible.

Really, the only people who think picking up and moving to another country is something you can just do are young, single, above the poverty line, and have no dependents.

 reply
22

The alternative is death or incarceration.

 reply
2

And when the critical factor for being able to choose immigration over death/incarceration is money… Well, a lot of us simply don’t get a choice.

My engineer friend is halfway through the immigration process. Me? I have a solid 9 to 5 that I bust my ass at every day but I don’t have enough money for gas to get to the border, much less to immigrate.

I’ll never be an immigrant, and not by choice.

When the time comes, if I’m very VERY lucky, I might live long enough to become a refugee. That’s my only alternative to your alternative.

 reply
3

Is the term “ex-olympian” actually correct? I would say the guy is still an olympian because he is a person who competed in the olympics.

 reply
14
edited

No it’s not correct. The term commonly used is usually something like “retired olympic athlete”.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caitlyn_Jenner

Edit: The “ex-” title they are giving him is intentional. It carries negative connotation and implies he was banned/fired from competing or something.

 reply
5

He’s gonna get soooo much money from the lawsuit.

 reply
10

Yes and the people responsible don’t care because there will be no consequences for them

 reply
3
Insert image