Trump's Trials - 'Useless, junk prosecutions': legal analyst on DOJ's Reflecting Pool case

Episode Date: August 4, 2026

The federal government dropped charges against three individuals in connection with damage to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, NPR's Rachel Treisman reports. And Steve Inskeep speaks with legal analyst Elliot Williams about the case. Support public media with NPR+ and enjoy perks for over 25 podcasts like this one. This show’s perks include sponsor-free listening. Learn more at plus.npr.org.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

You're listening to Trump's terms. I'm Scott Detrow. The president has both an ability and a willingness to use the power of his office, to think outside the box. Nobody makes a better deal than President Trump. We're going to do better and better and better. Nobody can believe what they're watching. Every episode, we bring you one story from NPR's recent coverage of the 47th president. With a focus on ways his administration is pushing the boundaries of presidential power. Here's the latest from NPR.

I'm Steve Inskeep in Washington, D.C. And I'm A. Martinez in Culver City, California. Federal prosecutors have dropped charges against three people accused of damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. They blame President Trump's handpicked contractor instead. A rare pushback from his own administration, as NPR's Rachel Treasman reports. It was one month ago when Janine Piro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, held a press conference about the reflecting pool. She announced that a grand jury had indicted former Olympian David Hearn on a felony property destruction charge.

The evidence shows we'll prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hearn willfully destroyed property at the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool. Hearn says he simply reached into the pool to touch a floating piece of the new $14 million lining. He pleaded not guilty and was scheduled for trial in September. And then on Friday, Piro asked to judge. to drop the charge. In a 20-page court filing, Piero said new evidence from the Department of the Interior shows that the peeling paint was the result of a, quote, botched installation. Their own experts and even the Department of Interior have concluded that no one damaged the reflecting pool. That's attorney Allen Dale. He represents one of the other three people

arrested for vandalism, all pleaded not guilty. They're all charged with doing about the same thing, putting their hand in the reflecting pool. By Monday, all three of their misdemeanor charges had been dropped. But their lawyers say the experience will stay with them. One of them said his client lost two jobs. Another described it as humiliating. She'd been fingerprinted. She's been photographed.

She's a mugshot. She's in the FBI database. Lawyer Jameson Kohler said his client, a local veterinarian, had simply picked up floating paint pieces along with some litter. This is the President of the United States saying these people will be punished. These people are going to jail for a long time. She's horrified and petrified. Trump said Monday he was really disappointed in Piro, whom he picked for the job.

She folded like an umbrella and people get away with things. It's a disgrace. Trump continued to blame vandals for the damage, but he also found fault with the company. The contractor, but the contractor was rushing. We wanted to get it open for July 4th, and we got it done. Algae and peeling paint caused problems immediately after the pool was refilled. It was drained again after the 4th of July, and it sits empty and fenced off today. Rachel Treasman, NPR News.

Elliot Williams has been listening with us. He is a legal analyst and former federal prosecutor. Welcome back. Hey, good to talk to you, Steve. Good morning. If you were still acting as a prosecutor, could you have made the case for vandalism here? I absolutely could not, Steve. And quite frankly, if I'd tried, I'd be risking my law license, to be honest, because I would be making claims in court that are not supported by fact or law.

Look, the standard for vandalism in the District of Columbia is maliciously injuring, breaking, or destroying a private or public property. And nowhere in any of the president's claims of vandalism was that evidence established other than simply saying that this damage was caused by vandals. nowhere, not once did anyone credibly pin on Mr. Hearn or any of these three people, this idea that they'd committed acts of vandalism. And these were just useless junk prosecutions. I feel that you've identified something that's really important in our political discourse, just to note so that people are aware of it, can notice when it happens. You're telling me that there was no evidence, but the president applied a label to someone, vandal, and just said it again and again and again. That's a really important point here. And I want to be clear, vandalism of federal

property or monuments is a very serious thing. People should go to jail if they do it. But we don't live in a world of just ideas or feelings. We live in a world of laws. And if a prosecutor is going to come forward with a serious allegation that someone has done or engaged in an act like this, They should have, prosecutors need to, under the law, come forward with where that evidence is of that person's criminal intent to commit that act. And nowhere was that ever said. And certainly not even from Janine Piro at the time that she announced the charges. Well, I'm glad you mentioned that she announced charges and then withdrew them because she seems in recent days to have done what you would want a prosecutor to do, which is follow the evidence as she sees it. But why do you think that Piro spoke so differently at the start saying, for example, that David

her and acted violently and forcefully? God knows, Steve, I don't know, and I don't think Gene Piro should be let off the hook here. Of course, it is a good thing and legally and professionally the correct thing to have dropped these charges at the time she did now. But let's be clear, she should never have brought them in the first place. Now, at the time this all came out, I was out talking about this as well, making the point that if there is evidence, it certainly wasn't made public at the time, but Maybe they have it.

Maybe they could come forward with it and establish that it was the case. We've learned from reading this 20-page memo that she submitted that there never was. And quite frankly, that memorandum in which she lays out why they're dropping the charges is a masterclass in throwing your coworkers under the bus. They really take the investigators of this case to task, saying that they failed in any duty to really establish the circumstances. of what happened in this alleged act of vandalism that wasn't an act of vandalism. Now, as we heard in Rachel's story there, President Trump is not happy, says he is not happy. Todd Blanche is the acting attorney general and the nominee to be permanently the attorney general. Is it the attorney general's job in a situation like this to stick up for the prosecutor?

To some, that's an excellent question. To some extent, however, it's the attorney general's job to establish that his prosecutors are following facts and law and only bringing cases that are supported or supportable. Now, I will note that a case like this, a relatively small vandalism case in a local jurisdiction, probably isn't the sort that would bubble up to the Attorney General of the United States. Now, D.C. is a little bit different, obviously, because everybody lives in this town here.

However, the only things would really make it to the Attorney General's desk would be if an elected official were charged with vandalism or something like that, or a famous actor. I'm just wondering if the right action for an attorney general in this situation is to maybe call the president and say, listen, probably you don't want to fire that person. They were acting correctly? Like, educate the president a little bit. Yeah, or simply back off because of the fact, Mr. President, you are putting our prosecutors

in a very dangerous position of having to stand up in public and substantiate charges that simply aren't supported in law. How would you rate the credibility of the Justice Department overall at this moment? It's really low, Steve. And it's not just with the public or anyone else. It's with judges and courts, which you're increasingly finding that they don't trust the things the Justice Department are saying. Judges are starting to put this in rulings. They just simply can't believe what they're hearing.

These prosecutors stand up in court, and it's really heartbreaking. Elliot Williams is a former deputy assistant attorney general. Elliot, thanks so much. Always great to talk to you, Steve. Take care. And before we wrap up, a thank you to our NPR Plus supporters who hear each show without sponsored messages and, of course, who help protect independent journalism. If you are not a supporter yet, you can visit plus.npr.org to find out how you can get a ton of podcast perks across dozens of NPR shows, like bonus episodes, exclusive merchandise, and more. Again, that's plus.npr.org. I'm Scott Detrow. Thanks for listening to Trump's Terms from NPR.

Thank you.