Trump BLOWS UP Reflecting Pool Case as STAR WITNESS CRASHES!!!

Donald Trump, Todd Blanche, and Jeanine Pirro busted again.It appears more grand jury misconduct probably took place as they conjured and contrived their so -called reflecting pool case against two -time Olympic canoeist David Hearn.David Hearn's lawyers filed a powerful motion in federal, in state court rather, in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, motion for disclosure of grand jury minutes and legal instructions.And this motion goes on to say that like we've been seeing in federal grand juries, it appears that the department of justice in this DC superior court grand jury may not have been providing the grand jurors with accurate instructions about the crimes for which David Hearn was ultimately charged with regarding the reflecting pool.You may recall that when I was doing videos on this with Harry Litman, when the charges were initially brought, one of the things we speculated on this time, but based on the body of grand jury proceedings that took place thus far, is that What in the hell did they tell this grand jury?Because as you now know from watching the Midas Touch Network in these grand juries, the judge isn't there.

The lawyers, the criminal defense lawyers for the target aren't in the room.And so it's based on the presumption of regularity between the prosecutors doing their job following the law.And that ain't what the Trump regime DOJ does.So here's the motion by David Hearn's lawyers, motion for disclosure of grand jury minutes and legal instructions.We've been seeing a whole lot of motions like this throughout the federal system.And this is one in the superior court system because

of the fact that it took place in DC, even though it's a felony, it's happened in DC.So technically it's charged in a DC superior court.Based on a presentation by the government to a grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia, David Hearn was charged with one count of felony destruction of property.Counsel for David Hearn's review of certain transcripts from those proceedings provided by the government has revealed irregularities warranting disclosure of further information relative relevant to the grand jury's charging decision.Accordingly, Mr. Hearn respectfully moves pursuant to the Superior Court Rule 6E, which is just like the Federal Rule 6E, for disclosure of the legal instructions provided to the grand jury concerning the elements of the charge defense, and two, the complete transcript or minutes of all grand jury proceedings relating to this matter.In the alternative, Mr. Hearn requests that the court review those materials in camera.

The primary ground for this motion is a discrete and consequential issue, whether the grand jury received and applied legally sufficient evidence and was properly instructed on an essential element of malicious destruction of property, namely the amount of loss caused by the defendant's alleged conduct.In order to be charged with felony malicious destruction of property, a defendant must have caused damage in the amount of $1 ,000 or more.And to be charged, a misdemeanor, a defendant must have caused some amount of damage of value.Here, based on the discovery provided to date, the government's sole grand jury witness on damages testified that the property was already damaged before Mr. Hearn allegedly touched it.That the same repairs would have been required regardless of Mr. Hearn's conduct and that he could not quantify any loss attributable to that conduct.That testimony raises a substantial question.

whether the grand jury had legally sufficient evidence of the loss element necessary to support the indictment and whether the grand jury was properly instructed on that element.Additionally, other irregularities in the government's presentation of evidence to the grand jury further call into question whether the grand jury was misled in a matter that substantially influenced the decision to indict and that prejudice, Mr. Hearn.And one of the things that we've seen the DOJ do frequently is something called vouching, where they say, this is a strong case, we feel good about it, you should indict.The motion goes on to talk about how this specific witness, remember the DOJ and Jeanine Pirro said, we have a star witness, goes on to say, the government's sole witness, there's one, There's not witnesses.Remember, Jeanine Pirro did that press conference?Wing on this witness and that witness and that witness.

The government's sole witness concerning the loss is a National Park Service official, did not identify or quantify the loss.The witness's testimony established that the pool had substantial pre -existing damage requiring repair before any alleged conduct by Mr. Hearn.According to the witness, The pool was leaking more than 1 million gallons of water per week, its expansion joints had exceeded their service life, and the liner already contained a rip.The government's witness further confirmed that repairs were already necessary tothose conditions.The witness testified that the repairs at issue would have been necessary regardless of Mr. Hearn's alleged conduct.

The government's estimated repairs range from $6 ,000 to $15 ,000 was based on the size of an area rather than on damage attributed to any particular act by Mr. Hearn.and the government's witness expressly confirmed that the same estimated range of repairs, $6 ,000 to $15 ,000, would have still been necessary before the defendant interacted with the pool.Simply put, the government's witness could not identify any additional costs caused by Mr. Hearn's alleged conduct.Indeed, the witness did not even say or suggest that the alleged conduct had compromised the liner at all.When asked by a grand juror for the difference between the estimated cost of repairs before and after the alleged damage, the witness could not provide an answer.And it goes on to say, the grand jury transcripts disclosed to defense thus far contains other irregularities that reflect a misleading presentation to the grand jury.

and a need for review of the entire grand jury record.For one, the government failed to present the widely available photograph discussed in Mr. Hearn's Rule 41G motion that by the government's own account was taken by Mr. Hearn before he ever touched the reflecting pool and accordingly proves that he caused no damage to the pool.I want to bring in Harry Litman from the Talking Feds.podcast the talking feds youtube and the talking feds sub stack harry when these charges were brought you and i showed janine pierro's press conference we said what witnesses are out there and we said to the extent there are the moment they're underoath, what the hell are they going to say?And we know what they're going to say.

And here we have one, and that one witness did not say anything that they were supposed to.So what the hell was actually said to this grant?What were they instructed on by Jeanine Pirro and Jeanine Pirro's team?And then obviously, Harry, let's just assume we get past the grand jury part here.This case goes to trial.The case will be rejected in five questions.

What'd you see?I don't know.Did he do it?Yeah, I don't know.What were the damages?I don't know.

Were there damages before him?Yes.All right, no further questions.I mean, Harry, this is beyond vexatious.This is ridiculous.

It's ridiculous.And it seems to happen, Ben, again and again, in all of their big ticket cases, they're doing the most elementary of blunders.Let me say a couple things to set the table.First, of course, you're right.This is superior court.It's a different system.

Nevertheless, it's the DOJ.So to the extent the DOJ is being hapless and just screwing the pooch in every big ticket case.This is obviously one.This was basically, this is like a reprisal prosecution.It was brought just for Donald Trump's political purposes of being able to say vandals did this whole thing and all the damage rather than his own broken promises and false assurances.So it's that kind of big high profile case.

And you ask in case after case, How do they screw this up?How do they screw up the big stuff again and again?So first point, Superior Court, when we're talking about DOJ on the job and the high profile items that they gotta get right, it's the same as if it werea felony court in district court.Second, we are talking about not just an element of the offense, but the very one that they use to elevate this to a felony.It wasn't enough for them to be able to charge, you know, because remember it's the whole thing vandals doing terrible things and cutting slits in the in the liner the size of three football fields.

We know, by the way, what really happened there.And it was just reinforced by that witness, as you said, leaking 1 million gallons.That's because, and you and I did this in a different YouTube, they laid down on the layer and they really messed up at the seams.That's, of course, what was going on.But nevertheless, they wanted to, it wasn't enough for them to just say, aha, we got you.because they wanted it to be a bandit who had caused all this damage.

So this is an element of the crime.It's as if it's a felon in possession case and nobody in the grand jury was told that there was a gun.I mean, it is the very thing that makes this into a felony, which is what they want.And they apparently have no evidence about it.It is beyond mind boggling and will result.I mean, you know, it's it's not it's kind of worse than misconduct.

Again, How do you screw this up?Now, the agent, the witness, by the way, is a park official guy.It's a little bit like having an agent there who summarizes the testimony.So we haven't seen yet Jeanine Perreault's big, her claim of a couple witnesses.We think maybe there's, you know, a couple MAGA types who were there who will say things that cross -examination, if it ever occurs, is going to bepositively brutal because all indications are it.

this all didn't happen.But even you put a witness in the grand jury and you simply there's only three elements here like oops forgot to to do this very one that is so critical to them it's how they make this a felony.The other the last thing I want to point out about this you know why is it that your determining these things in the grand jury, you would think in a case like this, and we saw this with say, Lindsey Halligan, get a witness in, say the basic things and get them out.And it sounds as if they do this presentation with the park official, nobody even mentions damage, God knows what the park official does say, and that's of course why the Hearns lawyers have such a good case for we need to see the whole thing.It sounds, though, to me, Ben, as if the grand jury, a grand juror was active and said, excuse me, Mr. Agent, can you tell us anything about how much damage there was, that it was an active grand jury?And remember, we're in D .

C., where, among other things, it was in D .C., I've never even seen this before, that they tried to indict six members of Congress for making that claim.public service statement about how you don't have to follow legal orders.And they got zero votes for a true bill.

D .C.jurors and grand jurors have shown themselves to be active in questioning.Now, what happened here?Because you're it's really right.What sorts of instructions were there?

Because the grand juror asked this question.OK, what was the damage?So the grand jurors focused on this and gets this answer.and is then given a proposed indictment that they voted out that said there's over $1 ,000 in damage or whatever it is.How was that blank?filled in.

What did the prosecutor tell the grand jury that already was focused on this issue to give them some kind of reassurance that they could vote out this felony count?Man, oh man, when the whole transcript comes out, that could be really, really ugly.And I just, the very final point is, yep, I think it would be an open and shut, acquittal or even directed verdict if it comes to it.But this is looking to me once again to be this big chest beating.We've got vandals and Trump was right again.and it just like collapses at the grand jury stage in what should be, what is a humiliating way for the Department of Justice, but they just, you know, go right into the buzzsaw in all these big cases.

So it really is this huge question.If the grand juror was saying what happened here, What did a prosecutor then instruct the grand jury that they wound up voting these charges that said there's over $1 ,000 or whatever it is of damages in that felony count, which they obviously wanted to bring.This one is really looking screwed up from soup to nuts in the grand jury.And it happens to them in all their big cases.The gang that can't shoot straight even when everything's on the line.

You know, I saw Trump make a post the other day on social media bragging about how.a federal judge in the Southern District of Florida dismissed or granted the motion to strike or dismissed his defamation case against New York Times.And Trump posted it like it was a win because he got leave to amend.And I bring it up here because it's like, You and I, as law professors, litigators, you look at this and you're like, what loser behavior.And I don't want to lose sight that this loser behavior that you see in his personal frivolous cases have now infected the DOJ, have infected the grand jury room, have infected the once proud history and the presumption of regularity of the DOJ.And you see it with not just folly, but like the most humiliating elementary and if a law student did this they would get expelled from law school by the dean you know as a first year and it's like this is what you're pulling this is like it's dumb it's unlawful smart lawyers catch it easily and it's like come on, really?

And I think to myself, Harry, this is like what Iran is thinking, you know, when Trump pulls this stuff, like in the wars, and this is what our, like, this is how he, it's like, come on, man, what are you doing?

What are you doing?It's a good analogy actually, Ben, because like wartime, that's pretty serious.So if this happened anywhere, and I mean, we've seen it someplace in the country, like Chicago, where How do you screw this up?But we're talking about the very cases that are the marquee cases for this administration.And when you do that, when you bring this phony baloney case in order to serve Donald Trump's political interests, somebody there has to like make sure that youthe very basics, like present evidence on element of each, each element of the crime to the grand jury, or, you know, actually don't vouch.

These are the very biggest cases that, that you would think the whole, you know, they care the most about it.And it just occurs to me that Those ones are often going now to people who have been recently enlisted in the department as true believers, not to the older gang.And those are exactly the kinds of inexperienced and sort of overreaching attorneys who will make these.It's not even a rookie mistake.It's a double A ball mistake and you know your baseball career is over.This is such Basic stuff.

And again, so basic that I really want to see the transcript.Could a prosecutor have heard this and then just instruct them on evidence that wasn't there?And if not, how did they vote out the true bill?Big hole to fill in in the middle of this pretty goddamn important indictment for the administration's, you know, big ticket political reflecting pool issue.

Everybody, subscribe to the Talking Feds YouTube channel as soon as this ends.Go to Talking Feds because the name of our new book coming out in October is WTF.Pre -order it, but then go to Harry Lippman's YouTube channel.Say WTF America, Harry.WTF.Thanks, Harry.

Thank you, Ben.youyou