Former Olympian's Lawyer: Reflecting Pool case was an 'abuse' of democracy

[0:00] Joining us now is that lawyer, Norm Eisen, founder and executive chair of the Democracy Defenders Fund and former special counsel and special assistant to President Obama. [0:09] Norm, thank you so much for joining us, and I'm sorry to everyone that my dramatic interpretive reading wasn't as good as Eugene's. [0:18] Okay, Norm, I mean, where do you want to start? This is obviously a great, a big win for you, but obvious win. [0:25] I mean, right, we all have sort of had an idea of what the facts were all along, despite what we were hearing from the administration. [0:34] But I was actually, quite frankly, a bit surprised that Jeanine Pirro did a seemingly thorough job with that 19-page dismissal. [0:43] Well, number one, Davey Hearn is innocent. He has maintained his innocence and his defense team, ourselves at Democracy Defenders Fund. [0:56] Steve Levine at Steptoe, Mary Dorman at the Washington Litigation Group. [1:03] It's been a dream team that has filed a series of motions, five motions, pointing to different evidence, proof that Davey Hearn is innocent. [1:15] The day after we started, the day after he was arraigned, after he pled not guilty on July 10th, we showed before and after photographs that demonstrate that he did not harm the reflecting pool. [1:29] It was the same before he put his hand in the water and after. [1:35] So it's so wrong on a human level that this happened to Mr. Hearn, to Davey. [1:42] But for a democracy to have this kind of abuse and Jean Pirro, I appreciate offering to dismiss the case. [1:52] But I do not accept what is in the government's motion to dismiss because they knew or should have known all along this was not a righteous case. [2:04] I'm curious, you know, President Trump is still essentially not by name, but saying that vandals did this. [2:11] Maybe he's moved on from Mr. Hearn. But I'm mostly curious what happens next, because they have called him every name but a child of God on television, not in that document. [2:24] Very different. Are you guys, is there any conversation about suing them over false claims? [2:30] I mean, I don't know what his legal costs were, but like there's reputational damage, I assume, that you guys are thinking about right now. [2:38] We're looking at all the remedies. The legal team is talking. [2:43] So our suit is on the table. [2:45] All remedies are being considered. I'm not going to commit to any specific ones at this time. [2:54] It's very important to Davey and to us, not just because of the devastation that has been done to him. [3:02] I mean, imagine what it feels like. You watch TV and you have the president or other administration officials saying you could go to jail for 10 years. [3:14] But it's not just his personal situation that he's focused on. [3:21] He's focused on what this means for our democracy, on the other innocent people who've been targeted over and over again. [3:29] And it's important, of course, for him as a human being. [3:34] But for the state of our country and the future of our country to look at all remedies, we will do that right now. [3:41] We're going to concentrate on finishing the job of getting this bogus, baseless, abusive case thrown out. [3:49] So, Norm, picking up on what comes next that Eugene brought up, the case is thrown out on Friday. [4:00] Great. But then the president yesterday on social media, as was read in the intro, says that this should be reversed and that there's evidence to prove to prove the case. [4:11] We have seen time and time again situations where a decision is made on the merits and the president comes out and says, I disagree. [4:22] And then things change. Is there a possibility that this case comes back because of what the president said? [4:30] Or does the law not work that way? [4:32] If you look at the motion, there's an admission at the end. [4:40] It is given all of this newly discovered information. [4:45] Again, we reject. We've started filing this information the day after the arraignment on July 10th. [4:53] And we told them even before the arraignment, Hearn was innocent. [4:56] But then they write, it is difficult to attribute the widespread damage they're reflecting pool to vandalism, let alone to establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. [5:08] So they have made a legally binding concession here. [5:13] That is something that will prevent the specific recurrence that we've seen elsewhere, though, whether it's a Tish James or a Jim Comey. [5:29] And certainly there's cause with the president's comments yesterday for alarm. [5:34] I will say it was pretty extraordinary to have Jean Pirro say what she said in this filing and then the president and secretary of the interior, Doug Burgum, attacking Jean Pirro again from a democracy perspective. [5:50] It's deeply concerning to Davey and to us. [5:53] Does that line in there only, does that only apply to David Hearn's case or is that for, when they say they can't prove that there was actual damage done by vandals, does that, is that only for Hearn? [6:06] Is that everyone, like anyone else they would try to go after? [6:09] It's said about Hearn, but the reasoning that the pool was damaged because of shoddy, botched, rushed installation, reasoning applies to all of these people who have been wrongly targeted.