The Bicycle Ride That Became a Felony
On June 19, David “Davey” Hearn was doing something remarkably ordinary for a man who had once represented the United States at three Olympic Games. He was riding his bicycle.
The 67-year-old former world champion was partway through a 52-mile ride when he stopped at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. Hearn later said he noticed the pool’s new blue coating peeling away and reached into the water to examine a loose piece. Minutes later, police arrested him.
What began as a bicycle ride would eventually become a felony case carrying the possibility of as much as ten years in prison. Hearn pleaded not guilty.
A felony indictment means lawyers, court appearances, and the knowledge that the government has placed your name on a criminal charge that could follow you through the rest of your life. At 67, ten years is not an abstract maximum written in a statute. It is a significant piece of whatever life remains.
Hearn’s Olympic career made the story unusual, but it did not make him more entitled to fair treatment than anyone else. He had once worn USA while representing the country abroad. Now the United States had put his name on an indictment.
This Community Is Powered by You
What started as a small circle has grown into something much bigger, and it’s all because of readers like you.
Every time you forward this email, post it on socials, or bring someone new into the fold, you’re helping build one of the most passionate, independent political communities out there.
Want to keep the momentum going?
Share this newsletter with someone who should be part of this conversation.
Thank you for being here. It means everything.
The Evidence Changed the Case
Then the government learned more. Information from the Interior Department raised serious questions about the coating itself and the work used to install it. The damage around the Reflecting Pool was not limited to the spot Hearn had touched. The material was failing more broadly, and the evidence increasingly pointed toward problems with the contractor’s work rather than deliberate destruction by one bicyclist.
Prosecutors are not supposed to defend an indictment simply because they already obtained one. Their obligation is to the evidence, including evidence that weakens their own case. Jeanine Pirro’s office eventually moved to dismiss the charge against Hearn.
That did not erase the arrest, the indictment, or the weeks spent under the weight of a felony prosecution, but it meant the government had done something essential: it had reconsidered its accusation when the facts no longer supported the original theory.
That is not weakness in a justice system. It is what justice is supposed to look like. The evidence changed, and the government changed with it, but then another consideration entered the case.
The President Wasn’t Satisfied
President Trump did not like the decision. He publicly criticized Jeanine Pirro after her office moved to dismiss Hearn’s case and urged that the matter be reconsidered. The White House later asked the Justice Department to examine whether new charges could still be brought in connection with the Reflecting Pool.
That does not mean Trump personally ordered Hearn prosecuted, but after prosecutors concluded that new evidence undermined the original case, presidential displeasure became part of the environment surrounding what happened next. That is where an ordinary prosecution becomes a constitutional question.
If the evidence no longer supports the government’s original charge, when does David Hearn get his name cleared? Is it when prosecutors decide the case should end, when a court dismisses it, or only when the president is satisfied?
Todd Blanche Said the Quiet Part Out Loud
Then Attorney General Todd Blanche made the institutional problem harder to ignore. Asked whether he would pledge that the Justice Department would operate independently of the White House, Blanche declined. He argued that no attorney general should promise complete independence from the president and said he would continue to act with integrity and prosecute without fear or favor.
On one level, he is right. The Justice Department is part of the executive branch. The attorney general does not run a constitutionally separate fourth branch of government, and presidents may set broad law-enforcement priorities.
However, Blanche went further. Asked whether the president’s views could be considered in individual prosecution decisions, he said they could.
The constitutional question is not whether the president has authority over the executive branch, but rather what happens when presidential authority reaches past broad policy and into the government’s decision about what to do with one particular American.
That is where supervision can begin to look like pressure, and that is where the rule has to become clear.
The President Sets the Priorities, Not Pick the Defendants.
The Constitution gives the president responsibility for executing federal law, which necessarily includes setting priorities for the executive branch. An administration may decide to put greater emphasis on violent crime, public corruption, antitrust enforcement, narcotics trafficking, or immigration offenses. Elections have consequences, and law-enforcement policy is one of them.
However, there is a difference between deciding what kinds of crimes deserve greater attention and deciding that a particular citizen deserves another prosecution because the president disliked the first result. The Justice Department’s own rules recognize that distinction. They allow appropriate White House communication about broad policy while placing special limits around communications involving pending or contemplated criminal cases.
There is a reason for that wall. A president should be able to say, “Make public corruption a priority.” That is not the same as saying, “Take another look at that man.” One is policy. The other puts the weight of presidential power much closer to an individual citizen.
That is where the institutional line should be drawn. The president may set the priorities. He does not get to pick the defendants.
Public Power Is Held in Trust
This is where the Square New Deal draws its line. The prosecutor does not own the prosecution, the attorney general does not own the Justice Department, and the president does not own federal law enforcement. Each of them temporarily exercises public authority entrusted to an office.
The Justice Department’s own ethics rules say public service is a public trust. Its prosecution principles likewise recognize that bringing a criminal case can impose enormous consequences on a defendant and a family even before a jury ever reaches a verdict. That is why discretion matters.
Prosecutors need room to weigh evidence, credibility, culpability, and the public interest, but discretion is not ownership. It does not transform government power into personal power simply because an official has lawful authority to exercise it.
The Square New Deal standard is straightforward: Public power must be exercised for the public purpose that justifies it. A criminal prosecution exists to enforce the law based on evidence and lawful prosecutorial judgment. It does not exist to satisfy the preferences of the person temporarily occupying the presidency.
The officeholder changes. The obligation does not.
The Rule Must Protect the Defendant You Cannot Stand
David Hearn is an easy person to sympathize with, but constitutional rules cannot depend on that. Due process is most important when the defendant is unpopular, politically inconvenient, or someone we are already inclined to distrust. The protection cannot disappear because the person standing across from the government has fewer medals, worse politics, or a less compelling biography.
The test, as always, is to apply the same rule to a future president you cannot stand. Imagine a Democratic president publicly criticizing prosecutors for dropping a case against a conservative activist. The White House urges the Justice Department to look again. The attorney general says the president’s views deserve consideration. Would that still feel like ordinary executive supervision?
The answer cannot depend on which party controls the White House. You do not need to like the person standing in the government’s crosshairs to care who is allowed to aim the government at him. A constitutional protection worth keeping has to protect the defendant you would never choose to defend.
Congress Must Write the Guardrail
The answer is not to pretend the Justice Department can be separated from the executive branch, nor should Congress begin deciding who gets indicted. That would simply move the danger from one political branch to another.
Congress has a different job. It can write durable procedural rules governing political contact about individual federal investigations and prosecutions: who may initiate them, how they must be documented, when they must be disclosed, and what protections apply when prosecutors or investigators believe improper pressure is being applied. The exact mechanism deserves careful constitutional drafting, but the principle does not require much imagination.
A republic cannot depend on every president voluntarily knowing when to stop or every attorney general being personally willing to push back. Eventually, someone will test the boundary. That is why guardrails exist.
The Square New Deal does not ask government officials to be saints. It asks institutions to be strong enough that ordinary human ambition, loyalty, and political pressure cannot quietly become the rule of law.
Congress does not need to choose the defendants. It needs to write the boundary that keeps presidents from doing it.
The Medals Are Not the Protection
David Hearn represented the United States at three Olympic Games. Decades later, the United States put his name on an indictment. Neither fact determines whether he is guilty. The law and the evidence do.
His medals, his reputation, Jeanine Pirro’s judgment, Todd Blanche’s character, and Donald Trump’s opinion cannot be the protection. The rule has to be the protection, because the next person caught in the government’s machinery will not necessarily be an Olympian. It may be the owner of the hardware store, a fifth-grade teacher, a Republican activist, or a Democratic organizer.
Most Americans will never have a president know their names. Their freedom should not become less secure if someday he does. The president has enormous authority because the office requires it. That authority must remain broad enough to enforce the law and bounded enough that one citizen’s liberty does not turn on presidential satisfaction.
David Hearn’s case should not matter because he once wore USA. It should matter because every American stands beneath the same government power. The president may set the priorities. The law and the evidence must decide the case.
If This Work Matters to You
The rule of law cannot depend on whether we like the person standing in the government’s crosshairs or the president doing the aiming.
If you believe public power should remain public, help keep The Coffman Chronicle independent. Share this article with someone who believes the Constitution has to bind the presidents we support as firmly as the presidents we oppose.
And if you can afford it, consider becoming a paid subscriber. Your support helps fund the research and writing behind work that asks a simple question of every government official: Whose power is it? The answer should always be the same. Ours.
Sources:
Goudsward, Andrew. “Ex-US Olympian Indicted over Alleged Reflecting Pool Vandalism.” Reuters. July 2, 2026.
Goudsward, Andrew. “Trump White House Asked DOJ to Explore New Reflecting Pool Charges, Sources Say.” Reuters. August 11, 2026.
Lynch, David J., and Aaron Schaffer. “Cyclist Arrested at Reflecting Pool Is Former Olympian Who Denies Vandalism Claims.” The Washington Post. June 20, 2026.
Respaut, Robin. “US Attorney General Blanche Publicly Backs Pirro after Trump Criticism over Reflecting Pool.” Reuters. August 16, 2026.
Singh, Kanishka, and Andrew Goudsward. “US Justice Department Says ‘Flawed’ Work Led to Reflecting Pool Peeling.” Reuters. July 31, 2026.
United States Department of Justice. “1-4.000 — Standards of Conduct.” Justice Manual. Accessed August 17, 2026.
United States Department of Justice. “1-8.000 — Congressional and White House Relations.” Justice Manual. Accessed August 17, 2026.
United States Department of Justice. “9-27.000 — Principles of Federal Prosecution.” Justice Manual. Accessed August 17, 2026.
United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee. “David Hearn.” Team USA. Accessed August 17, 2026.
You keep mentioning the Square New Deal. What is this? I can not find it referenced anywhere else.
The president should leave people alone !!!