Trump Demanded Six Lawmakers' Arrest and Pressured Prosecutors to Revive a Case They Found Meritless

Prosecutors Found No Crime; Trump Demanded the Case Back

David Hearn was indicted on a felony, accused of damaging the lining of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.¹ The U.S. Attorney's office in Washington then concluded that a contractor's faulty installation had done the damage and that no crime had occurred, and it moved to dismiss the case.¹ A week later, on August 7, 2026, President Trump publicly urged the office to reinstate it.¹ A judge has since barred the charge from returning.¹

Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney and Trump's appointee, "should re-visit her hastily made decision," he posted, especially since Hearn "is a big player in ActBlue, a disgraceful fundraising SCAM, and is represented by a TRUMP DERANGED SLEAZEBAG, Political Hack Lawyer, Norm Eisen."¹² ActBlue raises money for Democrats.¹ Trump had already told reporters he had not decided whether to fire Pirro over the dismissal.¹

That is the charge against Trump: he used prosecution as pressure against political opponents, including after his own prosecutors concluded no crime had occurred.¹³

The judge, Todd Edelman, ruled on October 1.¹ Prosecutors had concluded that Hearn's actions caused no loss in the pool's value.¹ Hearn had been indicted before the Interior Department records prosecutors had requested arrived, and Edelman agreed with the defense that "the government shot first and asked questions later."¹ Leaving the case open, Edelman found, would expose Hearn to a unique risk of a meritless, politically driven prosecution, so he barred the government from bringing the charge again.¹

The Six Lawmakers: Arrest Demanded, Charges Rejected

Hearn was not the first target.³¹ On November 18, 2025, a group of Democratic members of Congress posted a ninety-second video telling service members that they could refuse illegal orders and must refuse orders that violate the law or the Constitution.⁴⁵³ The six were Senators Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly and Representatives Chris Deluzio, Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander and Chrissy Houlahan.⁵⁶ Two days later Trump demanded their arrest and trial.³

171 Cong. Rec. H5787-H5789 (daily ed. Dec. 11, 2025), text of H. Res. 939³

It's called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand--We won't have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET. President DJT.

Trump also called their behavior punishable by death and reposted someone else's call to hang them.³

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham made the strongest specific objection to the video: he asked the six to identify an illegal order, said he could find none, and argued that they owed the country specifics.⁷ That objection challenged their judgment; it did not establish a crime.⁷ On December 11, 2025, the House set aside Al Green's impeachment resolution reproducing the posts.³ The vote was 237 to 140.³

Slotkin's office announced on January 14, 2026 that Pirro had contacted her about an investigation.⁸ CBS News reported that prosecutors sought charges carrying up to ten years in prison, and that several sources described the grand jury's rejection as unanimous.⁹ Slotkin's office reported the refusal as to her and Kelly on February 11, and as to all six on August 25.¹⁰⁶ CBS's February 24 report said Pirro had stopped seeking indictments in Washington, while its sources left other venues uncertain.⁹

By Slotkin's office's account, Trump's demand for arrests and trials failed before the grand jury.³⁶ A refusal to indict is not an acquittal, and it does not bar prosecutors from presenting the case again.¹¹ The harm did not wait for charges: two senators and four representatives faced a federal criminal investigation over their public speech, after the President had demanded punishment.⁶⁸³ By lawmakers' accounts, the same office had sent letters over members' speech before the video: on February 20, 2025, Representative Robert Garcia said Washington's acting U.S. Attorney, Ed Martin, had sent him a threatening letter over his criticism of Elon Musk.¹²¹³ Ten Democratic senators later alleged that Martin's Operation Whirlwind included inquiries to two Democratic lawmakers over criticism of Musk and Supreme Court justices; the Department records that Trump named Martin Director of its Weaponization Working Group.¹⁴¹³

In another matter the direction was explicit: Politico reported that Trump publicly called on Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate Bill Clinton and others he named over Epstein connections, and that Bondi assigned a U.S. Attorney to lead.¹⁵¹⁶ The report said prosecutors had accused none of the named Democrats of wrongdoing, and it reported Republican Representative Don Bacon's objection that presidential orders to law enforcement undercut its credibility.¹⁵

The Authority Is Real, and So Are Its Limits

The strongest defense is the law itself: prosecutors have broad discretion over whether to investigate, charge or dismiss, and the Supreme Court presumes they properly performed their duties unless clear evidence shows otherwise.¹⁷¹⁸¹⁹ The President can remove U.S. Attorneys, the Attorney General supervises federal litigation, and courts ordinarily defer to the executive's charging decisions.²⁰²¹²² In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court held Trump absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials, even though the investigations were alleged to be shams or sought for an improper purpose.²³ It also barred courts from inquiring into a President's motives when dividing official from unofficial conduct.²³

That authority has limits: in Wayte, the Court said prosecution may not be deliberately based on the exercise of protected statutory or constitutional rights.¹⁹ The Justice Manual, a Department policy, forbids political association, activities or beliefs from influencing a decision to prosecute or take other action against a person.²⁴ The immunity ruling governs criminal prosecution of a President; it does not decide whether Congress should remove one.²³²⁵ The impeachment standard is high crimes and misdemeanors, which Hamilton explained as abuse or violation of public trust.²⁶²⁵

Such cases have failed before.²⁶²⁷ The House Judiciary Committee found insufficient evidence to impeach Attorney General Daugherty after an inquiry including failure to prosecute, although a Senate committee continued investigating similar matters in 1924.²⁶ The Senate acquitted Justice Samuel Chase on all counts, protecting judicial independence.²⁷

A failed charge alone does not prove improper purpose.¹⁷¹¹ The Hearn ruling supplies more.¹ Pirro's office asked to dismiss promptly, which Edelman said supported its claim of good faith, and he made no conclusive bad-faith finding against prosecutors.¹ Trump's demand to revive the case persisted after that correction.¹ Edelman found that it exposed Hearn to the possibility of a meritless case revived "based on political pressure brought by the President of the United States upon his subordinate officers."¹

The Charge

Six members of Congress were investigated over a video, and Hearn was indicted for damage a contractor caused.⁶⁸¹ The demands were Trump's own acts: arrest and trial for the six, and the revival of a case his prosecutors said had no crime behind it.³¹ Turning political opposition into a demand for criminal punishment is an abuse of the public trust.³¹²⁵ It belongs in the case for impeachment because the power to accuse can punish through fear and exposure even when a grand jury refuses charges or a judge stops the case.⁶¹