CNN commentator Scott Jennings says Olympian David Hearn should sue after DOJ dropped attempt over damage at Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool

A CNN appearance by Republican political commentator Scott Jennings on Sunday turned into a broader public dispute over the Justice Department’s handling of a case tied to alleged damage at the Lincoln Memorial’s Reflecting Pool. Jennings told host Erica Hill that Olympian David Hearn “ought to sue” the Trump administration, arguing that the government’s effort to pursue the matter raised serious concerns about process and fairness.

The remarks stemmed from questions Jennings faced on whether he had raised concerns with the Department of Justice after Hearn became associated with a prosecution effort connected to the Reflecting Pool. Hill asked Jennings whether he had reached out to DOJ, prompting Jennings to defend Hearn and to argue the administration’s approach warranted legal action.

Jennings’ comments came in the context of reporting that the Justice Department had tossed or abandoned the Reflecting Pool case involving Hearn. The Hill reported Jennings’ position following the apparent government decision, and Jennings used the episode to criticize the administration’s conduct as it related to Hearn’s situation.

In the CNN interview, Jennings also addressed how the dispute had been framed publicly, including what he characterized as a damaging association between Hearn and the government’s attempt to prosecute or pursue the matter. Jennings’ central claim was not limited to whether authorities ultimately proceeded, but also extended to the harm he said the government’s actions caused to Hearn’s reputation.

The Justice Department’s precise procedural posture in the Reflecting Pool matter, and the specific legal grounds for any dismissal or abandonment, were not detailed in the Hill report provided for this story. Apex Times has not found a Department of Justice filing or public order in the provided materials confirming the exact action taken, the date, or the statutory basis for the decision.

Because the core of the dispute is tied to a claimed DOJ action, further confirmation from Department of Justice records or court documents would be required to specify what happened in the case, beyond the reporting that the effort was dropped. Without that official record in the current materials, the article describes Jennings’ comments and the fact that an outlet reported a DOJ decision, rather than stating the government’s action as definitively established.

The next steps, absent further confirmation, would depend on whether Hearn pursued civil claims and what legal arguments would be raised. Jennings’ suggestion that Hearn “ought to sue” points to the possibility of litigation, but the Hill report did not provide evidence of any filing by Hearn or his representatives at the time of publication.