Nobody said putting his hand in the water was vandalism.
...I even took the time to copy and paste text from the article in the OP. navigating forums shouldn't be a difficult task, especially for posters with over 1000 posts.
For my response to Mr. Trump's claim see post #15, with which agree.
I find the Olympian more credible than the president.
Friday night/Saturday morning I was looking at this story and (from what I recall) Fox News had video of Hearn touching the pool. Basically, he did it in front of a right leaning news organization that was filming a story about the pool. It shows the Olympian, with an empty hand, reach into the pool. He has is hand in the pool for maybe 10 seconds, it shows no signs of him "pulling" or making other odd movements, and his hand comes out of the water with nothing in it.
Searching for that same video this morning, I can't find it anywhere. My best guess is that the news organization that filmed it has removed it, for whatever reason. Instead, a video seems to have replaced it, taken from a cell phone from, I believe, the same reporter that was doing the news report, that only shows Hearn being arrested.
There are multiple photos from several sources showing vandalism to the lawn that's part of the reflecting pool plaza. The argument is basically if a house sustains damage and a cross was burned on the lawn, there's absolutely no way whatsoever the two could possibly be related.
I think this is the issue. There were pictures of the vandalism to the lawn, even if most of them showed the damaged lawn after the 8647 had been removed. There have been zero photos offered of the "250 foot gash" or even the "170 foot gash" other right wing reporters have claimed. Yes, there have been photos, largely along the edge, of "cuts" in the lining but those look as if they could easily be the paint cracking and not vandalism. And, as others have pointed out, since the peroxide was added from the sides, it is highly possible those edges of the pool were subject to high concentrations of peroxide that would have caused those "cuts" to occur. And a small "cut" of no more than a few inches is nowhere close to 170 or 250 feet and provides zero evidence of it.
I'll also note, there is video of people yanking on the paint after it had come loose and was floating on the pool. I even mentioned that they were technically guilty of vandalism, though most were doing it somewhat innocently and the paint was already clearly falling off (more curious about it and maybe wanted a piece, which is still vandalism). Again, though, that is well after the damage to the paint has been done and, from the rough edges on the end that was already floating, it does not appear to have been caused by vandalism.