In her desperate attempt to dig herself out of this ridiculous Reflecting Pool hole she's found herself in with Donald Trump, former Fox News talking head turned United States Attorney for the District of Columbia just unironically argued to a court of law that her vandalism case against a former Olympian was "sabotaged" -- by evidence.

She literally claimed that evidence sabotaged her case...

Pirro indicted 67-year-old former Olympic canoeist David Hearn on felony charges of destruction of property on July 2. Speaking to reporters with a particularly puffed-up chest that day, Pirro confidently declared, "[T]he evidence shows, and we will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hearn willfully destroyed property at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool."

Six short weeks later, her entire case fell apart as the evidence proved the exact opposite of what she was attempting to charge Hearn with, leaving her scrambling to the Trump White House with boxes of evidence and a prayer, hoping she'd leave with her job still intact.

Now, she's desperately trying to salvage whatever's left of this nonsense case in an undoubted effort to appease the embarrassment currently living in The People's House.

The indictment against Hearn was dismissed by Associate Judge Todd Edelman on August 6; however, he did not rule on whether or not that dismissal would be permanent. A hearing for that decision is slated for September 4.

This week, Pirro and her office have been working double time to try to prevent a permanent dismissal by arguing that they were the victims of sabotage in this weird, petty case.

Pirro's office told the court that the evidence from the Department of the Interior that effectively dismantled her case arrived too late to use at trial.

Pirro's filing reads, "The late-provided documents showing blistering and peeling, as noted by contractors, would sabotage the government's ability to meet its burden of proof."

But she goes on to argue that, just because the evidence literally destroys her case, a dismissal "with prejudice" -- meaning Pirro's office would not be able to charge Hearn in relation to this case again -- still isn't warranted here.

"Should the case be re-presented to a new grand jury based on newly discovered evidence, any reindictment of the case would not constitute harassment," Pirro argues to the court. "Dismissal with prejudice is not necessary to protect the defendant from any future risk of prosecutorial overreach here."

A June 11 email from a National Park Service engineer effectively destroyed her case against the former Olympian, and Pirro claims she did not learn about it until after she had already indicted Hearn. In that email, the engineer described a contractor's explanation for why the Reflecting Pool liner was already bubbled and peeling far before Hearn ever arrived.

The filing reads, "[T]he contractor stated that the peeled area was 'overspray' from spraying the perimeter joint with polyurea."

According to Pirro's office, the engineer expressed concerns that "this 'overspray' along the perimeter of the pool could lead to a 1'-2' strip that is vulnerable to peeling."

The former Fox host admitted, "These statements cast significant doubt that the defendant caused damage to the lining."

But she still will not give up.

Despite literally admitting that she has no case here, Pirro goes on to argue to the court that she still might kinda have a little bit of a case, claiming that this glaring evidence "does not suggest that there was no vandalism to other areas of the Reflecting Pool."

Hearn's attorneys are absolutely fed up, filing their own brief, in which they note that the Trump Administration continues to publicly push a disparaging narrative against their client that Trump's own government has already disproven.

"Executive Branch officials have continued to advance the narrative — contrary to the evidence and the filings of record in this case — that Mr. Hearn vandalized the Reflecting Pool," Hearn's legal team wrote.

"The statements further underscore that dismissal with prejudice is necessary to protect Mr. Hearn from the substantial risk of renewed prosecution."

Just how deeply are you willing to humiliate yourself before you finally give this up, Jeanine?