Woman sentenced for spray painting fountain, flag poles during pro-Palestine protest near Union Station, officials say
Isabella Giordano, 21, of Towson, was sentenced in federal court on Wednesday, March 19, to six months of probation.
According to court documents, on July 24, 2024, an organization was granted a permit to demonstrate near Columbus Circle, directly in front of Union Station, from about 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. This is the same day Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave his address to Congress.
Demonstrators began to gather in Columbus Circle at around 2:50 p.m., but United States Park Police (USPP) officials said they revoked the permit after they couldn't get in touch with protest organizers.
Several protestors who gathered in the area pulled down flags from flagpoles, burned flags and other objects, sprayed graffiti on multiple statutes and interfered with the police's ability to arrest people, according to the USADC.
PREVIOUS COVERAGE | WATCH: Protesters flood DC during Israeli Prime Minister's visit, address to Congress
Upon reviewing open-source videos posted to the social media platform X, law enforcement saw Giordano using red spray paint to write 'Gaza' on the Columbus Fountain. She also spray-painted the base of two flagpoles in Columbus Circle.
The USADC noted that the flags pulled down from the poles and the statutes and structures in Columbus Circle are all federal government property. The National Park Service (NPS) estimated the cost to repair and clean the site following the protests would be about $11,282.23.
Man sentenced to 7 years in prison for robbery at Busboys and Poets in DC
A few days after the protest, on July 30, 2024, the U.S. Park Police posted a bulletin with multiple photos, working with the FBI to identify and find five people who engaged in criminal activity during the demonstration. Two days later, police received two tips identifying Giordano.
Giordano pleaded guilty to destruction of government property before a U.S. District Court judge. In addition to probation, the judge ordered her to pay $500 in restitution to NPS.
Several protestors were arrested and charged following the demonstration outside Union Station, including of assaulting two police officers and a of taking a flag from a federal flagpole and burning it.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
41 minutes ago
- CNN
Supreme Court tees up Louisiana redistricting case that could undercut Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court signaled Friday that it will take a broader look at a high-profile redistricting fight over Louisiana's congressional map, subtly expanding the scope of an appeal that could weaken the landmark Voting Rights Act. In a brief order, the high court reframed what is at stake in the Louisiana appeal and said it will probe whether a state runs afoul of the Constitution when it seeks to remedy a Voting Rights Act violation. If the court answers affirmatively, it would likely bar a state from adding an additional majority-minority district to ensure that minority voters have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the UCLA School of Law, described the move on his blog as 'a big, and dangerous, step toward knocking down' a key pillar of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court essentially punted on Louisiana's messy redistricting fight on the last day of its term in June, taking the rare step of holding the appeal for a new set of arguments. At the time, the court said it would provide clarity on exactly which question it wanted the parties in the case to address. Court watchers have been waiting for that clarity for weeks. On Friday, the justices handed down a brief order asking the parties to submit a new round of briefing by early October, when the court's new term will begin. The parties involved in the case will now submit written arguments about whether 'the state's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.' The Louisiana case is among the most important appeals the court will consider later this year. Election experts said the court's new framing questions whether states may fix Voting Rights Act violations without running up against the Constitution. Section 2 of the VRA requires consideration of voters' race to ensure that congressional and state legislative voting districts are drawn fairly. 'The court is asking for briefing on whether the race-based redistricting sometimes required by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is no longer constitutional in Louisiana – and by implication, in states with similar circumstances' to those in Louisiana, said Richard Pildes, an election law expert at the New York University School of Law. The outcome of the case could have nationwide implications. To begin with, it could affect the shape of the districts – and therefore the electability – of several key GOP leaders in the House who represent Louisiana, including Speaker Mike Johnson. It could also set a standard for how much lawmakers in every state may consider race – if at all – when they redraw the lines every decade. The facts of the Louisiana case demonstrate the issue: At first, a federal court ruled the state likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six. When it tried to fix that problem by drawing a second majority-minority district, another court said it violated the Constitution by relying too much on race to meet the first court's demands. The Voting Rights Act requires that states not dilute the power of minority voters during the once-a-decade redistricting process, such as by 'packing' those voters into one district or 'cracking' neighborhoods up into many districts to spread out their influence. The law was enacted in response to decades of post-Civil War efforts – particularly in the South – to limit the political power of African Americans. And yet the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause demands that a state not draw a map predominantly based on race. If it does, the state must demonstrate that it had a compelling reason to do so and carried out the effort in the narrowest way possible. Because of that inherent tension between the Voting Rights Act and the equal protection clause, the Supreme Court has tended to give states some 'breathing room' in drawing their maps. One of the central questions in the case, Louisiana v. Callais, is exactly how much room state lawmakers should have. Now, the court appears to be preparing to debate whether states should have any breathing room at all. CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic contributed to this report.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Colbert fails to ask Harris about Biden decline, avoids her involvement in Trump's '60 Minutes' lawsuit
Outgoing CBS "The Late Show" host Stephen Colbert failed to address the hottest topics with former Vice President Kamala Harris during his fawning interview on Thursday. Colbert rolled out the red carpet for Harris, who granted him her first interview since leaving office and took the opportunity to plug her forthcoming book "107 Days" about her failed presidential bid. However, Colbert avoided asking Harris anything about the controversy surrounding her ex-boss, former President Joe Biden, and the growing questions about his cognitive decline while in office. Multiple Biden aides, including his White House physician Kevin O'Connor, pleaded the Fifth when brought before Congress and several tell-all books have shed light on the former president's difficulty behind the scenes. Notably, Colbert emceed a star-studded fundraiser for Biden in March 2024. The closest Colbert got to broaching the subject was a couple of softball questions about Harris' experience after Biden's disastrous presidential debate in June 2024 and the moment he ended his reelection bid weeks later. Another giant elephant in the room was her involvement in President Donald Trump's "election interference" lawsuit against CBS News and parent company Paramount, which cascaded to a series of events that liberal critics say connect Paramount's settlement and its forthcoming merger with Skydance Media with the cancellation of "The Late Show." Colbert has been outspoken with his criticism of his corporate bosses. The interview Harris gave to "60 Minutes" last October was at the center of Trump's lawsuit, which accused CBS News of deceptively editing her comments to aid her campaign. Critics at the time pointed out that her "word salad" response to a question about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu aired in a preview clip on "Face the Nation," while a more concise answer aired during the "60 Minutes" primetime special the following night. Raw transcripts released by the FCC after it ordered CBS News to hand them over earlier this year revealed that the first portion of her response aired in the preview clip, while the latter part of that same response aired in primetime. Both Colbert and Harris seemed to tiptoe around the CBS drama. At the top of the interview, after he pointed out that Harris "looked rested," Colbert joked he'll get "plenty of rest in June," which is the month after "The Late Show" will officially be off the air in 2026. Harris later called out the "capitulation" that has taken place since Trump took office, though not mentioning Paramount by name. There was very little substance throughout the roughly 30-minute interview as Harris repeatedly either dodged various questions or teased that the answers would be in her book. One question Harris refused to answer was who she thought was currently leading the Democratic Party. "I think there are a lot of – I'm not going to go through names because then I'm going to leave somebody out and then I'm going to hear about it," Harris told Colbert. "But let me say this. I think it is a mistake for us who want us to figure out how to get out and through this and get out of it to put it on the shoulders of any one person. It's really on all of our shoulders. It really is."
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump administration cuts $300M in UCLA research funding over antisemitism claims
The Trump administration has suspended more than $300 million in federal research grants to UCLA, citing the university's alleged failure to address antisemitism and discriminatory practices on campus. The move, part of a broader crackdown on elite universities, marks the most severe funding cut in UCLA's history. According to government letters obtained by multiple news outlets, agencies including the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health and Department of Energy are halting hundreds of active grants. Officials allege the university engaged in 'race discrimination' and 'illegal affirmative action,' and failed to prevent a hostile climate for Jewish and Israeli students, following campus protests over the Gaza war. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Tuesday that UCLA would 'pay a heavy price' for its 'deliberate indifference' to civil rights complaints. A 10-page letter Tuesday from the Department of Justice to UC President Michael Drake said the DOJ had looked into complaints of discrimination since Oct. 7, 2023, the day Hamas attacked Israel, leading to the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, which sparked protests at college campuses across the U.S. The letter cited 11 complaints from Jewish or Israeli students regarding discrimination between April 25 and May 1, 2024, while pro-Palestianian protesters occupied an encampment on the UCLA campus. 'Several complainants reported that members of the encampment prevented them from accessing parts of the campus,' the letter said, and some reported encountering intimidation or violence. The Department of Justice set a Sept. 2 deadline for the university to begin negotiations or face legal action. 'Federal research grants are not handouts,' he wrote Thursday. 'Grants lead to medical breakthroughs, economic advancement, improved national security and global competitiveness — these are national priorities.' The freeze affects more than 300 grants, with nearly $180 million already distributed, and follows similar enforcement actions against Harvard, Columbia and Brown universities. UCLA recently agreed to a $6.5 million settlement with Jewish students and a professor over claims of discrimination during 2024 campus protests. Frenk, who is of Jewish heritage, emphasized the university's efforts to combat antisemitism, including the creation of a campus safety office and an initiative to fight antisemitism and anti-Israel bias. 'Antisemitism has no place on our campus, nor does any form of discrimination,' he wrote, while insisting the funding cut 'does nothing to address any alleged discrimination.'
