Man accused of killing Israeli Embassy staffers indicted on federal hate crime charges
The nine-count indictment, filed in federal court in Washington, returned against Elias Rodriguez, 31, accuses him of carrying out a hate crime resulting in death motivated by the "actual and perceived national origin of any person." Rodriguez also faces charges of first-degree murder and murder of a foreign official.
The indictment includes special findings that would make Rodriguez eligible for the death penalty if convicted. The indictment by a federal grand jury comes ahead of a scheduled court appearance in Rodriguez's case on Aug. 8.
Rodriguez was accused of fatally shooting Yaron Lischinsky, 30, and Sarah Lynn Milgrim, 26, who were about to be engaged to be married. They were leaving a May 21 event for young professionals and diplomats at the Capital Jewish Museum and hosted by the American Jewish Committee, an advocacy group that fights antisemitism and supports Israel, when they were killed.
Fort Stewart attack: Army sergeant in custody after 5 soldiers shot; motive under investigation
Rodriguez told police at the scene: 'I did it for Palestine. I did it for Gaza,' according to a criminal complaint. Witnesses recounted hearing him chant "Free Palestine" after he was taken into custody.
He has not yet entered a plea to the prior charges, which also include causing death with a firearm and discharging a firearm in a crime of violence.
The killings in downtown Washington were widely condemned as an act of antisemitism and shook Jewish communities around the world. Jeanine Pirro, the top federal prosecutor in Washington said in May that the shooting would be investigated as a hate crime and the charges could carry the death penalty.
Indictment alleges suspect had history of violent rhetoric against Israelis
The indictment alleges that Rodriguez targeted the couple because they were Israelis and that the suspect had a history of violent rhetoric online against Israelis, including a plea to "vaporize every Israeli 18 and above."
Before the shooting, he scheduled a social media post to publish later that night with a document arguing that perpetrators and abettors of Israel's military actions in Gaza had "forfeited their humanity," according to the indictment.
Rodriguez, who was born and raised in Chicago, flew to the Washington area from Chicago the day before the shooting. He was seen pacing outside the museum, little more than a mile from the White House, shortly before the shooting, police said.
NYC shooting: 4 victims mourned; NYPD to search suspect's Las Vegas home
Surveillance video footage showed Rodriguez firing about 20 rounds at Lischinsky and Milgrim, then leaning over them to fire several more rounds after they fell to the ground and after Milgrim tried to crawl away and sat up, according to an FBI affidavit in the criminal complaint. The gunman paused to reload, then resumed firing, it said.
He then tossed away his gun, retreated into the museum, and was arrested there after calling attention to himself as the suspect, pulling out a red Palestinian-style keffiyeh scarf and declaring that he "did it," the affidavit said.
(Reporting by Andrew Goudsward; Editing by Scott Malone)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Harvard scientists say research could be set back years after funding freeze
'It's like we have been creating a state-of-the-art telescope to explore the universe, and now we don't have money to launch it,' said Ascherio. 'We built everything and now we are ready to use it to make a new discovery that could impact millions of people in the world and then, 'Poof. You're being cut off.'' Researchers laid off and science shelved Advertisement The loss of an estimated $2.6 billion in federal funding at Harvard has meant that some of the world's most prominent researchers are laying off young researchers. They are shelving years or even decades of research, into everything from opioid addiction to cancer. And despite Harvard's lawsuits against the administration, and settlement talks between the warring parties, researchers are confronting the fact that some of their work may never resume. The funding cuts are part of a monthslong battle that the Trump administration has waged against some the country's top universities including Columbia, Brown and Northwestern. The administration has taken a particularly aggressive stance against Harvard, freezing funding after the country's oldest university rejected a series of government demands issued by a federal antisemitism task force. Advertisement The government had demanded sweeping changes at Harvard related to campus protests, academics and admissions — meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Research jeopardized, even if court case prevails Harvard responded by filing a federal lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university. In the lawsuit, it laid out reforms it had taken to address antisemitism but also vowed not to 'surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' 'Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus,' the university said in its legal complaint. 'But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the demands were sent in April. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel federal contracts for policy reasons. The funding cuts have left Harvard's research community in a state of shock, feeling as if they are being unfairly targeted in a fight has nothing to do with them. Some have been forced to shutter labs or scramble to find non-government funding to replace lost money. In May, Harvard announced that it would put up at least $250 million of its own money to continue research efforts, but university President Alan Garber warned of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' ahead. Advertisement Ascherio said the university was able to pull together funding to pay his researchers' salaries until next June. But he's still been left without resources needed to fund critical research tasks, like lab work. Even a year's delay can put his research back five years, he said. Knowledge lost in funding freeze 'It's really devastating,' agreed Rita Hamad, the director of the Social Policies for Health Equity Research Center at Harvard, who had three multiyear grants totaling $10 million canceled by the Trump administration. The grants funded research into the impact of school segregation on heart health, how pandemic-era policies in over 250 counties affected mental health, and the role of neighborhood factors in dementia. At the School of Public Health, where Hamad is based, 190 grants have been terminated, affecting roughly 130 scientists. 'Just thinking about all the knowledge that's not going to be gained or that is going to be actively lost,' Hamad said. She expects significant layoffs on her team if the funding freeze continues for a few more months. 'It's all just a mixture of frustration and anger and sadness all the time, every day.' John Quackenbush, a professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the School of Public Health, has spent the past few months enduring cuts on multiple fronts. In April, a multimillion dollar grant was not renewed, jeopardizing a study into the role sex plays in disease. In May, he lost about $1.2 million in federal funding for in the coming year due to the Harvard freeze. Four departmental grants worth $24 million that funded training of doctoral students also were cancelled as part of the fight with the Trump administration, Quackenbush said. 'I'm in a position where I have to really think about, 'Can I revive this research?'' he said. 'Can I restart these programs even if Harvard and the Trump administration reached some kind of settlement? If they do reach a settlement, how quickly can the funding be turned back on? Can it be turned back on?' Advertisement The researchers all agreed that the funding cuts have little or nothing to do with the university's fight against antisemitism. Some, however, argue changes at Harvard were long overdue and pressure from the Trump administration was necessary. Bertha Madras, a Harvard psychobiologist who lost funding to create a free, parent-focused training to prevent teen opioid overdose and drug use, said she's happy to see the culling of what she called 'politically motivated social science studies.' White House pressure a good thing? Madras said pressure from the White House has catalyzed much-needed reform at the university, where several programs of study have 'really gone off the wall in terms of being shaped by orthodoxy that is not representative of the country as a whole.' But Madras, who served on the President's Commission on Opioids during Trump's first term, said holding scientists' research funding hostage as a bargaining chip doesn't make sense. 'I don't know if reform would have happened without the president of the United States pointing the bony finger at Harvard,' she said. 'But sacrificing science is problematic, and it's very worrisome because it is one of the major pillars of strength of the country.' Quackenbush and other Harvard researchers argue the cuts are part of a larger attack on science by the Trump administration that puts the country's reputation as the global research leader at risk. Support for students and post-doctoral fellows has been slashed, visas for foreign scholars threatened, and new guidelines and funding cuts at the NIH will make it much more difficult to get federal funding in the future, they said. It also will be difficult to replace federal funding with money from the private sector. Advertisement 'We're all sort of moving toward this future in which this 80-year partnership between the government and the universities is going to be jeopardized,' Quackenbush said. 'We're going to face real challenges in continuing to lead the world in scientific excellence.'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Can the Out-of-State Texas Dems Be Arrested?
President Donald Trump suggested the FBI may get involved in bringing a group of Texas Democrats back to their home state. 'They may have to,' Trump said at a White House executive order signing event Tuesday, when he was asked whether the federal law enforcement agency should help locate and arrest the state lawmakers at the center of a political standoff over a Republican redistricting plan. 'A lot of people are demanding they come back.' The controversial redistricting plan, backed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and the Trump Administration, would redraw the congressional district map to give Republicans about five more U.S. House seats, which could significantly boost the GOP's chances of maintaining its slim majority after the 2026 midterm elections. But Democrats in the state legislature have criticized the effort and are resorting to a quorum-busting method of moving to blue states like Illinois and New York to try to stall votes on the plan. Abbott ordered the fleeing lawmakers' arrest on civil warrants, directed investigations into whether there have been state law violations, and sought to oust the lawmakers from their state legislative seats. Despite the threats, the Democratic lawmakers appear unfazed. In response to Abbott, the Democratic caucus in the state House issued a succinct statement: 'Come and take it.' Trump is not alone in calling for the FBI's involvement: Texas' senior U.S. Senator, John Cornyn, urged the agency, in a letter to FBI Director Kash Patel on Tuesday, 'to take any appropriate steps to aid in Texas state law enforcement efforts to locate or arrest potential lawbreakers who have fled the state.' It's unclear whether the FBI will intervene, and the agency declined to comment. The FBI's website, however, states that the agency does not 'supervise or take over' investigations of state and local law enforcement agencies, as its primary mandate is to look into federal crimes and enforce federal laws. State warrants can only be enforced by state troopers, but the FBI may assist local law enforcement in locating fugitives. What legal repercussions might the Democrats face? The act of denying quorum dates back centuries in the Texas legislature. States have their own means of acting upon quorum-breaking in the legislative chambers, and Texas' House Rules Manual states that 'all absentees for whom no sufficient excuse is made may, by order of a majority of those present, be sent for and arrested, wherever they may be found, by the sergeant-at-arms or an officer appointed by the sergeant-at-arms for that purpose, and their attendance shall be secured and retained.' The state Supreme Court in 2021 upheld that rule, giving the House the power to arrest absent members to establish a quorum. On Monday, the Texas House voted to arrest the Democratic lawmakers who fled the state, enabling the state legislature's sergeant-at-arms and the Texas Department of Public Safety to conduct these arrests. Abbott said the arrest order will remain in effect 'until all missing Democrat House members are accounted for and brought to the Texas Capitol.' But many have downplayed the arrest warrant, because the lawmakers are no longer in Texas territory. 'They like to talk a big game,' U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, a Democrat representing Texas' 30th congressional district, told ABC News on Monday. 'You have a lot of intelligent attorneys that actually serve in the Texas House. And so they know that there's nothing that [Abbott] can do outside of the Texas jurisdiction to bring them in.' Chad Dunn, a Texas election and voting rights lawyer, told election news outlet Democracy Docket that a warrant issued by the Texas House 'is not effective out of the state unless another state chooses to domesticate it and enforce it under that state's laws.' The Texas Democratic lawmakers, however, have fled to sympathetic Democratic-led states. 'We're very happy to host these heroes,' said Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker. 'This is not breaking the law, this is a legitimate process that has been used before,' said New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on Aug. 4. Abbott, however, has alleged that several absentee Texas House Democrats 'have solicited or received funds to evade conducting legislative business and casting votes.' Abbott said that these lawmakers 'may have violated' bribery laws under the Texas Penal Code, which assigns a second-degree felony charge to 'one who offers or confers a benefit on any public servant or voter to influence him, and the public servant receiving or soliciting the same.' State representative Jolanda Jones, who is in New York, said at the Aug. 4 briefing with Hochul: 'There is no felony in the Texas Penal Code for what [Abbott] says, so respectfully he's making up some sh-t, OK? He's trying to get sound bites. And he has no legal mechanism… he's putting up smoke and mirrors.' The Texas Democrats who fled the state are likely to face a $500 daily fine for each day they are absent without leave. The Republican-led state government approved the fine, which must be paid personally and not from office funds or political fundraising, in 2023 after Democratic lawmakers fled for three weeks in 2021 to break quorum on a state election law overhaul. As for whether the lawmakers could actually be booted from their office and replaced by Abbott, Abbott referred to a 2021 opinion by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton that asserts Texas law allows for a legislator's seat to be considered vacant if a court determines that they forfeited their office by abandonment. Paxton said Tuesday that starting Friday, a deadline set by Republican Speaker of the Texas House Dustin Burrows, 'any rogue lawmakers refusing to return to the House will be held accountable.' Paxton said he would seek a court order declaring the Democrats to have abandoned their offices. 'If you don't show up for work,' he said in a statement, 'you get fired.' Contact us at letters@
4 hours ago
Harvard scientists say research could be set back years after funding freeze
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- Harvard University professor Alberto Ascherio's research is literally frozen. Collected from millions of U.S. soldiers over two decades using millions of dollars from taxpayers, the epidemiology and nutrition scientist has blood samples stored in liquid nitrogen freezers within the university's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The samples are key to his award-winning research, which seeks a cure to multiple sclerosis and other neurodegenerative diseases. But for months, Ascherio has been unable to work with the samples because he lost $7 million in federal research funding, a casualty of Harvard's fight with the Trump administration. 'It's like we have been creating a state-of-the-art telescope to explore the universe, and now we don't have money to launch it,' said Ascherio. 'We built everything and now we are ready to use it to make a new discovery that could impact millions of people in the world and then, 'Poof. You're being cut off.'' The loss of an estimated $2.6 billion in federal funding at Harvard has meant that some of the world's most prominent researchers are laying off young researchers. They are shelving years or even decades of research, into everything from opioid addiction to cancer. And despite Harvard's lawsuits against the administration, and settlement talks between the warring parties, researchers are confronting the fact that some of their work may never resume. The funding cuts are part of a monthslong battle that the Trump administration has waged against some the country's top universities including Columbia, Brown and Northwestern. The administration has taken a particularly aggressive stance against Harvard, freezing funding after the country's oldest university rejected a series of government demands issued by a federal antisemitism task force. The government had demanded sweeping changes at Harvard related to campus protests, academics and admissions — meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Harvard responded by filing a federal lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university. In the lawsuit, it laid out reforms it had taken to address antisemitism but also vowed not to 'surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' 'Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus," the university said in its legal complaint. 'But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the demands were sent in April. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel federal contracts for policy reasons. The funding cuts have left Harvard's research community in a state of shock, feeling as if they are being unfairly targeted in a fight has nothing to do with them. Some have been forced to shutter labs or scramble to find non-government funding to replace lost money. In May, Harvard announced that it would put up at least $250 million of its own money to continue research efforts, but university President Alan Garber warned of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' ahead. Ascherio said the university was able to pull together funding to pay his researchers' salaries until next June. But he's still been left without resources needed to fund critical research tasks, like lab work. Even a year's delay can put his research back five years, he said. 'It's really devastating,' agreed Rita Hamad, the director of the Social Policies for Health Equity Research Center at Harvard, who had three multiyear grants totaling $10 million canceled by the Trump administration. The grants funded research into the impact of school segregation on heart health, how pandemic-era policies in over 250 counties affected mental health, and the role of neighborhood factors in dementia. At the School of Public Health, where Hamad is based, 190 grants have been terminated, affecting roughly 130 scientists. 'Just thinking about all the knowledge that's not going to be gained or that is going to be actively lost," Hamad said. She expects significant layoffs on her team if the funding freeze continues for a few more months. "It's all just a mixture of frustration and anger and sadness all the time, every day." John Quackenbush, a professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the School of Public Health, has spent the past few months enduring cuts on multiple fronts. In April, a multimillion dollar grant was not renewed, jeopardizing a study into the role sex plays in disease. In May, he lost about $1.2 million in federal funding for in the coming year due to the Harvard freeze. Four departmental grants worth $24 million that funded training of doctoral students also were cancelled as part of the fight with the Trump administration, Quackenbush said. 'I'm in a position where I have to really think about, 'Can I revive this research?'' he said. 'Can I restart these programs even if Harvard and the Trump administration reached some kind of settlement? If they do reach a settlement, how quickly can the funding be turned back on? Can it be turned back on?' The researchers all agreed that the funding cuts have little or nothing to do with the university's fight against antisemitism. Some, however, argue changes at Harvard were long overdue and pressure from the Trump administration was necessary. Bertha Madras, a Harvard psychobiologist who lost funding to create a free, parent-focused training to prevent teen opioid overdose and drug use, said she's happy to see the culling of what she called 'politically motivated social science studies.' Madras said pressure from the White House has catalyzed much-needed reform at the university, where several programs of study have 'really gone off the wall in terms of being shaped by orthodoxy that is not representative of the country as a whole.' But Madras, who served on the President's Commission on Opioids during Trump's first term, said holding scientists' research funding hostage as a bargaining chip doesn't make sense. 'I don't know if reform would have happened without the president of the United States pointing the bony finger at Harvard," she said. 'But sacrificing science is problematic, and it's very worrisome because it is one of the major pillars of strength of the country.' Quackenbush and other Harvard researchers argue the cuts are part of a larger attack on science by the Trump administration that puts the country's reputation as the global research leader at risk. Support for students and post-doctoral fellows has been slashed, visas for foreign scholars threatened, and new guidelines and funding cuts at the NIH will make it much more difficult to get federal funding in the future, they said. It also will be difficult to replace federal funding with money from the private sector. 'We're all sort of moving toward this future in which this 80-year partnership between the government and the universities is going to be jeopardized,' Quackenbush said. 'We're going to face real challenges in continuing to lead the world in scientific excellence.'
