Climate protester arrested after spray painting over presidential insignia at Trump Tower
A climate protester was busted after he spray painted the words 'USA' over a presidential insignia inside Trump Tower Wednesday afternoon, according to law enforcement sources and video from the scene.
The man sprayed the bright green paint over the plaque inside the Midtown landmark before kneeling on the ground in front of it and closing his eyes, according to footage posted on X.
Moments after a small crowd gathered — some snapping photos of the demonstrator — a security officer approached, and the man unfurled a small banner bearing the words, 'GAME OVER' with the symbol for the climate activist group Extinction Rebellion.
The suspect was carted away in handcuffs.
FNTV
He was carted away by officers wearing dark-colored suits as he declared, 'This is your country. This is our country. This is our planet. …You cannot ruin it without comment. They are ruining the planet for profit.'
The brazen display comes a day after the same activist group spray-painted the Wall Street Charging Bull — before wiping away their graffiti as cops looked on.
They later sprayed graffiti on the windows of Tesla's Meatpacking District showroom — which landed two of them in cuffs, authorities said.
Two more demonstrators wound up in custody Tuesday night when they allegedly disrupted a performance of 'Tschaikovsky Pas de Deux'at the David H. Koch Theater in Lincoln Center, according to cops and the New York City Ballet.
'It is Earth Day and we are in climate emergency!' one protester yelled during the performance, before being escorted out to cheers and jeers. 'Our country has become a Fascist regime and we are enjoying this beauty?'
The Trump Tower protester was previously nabbed for criminal trespass at Columbia University, law enforcement sources said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
21 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Federal appeals court hears arguments in Trump's bid to erase hush money conviction
NEW YORK — As President Trump focuses on global trade deals and dispatching troops to aid his immigration crackdown, his lawyers are fighting to erase the hush money criminal conviction that punctuated his reelection campaign last year and made him the first former — and now current — U.S. president found guilty of a crime. On Wednesday, that fight landed in a federal appeals court in Manhattan, where a three-judge panel heard arguments in Trump's long-running bid to get the New York case moved from state court to federal court so he can then seek to have it thrown out on presidential immunity grounds. It's one way he's trying to get the historic verdict overturned. The judges in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals spent more than an hour grilling Trump's lawyer and the appellate chief for Manhattan district attorney's office, which prosecuted the case and wants it to remain in state court. At turns skeptical and receptive to both sides' arguments on the weighty and seldom-tested legal issues underlying the president's request, the judges said they would take the matter under advisement and issue a ruling at a later date. But there was at least one thing all parties agreed on: It is a highly unusual case. Trump lawyer Jeffrey Wall called the president 'a class of one' and Judge Susan L. Carney, noted that it was 'anomalous' for a defendant to seek to transfer a case to federal court after it has been decided in state court. Carney was nominated to the 2nd Circuit by Democratic President Barack Obama. The other judges who heard arguments, Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. and Myrna Pérez were nominated by Obama and Democratic President Joe Biden, respectively. The Republican president is asking the federal appeals court to intervene after a lower-court judge twice rejected the move. As part of the request, Trump wants the court to seize control of the criminal case and then ultimately decide his appeal of the verdict, which is now pending in a state appellate court. Trump's Justice Department — now partly run by his former criminal defense lawyers — backs his bid to move the case to federal court. If he loses, he could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. 'Everything about this cries out for federal court,' Wall argued. Wall, a former acting U.S. solicitor general, argued that Trump's historic prosecution violated the U.S. Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling, which was decided last July, about a month after the hush money verdict. The ruling reined in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricted prosecutors from pointing to official acts as evidence that a president's unofficial actions were illegal. Trump's lawyers argue that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision, and that they erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under the ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018. 'The district attorney holds the keys in his hand,' Wall argued. 'He doesn't have to introduce this evidence.' Steven Wu, the appellate chief for the district attorney's office, countered that Trump was too late in seeking to move the case to federal court. Normally, such a request must be made within 30 days of an arraignment, but a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. recently ruled that exceptions can be made if 'good cause' is shown. Trump hasn't done that, Wu argued. While 'this defendant is an unusual defendant,' Wu said, there is nothing unusual about a defendant raising subsequent court decisions, such as the Supreme Court's immunity ruling for Trump, when they appeal their convictions. That appeal, he argued, should stay in state court. Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump denies her claim and said he did nothing wrong. It was the only one of his four criminal cases to go to trial. Trump's lawyers first sought to move the case to federal court following his March 2023 indictment, arguing that federal officers including former presidents have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from 'conduct performed while in office.' Part of the criminal case involved checks he wrote while he was president. They tried again after his conviction, about two months after the Supreme Court issued its immunity ruling. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who was nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton, denied both requests, ruling in part that Trump's conviction involved his personal life, not his work as president. Wu argued Wednesday that Trump and his lawyers should've acted more immediately after the Supreme Court ruled, and that by waiting they waived their right to seek a transfer. Wall responded that they delayed seeking to move the case to federal court because they were trying to resolve the matter by raising the immunity argument with the trial judge, Juan Merchan. Merchan ultimately rejected Trump's request to throw out the conviction on immunity grounds and sentenced him on Jan. 10 to an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact but sparing him any punishment. Sisak writes for the Associated Press.
Hamilton Spectator
a day ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Federal appeals court hears arguments in Trump's bid to erase hush money conviction
NEW YORK (AP) — As President Donald Trump focuses on global trade deals and dispatching troops to aid his immigration crackdown, his lawyers are fighting to erase the hush money criminal conviction that punctuated his reelection campaign last year and made him the first former — and now current — U.S. president found guilty of a crime. On Wednesday, that fight landed in a federal appeals court in Manhattan, where a three-judge panel heard arguments in Trump's long-running bid to get the New York case moved from state court to federal court so he can seek to have it thrown out on presidential immunity grounds. It's one way he's trying to get the historic verdict overturned. The judges in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals spent more than an hour grilling Trump's lawyer and the appellate chief for Manhattan district attorney's office — which prosecuted the case and wants it to remain in state court. At turns skeptical and receptive to both sides' arguments on the weighty and seldom-tested legal issues underlying the president's request, the judges said they would take the matter under advisement and issue a ruling at a later date. But there was at least one thing all parties agreed on: it is a highly unusual case. Trump lawyer Jeffrey Wall called the president 'a class of one' and Judge Susan L. Carney, noted that it was 'anomalous' for a defendant to seek to transfer a case to federal court after it has been decided in state court. Carney was nominated to the 2nd Circuit by Democratic President Barack Obama. The other judges who heard arguments, Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. and Myrna Pérez were nominated by Obama and Democratic President Joe Biden, respectively. The Republican president is asking the federal appeals court to intervene after a lower-court judge twice rejected the move. As part of the request, Trump wants the court to seize control of the criminal case and then ultimately decide his appeal of the verdict, which is now pending in a state appellate court. Trump's Justice Department — now partly run by his former criminal defense lawyers — backs his bid to move the case to federal court. If he loses, he could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. 'Everything about this cries out for federal court,' Wall argued. Wall, a former acting U.S. solicitor general, argued that Trump's historic prosecution violated the U.S. Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling , which was decided last July, about a month after the hush money verdict. The ruling reined in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricted prosecutors from pointing to official acts as evidence that a president's unofficial actions were illegal. Trump's lawyers argue that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision, and that they erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under the ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018. 'The district attorney holds the keys in his hand,' Wall argued. 'He doesn't have to introduce this evidence.' Steven Wu, the appellate chief for the district attorney's office, countered that Trump was too late in seeking to move the case to federal court. Normally, such a request must be made within 30 days of an arraignment, but a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. recently ruled that exceptions can be made if 'good cause' is shown. Trump hasn't done that, Wu argued. While 'this defendant is an unusual defendant,' Wu said, there is nothing unusual about a defendant raising subsequent court decisions, such as the Supreme Court's immunity ruling for Trump, when they appeal their convictions. That appeal, he argued, should stay in state court. Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels , whose affair allegations threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign . Trump denies her claim and said he did nothing wrong. It was the only one of his four criminal cases to go to trial. Trump's lawyers first sought to move the case to federal court following his March 2023 indictment, arguing that federal officers including former presidents have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from 'conduct performed while in office.' Part of the criminal case involved checks he wrote while he was president. They tried again after his conviction, about two months after the Supreme Court issued its immunity ruling. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein , who was nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton, denied both requests, ruling in part that Trump's conviction involved his personal life, not his work as president. Wu argued Wednesday that Trump and his lawyers should've acted more immediately after the Supreme Court ruled, and that by waiting they waived their right to seek a transfer. Wall responded that they delayed seeking to move the case to federal court because they were trying to resolve the matter by raising the immunity argument with the trial judge, Juan Merchan. Merchan ultimately rejected Trump's request to throw out the conviction on immunity grounds and sentenced him on Jan. 10 to an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact but sparing him any punishment. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Some P.E.I. lobster fishers want 'moderate livelihood' defined, after DFO seizes more traps
Lennox Island First Nation says more lobster traps belonging to its moderate-livelihood fishery were removed from the waters along P.E.I.'s North Shore over the weekend. Chief Darlene Bernard said one fisherman had 58 traps seized by federal Fisheries and Oceans Canada enforcement officers on Sunday. The move comes after DFO removed what it said were 100 unauthorized traps from Malpeque Bay back in late May. Bernard is once again calling the removal illegal, though some non-Indigenous fishers in the area told CBC News they were pleased that DFO is taking action. Timothy Wall, a third-generation fisherman in the area, said there's too much pressure on Malpeque Bay's lobster stocks. "It's nice to see DFO… taking a stance in the name of conservation," Wall told CBC News. "There's been a lot of extra pressure on the resource, and you can only split the pie so many ways sometimes before your slices start to get smaller and smaller and smaller." The Mi'kmaq have a right to fish for a "moderate livelihood" outside of the commercial fishery that's rigorously regulated by the federal government, a right that was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada's Marshall decision in 1999. Bernard said the traps seized Sunday belong to Lennox Island's self-governed, treaty-protected fishery that began in 2022. The First Nation set 1,500 moderate-livelihood lobster traps this year — 100 traps each for 15 fishermen from the community — but DFO has said it approved only up to 1,000. Calling DFO's latest seizure "extremely disappointing" and "despicable," Bernard said 58 traps have been placed back in the water. "If there's an issue with these traps, then give me the reason other than 'we didn't authorize them,'" she told CBC News on Tuesday. "Well, guess what? [DFO doesn't] have the ability or the authority to authorize anything when it comes to the treaty-protected fishery. It's a self-regulated fishery that is protected by the Constitution." As well as that fishery, the Lennox Island First Nation also operates a communal commercial fishery. Down the road, the community to hopes to expand that fishery by using a new program, the Community Based Access Acquisition Fund, to buy existing commercial licences from people from outside the First Nation who are getting out of the business. If that approach works, Bernard said Lennox Island will not have to expand its moderate-livelihood fishery. Fishers like Wall say part of the problem is that DFO hasn't defined what a "moderate livelihood" means. He said non-Indigenous fishers should have some kind of say in the future of the treaty-protected fishery, given that their own livelihood is at stake. "It's impossible to have real, true reconciliation 'til we can all move forward, and this is one of the biggest things that's stopping everybody from moving forward," Wall said. "Everybody would be better off and happier if we could just figure out what moderate livelihood means. It is time to define it." WATCH | Lennox Island First Nation says it will replace hundreds of lobster traps removed by DFO officials: DFO said it has no plans to do that in the near future. Connor Robinson, the department's acting director-general of Indigenous affairs, said DFO is "committed to reconciliation and working with partners to implement their rights in the fishery in a sustainable way that's mindful of conservation and pressure on fish stocks" About defining the moderate-livelihood fishery, he added: "While I understand the desire from many to define it and put parameters around it, what the court basically said is what's required to implement moderate livelihood will vary over time as fish stocks and communities change and grow and evolve." We are going to continue to fish 1,500 traps in this community. — Chief Darlene Bernard, Lennox Island First Nation In the meantime, Lennox Island is considering legal action over the traps seized Sunday. Bernard said the 15 moderate-livelihood fishers from her community are only taking what they need — and it's far less than what the commercial fishery is hauling in. "We are going to continue to protect that right, and we are going to continue to fish 1,500 traps in this community," she said. "We've done our due diligence on it, we've done our engagements with the community, we've looked to see if there was any issues with regards to the stocks…. Right now, we are less than one per cent of the total allowable catch."
