SAN ANTONIO — A 45-year-old attorney from Florida pleaded guilty in connection with multiple bombing or attempted bombing incidents, including a November 2022 explosion that damaged a satirical statue depicting communist leaders in downtown San Antonio.
According to the Justice Department, Christopher Rodriguez rented a car in Pensacola and drove more than 700 miles to San Antonio, where he climbed a fence before placing canisters of "explosive material" at the base of the sculpture titled "Miss Mao Trying to Poise Herself at the Top of Lenin's Head." He then shot at the canisters with a rifle, the DOJ said, "causing an explosion that caused significant damage."
The sculpture was located outside Texas Public Radio headquarters downtown. No one was hurt in the incident, which sparked an investigation involving the FBI as well as local authorities.
Rodriguez wasn't done there, according to federal officials. The following September, he went to Washington D.C. with a rifle and 15 pounds of explosive material, where officials say he tried to detonative explosives outside the Chinese embassy by firing at it. He missed, however, "and the device failed to detonate."
ATF agents arrested Rodriguez in November 2023 in Louisiana after investigators used DNA from a previous California arrest to identify him as the suspect. He pleaded guilty Friday to damaging property occupied by a foreign government, using explosive materials to cause malicious damage, and possessing an unregistered firearm.
Rodriguez is set to be sentenced on Oct. 28 and faces up to 10 years in prison.
SA sculpture not immune to headlines
The San Antonio sculpture depicts a tiny likeness of Mao Zedong balancing atop a massive Vladimir Lenin. It generated controversy upon its installation in spring 2022, with some calling it communist propaganda and a celebration of the Soviet leader. Others questioned the timing of its unveiling, which happened soon after the invasion of Ukraine by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The San Antonio developer who brought the artwork defended the decision, saying the statue was satirical in nature.