US state politician and husband killed in ‘targeted' attacks on two Democrats
I've activated the State Emergency Operations Center.
Local law enforcement in Champlin and Brooklyn Park have the full resources of the State of Minnesota behind them.
We are monitoring the situation closely and will share more information soon.
— Governor Tim Walz (@GovTimWalz) June 14, 2025
'We must all, in Minnesota and across the country, stand against all forms of political violence,' Mr Walz said at a press conference on Saturday.
'Those responsible for this will be held accountable.'
Mr Hoffman, a Democrat, was first elected in 2012 and runs Hoffman Strategic Advisors, a consulting firm.
He previously served as vice-chairman of the Anoka Hennepin School Board, which manages the largest school district in Minnesota. Mr Hoffman is married and has one daughter.
Ms Hortman was the top house Democratic leader in the state legislature and a former house speaker. She was first elected in 2004.
A police officer sets up a perimeter with tape near the scene of the shooting in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota (Alex Kormann/Star Tribune via AP)
Both Mr Hoffman and Ms Hortman represented districts located north of Minneapolis.
Drew Evans, superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, said that authorities were actively searching for a suspect.
Post-mortem examinations will be carried out to determine extent of injuries, but Ms Hortman and her spouse died from gunshot wounds, Mr Evans said.
Public safety commissioner Bob Johnson said the suspect was posing as a law enforcement officer.
He said: 'Suspect exploited the trust of our uniforms, what our uniforms are meant to represent. That betrayal is deeply disturbing to those of us who wear the badge with honour and responsibility.'
Law enforcement officers including local police, sheriffs and the FBI at the scene (Alex Kormann/Star Tribune via AP)
The shootings happened at a time when political leaders nationwide have been attacked, harassed and intimidated during a time of deep political divisions.
Giffords, the national gun violence prevention organisation led by former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, released the following statement.
'I am horrified and heartbroken by last night's attack on two patriotic public servants,' Ms Giffords said.
'My family and I know the horror of a targeted shooting all too well. An attack against lawmakers is an attack on American democracy itself.
'Leaders must speak out and condemn the fomenting violent extremism that threatens everything this country stands for.'
Ms Giffords was shot in the head in 2011 by a gunman who killed six people and injured 12 others.
She stepped down from congress in January 2012 to focus on her recovery.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Channel 4
a few seconds ago
- Channel 4
US factory in Ukraine hit in wave of Russian drone and missile strikes
Russia has launched another massive drone and missile attacks on Ukraine, killing one person and injuring dozens more in cities far from the front line. Despite the flurry of diplomatic efforts to end the war, Moscow launched around 40 missiles and almost 600 drones during the night. Among the destroyed buildings, an American-owned electronics factory near the Hungarian border which was set on fire by a missile strike.
Reuters
a minute ago
- Reuters
In huge win for Trump, court throws out half-billion-dollar fraud penalty
NEW YORK, Aug 21 (Reuters) - In a triumph for Donald Trump, a New York state appeals court on Thursday threw out a half-billion-dollar penalty while preserving a fraud case against him, enabling the U.S. president to rebound from one of his biggest legal defeats. The deeply divided decision by the Appellate Division in Manhattan is also a defeat for New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of Trump's biggest foes, who he accused of bringing the civil fraud lawsuit to advance a political witch hunt and deny him a second White House term. A trial judge had ordered the penalty in February 2024 after finding that Trump fraudulently overstated his wealth and the value of his properties to bolster his family business. Trump denied wrongdoing, and his lawyers argued that any errors in reporting his fortune to his lenders and business partners were irrelevant because none was harmed. Four judges on the five-member appeals court voted to let the fraud finding stand, but all found problems in the judge's handling of the case and two would have ordered a new trial. A fifth judge would have dismissed the case altogether, and all five judges would have voided the payout. There was no majority opinion. The original judgment against Trump, his adult sons and a former Trump Organization executive totaled $464.6 million, with Trump liable for $454.2 million. As interest continued to accrue, those respective sums have grown to $527 million and $515.2 million. In a social media post, Trump called the decision a "TOTAL VICTORY." "I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision," the Republican wrote. James, a Democrat who regularly said Trump was not above the law, said she will ask the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, to review the case. "It should not be lost to history: yet another court has ruled that the president violated the law, and that our case has merit," she added. Trump was separately convicted in May 2024 on criminal charges in Manhattan stemming from hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels, but received no punishment. His reelection also effectively meant the end of three other criminal cases he faced, including two for alleged interference in the 2020 election. Trump is still challenging more than $88 million of civil verdicts won by the writer E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of defamation and rape. He has denied wrongdoing. But his finances appear much improved, including from business tied to cryptocurrencies, compared to last year when he struggled to post a bond to appeal the $454.2-million judgment. He was later allowed to post a smaller bond. James, meanwhile, is under investigation for possible mortgage fraud by the U.S. Department of Justice, as the White House uses the levers of government against people who have investigated Trump or resisted his agenda. Prosecutors also convened a grand jury to investigate whether James' fraud case deprived Trump of his civil rights, a person familiar with the matter said this month. In the civil fraud case, Trump had been appealing a judgment entered by Justice Arthur Engoron in Manhattan, following a three-month nonjury trial. Engoron found Trump had inflated his wealth over several years before becoming president in 2017, to dupe lenders and insurers into providing better terms to the Trump Organization. Finding a "complete lack of contrition," Engoron ordered Trump to pay about 98% of the $464.6-million judgment. Trump's sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, and former Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg, were to pay the rest. Engoron also banned Trump and the Trump Organization from applying for loans from banks registered in the state for three years, and effectively barred the sons from the business for two years. The appeals court put those restrictions on hold during the appeals process, while letting a court-appointed monitor for the Trump Organization continue her work. Thursday's decision lets those restrictions take effect. Two judges involved in the decision agreed the defendants "engaged in a decade-long pattern of financial fraud and illegality." But they said Trump's wrongdoing did not cause "cataclysmic harm" to justify a half-billion-dollar award, though injunctive relief to prevent future wrongdoing was appropriate. "The Attorney General may act, as she did in this case, before a potential catastrophe occurs, to deter further fraudulent business behavior," wrote Justice Peter Moulton, joined by the chief judge Dianne Renwick. "Having achieved these goals," he added, "the state is not entitled to compound its victory with a massive punitive fine." Two other judges, John Higgitt and Llinet Rosado, agreed James had authority to sue, but a new trial was necessary because Engoron was too quick to find fraud. They agreed "with great reluctance" not to disturb the fraud finding, to allow an appeal. Justice David Friedman, the only judge on the panel appointed by a Republican governor, said James' case was politically motivated, and voters had rendered their own verdict on Trump's political career. He also said another trial "would disrupt the political life of the United States and would undermine its national interest, particularly at a time of high global tension." Moulton also rejected a new trial, saying Trump's presidency and the difficulties of starting afresh "would likely consign this meritorious case to oblivion."
Reuters
a minute ago
- Reuters
Exclusive: DOJ blocks use of justice grants for legal aid to migrants in US illegally, email shows
WASHINGTON, Aug 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department this week ordered states, local governments and non-profits not to use existing federal grant funds to provide legal services to immigrants in the country illegally or who could face deportation, according to an email seen by Reuters and interviews with grantees. The department's Office of Justice Programs issued that order in a Monday email to grantees, the same day that 21 Democratic-led states sued the DOJ for trying to impose conditions on upcoming fiscal year 2025 crime victim grant recipients, which would require them to cooperate with federal immigration authorities to be eligible to receive the funds. That lawsuit challenges conditions that the DOJ is trying to impose on future grant awards, while the new spending restrictions apply retroactively to a variety of grants that were awarded during Democratic President Joe Biden's tenure, including grants that combat human-trafficking and to assist and compensate victims of crime, grantees familiar with the notices told Reuters. In the email, the Justice Department says that no DOJ grant money may be used to pay for "legal services to any removable alien or any alien otherwise unlawfully present in the United States." It carves out exceptions for legal services related to obtaining protection orders for victims, or certain immigration legal services that are required by law or by a court order. Reuters could not immediately determine how many grants were affected by the new restrictions. A Justice Department spokesperson did not have any immediate comment on the new restrictions. The effort by Republican President Donald Trump's administration to impose new spending restrictions on existing grants could spark lawsuits, legal experts said. "As a general legal proposition, when a grant or any other provision has been made pursuant to either a congressional authorization or a contract ... it is not allowable to retroactively -- unless agreed upon by those involved -- change their terms," said Abbe Lowell, a prominent defense attorney. "If they are unilaterally imposing retroactive conditions on that which doesn't exist, then it's challengeable." The restrictions impose significant challenges on victim services providers, who generally assist victims of crime without asking for their immigration status. By law, federal grant recipients are not allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of race, national origin or other protected classes. In addition, federal regulations adopted in 2016 expressly state that victim eligibility for direct services funded by the Justice Department's VOCA Assistance Program, which is paid for by fines and penalties collected from convicted federal felons, is "not dependent on the victim's immigration status." Hema Sarang-Sieminski, the executive director of Jane Doe, the Massachusetts coalition of direct service providers who assist victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and trafficking, said the spending restrictions could have a chilling effect on immigrants, many of whom are already afraid to report crimes to law enforcement. A survey released in June by the Alliance for Immigrant Survivors found that 76% of advocates reported that immigrants have concerns about contacting the police to report domestic violence and sexual assault. Sarang-Sieminski added that some of her coalition's members are also worried that the Justice Department could try to claw back funds that were already spent, or create ethical dilemmas for attorneys. "The fear of the impact on programs is huge," she said. Jean Bruggeman, executive director for Freedom Network USA, which works to help human-trafficking victims, said this could pose a complication for service providers who help victims sue their traffickers for damages and lost wages, or for groups who help victims try to navigate the legal process when traffickers are indicted for their crimes. "When we agree to grant terms, we are bound by the solicitation language," she said. "I anticipate litigation on this issue." This marks the second time that the Justice Department has targeted grants awarded during Biden's time in office. In April, it terminated 365 grants valued at $811 million, claiming they were wasteful and not aligned with Trump administration priorities.
