
Minnesota lawmaker convicted of felony burglary for breaking into estranged stepmother's home
After about three hours of deliberations, the jury found Nicole Mitchell, 51, guilty of first-degree burglary and possession of burglary tools. She told police right after her arrest that she went there to search for her father's ashes and other mementos, but tried to back away from that story on the witness stand.
Mitchell displayed little emotion as the verdicts were read.
Democratic Senate Majority Leader Erin Murphy was quick to issue a statement saying that Mitchell has told colleagues that she planned to resign if convicted, 'and I expect her to follow through on that pledge.'
Republican Senate Minority Leader Mark Johnson reiterated the GOP's long-standing demand for immediate resignation or face expulsion.
One of Mitchell's attorneys, Dane DeKrey, said in a text that he didn't know if she would heed the calls.
The Democrat from the St. Paul suburb of Woodbury maintained her innocence and refused to resign since her arrest in the early hours of April 22, 2024, at her stepmother's home in the northwestern Minnesota city of Detroit Lakes.
Mitchell's father died in 2023 at the age of 72. He had been married to Mitchell's stepmother, Carol Mitchell, for nearly 40 years.
The jury saw bodycam video of Mitchell telling police repeatedly after her arrest that she broke into the home because her stepmother refused to give her items of sentimental value from her father, including some of his ashes, photos and a flannel shirt.
The first-term senator was dressed in all-black and had a flashlight covered with a black sock when she was arrested. The video showed her telling police, 'Clearly, I'm not good at this,' and 'I know I did something bad.'
But Mitchell testified Thursday that despite what she told police, she didn't really intend to take anything. She said she had become increasingly concerned about her stepmother's worsening memory problems and paranoia, and wanted to check on her well-being. She testified her stepmother was afraid of being put in a nursing home. Mitchell said she thought her stepmom would be less upset to hear she wanted some of her father's items than to have her competency questioned.
The former broadcast meteorologist and now-retired Air National Guard officer was convicted of one count of first-degree burglary of an occupied dwelling, a felony that carries a mandatory minimum of six months in jail if there's an intent to steal. She was also convicted on a count of possessing burglary tools, a lesser felony without a mandatory minimum.
The judge did not set a sentencing date.
The prosecutor, Becker County Attorney Brian McDonald urged jurors Friday to focus on 'the many lies of Nicole Mitchell' and evaluate her testimony with reason and common sense. And he urged them to review the body camera video showing what she told police after her arrest.
'I submit to you she was telling the truth on April 22nd, 2024. And if you believe that she was telling the truth to the officers, then you know she had the intent to steal. She told you. She told the officers.'
Defense attorney Bruce Ringstrom Jr. told the jury that Mitchell did not steal anything and did not intend to. He conceded that she used poor judgment. He said everybody has told 'white lies,' and that Mitchell's goal was to avoid aggravating her stepmother's distrust even further.
'We all know the difference between a white lie and a meaningful, damaging one,' Ringstrom said. 'The problem is that this happened in the context of something that was a terrible mess, a mess that Nicole made. But it was a mess.'
Mitchell's rejection of calls for her resignation after her arrest frayed relations between Democrats and Republicans in the narrowly divided state Senate.
Democrats hold only a one-seat majority in the Senate, so they needed her vote. They said she deserved to have the legal process play out.
Republicans periodically tried to kick her out of the chamber but lacked the votes. The Senate can't vote to expel her until it next convenes, and it's not due to meet again until February.
If she resigns, Gov. Tim Walz would schedule a special election. Mitchell's district mostly votes Democratic. The Harris-Walz ticket carried it with 61% of the vote last year.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

USA Today
a few seconds ago
- USA Today
Trump: Epstein grand jury records unlikely to satisfy critics
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump acknowledged on July 19 he's unlikely to satisfy the clamor for more information about Jeffrey Epstein. Even if a court fully approves his request to release grand jury testimony about the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender, that probably won't be enough, Trump said on social media. 'Nothing will be good enough for the troublemakers and radical left lunatics making the request,' the president wrote. 'It will always be more, more, more. MAGA!' More: $10 billion lawsuit. More documents coming. Here's the latest on Trump and Epstein. Trump previously accused the Biden administration of hiding a list of Epstein clients. The Department of Justice teased that more files would be coming out, but then on July 7, Attorney General Pam Bondi said there was no client list and no further disclosure was needed. That led to a wave of backlash from Trump's MAGA base. "No one believes there is not a client list," Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, a close Trump ally, posted on X July 8. On July 18, federal prosecutors asked a federal court in Manhattan to unseal grand jury transcripts in the criminal cases against Epstein and his former associate Ghislaine Maxwell. Epstein's federal sex-trafficking case was still pending when he was found dead in a jail cell in 2019. 'Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval,' Trump wrote on social media. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who filed legislation to release all the government's Epstein records, wrote in social media post that Trump's move indicates the pressure campaign is 'working.' 'But we want all the files,' Massie added. It could take time for the courts to release any records, and the grand jury documents are just a portion of the unreleased files. 'What about videos, photographs and other recordings?' Democratic Rep. Daniel Goldman, a former prosecutor, wrote on social media in response to Bondi saying she'd seek the release of grand jury testimony. 'What about FBI… (witness interviews)? What about texts and emails?' Contributing: Zac Anderson, Aysha Bagchi, Joey Garrison.


New York Post
a few seconds ago
- New York Post
The Biden administration secretly stole your data to engineer elections and silence speech
While the Department of Government Efficiency traces the flow of dollars between government and partisan activists, the flow of data may reveal an even deeper menace. The real story of government weaponization can only be told once we reckon with the shadowy data-sharing web secretly used to manipulate elections, punish foes and silence speech — which my new book, 'They're Coming for You,' dares to expose. Without the constitutional authority to collect our financial transactions, our browsing histories or our location data, the Biden administration found a workaround. Federal agencies outsourced unconstitutional data grabs to politically aligned partners. Instead of collecting data directly, they bought or sold it from or exchanged it with nonprofits and tech companies. 5 Author Jason Chaffetz was a House Oversight Committee chairman. Reuters My book exposes three critical fronts where this abuse thrived: election interference, citizen surveillance and the erosion of free speech. The silent manipulation of voters through our data demands urgent scrutiny to protect future elections. While DOGE's budget probes grab headlines, the real scandal is deeper. A Biden executive order forced every federal agency to conduct ostensibly nonpartisan voter-registration drives. Yet the implementation often told a different story. 5 Book The Small Business Administration, for instance, diverted its limited resources toward partisan voter outreach. The agency proactively contacted states, particularly swing states like Arizona and Georgia, to request designations as voter-registration entities, though federal law requires states to make the first move under the National Voter Registration Act. Emails obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests reveal the SBA's focus on liberal voting blocs, including promoting events likely to register Democratic-leaning voters in blue precincts. 'How many events have you run to open small businesses in non-Democratic areas?' one lawmaker asked SBA Associate Administrator for Field Operations Jennifer Kim during a 2024 hearing. Kim didn't answer directly but assured the committee politics played no role in the agency's outreach — a claim the efforts' documented partisan skew contradicts. 5 The Small Business Administration's Jennifer Kim faced questions of agency bias at a 2024 House hearing. YouTube This wasn't random. It was a calculated use of our information, supported by partisan allies, to evade transparency. The result? A voter base quietly reshaped, funded by us but hidden from view. This breach of trust — turning our data into a political tool — undermines democracy itself. My book uncovers this network, revealing how agencies and partners weaponized government services without our knowledge. Voter manipulation is just the opening salvo. The Biden administration unleashed warrantless surveillance to silence dissenters, pressuring financial institutions to flag 'suspicious' transactions and debank opposing voices. This effort ultimately targeted Christian nonprofits, gun makers, conservative protesters — even Melania and Barron Trump — closing their accounts without cause. By buying and sharing information with activist nongovernmental organizations and corporations, financial regulators dodged legal restrictions on government data collection. 5 If this data weaponization goes unchecked, Chaffetz warns, it won't end with the Biden administration. AP This financial chokehold is just the start. President Biden's administration also expanded the National Security Agency's warrantless-surveillance programs to collect bulk data, including phone metadata, browsing histories and emails, bypassing Congress and public transparency. This data net muzzles your voice. Social-media giants Facebook, YouTube and pre-Elon Musk Twitter faced pressure, with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency flagging 859 million tweets as 'misinformation' in 2023, burying 22 million. Among those, many truthful but politically inconvenient facts were buried under labels such as 'Trends blacklist' and 'Do not amplify.' 5 A White House dissent crackdown ensnared Melania and Barron Trump. Getty Images NewsGuard and the Global Disinformation Index, each with documented Biden-adminsitration ties, amplified this bias by assigning conservative outlets disproportionately low reliability ratings. The Federalist, for example, received a NewsGuard failing score of 12.5 out of 100, allegedly for publishing content deemed objectionable to Democrats rather than for spreading inaccurate information. This harsh rating caused advertisers to flee, severely undercutting revenue to conservative outlets that dared tell the truth. By contrast, left-leaning sites such as NPR and The New York Times consistently received top ratings, regardless of their reporting errors, reinforcing their dominance in news visibility and funding. Artificial-intelligence tools, funded by government programs, downranked conservative narratives, ensuring they vanished from searches. YouTube even tweaked algorithms at the feds' behest. Censorship laundering through NGOs masked illegal moves, monitoring posts to crush wrongthink. The stakes couldn't be higher. If this data weaponization goes unchecked, it won't end with Democrats or the Biden administration. History has shown us the erosion of liberties for one group inevitably sets the stage for broader abuses. Today, it's conservatives being silenced; tomorrow, it might be anyone who dissents. But there's hope. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and Americans of all political stripes should demand transparency and accountability from their government and its partners. Whether through boycotts, lawsuits or investigators like DOGE, there are ways to fight back. Free speech and an open exchange of ideas define our democracy. When those in power suppress dissent, they betray not just their critics but the Constitution itself. 'They're Coming for You' is a first step in exposing this corruption. But the responsibility to stop it falls on us all. Stand for truth. Demand accountability. And above all, protect the freedoms that make America a beacon of liberty. Fox News contributor Jason Chaffetz is a former House Oversight Committee chairman.


The Hill
a few seconds ago
- The Hill
Will the 2028 Democratic nominee be ‘none of the above'?
Did you hear the one where former Vice President Kamala Harris, former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg and California Gov. Gavin Newsom were the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination for president in 2028? Neither have I. Nor have any Democrats I speak with who concern themselves with real-world politics. In a recent poll from a company called Echelon Insights — which describes itself as 'erasing old industry lines that separate the process of conducting research from the tools to act on it' — Harris was leading the Democratic field with 26 percent of the primary vote, followed by Buttigieg at 11 percent, Newsom at 10 percent, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) at 7 percent and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) at 6 percent. I have spoken with numerous Democrats in or around the business of politics over the last few months. Not one believes that Harris will — or should be — the nominee. Similarly, none believe the other four names topping the poll will be the standard-bearer come November 2028. As has been stated many times in the past, a good lawyer can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. The same holds true for polling. Depending on where you poll and how you shade the questions, a poll can bolster the views and desires of one partisan entity over the other, be they Democrats or Republicans. As for a recent glaring example of such polling flaws — purposeful or innocent — look no further than the truly laughable final Des Moines Register-Mediacom Iowa Poll of the 2024 election season conducted by Selzer and Co. In a state Trump was heavily favored to win, the jaw-dropping poll showed Harris leading Trump 47 percent to 44 percent. Of course, Trump went on to crush Harris in Iowa by 13 points, meaning the poll was a whopping 16 points off. 'How,' curious minds wondered, 'could a legitimate poll be that far off?' Some, including Trump himself, openly speculated whether it had been a tactic to suppress the Republican vote in the state. Trump was rightfully so bothered by the massive and mysterious failure of that poll that he decided to sue pollster J. Ann Selzer, her polling firm, the Des Moines Register newspaper and its parent company Gannett. Although the suit was later dropped, Selzer chose to retire from the polling business. All that is to say that more and more people in the business put little stock in any of these polls. Of course, at some point, some Democrat is going to emerge as the frontrunner and then the eventual nominee. After Trump's decisive victory in 2024, every Democrat I spoke with believed their party would learn from its mistakes and tone-deafness and move back toward the center — back toward once again listening to the voices of working-class and disenfranchised Americans. Not only has the party not done so, but it has doubled and tripled down on 'woke' and 'DEI' rhetoric while still loudly pushing its main 'policy' plank from 2024: 'We hate Trump.' Of course, the 'we hate Trump' strategy did nothing to address the 'bread and butter' issues upending the lives of working-class and disenfranchised Americans in 2024 and it is doing less for them now. And yet, 'rising voices' such as Reps. Ocasio-Cortez and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) still invoke that strategy incessantly in egocentric attempts at gaining attention. Here is a suggestion for Democratic-leaning polling companies. Why not poll the minority, poor and disenfranchised constituents in the districts represented by Ocasio-Cortez and Crockett? Why not ask which 'bread and butter' emergencies either is fixing by appearing on show after show proclaiming their hatred of Trump? How has the 'leadership' of Ocasio-Cortez and Crockett improved the real lives of those constituents? Most Americans want to see those 'bread and butter' issues fixed. They don't live in entrenched and elite bubbles of entitlement. They exist in an often brutally tough world, in which many still must choose which necessity they will have to go without that month. They don't care if you 'hate Trump' or not. They want to feed and protect their children. And yet Democratic leaders still refuse to wrest control back from the far-left wing of their party. Why? Are they truly that afraid and intimidated by what really does amount to a tiny percentage of their base? In the meantime, the 2028 Republican Party bench could not be stronger. Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are all on the list. And guess what? Just as in 2024, all are laser-focused on the 'bread and butter' issues that most affect the quality of life of working-class and disenfranchised Americans. So who will be the Democratic nominee in 2028? As the internal battle for control of that party goes on, my money is still on 'none of the above.'