Neighbours of murdered US politician stunned by 'politically motivated' attack
Why you can trust Sky News
The calm of an affluent cul-de-sac, north of Minneapolis, has been shattered.
Yellow tape, establishing a police cordon, now marks it as the scene of a double murder.
Former state speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark were gunned down in their own home in the early hours of Saturday.
The gardens in this street are immaculately manicured but John Sampson is tending his again, a distraction tactic perhaps.
He knew the murdered couple well. His daughter was their babysitter.
"Very kind, very neighbourly, very intelligent," he recalls.
Of Ms Hortman, he said: "She would know other people that were on the other side of the aisle, but it didn't matter to her.
"Politics was never brought into the neighbourhood."
Other neighbours remained behind closed doors, where they had initially been ordered to shelter following two gun attacks.
Long-standing state senator John Hoffman and his wife Yvette had been shot and wounded in their home.
Police officers sent to check on his Democratic colleague, Melissa Hortman, were too late.
They encountered a man disguised as a police officer leaving her home and exchanged fire with him, but he escaped, sparking a manhunt.
Minnesota governor Tim Walz, who ran for vice president last year, described the murders as "politically motivated".
That's something the residents of this suburban network of streets find hard to comprehend.
"Nationally and stuff, things are very volatile in the political scene and I just pray that it's not here," John Sampson told me.
"I hoped it would never come anywhere near here, that anyone has to go through this type of tragedy."
"I feel very sad for the children and for the family left behind," he added.
Ms Hortman was a Democrat but voted with Republicans last Thursday to get a budget bill through.
The compromise was painful for her - withholding free healthcare from undocumented migrants.
Speaking afterwards, she tearfully explained: "I know that people will be hurt by that vote, and we worked very hard to get a budget deal that wouldn't include that provision."
Whatever the motivation for the murders of the politician and her husband, two children have lost both their parents.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
Every time Starmer wants us to think the best of Trump, the US president proves him wrong
Just five days ago Sir Keir Starmer sat down with the travelling pack of UK journalists at the G7 in Canada and assured them and their readers that Donald Trump would not attack Iran. He said:"There is nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict, on the contrary, the G7 statement was about de-escalation. "I think what he said was he wanted to go beyond a ceasefire effectively and end the conflict. And I think he's right about that. I mean, a ceasefire is always a means to an end. "That is consistent with what we agreed around the table yesterday. And throughout the dinner yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was in relation to the words that were then issued immediately after that, pretty soon after the dinner.' He made a point of being at the table sitting next to Trump to underline that his reading of what the US president would do was correct. At that point Trump had left the resort in Alberta early and was back in the White House. Just hours later he was posting threats to Iran on Truth Social. Then last night, five days after Starmer addressed journalists, he authorised the bombing of Iran having given them two weeks on Friday to get back to the negotiating table. The question though is: Why does the prime minister just keep getting it so wrong about what the US president will say and do? This is not the first time that Sir Keir has suggested Trump will do one thing and then the US president has done the opposite. We can go back to Starmer's cosy chat in the Oval Office when the two had their first formal meeting as prime minister and president in March. At the time and just before handing Trump the invitation from the King for a state visit, Sir Keir said he wanted 'to thank you for changing the conversation on the war in Ukraine.' It seemed an odd phrase even then given that Trump seemed to be dead set on forcing Ukraine to accept a peace on Russia's terms. But it looked far worse 24 hours later after vice president J.D. Vance and president Trump berated and humiliated Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelensky in the same Oval Office forcing him to leave their meeting. Then in May Sir Keir and President Trump were on the opposite ends of a public zoom call congratulating each other for the trade deal they had just struck over the White House's global tariff regime. 'Donald, thank you for your leadership,' the prime minister said, emphasising the first name terms. All seemed well until later in the month when Trump announced steel tariffs would be 50 per cent, not 25 per cent, and it turned out the UK/ US trade deal had not actually been implemented. It took til last week to get most of the deal implemented apart from steel which is still subject to discussions with the UK tariff remaining at 25 per cent with a hope of zero per cent still on the table. At every turn it appears that the prime minister wants us to think the best of Trump only for the US president to be apparently determined to prove him quickly wrong. It may be wishful thinking on Sir Keir's part. After all, he is constantly hoping Trump will do the right thing. There is a case to point out that what else could he say in these circumstances especially as his primary diplomatic policy appears to be to assuage Trump's ego and butter the US president up as much as possible. To be fair, Starmer has had more success than most on the international stage and he rightly speaks of his 'warm relationship' with the US president who in turn has gone out of his way to praise the prime minister's leadership. There is a sense from a popular American phrase of 'speaking things into existence', in that if you want something to happen it is better to say it will happen and hope that is enough to ensure it does. But perhaps it is because of the quixotic nature of the US president. He thinks one thing at one moment and then changes his mind when he leaves the room. It could be all of the above. But even those who wanted to believe Starmer last week thought he was being extremely naive in suggesting the president was pursuing de-escalation. It all reflects a complex international situation for the prime minister in his first year and one which is only going to heat up further. The problem is that our prime minister seems incapable of guessing what the biggest international player and UK's most important ally will do next.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Starmer has made Britain utterly irrelevant
Two weeks is a short time in politics. In a bid to halt Israel's bombing campaign in Iran, Foreign Secretary David Lammy flew to Washington DC on Friday. Following meetings with secretary of state Marco Rubio and Donald Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff to discuss 'how a deal could avoid a deepening conflict', Lammy emerged to declare: 'A window now exists within the next two weeks to achieve a diplomatic solution.' Less than 48 hours later, Iran's uranium enrichment and nuclear technology facilities are in smoulders. Far from two weeks to negotiate, there were two days until the bombs went off. Donald Trump's decision to target the sites in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan has shaken the regime in Tehran, but the tremors extend far beyond the Islamic Republic. The US president has demonstrated in emphatic fashion exactly what he thinks of the UK Government and the people who lead it. Just three days ago, Keir Starmer said that while a nuclear Iran was a major threat, it was 'better dealt with by way of negotiation than by way of conflict' and that 'we need to de-escalate'. It is being briefed that the UK took no part in the overnight bombing – boasting of your bystander status as a new world order is being born is certainly a choice – and that the Prime Minister was informed in advance. That latter crumb-searching looks especially pitiful. If there was a relationship between Trump's White House and Number 10, beyond the formal and functional, the administration would not have allowed Starmer to embarrass himself by giving on-the-record quotes about the risks of a course of action the president was days away from taking. Starmer and Lammy favoured yet more talks with Tehran, a regime that demonstrated with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that it regards negotiations and even agreements as a stalling tactic to gull naive Western leaders while its nuclear ambitions continue unabated. There are few leaders as naive as Starmer and Lammy, two men keenly interested in foreign and military affairs but fantastically out of their depth in both. If the UK has been swept aside in Trump's decision to hit Iran, it is not the US president but Britain's own Prime Minister who has made his nation irrelevant. It makes little sense to speak of a Starmer foreign policy, for Starmer's policy is merely a copy and paste of the various positions of the European Union. But the world does not belong to the likes of Ursula von der Leyen, Friedrich Merz or Emmanuel Macron anymore, and it certainly does not belong to their eager echoes Starmer and Lammy. Israel and the United States have not only exploded Iran's nuclear capabilities; they have blown to smithereens the delusions of liberal multilateralism. Those delusions appeal to Starmer because they regard negotiation as an end in itself, rather than a means to achieving an outcome. They are about process, and if there is anything the Prime Minister believes in, its process. Process is always the answer, even when it does not work, because process is the god of lawyers. The god of lawyers is dead, at least on the international stage. Peace through strength is back, with the United States and Israel in its vanguard.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Jon Jones charged with leaving accident scene where ‘intoxicated' woman ‘lacking clothing from waist down' found
JON JONES was charged with fleeing with scene of an accident just days before announcing his retirement. Court records show the Hall of Famer was charged with leaving the scene of an accident, which caused no great bodily harm or death, on June 17. 5 5 5 But records show that the alleged incident took place in New Mexico back on February 24. The police report states that a woman was found in the front passenger seat of one of the cars involved in the incident. The woman, according to the report, was 'exhibiting signs of significant intoxication and lacking clothing from the waist down.' She is said to have told the police that Jones was the driver and ran away from the scene on foot before calling the MMA icon. A police aide stated the person on the phone, who they believed to be Jones, 'appeared to be heavily intoxicated and made statements implying his capacity to employ lethal force through third parties.' Jones is also said to have not directly identified himself to police during the conversation, in which he allegedly made 'allusions to violence'. In an interview with police, Jones claims the woman found in the car was intoxicated when she left his house earlier in the day. He claims she rang him after getting into the crash and passed the phone over to an officer who 'immediately opened the conversations with unprofessional language, which led him to doubt the legitimacy of the individual's claim.' 5 In the police report, the woman found in the car claims she drank alcohol and took mushrooms at Jones' house, with her "next recollection was being at the scene of a traffic accident.' But she remained adamant the person driving the car was Jones, who, in the police report, is said to have called the woman 13 times and sent her scores of text messages from the time of he crash until the following morning. Five Things UFC 309 Cameras Didn't Show Jones, 37, is no stranger to falling afoul of the law when it comes to driving. In 2015, he was charged with a felony hit and run after crashing into two cars - one of which was being driven by a pregnant woman - and leaving the scene on foot. Jones, who faced a litany of DUI's during his career, pled guilty to leaving the scene of a crime and served 18 months probation for the incident, which led to him being stripped of the light-heavyweight title. The bombshell news came on the same day Jones announced he wouldn't be fighting Brit Tom Aspinall in an eagerly-anticipated heayweight title unification fight and would be retiring from MMA. He wrote on X: "Today, I'm officially announcing my retirement from the UFC. "This decision comes after a lot of reflection, and I want to take a moment to express my deepest gratitude for the journey I've experienced over the years. "From the first time I stepped into the Octagon, my goal was to push the boundaries of what was possible in this sport. "Becoming the youngest UFC champion in history, defending my title against some of the best fighters in the world, and sharing unforgettable moments with fans across the globe—these are memories I'll cherish forever. "I've faced incredible highs and some tough lows, but every challenge has taught me something valuable and made me stronger, both as a fighter and as a person. "I want to thank the UFC, Dana, Hunter, Lorenzo, God, my family, coaches, teammates, and all the fans who have stood by me through every chapter. "Your unwavering support and belief in me have been my foundation. "To my fellow fighters, thank you for bringing out the best in me and for the respect we've shared inside and outside the cage. "As I close this chapter of my life, I look forward to new opportunities and challenges ahead. " MMA will always be a part of who I am. "And I'm excited to see how I can continue to contribute to the sport and inspire others in new ways. "Thank you all for being part of this incredible journey with me. The best is yet to come." 5
