Minnesota in shock as burglar hits late Senator Melissa Hortman's home days after she and husband were killed

Just days after the tragic killing of the
Minnesota
state representative Emerita
Melissa Hortman
and her husband in their Brooklyn Park home, a second disturbing event occurred as a burglar broke into their house, as per a report.
Second Tragedy Strikes Grieving Minnesota
According to Brooklyn Park police, the break-in occurred overnight and was reported around 8 a.m. Wednesday, reported KSTP. The home, which had been processed by investigators and sealed with plywood over the windows, showed signs of forced entry, as per the report. Police say one of the boards at the back of the house had been pried off, and the window behind it shattered, KSTP reported.
The cops said, "The home was once again processed by crime scene investigators for evidence of the
burglary
," quoted ABC 11 report. The Brooklyn Park police also said that, "The home appeared to have been searched by an unknown individual; however, the family has indicated that they don't believe anything is missing," as quoted in the report.
While, the burglary currently remains under investigation, the police department has urged local residents to check their surveillance cameras and call the police if they have any information, as per ABC 11 report.
ALSO READ:
Tesla in dire straits as reports say company halts production of Cybertruck, Model Y— Where is the stock headed?
Live Events
Vance Boelter Killed Melissa Hortman and Her Husband
This incident takes place just a few days after Vance Boelter was accused of assassinating Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, at their home in Brooklyn Park and also shooting and wounding Democratic state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, at their house in nearby Champlin early Saturday morning, reported ABC 11.
FAQs
What happened at Melissa Hortman's home?
Someone broke into the home just days after she and her husband were tragically killed, as per reports.
Was anything stolen?
No, the family says nothing appears to be missing, though the home was searched, according to the police.
Economic Times WhatsApp channel
)

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

First Post

24 minutes ago

• First Post

Was Donald Trump's decision to bomb Iran unconstitutional?

US President Trump's airstrikes on Iran have raised questions over presidential war powers, with lawmakers across the aisle questioning whether he violated the Constitution by bypassing Congress. While some back the strikes as necessary, others call them illegal, even impeachable read more Demonstrators hold a papier-mache head depicting US President Donald Trump, as they gather to march against the upcoming Nato leaders' summit, at The Hague, Netherlands, June 22, 2025. File Image/Reuters United States President Donald Trump's recent airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear sites have everyone asking one question: can a US president launch offensive military action without direct approval from Congress? The question has prompted a bipartisan outcry, with lawmakers examining the constitutionality of Trump's decision and the implications for war powers delegated under US law. While some have praised the strikes as strategically necessary, others have called them a dangerous breach of executive authority that potentially defies the US Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Did Trump act without congressional green light? The airstrikes ordered by Trump on June 21 came amid a broader escalation following Israel's bombardment of Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure. Though Trump has consistently voiced reluctance to entangle the US in further conflicts in the region, he defended the decision by saying, 'Iran can't have a nuclear weapon.' Yet the timing and unilateral nature of the strikes have raised concerns across both political aisles. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed during a press conference that Congress was notified only after the aircraft safely exited Iranian airspace. 'They were notified after the planes were safely out. But we complied with the notification requirements of the War Powers Act,' Hegseth said. That admission did little to ease tensions among lawmakers who viewed the operation as constitutionally questionable. How have lawmakers objected to Trump's move? Some of the most vocal objections came from members of Trump's own party. US Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a Republican known for his strict constitutionalist views, responded to the strikes by stating bluntly, 'This is not Constitutional.' Days earlier, Massie co-authored a resolution with Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California aimed at preventing unauthorised military action against Iran. Representative Warren Davidson of Ohio, another Republican typically aligned with Trump, added: 'While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' Both Davidson and Massie put a spotlight on the requirement for congressional authorisation before initiating military hostilities against a foreign nation. On the Democratic side, US Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia reiterated his longstanding commitment to reclaiming Congress's war powers. 'We're going to have the briefing this week. We'll have a vote,' he said on Fox News Sunday. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'I know many Republicans will fall in line and say a president can do whatever he wants. But I hope members of the Senate and the House will take their Article I responsibilities seriously.' Kaine's resolution — privileged under Senate rules — can be fast-tracked to the floor and requires only a simple majority to pass. Other lawmakers have suggested the president's actions may warrant impeachment. US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York posted on social media: 'The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorisation is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations.' US Representative Sean Casten of Illinois made similar arguments: 'No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense.' Casten called on Speaker Mike Johnson to protect Congress's constitutional responsibilities: 'Grow a spine.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD US Senator Bernie Sanders, speaking during a campaign event in Tulsa, called the strikes 'grossly unconstitutional' and stated, 'The only entity that can take this country to war is the US Congress. The president does not have the right.' House Minority Whip Katherine Clark stated that the power to declare war 'resides solely with Congress,' calling Trump's actions 'unauthorised and unconstitutional.' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries expressed concern that Trump 'failed to seek congressional authorisation' and warned that the move could entangle the US in a potentially 'disastrous war.' Despite the criticism, Trump also received support from some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. US Speaker Mike Johnson said, 'The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight's necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune also backed the president's decision, signalling a likelihood of Republican congressional support. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Some Democrats also refrained from raising legal objections. Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland and Representative Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey supported the strikes without questioning their constitutionality. US Senator John Fetterman offered full endorsement of the military action, stating: 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.' Are Trump's strikes on Iran constitutional? At the centre of the dispute lies the US Constitution. Article I gives Congress the authority to declare war, while Article II names the president as Commander-in-Chief. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was introduced to clarify this balance after repeated US military interventions without formal war declarations, most notably in Vietnam and Cambodia. The War Powers Act mandates that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US armed forces and limits unauthorised deployments to 60 or 90 days without further congressional approval. It also requires consultation with Congress 'in every possible instance' before initiating hostilities. Yet the law has often been sidestepped. Presidents have used various justifications — emergency threats, existing authorisations or interpretations of commander-in-chief powers — to engage militarily without a formal declaration of war. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Since World War II, the US has engaged in multiple conflicts — from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan — without official war declarations. One major legal instrument enabling military operations without congressional votes is the Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF). Passed in 2001 and 2002 for operations related to terrorism and Iraq, these authorisations have since been invoked for unrelated operations. For instance, Trump relied on the 2003 AUMF to justify the 2020 killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. How is this legislation often side-stepped? In response to Trump's recent actions, several new legislative measures have been introduced. Kaine's resolution aims to reassert Congress's authority before further military engagement with Iran. Massie and Khanna filed a joint measure in the House based on the War Powers Act to block 'unauthorised hostilities.' Sanders introduced the No War Against Iran Act to prohibit federal funds from being used for any military force against Iran. The ongoing conflict between the legislative and executive branches over war-making powers has been a hallmark of US history. The US Supreme Court last addressed the issue in 1861 during the Civil War, when it ruled that US President Lincoln's naval blockade of southern ports was constitutional in the absence of a war declaration because the executive 'may repel sudden attacks.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Still, critics argue that the War Powers Resolution lacks real enforcement mechanisms. Resolutions to end unauthorised hostilities are often subject to presidential vetoes, which require a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override. While the law provides a framework for transparency and reporting — over 100 such notifications have been sent to Congress since 1973 — it remains a contested tool. US Representative Ro Khanna said during an appearance on MSNBC: 'This is the first true crack in the MAGA base.' With inputs from agencies

Indian Express

an hour ago

• Indian Express

After striking Iran without broad consultation, Trump faces criticism from US Congress

US President Donald Trump's decision to strike Iranian nuclear sites without full congressional consultation has widened existing rifts on Capitol Hill, raising sharp criticism from Democrats and even some Republicans. As per The Associated Press (AP), the Trump administration briefed top Republican leaders—including House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune—prior to the operation. In contrast, Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries were only informed after the military strikes had begun. Speaking to CNN, Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said: 'Bad enough that we weren't informed… But unconstitutional that we didn't have the opportunity to debate and speak… on one of the more consequential foreign policy things that this country has done in a long time.' This uneven communication has deepened partisan tensions. Critics argue that the strikes may have bypassed constitutional requirements by not seeking congressional approval. Senator Mark Warner and others voiced concern, as per CNN, that the action lacked a clear legal basis and was executed without regard for intelligence community input. Senator Tim Kaine is calling for a Senate war powers vote, aiming to reassert Congress's constitutional role in authorising military action. Speaking to CBS, he said: 'Congress should be consulted… We were not.' According to NBC News, Senator Mark Kelly said: 'The president can act when there's a clear and imminent threat… That wasn't the case here.' Some Democrats even called the action grounds for impeachment, while Republican lawmakers like Senator Lindsey Graham defended the strike: 'Congress can declare war or cut off funding. We can't be the commander-in-chief.' Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene voiced opposition to prolonged involvement in the Middle East, as per CNN. Representative Thomas Massie, a longtime non-interventionist, plans to push for a House vote limiting Trump's military authority. Speaking to CBS, he said: 'We were tired of endless wars in the Middle East.' Trump lashed out at Massie on social media, labeling him a 'pathetic LOSER.' Iranian officials have warned of retaliatory attacks following the US strikes, and concerns are growing about the safety of US personnel and regional stability. Iran could disrupt vital commercial shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz, a global chokepoint for oil transit. US Vice President JD Vance, speaking to NBC, said: 'We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program.' Vance also responded to criticism by the Congress, saying Trump had 'clear authority to act to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.' Congress is now gearing up for a showdown over presidential war powers. Lawmakers are expected to debate—and potentially vote on—measures limiting Trump's ability to launch further military operations without legislative approval. (With inputs from AP, CNN, Reuters, NBC News)

India.com

9 hours ago

• India.com

Iran-Israel Conflict: What Gamble Has U.S President Donald Trump Taken By Striking Tehran's Nuclear Facilities?

New Delhi: In January, US President Donald Trump returned to office projecting himself as a man of peace. But less than six months into his term, that image is facing its biggest test yet. By ordering direct U.S. military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, he has entered a volatile conflict between Israel and Iran and dragged Washington into its most dangerous Middle Eastern escalation in years. Just two hours after American warplanes struck targets in Iran, Trump addressed the nation from the White House. With Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth by his side, he called the strike a 'resounding success'. He claimed it would stop Iran's nuclear ambitions and pave the way for a more stable future. Iran, however, downplayed the attack, stating only minor damage occurred at its Fordow nuclear facility. Whether Trump's assessment holds true remains to be seen. The U.S. president did not stop at celebration. He issued a warning to Tehran – abandon your nuclear program or the next attacks will be 'more devastating and much easier'. He added that many of Iran's military sites remain on the radar and could be hit with 'speed, precision and skill'. But the boldness of the move raises real fears. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has cautioned that such a strike could spark a dangerous cycle of escalation. The Middle East, already on edge, now risks slipping into a new phase of instability. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had earlier warned that any U.S. strike would not go unanswered. Now the world waits to see whether Iran retaliates and how far this conflict might spiral. From 'Two Weeks' to Two Days Just days ago, Trump had said Iran would have 'two weeks' to comply. That ultimatum dissolved in less than 48 hours. On June 22, the president announced the operation had already taken place. Was the two-week deadline just a ruse? A diplomatic bluff to lull Tehran into a false sense of safety? Or had the back-channel efforts led by Trump's peace envoy, Steve Witkoff, already collapsed? So far, few details have emerged. Trump's public remarks framed the strike as an effort to open the door for negotiations. But that may be overly optimistic. Israel's recent military moves against Iran were meant to weaken Tehran's capabilities. Yet Iran still has missiles and allies ready to respond. With the Fordow facility hit, Iran now has even greater incentive to strike back. Trump hopes Iran will now come to the table and offer concessions. But it is unclear why a nation that refused diplomacy after Israeli airstrikes would suddenly bow after American bombs. And if these latest attacks failed to cause significant damage to Iran's deeply buried nuclear sites, pressure will grow for Trump to launch more strikes. That could force him into a bigger gamble with unpredictable consequences. Political Fallout in the U.S. Back home, Trump's decision has ignited both Democratic outrage and skepticism from within his own 'America First' base. Critics say the president has abandoned his core promise to keep the United States out of foreign wars. Trump's decision to appear with his top aides may have been designed to show party unity. Vice President Vance, who has long championed a restrained foreign policy, recently said Trump remains a non-interventionist. If the strike remains a one-off, Trump might patch over internal rifts. But if America gets pulled deeper into conflict, the same president who once slammed endless wars may face growing rebellion within his ranks. The action of June 22 marked a dramatic shift for a leader who took pride in avoiding war during his first term. It also stood in sharp contrast to his 2024 campaign speeches, where he repeatedly criticised past presidents for entangling America in overseas military ventures. Trump has now chosen his path. What happens next may no longer be entirely in his hands.