In the pre-dawn hours of Saturday, June 14, 2025, a violent act of political extremism shattered the peace of a Minneapolis suburb and sent shockwaves across the nation. Minnesota House Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman, a formidable and widely respected Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) party leader, and her husband, Mark, were fatally shot in their Brooklyn Park home. The attack was part of a coordinated assault that also targeted another DFL lawmaker, Senator John Hoffman, and his wife, Yvette, who were shot and seriously wounded in their nearby Champlin residence.
The nature of the crime was immediately apparent to state officials. Governor Tim Walz, a close friend and political ally of Hortman, did not mince words, labeling the event a "politically motivated assassination" and an "unspeakable act of political violence".
The political violence of June 14 did not erupt in a vacuum of civility. It occurred against the backdrop of one of the most contentious and dysfunctional legislative sessions in Minnesota's history, an environment where the state's reputation for "Minnesota nice" politics had been worn away by extreme institutional conflict and procedural warfare. The 2025 session pushed the state's political norms to a breaking point, creating a super-charged atmosphere of polarization that is fertile ground for extremism.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/go-beyond-the-brief--6353252/support.
The nature of the crime was immediately apparent to state officials. Governor Tim Walz, a close friend and political ally of Hortman, did not mince words, labeling the event a "politically motivated assassination" and an "unspeakable act of political violence".
The political violence of June 14 did not erupt in a vacuum of civility. It occurred against the backdrop of one of the most contentious and dysfunctional legislative sessions in Minnesota's history, an environment where the state's reputation for "Minnesota nice" politics had been worn away by extreme institutional conflict and procedural warfare. The 2025 session pushed the state's political norms to a breaking point, creating a super-charged atmosphere of polarization that is fertile ground for extremism.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/go-beyond-the-brief--6353252/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You found. You've found Ask Gallus the pud. You've found
Ask Gallus, the podcast that takes a deep dive into
the societal currents shaping our lives. I'm your host, Alice,
and together we'll explore the often unseen forces at play.
We'll examine cutting edge research, dissect the data, and most importantly,
(00:22):
if you're seeking to understand what's shaping our society, this
is the place.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Okay, So let's dig into this topic. You brought us
Project twenty twenty five, right.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
And it's it's moved beyond just theory, hasn't It.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Seems like it. We're looking at this massive document, mandate
for leadership, over nine hundred pages.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
Yeah, exactly, spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, and you know,
a whole coalition of conservative.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
Groups, and the sources say it's a blueprint ready to
go at twelve year a loon, January twenty twenty twenty five.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
That's the plan laid out for fundamentally reshaping the federal government.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Okay, So our mission here, just to be clear for
everyone listening, is to unpack what's in this plan based
strictly on the source material we have, and really focus
on what it could mean, for you, the average working
person just trying to well make ends meet.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
Absolutely, And the core idea, well, it's ambitious. It's about
consolidating presidential power and really restructuring federal agencies, sometimes even
dismantling them, according to the text, all to implement a
specific agenda quickly.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
And there's an ideological underpinning there, right, something called the
unitary executive theory that's.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Mentioned, Yes, the idea that the president should have broad
control over the executive branch.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Proponents in the sources argue it's needed to quote tame
what they call an unaccountable bureaucracy, right.
Speaker 3 (01:42):
While critics cited raise flags about politicization and some point
to concerns about Christian nationalist influences in certain areas.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Okay, so let's get specific. How does this impact the
government itself the people working there.
Speaker 3 (01:54):
Well, one of the big proposals is Schedule F or
something like it, about reclassifying potentially tens of thousands of
federal civil service.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
Jobs, reclassifying how basically stripping.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
Their civil service protections, making them easier to replace with say,
political loyalists.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
And we're not talking small numbers. Sources mentioned HHS, Health
and Human Services reportedly looking at maybe twenty thousand cuts.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
That figure is cited in some analysis. Yeah, about twenty
five percent of their workforce potentially affected under such a plan.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Wow. And this connects to unions too.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
Yes. Proposals to weaken or even get rid of public
sector unions and collective bargaining rights are also discussed in
the materials.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
So think about this. If you have a workforce running
things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid that's potentially smaller, more political,
less experienced. What does that do to the services you
rely on?
Speaker 3 (02:50):
That's the key question raised by critics and the sources
Potential delays, loss of know how, impacting reliability.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Okay, let's bridge this to know your actual paycheck and
daily life. What about wages worker protections?
Speaker 3 (03:03):
Those sources detail potential changes there too, like reducing who
qualifies for overtime pay. Yeah, maybe letting employers offer comp
time instead of actual cash payment for that extra work
and they control when you take it.
Speaker 2 (03:17):
And minimum wage.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
Proposals to weaken federal minimum wage laws, perhaps state waivers
or allowing weight is below the local standard on federal projects.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
And if unions are weaker, as mentioned.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
Then the power for workers to negotiate better paying conditions
is diminished. That's a point raised.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Okay, what about the safety net, health care, food.
Speaker 3 (03:34):
Assistance significant changes proposed there, Eliminating the Affordable Care Act
the ACA is still a stated goal.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Right, and Medicare Medicaid.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
Potential cuts, adding work requirements for Medicaid or work requirements, yeah,
and ending Medicare's power to negotiate drug prices. Plus. Sources
mentioned severe restrictions on reproductive health care, possibly reviving old
laws like the Comstock.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
Act Comstock Act affecting abortion access materials historically.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
Yes. Then there's snap food stamps. Yeah. Sources talk about
substantial cuts potentially affecting what up to forty million.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
People forty million and Headstart targeted.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
For elimination in the plan. Wow.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Education overall seems to be in the crosshairs too.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
Proposals include eliminating the Department of Education.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Entirely a whole department, that's what's laid.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
Out, cutting public school funding, ending some federal student loan
repayment plans, the income driven ones.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Okay, And taxes any shifts proposed there.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
Yeah. The sources described lowering the corporate tax rate and
implementing a two tier flat tax system.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
A flat tax, how would that play out?
Speaker 3 (04:40):
Well? Analysis cited suggests it could actually raise taxes for
a lot of low and middle income folks, while the
wealthy s cuts.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
And quickly workplace safety environment.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
Potential rollbacks for OOSTRA protections, proposals easing rules on hiring
kids for certain jobs listed as dangerous, reduce penalty for violations.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Hiring kids for dangerous jobs.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
The language used in some proposals is being interpreted that
way by critics, and environmental deregulation which could carry risks
and costs for families. So you put all this together,
weakening worker power, safety nets, potential tax shifts. The trajectory
described in the sources points toward well more financial instability,
making it potentially much harder for working families to just
(05:25):
get by.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
And again, just to be really clear, we're laying out
what's in the source material provided. Proponents say this makes
government efficient, restores values right.
Speaker 3 (05:33):
Critics warn about the opposite, inequality, loss services, politicization, even
risks to democratic norms. We're just reporting the content exactly.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
So why should you listening right now care about this
dense policy stuff?
Speaker 3 (05:47):
Because according to these sources, it touches almost everything. Your
job security maybe with schedule F, your payover time, minimum.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
Wage, your healthcare, food security, ACA, Medicare s ANDLP cuts,
your kids education, head start public.
Speaker 3 (06:02):
Schools, your safety at work with OSHA changes, even potentially
the cost of energy or dealing with pollution through environmental
policy shifts.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
These aren't minor tweaks we're talking about. The sources describe
a fundamental reshaping of the government's role in your.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
Life, potentially shifting a lot more risk onto individuals and families.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
Based purely on the documents provided, it looks like significant
potential challenges ahead for the average working person if this
plan were fully implemented.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
So maybe the final thought is this The stated goal
is efficiency responsiveness, But consider the methods proposed mass politicization,
dismantling agencies. How might those methods affect the actual reliability
the fairness of the services?
Speaker 2 (06:44):
And welcome to this deep dive. We're turning our attention
to a really difficult subject today. It's centered on that
tragic event the assassination of Minnesota Speaker Ameriti Melissa Hortman
and her husband back on June fourteenth, twenty twenty five.
Speaker 3 (06:58):
And the related attack on centered John Hoffman and his
wife too just awful.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
Yeah. Governor Tim Walls called it a quote politically motivated assassination.
Law enforcement identified a suspect, Vince Bolter, and sources indicate
they found a manifesto listing politicians who supported abortion rights.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
That's a heavy topic, definitely. Our sources for this deep dive, articles, notes, research,
they really guide us through the legislative world around this.
Our mission really is to understand the context.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
Right, well, was speaker of Mare Hortman actually working on
you know, in her final days.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
At the capitol exactly? And how does her legislative path
kind of intersect with his violence. We need to look
at her specific actions right before her death, but also
her broader legacy, you know, as it's detailed in the
material we have.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
Okay, let's start with the political climate then, because the
sources they really highlight how incredibly challenging things were in
Minnesota's twenty twenty five session, super divided.
Speaker 3 (07:53):
Extremely divided. Think about this. After the twenty twenty four election,
the House was stuck a rare sixty seven sixty seven
tie Wow, sixty seven sixty seven.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
That must have caused chaos.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
Oh, it did that tide pretty much set the tone
for the whole session. The sources mentioned it kicked off
with major conflict, even what the DFL called a legislative
coup attempt by Republicans. It got messy, a.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
Coup attempt so messy it went to court.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
The Supreme Court had to step in and all that conflict.
It basically forced them into a formal power sharing agreement.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
And that's where Melissa Hortman becomes Speaker Emerida. So she
steps back from the gavel day to day, but.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
Crucially she stays the DFL leader, the mean negotiator for
her side in this well incredibly split environment.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
Okay, so fast forward. The regular session ends, but they couldn't.
Speaker 3 (08:40):
Pass a budget, right core function of government. And they
couldn't do it. The state was staring down a potential shutdown.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
So they had to call a special session.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
It's exactly a super high stakes one day special session
June ninth, just to pass fourteen essential budget bills. And
this is where things really came to a head legislatively.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
Even in that rush, one bill stood out, according to
the sources, first Special Session House File one or SSHF one.
It caused a huge fight.
Speaker 3 (09:08):
It did, and this is where Speaker Amrita Hortman makes
this pivotal and well, the sources describe it as a
painful decision.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
What was SSHF one about again?
Speaker 3 (09:16):
It repealed state funded healthcare eligibility Minnesota care for undocumented adults.
It actually reversed a policy the DFL themselves had championed before.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
Ah okay, and the sources say this wasn't just another
policy debate. This repeal was a top Republican priority.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
A top priority, it seems, frame mostly around saving money,
especially with a state deficit limbing. The material really emphasizes
it was non negotiable for the Republican.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
Tied to other fundings, so the governor couldn't really veto it.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
Pretty much vetoproof yeah, which put the DFL in an
incredibly tough spot. The sources described like almost four hours
of intense, really emotional debate within the House. DFL takus so.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
Her own party was fiercely against it, saw it as
betraying their values.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
Absolutely, and yet despite all that pressure from her own side,
Speaker Amereta Hortman cast the deciding vote.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
The final tally was sixty eight sixty five, and the
source to make a point of this, She was the
only DFL member to vote yay.
Speaker 3 (10:11):
The only one. She crossed the aisle alone, basically to
make what she saw as a necessary concession to get
the budget passed and stop a shut down.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
Her reasoning, based on the sources, was pragmatic.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
Pure pragmatism. Her statement said it was painful but required
for the overall deal. She's quoted saying a true compromise
means no one gets everything they want. It was about
keeping the government functioning.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
Okay, So, connecting this back to the assassination, here's the
crucial thing. The sources seemed to distinguish that SSHF one
vote her dramatic final act. Right, the evidence suggests the
motive wasn't that vote. It was tied to her broader
legislative legacy.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
That's critical. The sources consistently call her a consequential leader,
especially during that twenty twenty three to twenty twenty four
DFL trifecta when they controlled everything.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
Right, when she pushed through a lot of major progressive policy.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
Huge policies the sources list them codifying reproductive rights, making
Minnesota a refuge state for abortion access, universal background checks,
the red flag gun law, LGBTQ plus protections, the trans
refuge state designation.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
Paid family leave, universal school meals, expanding the child tax credit,
restoring voting rights. It's quite a list, a powerful progressive record,
according to the material exactly.
Speaker 3 (11:26):
And if you look at the evidence mentioned in the sources,
the manifesto listing abortion rights supporters, those no kingsflyers linked
to anti government extremism, it.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
All points towards her being targeted because she was that
symbol of progressive change, because of that legacy.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
Which highlights this really tragic paradox, right, it's all they
are in the sources. She seems to have been killed
for the progressive symbol she became.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
Over years, even though her very last big legislative move
was this incredibly difficult, pragmatic compromise with the opposition aimed
at just keeping the lights on.
Speaker 3 (11:59):
Yeah, it's a profound and disconnect. Yeah, you have this
leader making a painful choice for governance in a hyper
divided state.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
But she's targeted not for that pragmatism, but for the
years of progressive wins that defined her.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
Her work in that special session really shows the messy
reality of governing, doesn't it. While her death seems driven
by an ideology that just rejects compromise, rejects the other
side entirely.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
So it leaves us and you listening with a really
important question, based on what we've looked at today, What
does this stark difference between pragmatic action needed to govern
in ideological targeting. What does that reveal about the nature
of political extremism. The sources describe
You found. You've found Ask Gallus the pud. You've found
Ask Gallus, the podcast that takes a deep dive into
the societal currents shaping our lives. I'm your host, Alice,
and together we'll explore the often unseen forces at play.
We'll examine cutting edge research, dissect the data, and most importantly,
(00:22):
if you're seeking to understand what's shaping our society, this
is the place.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Okay, So let's dig into this topic. You brought us
Project twenty twenty five, right.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
And it's it's moved beyond just theory, hasn't It.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Seems like it. We're looking at this massive document, mandate
for leadership, over nine hundred pages.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
Yeah, exactly, spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, and you know,
a whole coalition of conservative.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
Groups, and the sources say it's a blueprint ready to
go at twelve year a loon, January twenty twenty twenty five.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
That's the plan laid out for fundamentally reshaping the federal government.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Okay, So our mission here, just to be clear for
everyone listening, is to unpack what's in this plan based
strictly on the source material we have, and really focus
on what it could mean, for you, the average working
person just trying to well make ends meet.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
Absolutely, And the core idea, well, it's ambitious. It's about
consolidating presidential power and really restructuring federal agencies, sometimes even
dismantling them, according to the text, all to implement a
specific agenda quickly.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
And there's an ideological underpinning there, right, something called the
unitary executive theory that's.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Mentioned, Yes, the idea that the president should have broad
control over the executive branch.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Proponents in the sources argue it's needed to quote tame
what they call an unaccountable bureaucracy, right.
Speaker 3 (01:42):
While critics cited raise flags about politicization and some point
to concerns about Christian nationalist influences in certain areas.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Okay, so let's get specific. How does this impact the
government itself the people working there.
Speaker 3 (01:54):
Well, one of the big proposals is Schedule F or
something like it, about reclassifying potentially tens of thousands of
federal civil service.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
Jobs, reclassifying how basically stripping.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
Their civil service protections, making them easier to replace with say,
political loyalists.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
And we're not talking small numbers. Sources mentioned HHS, Health
and Human Services reportedly looking at maybe twenty thousand cuts.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
That figure is cited in some analysis. Yeah, about twenty
five percent of their workforce potentially affected under such a plan.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Wow. And this connects to unions too.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
Yes. Proposals to weaken or even get rid of public
sector unions and collective bargaining rights are also discussed in
the materials.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
So think about this. If you have a workforce running
things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid that's potentially smaller, more political,
less experienced. What does that do to the services you
rely on?
Speaker 3 (02:50):
That's the key question raised by critics and the sources
Potential delays, loss of know how, impacting reliability.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Okay, let's bridge this to know your actual paycheck and
daily life. What about wages worker protections?
Speaker 3 (03:03):
Those sources detail potential changes there too, like reducing who
qualifies for overtime pay. Yeah, maybe letting employers offer comp
time instead of actual cash payment for that extra work
and they control when you take it.
Speaker 2 (03:17):
And minimum wage.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
Proposals to weaken federal minimum wage laws, perhaps state waivers
or allowing weight is below the local standard on federal projects.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
And if unions are weaker, as mentioned.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
Then the power for workers to negotiate better paying conditions
is diminished. That's a point raised.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Okay, what about the safety net, health care, food.
Speaker 3 (03:34):
Assistance significant changes proposed there, Eliminating the Affordable Care Act
the ACA is still a stated goal.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Right, and Medicare Medicaid.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
Potential cuts, adding work requirements for Medicaid or work requirements, yeah,
and ending Medicare's power to negotiate drug prices. Plus. Sources
mentioned severe restrictions on reproductive health care, possibly reviving old
laws like the Comstock.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
Act Comstock Act affecting abortion access materials historically.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
Yes. Then there's snap food stamps. Yeah. Sources talk about
substantial cuts potentially affecting what up to forty million.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
People forty million and Headstart targeted.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
For elimination in the plan. Wow.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Education overall seems to be in the crosshairs too.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
Proposals include eliminating the Department of Education.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Entirely a whole department, that's what's laid.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
Out, cutting public school funding, ending some federal student loan
repayment plans, the income driven ones.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Okay, And taxes any shifts proposed there.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
Yeah. The sources described lowering the corporate tax rate and
implementing a two tier flat tax system.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
A flat tax, how would that play out?
Speaker 3 (04:40):
Well? Analysis cited suggests it could actually raise taxes for
a lot of low and middle income folks, while the
wealthy s cuts.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
And quickly workplace safety environment.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
Potential rollbacks for OOSTRA protections, proposals easing rules on hiring
kids for certain jobs listed as dangerous, reduce penalty for violations.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Hiring kids for dangerous jobs.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
The language used in some proposals is being interpreted that
way by critics, and environmental deregulation which could carry risks
and costs for families. So you put all this together,
weakening worker power, safety nets, potential tax shifts. The trajectory
described in the sources points toward well more financial instability,
making it potentially much harder for working families to just
(05:25):
get by.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
And again, just to be really clear, we're laying out
what's in the source material provided. Proponents say this makes
government efficient, restores values right.
Speaker 3 (05:33):
Critics warn about the opposite, inequality, loss services, politicization, even
risks to democratic norms. We're just reporting the content exactly.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
So why should you listening right now care about this
dense policy stuff?
Speaker 3 (05:47):
Because according to these sources, it touches almost everything. Your
job security maybe with schedule F, your payover time, minimum.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
Wage, your healthcare, food security, ACA, Medicare s ANDLP cuts,
your kids education, head start public.
Speaker 3 (06:02):
Schools, your safety at work with OSHA changes, even potentially
the cost of energy or dealing with pollution through environmental
policy shifts.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
These aren't minor tweaks we're talking about. The sources describe
a fundamental reshaping of the government's role in your.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
Life, potentially shifting a lot more risk onto individuals and families.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
Based purely on the documents provided, it looks like significant
potential challenges ahead for the average working person if this
plan were fully implemented.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
So maybe the final thought is this The stated goal
is efficiency responsiveness, But consider the methods proposed mass politicization,
dismantling agencies. How might those methods affect the actual reliability
the fairness of the services?
Speaker 2 (06:44):
And welcome to this deep dive. We're turning our attention
to a really difficult subject today. It's centered on that
tragic event the assassination of Minnesota Speaker Ameriti Melissa Hortman
and her husband back on June fourteenth, twenty twenty five.
Speaker 3 (06:58):
And the related attack on centered John Hoffman and his
wife too just awful.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
Yeah. Governor Tim Walls called it a quote politically motivated assassination.
Law enforcement identified a suspect, Vince Bolter, and sources indicate
they found a manifesto listing politicians who supported abortion rights.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
That's a heavy topic, definitely. Our sources for this deep dive, articles, notes, research,
they really guide us through the legislative world around this.
Our mission really is to understand the context.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
Right, well, was speaker of Mare Hortman actually working on
you know, in her final days.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
At the capitol exactly? And how does her legislative path
kind of intersect with his violence. We need to look
at her specific actions right before her death, but also
her broader legacy, you know, as it's detailed in the
material we have.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
Okay, let's start with the political climate then, because the
sources they really highlight how incredibly challenging things were in
Minnesota's twenty twenty five session, super divided.
Speaker 3 (07:53):
Extremely divided. Think about this. After the twenty twenty four election,
the House was stuck a rare sixty seven sixty seven
tie Wow, sixty seven sixty seven.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
That must have caused chaos.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
Oh, it did that tide pretty much set the tone
for the whole session. The sources mentioned it kicked off
with major conflict, even what the DFL called a legislative
coup attempt by Republicans. It got messy, a.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
Coup attempt so messy it went to court.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
The Supreme Court had to step in and all that conflict.
It basically forced them into a formal power sharing agreement.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
And that's where Melissa Hortman becomes Speaker Emerida. So she
steps back from the gavel day to day, but.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
Crucially she stays the DFL leader, the mean negotiator for
her side in this well incredibly split environment.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
Okay, so fast forward. The regular session ends, but they couldn't.
Speaker 3 (08:40):
Pass a budget, right core function of government. And they
couldn't do it. The state was staring down a potential shutdown.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
So they had to call a special session.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
It's exactly a super high stakes one day special session
June ninth, just to pass fourteen essential budget bills. And
this is where things really came to a head legislatively.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
Even in that rush, one bill stood out, according to
the sources, first Special Session House File one or SSHF one.
It caused a huge fight.
Speaker 3 (09:08):
It did, and this is where Speaker Amrita Hortman makes
this pivotal and well, the sources describe it as a
painful decision.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
What was SSHF one about again?
Speaker 3 (09:16):
It repealed state funded healthcare eligibility Minnesota care for undocumented adults.
It actually reversed a policy the DFL themselves had championed before.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
Ah okay, and the sources say this wasn't just another
policy debate. This repeal was a top Republican priority.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
A top priority, it seems, frame mostly around saving money,
especially with a state deficit limbing. The material really emphasizes
it was non negotiable for the Republican.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
Tied to other fundings, so the governor couldn't really veto it.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
Pretty much vetoproof yeah, which put the DFL in an
incredibly tough spot. The sources described like almost four hours
of intense, really emotional debate within the House. DFL takus so.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
Her own party was fiercely against it, saw it as
betraying their values.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
Absolutely, and yet despite all that pressure from her own side,
Speaker Amereta Hortman cast the deciding vote.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
The final tally was sixty eight sixty five, and the
source to make a point of this, She was the
only DFL member to vote yay.
Speaker 3 (10:11):
The only one. She crossed the aisle alone, basically to
make what she saw as a necessary concession to get
the budget passed and stop a shut down.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
Her reasoning, based on the sources, was pragmatic.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
Pure pragmatism. Her statement said it was painful but required
for the overall deal. She's quoted saying a true compromise
means no one gets everything they want. It was about
keeping the government functioning.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
Okay, So, connecting this back to the assassination, here's the
crucial thing. The sources seemed to distinguish that SSHF one
vote her dramatic final act. Right, the evidence suggests the
motive wasn't that vote. It was tied to her broader
legislative legacy.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
That's critical. The sources consistently call her a consequential leader,
especially during that twenty twenty three to twenty twenty four
DFL trifecta when they controlled everything.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
Right, when she pushed through a lot of major progressive policy.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
Huge policies the sources list them codifying reproductive rights, making
Minnesota a refuge state for abortion access, universal background checks,
the red flag gun law, LGBTQ plus protections, the trans
refuge state designation.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
Paid family leave, universal school meals, expanding the child tax credit,
restoring voting rights. It's quite a list, a powerful progressive record,
according to the material exactly.
Speaker 3 (11:26):
And if you look at the evidence mentioned in the sources,
the manifesto listing abortion rights supporters, those no kingsflyers linked
to anti government extremism, it.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
All points towards her being targeted because she was that
symbol of progressive change, because of that legacy.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
Which highlights this really tragic paradox, right, it's all they
are in the sources. She seems to have been killed
for the progressive symbol she became.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
Over years, even though her very last big legislative move
was this incredibly difficult, pragmatic compromise with the opposition aimed
at just keeping the lights on.
Speaker 3 (11:59):
Yeah, it's a profound and disconnect. Yeah, you have this
leader making a painful choice for governance in a hyper
divided state.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
But she's targeted not for that pragmatism, but for the
years of progressive wins that defined her.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
Her work in that special session really shows the messy
reality of governing, doesn't it. While her death seems driven
by an ideology that just rejects compromise, rejects the other
side entirely.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
So it leaves us and you listening with a really
important question, based on what we've looked at today, What
does this stark difference between pragmatic action needed to govern
in ideological targeting. What does that reveal about the nature
of political extremism. The sources describe
Popular Podcasts
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!