Sen. Mike Lee takes down X posts after widespread criticism
WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 13: U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-UT, participates in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on May 13, 2025 in Washington, DC. The Committee met to examining pharmacy benefit managers and competition issues in the prescription drug supply chain. (Photo by)
Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah took down X posts Tuesday making an apparent connection between Gov. Tim Walz and the man accused of shooting two Minnesota lawmakers and their spouses, and blaming 'Marxists' for the murders. The change comes after blowback from Sen. Tina Smith and her staffers as well as Minnesota Democratic and Republican lawmakers.
One X post said 'Nightmare on Waltz Street,' with pictures of Boelter, who is accused of killing Minnesota Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, and shooting Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, in the early morning hours of June 14. Boelter also went to the homes of two other state lawmakers that night; one house was empty, and at the other, a police officer pulled up to the house shortly after Boelter arrived, so Boelter left.
Another Lee post read, 'This is what happens When Marxists don't get their way,' with a picture of Boelter.
Misinformation about Boelter's apparent connection to Walz has been circulating online since the killing. Walz reappointed Boelter to the Workforce Development Board — one of hundreds of nonpartisan boards and commissions — after he was originally appointed by Gov. Mark Dayton, but Walz had no personal connection to Boelter. There have also been claims online that Boelter is a leftist, though his roommate told reporters that he is a Trump supporter.
The changes to Lee's X feed come after a confrontation between Lee and Smith Monday at the U.S. Capitol.
'I wanted him to hear directly from me about how painful that was and how wrong that was,' Smith told the Star Tribune. Smith, who was a friend of Hortman's, said Lee did not apologize during their conversation.
Ed Shelleby, Smith's deputy chief of staff, sent an email to Lee's staff condemning the senator's posts.
'You exploited the murder of a lifetime public servant and her husband to post some sick burns about Democrats. Did you see this as an excellent opportunity to get likes and retweets? Have you absolutely no conscience? No decency?' a copy of the email obtained by Semafor said.
Several Minnesota Republicans also condemned Lee's posts.
'I have tremendous respect for Senator Mike Lee, but it doesn't mean he is immune from the base impulses social media incentivizes. People say stupid stuff on the internet all the time. The best they can do is admit they shouldn't have and be better,' Rep. Nolan West, R-Blaine, wrote on X. He later responded to his post, writing, 'Respect rescinded.'
'This has nothing to do with Governor Walz,' Rep. Walter Hudson, R-Albertville, posted on X.
In separate press conferences Monday, both state and federal officials addressed the misinformation that has been circulating online about the assassination.
'As our community grieves, I encourage those out there seeking to create additional chaos to stop spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories,' Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Ranked choice voting promised more moderates. It delivered extremists instead.
Ranked choice voting further loosens party control and gives the activists within either party more say in the process. And voters in the middle suffer the consequences. In one of my first published columns ever, I advocated for ranked choice voting, which was at the time a lesser-known alternative way to conduct elections in which you rank several candidates in order of preference. I have since changed my view. Since then, the idea has grown in popularity, even making its way into New York City's Democratic Party primary election on Tuesday, June 24. Ranked choice made headlines as state lawmaker Zohran Mamdani won that primary. The promise of ranked choice voting producing more moderate candidates has been undermined by extreme candidates. American politics are better off under more traditional voting systems. What is ranked choice voting? Ranked choice voting seeks to solve the issue of strategic voting ‒ when voters cast their ballot not for their top choice in a crowded field, but rather their preference between one of the two candidates with a high chance of winning. One of the central arguments in favor of ranked choice is that, because people can express their true preferences, it is more likely to produce more moderate candidates. However, in practice, it rarely accomplishes this goal. Take New York's mayoral primary race, for example. The city's ranked choice system led to the election of Mamdani, a democratic socialist, as the Democratic nominee to be the next mayor, giving him the inside track at the job. Now, part of that issue is candidate quality. Mamdani's opponent was Andrew Cuomo, who is best known for resigning the New York governorship in disgrace in 2021 due to numerous sexual harassment claims and mismanagement of COVID-19. But that dilemma goes even further to the point of ranked choice voting not producing better outcomes than an ordinary ballot system. The New York election is not the sole arbiter of this system's effectiveness, however. Other municipalities that have adopted ranked choice have seen more extreme candidates prevail. Researchers have found that 'as an electorate grows more polarized, candidates located at the median are less likely to be elected under IRV (another term for ranked choice voting) because they simply are not the first choice of enough voters.' In our polarized political environment, ranked choice voting may make matters even worse by favoring more extreme candidates, thus widening the partisan divide in races. Ranked choice voting weakens political parties One fact that many in the news media are reluctant to admit (but may agree with privately) is that voters are extraordinarily bad at selecting good candidates. This is why America is better off with strong political parties. Strong political parties, with more influence over who their nominees are, limit the extent to which voters can influence a party to nominate a candidate outside of the mainstream opinion. Political parties have grown weaker in recent years as populist movements in both parties grow, and the result is a rise in extreme candidates in response to American political polarization. More extreme candidates acting outside the structure of parties is a major reason for this. Ranked choice voting reduces the amount of sway that a political party has over its nominee. Ordinarily, in a primary election, there is a uniform sequence of dropouts that build coalitions among two and three candidates by the time Election Day rolls around. This typical procession gives parties plenty of opportunities to interject their preferences into the race, and to help boost their preferred candidate. Still, the existence of a primary system in the first place entails that, from time to time, the voters will override the preferences of the internal party structure, such as Donald Trump's initial nomination in the 2016 presidential election. That problem has worsened as activists have captured the primary system to promote their candidates, rather than those of the median partisan. Ranked choice voting further loosens party control and gives the activists within either party more say in the process. These activists are only further likely to produce more extreme candidates, and the voters in the middle suffer the consequences. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
CNBC
2 hours ago
- CNBC
Trump slams Israel's prosecutors over Netanyahu corruption trial
U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday lashed out at prosecutors in Israel over the corruption trial that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has faced, saying Washington, having given billions of dollars worth of aid to Israel, was not going to "stand for this". Netanyahu was indicted in 2019 in Israel on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust - all of which he denies. The trial began in 2020 and involves three criminal cases. On Friday, the court rejected a request by Netanyahu's lawyers to delay his testimony for the next two weeks because of diplomatic and security matters following the 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran this month. He is due to take the stand on Monday for cross-examination. "It is INSANITY doing what the out-of-control prosecutors are doing to Bibi Netanyahu," Trump said in a Truth Social post, asserting that the judicial process was going to interfere with Netanyahu's ability to conduct talks with Palestinian militant group Hamas, and Iran. A spokesperson for the Israeli prosecution declined to comment on Trump's post. Netanyahu on X retweeted Trump's post and added: "Thank you again, @realDonaldTrump. Together, we will make the Middle East Great Again!" Trump's second post over the course of a few days defending Netanyahu and calling for the cancellation of the trial went a step further to tie Israel's legal action to U.S. aid. "The United States of America spends Billions of Dollar [sic] a year, far more than on any other Nation, protecting and supporting Israel. We are not going to stand for this," Trump said. Netanyahu "right now" was in the process of negotiating a deal with Hamas, Trump said, without giving further details. On Friday, the Republican president told reporters that he believed a ceasefire was close. Hamas has said it is willing to free remaining hostages in Gaza under any deal to end the war, while Israel says it can only end it if Hamas is disarmed and dismantled. Hamas refuses to lay down its arms. Interest in resolving the Gaza conflict has heightened in the wake of the U.S. and Israeli bombings of Iran's nuclear facilities.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Trump Reacts to 'Great, Big, Beautiful Bill' Senate Vote
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump has hailed the Senate's narrow vote to advance his flagship legislation, celebrating it as a "great victory" for his agenda as Republicans rush to deliver the legislation by July 4. The U.S. Senate voted 51-49 to open debate on the One Big Beautiful Bill, bringing it one step closer to landing on Trump's desk ahead of the self-imposed deadline. "Tonight we saw a GREAT VICTORY in the Senate with the "GREAT, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL," but, it wouldn't have happened without the Fantastic Work of Senator Rick Scott, Senator Mike Lee, Senator Ron Johnson, and Senator Cynthia Lummis," Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. The $4 trillion package would permanently extend $3.8 trillion in expiring benefits while dedicating $350 billion in spending to fund Trump's hardline mass deportation plans. However, proposed cuts to Medicaid and food assistance programs have sparked public fractures within GOP ranks. Two Republican senators, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky, defied Trump and joined all Democrats in voting against it. President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters on Friday, June 27, 2025, in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington. President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters on Friday, June 27, 2025, in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington. Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP This is a developing story.
