With the flick of a pen, President Donald J. Trump changed that by pardoning Niemela and about 1,500 other people arrested, convicted or awaiting trial for their actions during the insurrection.
“It’s been a long four years,” Niemela told the Globe in an interview Monday evening, adding that she wasn’t sure yet what her pardon entailed.
“I do believe it should be a pardon of innocence,” Niemela said, “and there should be investigations and compensation for my prison sentence and for defamation of character and slander.”
Get N.H. Morning Report
Advertisement
A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox.
According to the White House, Trump granted “a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.”
Niemela and her girlfriend were among hordes of people who entered the US Capitol, and multiple witnesses came forward and identified her from video on social media and TV.
Court records supporting her arrest also said that a witness told FBI agents that Niemela showed a video of herself breaking a window and that she claimed to be part of the Proud Boys.
Niemela told the Globe Monday that those claims were lies. “I’m not a Proud Boy. I’m a gay conservative woman,” she said. “And, I did not break a window.”
Advertisement
Niemela said that the publicity about being at the Capitol cost her. “I lost friends and family, and I haven’t been able to find a job,” said Niemela, who’d worked construction remodeling homes.
“January 6 was lies by the mainstream media,” she added.
Niemela complained that she didn’t get a fair trial and the judge was harsh on her, telling her she was “out of touch with reality.”
Niemela was sentenced in 2023 to 11 months in prison. She served eight months and was released on probation in April 2024.
Niemela said that her federal probation officer allowed her to travel to North Carolina to deliver necessities to hurricane victims.
Advertisement
Her request to attend Trump’s inauguration, however, was denied.
Aside from the pardon, Niemela wants the criminal charge expunged from her record, and “erased from the system.” Because even with the pardon, people can still search for her name on the internet, she said, and she wants to be able to get a job again.
Amanda Milkovits can be reached at amanda.milkovits@globe.com. Follow her @AmandaMilkovits.
WILTON, N.H. (WHDH) – A woman died in a Wilton, New Hampshire, house fire Wednesday morning, according to the New Hampshire State Fire Marshal’s Office.
At 9:08 a.m., Wilton firefighters responded to Burns Hill Road after a caller said their home was filling up with smoke. When they arrived, a single-family home was on fire and they found out two people were still inside on the second floor.
A man and a woman were both taken out of the house by firefighters and taken to Elliott Hospital. The woman was pronounced dead and the man is in serious condition.
Officials have not released the name of the victim at this time.
Advertisement
At this time, investigators are looking into the cause of the fire and are trying to determine if a power outage in the area played a factor. The fire is not currently considered suspicious.
(Copyright (c) 2025 Sunbeam Television. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)
Join our Newsletter for the latest news right to your inbox
Diane Durgin, 67, is accused of shooting at a Black man who inadvertently drove to her property after a prearranged truck part sale, prosecutors said.
A New Hampshire woman is accused of violating the state’s Civil Rights Act four times after she allegedly shot at a man because he was Black, prosecutors said.
Diane Durgin, 67, of Weare, N.H. could face up to a $5,000 fine for each violation she is found to have committed, the office of New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella said in a press release Tuesday.
Advertisement
Durgin is also charged with criminal threatening against a person with a deadly weapon and attempted first degree assault with a deadly weapon, Michael Garrity, a media representative for the New Hampshire Attorney General, said in an emailed statement to Boston.com.
Durgin had a final pre-trial conference last week, Garrity said.
In a civil complaint filed Tuesday, Durgin is accused of threatening physical force against the victim, the AG said. Prosecutors asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction barring Durgin from repeating her alleged behavior and from contacting the victim and his family.
During the morning hours of Oct. 20, 2024, the victim claims, he “mistakenly” drove to Durgin’s home after a prearranged purchase of a truck part with a seller online, prosecutors wrote as part of their request for an injunction.
When the man — whom prosecutors identified in court documents as X.G. — arrived, Durgin allegedly stepped out of her home and approached his car with a gun “holstered by her waist,” prosecutors wrote.
Advertisement
Upon noticing that X.G. was Black, Durgin allegedly “removed her gun and pointed it at X.G.,” prosecutors said in the injunction request.
While X.G. explained that he was lost, Durgin called the victim a “Black mother[expletive],” and threatened to “kill him,” prosecutors allege.
As the victim attempted to drive away, Durgin allegedly took her gun and fired two shots at the fleeing man’s car, missing both times, the AG’s office said.
While on the phone with a dispatcher, Durgin allegedly said she shot the man’s car because the victim is Black, the AG said.
“The guy is Black. And he, he…he says he’s meeting someone here and I think he’s coming here to steal,” Durgin allegedly said.
Advertisement
Police located X.G. and brought him to the Weare Police Department, stopping along the way at the correct seller’s home to complete the truck part purchase, prosecutors wrote in court documents.
To prove a violation of the New Hampshire Civil Rights Act, the AG must show that Durgin “interfered or attempted to interfere with the rights of the victim to engage in lawful activities by threatening to engage in or actually engage in physical force or violence, when such actual or threatening conduct was motivated by race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, or disability,” prosecutors said.
Sign up for the Today newsletter
Get everything you need to know to start your day, delivered right to your inbox every morning.
