David DePape, the conspiracy theorist who attacked Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul, with a hammer and plotted to interrogate the former House speaker on video, was convicted Friday of state charges related to the assault.

A jury found DePape guilty of five felony counts in state court, according to several news outlets and a statement from his public defender.

The charges resulted from an attack that investigators described as the beginning of a planned “rampage” to go after high-profile targets, including actor Tom Hanks and Gov. Gavin Newsom.

DePape was convicted of imprisonment, residential burglary, threatening a family member of a public official, attempting to sway a witness and aggravated kidnapping. The verdict comes seven months after he was found guilty of federal charges in the attack.

DePape’s social media accounts, and interviews with friends and former co-workers, detail how he began to descend into baseless right-wing conspiracy theories. He wrote blog posts about several discredited conspiracy theories, including those popularly known as Pizzagate and QAnon, which posited sexual abuse rings run by Hollywood and Democratic Party figures.

San Francisco Assistant Dist. Atty. Phoebe Maffei argued during the trial that DePape targeted Nancy Pelosi because of her role as House speaker at the time, making her second in line for the presidency, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. She was not home during the break-in.

“We haven’t seen anybody make a plan to break into the home of one of our national leaders, hold hostage and nearly kill that person’s spouse,” Maffei told jurors, according to the Chronicle. “Thankfully this is unusual. But it’s what happened.”

In November, DePape was convicted in federal court of attempting to kidnap Nancy Pelosi and assaulting her husband. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

Attorneys with the San Francisco public defender’s office, which represented DePape, successfully sought to have several charges against him dismissed in the state case, arguing that they were similar to those he had been convicted of in federal court.

In response, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Harry Dorfman tossed out the counts of attempted murder, elder abuse and assault with a deadly weapon.

Defense attorneys argued that the state’s double jeopardy law prohibits defendants from being tried more than once on the same crime.

In his closing arguments, Public Defender Adam Lipson argued that his client might be guilty of false imprisonment, residential burglary and attempting to sway a witness. But, he told jurors, DePape should not be convicted of aggravated kidnapping and threatening a family member of a public official, the Chronicle reported.

Lipson reportedly argued that DePape’s threats were not specific to Pelosi’s role as House speaker, but rather to find and reach other targets.

“We are disappointed with the finding of guilt for kidnapping for ransom,” Lipson said in a statement Friday. “We do not believe he committed kidnapping for ransom. It’s unfortunate that it was ever charged. The decision to charge that crime is a textbook case of vindictive prosecution. It was only charged after it became clear that the attempted murder charge would be dismissed under California’s double jeopardy statute.”

Conspiracy theories continued to play a role as the state trial came to a close last week.

On Tuesday, Dorfman barred DePape’s former partner from the courtroom and second floor of the building, the Associated Press reported.

The decision came after Gypsy Taub, a nudism activist, handed out fliers outside the courtroom with links to her website, which promotes a series of conspiracy theories.

The day Dorfman kicked her out of the second floor, the address for Taub’s website was spotted on a wall and on a toilet paper dispenser in a women’s bathroom at the courthouse.

Dorfman accused Taub of “trying to corruptly influence one or more jury members” and instructed bailiffs to escort her out.

Former President Donald Trump is making a bold push into two states once written off as blue, opening a combined 19 field offices in Virginia and Minnesota with the 2024 presidential election less than five months away.

The Trump campaign confirmed to Fox News that it is expanding operations in the two states that have voted reliably Democrat in recent presidential elections. The Trump campaign is in the process of securing leases for eight Trump Force 47 field offices in Minnesota and another 11 in Virginia, according to a Trump campaign memo obtained by Fox News on Friday.

Staff have already been hired to manage each state, and the campaign is currently working to build out teams to work each field office in favor of the former president.

TRUMP, BIDEN AIM TO USE DUELING RALLIES IN THESE STATES POST-DEBATE TO PUT EACH OTHER ON DEFENSE

In its memo, the campaign noted that “collateral materials will land in early July in both states, and we’ve already begun to generate Trump Force 47 Captain recruits to get them into training.”

The Trump campaign, which views both Minnesota and Virginia as competitive in the upcoming election, aims to flip both states as it pushes to expand the 2024 electoral map.

At a closed-door Republican National Committee retreat for top-dollar donors earlier this spring at a resort in Palm Beach, Florida, senior Trump campaign advisers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita and veteran pollster Tony Fabrizio spotlighted internal surveys that suggested both “Minnesota & Virginia are clearly in play.”

“In both states, Donald Trump finds himself in positions to flip key electoral votes in his favor,” the survey, which was shared with Fox News, emphasizes.

It’s been two decades since a Republican carried Virginia in the race for the White House – the last time being when then-President George W. Bush won the Commonwealth in his 2004 re-election victory.

But recent polling indicates a close contest in Virginia.

TRUMP WITHIN STRIKING DISTANCE OF BIDEN IN COMPETITIVE BLUE-LEANING STATE: POLL

Former President Donald Trump speaks during a “Get Out the Vote” rally in Richmond, Virginia, on March 2, 2024. (SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)

A Fox News poll conducted June 1 to 4 indicates the Democratic president and his Republican predecessor in the White House each with 48% support in a head-to-head match.

A Republican hasn’t carried Minnesota in a presidential election since President Richard Nixon’s 1972 landslide re-election, over a half-century ago. It was the only state President Reagan lost in his 1984 re-election landslide.

But a recent poll in Minnesota showed a competitive race between Biden and Trump in their 2024 election rematch. The president stands at 45% support among likely voters in Minnesota, with Trump at 41% in a poll conducted June 3 to 5 for the Star Tribune, MPR News and KARE 11.

Trump was narrowly edged in Minnesota in the 2016 election by 1.5 points by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. But four years later, Biden carried the state by seven points as he defeated Trump and won the White House.

Former President Donald Trump speaks at the annual Lincoln Reagan Dinner hosted by the Minnesota Republican Party on May 17, 2024, in St. Paul, Minnesota. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

“We’re going to win this state,” Trump predicted last month in a speech as he headlined the state GOP’s annual Lincoln Reagan fundraising dinner in St. Paul, Minnesota’s capital city.

CLICK HERE TO GET FOX NEWS APP

The poll pointed to a significant enthusiasm gap, with 63% of Trump supporters saying they were “very enthusiastic” about casting a ballot for their candidate, compared to 31% of voters backing the president.

Thirty years ago, Californians passed a ballot measure that catalyzed a generation of Latino voters. Proposition 187 aimed to deny virtually all public services to the undocumented and their children. Written largely in response to the transformative demographic change occurring in California at the time, the measure triggered a seismic shift in racial politics and galvanized Latino activists, some of whom would eventually hold the state’s most powerful political offices. The plight of undocumented and recent immigrants became an indelible part of the political narrative for a generation of Latinos and their leaders.

Something remarkable and unprecedented happened in 1994, the year of the Proposition 187 campaign. Nearly two-thirds of Latinos voted against the measure as a bloc across parties, genders, generations and national origins. They melded into an ethnic political coalition built on the narrative of the undocumented and migrant experience.

As Latino politicians amassed power and numbers over the ensuing decades, however, a curious phenomenon emerged: Latino voter participation began to drop dramatically. To this day, Latinos vote at lower rates than any other race or ethnicity in California.

At the same time, nearly every high-quality survey of Latino voters identified jobs and the economy as their top concerns. Latinos disproportionately suffer from California’s economic challenges, from housing affordability to high poverty to educational barriers. And they have been clamoring for an ambitious economic agenda from Sacramento, especially its growing number of Latino politicians. And yet no campaign or party has developed a working-class economic agenda to answer Latinos’ concerns.

Instead, Latinos are still widely misunderstood as an aggrieved racial minority motivated by immigration, farmworker and border issues. This is one of the most striking blind spots in American politics: The fastest-emerging group of voters in the country is quantifiably telling political leaders what they need and want to hear, and yet both parties persist in the belief that they understand Latinos better than they understand themselves.

The most rapid growth in Latino participation is taking place among third- and fourth-generation, U.S.-born voters. And even in California, the latest evidence shows that the catalyzing immigration politics of the last century are no longer resonating in this century. Latino voting behavior is undergoing a generational shift.

California political data expert Paul Mitchell noted in Capitol Weekly recently that in Los Angeles County, which is home to more Latinos than any other county in the country, the share of registered voters who are foreign born had plummeted from 55% to less than 9% over the last two decades. This is an extraordinary transformation of the Latino electorate. Moreover, almost 40% of Latino voters weren’t even alive during the formative political events of the Proposition 187 era.

California has long been the great Latino exception. For one thing, immigrants make up more of California’s population than any other state’s: Our 10.4 million immigrants represent 27% of California’s population and 23% of the whole nation’s foreign-born.

Despite this rich immigrant tapestry, however, California’s Latinos are overwhelmingly U.S.-born and growing more so. California was not exhibiting the measurable rightward shift of Latino voters that was evident in other states until recently, but now it is. It’s just been harder to see due to the state’s large number of older immigrant and left-leaning voters.

Economic frustration could be a key reason for the shift. A recent study reported that only 9% of Latino households could afford the state’s median home price. Fifty-five percent of California families in the bottom 10% of incomes are Latino or Black. By virtually every economic metric, in a state with more Latino elected officials than most, Latinos aren’t doing well.

Housing affordability and other economic issues are moving Latinos off the sidelines and out of their traditional pattern of supporting Democrats in great numbers, so much so that even the Golden State is no longer an outlier. Robb Korinke of California Target Book (a partner in my firm, GrassrootsLab) found measurable Latino voter registration shifts away from Democrats in every one of California’s competitive congressional districts since the midterm election. At the same time, the performance gap between Republicans and Democrats in Latino-dense state legislative districts has closed considerably.

Are we witnessing a transformation of the Latino vote? Registration, turnout and other data point strongly in that direction. It’s time for policymakers, many of whom came of age with the narrative that defined the end of the last century, to recognize that we’re on the precipice of a new Latino political identity in a new Latino century.

Mike Madrid is a political consultant and the author of the forthcoming “The Latino Century: How America’s Largest Minority is Changing Democracy,” from which this was adapted.