Two questions.

First, do Attorneys General prosecute violent crimes? Fiscal crimes, the kind Harry Niska would know about, there's the precedent of Elliot Spitzer shaking down Wall Street for settlement money before he got bimboed out of office. It seems that county prosecuting attorneys prosecute local state crimes such as rape, murder, mayhem, etc. where local judicial arrangements, juror pool familiarity, etc. govern. Then, while U.S. Attorneys each in his/her district does the same for federal crime; the U.S. Attorney General does not do such work (but each district U..S. Attorney reports to the Department of Justice centralized leadership). The federal arrangement is closer to what Niska's proposing, (https://harryniska.com/why/), but it's not a pattern in Minnesota criminal law enforcement to centralize and not be "local control" focused. Each county attorney is separately elected and does not report to and work as an employee at will of the Attorney General. Centralizing might have problems. An ancillary question, does Niska have any idea of the budget the Republicans have been saddling Swanson with, and has he detail of how he'd prioritize dollars and cents without wanting more money and hence higher taxes? Beyond spinning more-for-less gossamer?

Second, does Cory Booker yet have a multi-mil book deal? If not, what's holding him back? Does it take a village to raise a book deal?

____________UPDATE____________
Below is a screenshot of content from:  https://harryniska.com/why/

It is presented with highlighting two things where brevity should yield to detail. Click it, to enlarge and see highlighting.

First highlighting: "aggressively prosecute violent crime" is the basis for the opening first question (above first paragraph). A question of jurisdiction and duty; and of reach and budget as well as state-county balance.

Second highlighting: The promised focus upon what is "best for Minnesota, not my own ... ideology" begs the question of what's between the Niska ears on what's best for us, within his "ideology."

"What is best" in an absolute sense within Harry Niska's mind might differ from my equally subjective viewpoint.

----------------------------------

SPECIFICALLY, PUBLIC EDUCATION PROTECTION FROM VOUCHER SPECIAL-INTEREST ENCROACHMENT OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER IS THE FOCUS. I SUBJECTIVELY PRIZE THAT NOTION GREATLY, AS "BEST FOR MINNESOTA," HENCE; BEG THAT QUESTION AND YOU ARE BEING DISINGENUOUS. NOW, DISINGENUITY IS NOT WHAT I'VE SEEN FROM HARRY NISKA. I HAVE SEEN CIRCUMSPECTION HOWEVER, WHICH, FOR THE MOST PART, IS A CREDIT. MEANING THAT THIS IS A MENTIONED PRECAUTIONARY CONCERN OF MINE, BUT ONE REACHING TO SOMETHING FUNDAMENTAL TO TAXPAYING-VOTERS IN THE STATE AND WHAT'S BEST FOR THEM AND THEIR FAMILY WHEN PUBLIC EDUCATION IS UNDER THE MICROSCOPE, WHETHER THEY ARE A CHILDLESS FAMILY OR A FAMILY CHOOSING TO SCHOOL CHILDREN OUTSIDE OF AVAILABLE PUBLIC EDUCATION'S OPPORTUNITIES.

MONEY: Concerning the question, the Private School Review website notes for Legacy Christian Academy in Andover, MN:

Coming down to public fund usage, work those numbers out: 464 students at $7,900 a pop yields this non-profit a tidy $3,665,600 annual haul; and while opinions can differ, I'd shit a brick if seeing $3.7 million public dollars handed over to ideologically questionable privateers.

Wouldn't you?

Indoctrination of one's children in ways one chooses is arguably a parental right as long as they pay the cost to be the boss. Would the next slippery slope step be home schooling parents wanting voucher money to their own account? Give them back their paid taxes that way? Would that be fair to childless couples paying public schooling taxes? It is a thicket.

Bottom line: Even apart from the Niska AG candidacy, Minnesotans should in their next voting round be ready, given the unfortunate DeVos appointment by Trump, to face yet another voucher-premised attempted raid on the treasured public schooling fisc; while the Niska candidacy appears to present the question as possibly more real than hypothetical.