Sen. LisaĀ Murkowski, aghastĀ at Donald Trumpās candidacy and the direction of her party, wonāt rule out bolting from the GOP.
The veteran Alaska Republican, one ofĀ seven Republicans who voted to convict TrumpĀ in his second impeachment trial amid the aftermath of January 6, 2021, is done with the former president and said she āabsolutelyā wouldĀ not vote for him.
āI wish thatĀ as Republicans, we had ā¦ a nominee that I could get behind,ā Murkowski told CNN. āI certainly canāt get behind Donald Trump.ā
The partyās shift toward Trump has causedĀ MurkowskiĀ to consider her future within the GOP. In the interview, she would not say if she would remain a Republican.
Asked if she would become an independent,Ā MurkowskiĀ said: āOh, I think Iām very independent minded.ā And she added:Ā āI just regret that our party is seemingly becoming a party of Donald Trump.ā
Are they āthrowing shit at the wall, and seing what sticksā? Sure looks that wayā¦
Nonchalantly replying to their own comments is the behavior of the goodest of faith commenters /s
Haha, well said!
Hahaha LOL
You, uh, forgot to change accounts there, buddy.
Why? Iām trying to add context/add a comment. Who should I properly reply this comment to then? Iām genuinly wonderingā¦
I mean no one has been working on impeaching trump since 2021. So Iām not sure what youāre even referring to here.
Russia, āwalls are closing inā since 2016?
Trump and his various organizations have been engaging in brazen criminal activity since at least 2016, is that what you mean?
Heās a slippery bastard so he has gotten away with it until now, yes.
Yes, I keep getting told this, years ago. So i stopped paying attention to Trump-stuff, thatās why iām askingā¦
OK I was just confused by you bringing up impeachment which hasnāt been a thing since he was last in office 3 years ago.
If you are genuinely curious, several criminal indictments have been put forth against him by several states and federal prosecutors but there are no verdicts as of yet. My assessment is that he is guilty but because of his wealth and power there is a high chance of acquittal or a hung jury or something along those lines. Itās also very possible that he will be elected president before the cases conclude which may present a constitutional crisis.
Courts have also found that he probably sexually assaulted Jean Carroll and that his business activities were fraudulent but these were civil and not criminal cases.
Also, a number of his underlings have been convicted of various crimes while doing his bidding, but as of yet he has not been convicted of anything. So thereās a lot of underhanded stuff going on but no direct convictions of Trump yet. Kind of like the shady mob boss who everyone knows is behind it all but itās hard to prove. You can look up his former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohenās under-oath testimony about how he uses the same tactics as other organized crime leaders to leave just enough doubt to avoid criminal charges.
Thank you for your thoughtful and good answer. This is exactly what I was joping for. A straightforward unbiased answer.
If I may, I think of Trump like a bumbling fool, snake-oil salesman, con-artist and kind of a dumb-ass. So how can he have done so many things and not have any mess-ups, so big, they create rock solid evidence against him? You only need one serious crime with good evidence for conviction, right? They are talking about 80-90 inditemints (or counts?) Why not just focus on the thing they have evidence for? So they donāt dilute the case, make it straight forward, with evidence and make it stick?
I will repeat my unpopular opinion, but it seems like they are thowing shit against the wall and seeing what sticksā¦
Nobody is talking about impeachment, you picked the wrong script. Talk to your boss and get the latest talking points.
Iām not the one watching legacy media. Iām not the one echoing popular opinions on lemmy. I 'm not the one with a script.
You can just say you have no idea how the criminal justice system works. Itās ok, but you should probably learn before having such strong, ignorant opinions.
How so? What has he been found not guilty of?
Ok, then. Enlighten me. Why not focus on one strongly evidenced criminal act? Something they know they can prove and will stick him in jail?