Sen. Lisa Murkowski, aghast at Donald Trumpâs candidacy and the direction of her party, wonât rule out bolting from the GOP.
The veteran Alaska Republican, one of seven Republicans who voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial amid the aftermath of January 6, 2021, is done with the former president and said she âabsolutelyâ would not vote for him.
âI wish that as Republicans, we had ⌠a nominee that I could get behind,â Murkowski told CNN. âI certainly canât get behind Donald Trump.â
The partyâs shift toward Trump has caused Murkowski 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, Murkowski said: âOh, I think Iâm very independent minded.â And she added: âI just regret that our party is seemingly becoming a party of Donald Trump.â
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 donât 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 sticksâŚ
Nobody is talking about impeachment, you picked the wrong script. Talk to your boss and get the latest talking points.
Iâm not the one watching legacy media. Iâm 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. Itâs 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?
He would have had to have to focus his criming on one criminal act, in one jurisdiction. Heâs crimed all over the place, in a variety of ways. The legal systems are just responding to that. I donât know how you expect crimes in Georgia to be ignored because heâs committed crimes in New York, for example.
Iâm talking about the people going after Trump. Ofcourse you donât ignore criminal acts, but you would do wisely to focus on the acts that have strong evidence / clear illegal acts.
To me, it looks like they charge him with lots of small things and hope he messes up in the courts to get him on a technicalityâŚ
That wont be popular, and looks highly political.