Murkowski, done with Trump, won’t rule out leaving GOP
Murkowski, done with Trump, won’t rule out leaving GOP
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, aghast at Donald Trump’s candidacy and the direction of her party, won’t rule out bolting the GOP.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, aghast at Donald Trump’s candidacy and the direction of her party, won’t 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 “absolutely” would not vote for him.
“I wish that as Republicans, we had … a nominee that I could get behind,” Murkowski told CNN. “I certainly can’t get behind Donald Trump.”
The party’s 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: “Oh, I think I’m very independent minded.” And she added: “I just regret that our party is seemingly becoming a party of Donald Trump.”
You're viewing a single thread.
I'm not up to date on all the impeach things around Trump. They have been at it for months/years? Has he been convicted for anything (up til now?)
Sealioning
What's the difference between sealioning and trolling. Honest question. Or is it just new lingo?
Sealioning?
I had to google it.. "You disingenuously frame your conversation as a sincere request to be enlightened". I litterally said that I was uninformed/not paying too much attention. I have payed attention in 2016- about 2020. So was wondering if they actualy got him for something now, or not. Sorry for asking... Jeez. Trump sure triggers alot of people...
He has been found civically liable in bank fraud charges in NYC.
He has yet to be found criminally liable in literally anything.
Charged in a few states. No federal indictments.
Also liable for crime that would be called rape in many states.
Some of those "charged in a few states" cases are actually federal indictments. Federal indictments have to be charged in a specific federal court system district (6th Amendment).
The classified documents case in Florida? Federal. The January 6th/election obstruction case? That's so federal it was brought in the DC circuit.
Wow, people sure don't like the simple questions. Lol
Are they "throwing shit at the wall, and seing what sticks"? Sure looks that way...
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? I'm trying to add context/add a comment. Who should I properly reply this comment to then? I'm genuinly wondering...
I mean no one has been working on impeaching trump since 2021. So I’m not sure what you’re even referring to here.
Russia, "walls are closing in" since 2016?
Trump and his various organizations have been engaging in brazen criminal activity since at least 2016, is that what you mean?
He’s 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, that's why i'm asking...
OK I was just confused by you bringing up impeachment which hasn’t 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. It’s 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 there’s 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 it’s hard to prove. You can look up his former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen’s 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 don't 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 sticks...
Nobody is talking about impeachment, you picked the wrong script. Talk to your boss and get the latest talking points.
I'm not the one watching legacy media. I'm not the one echoing popular opinions on lemmy. I 'm not the one with a script.
The thing is, you are thinking of the way the legal system works for ordinary people. This is not how it works for the rich and powerful. It is extremely difficult to get a conviction in cases like this because of his popularity and wealth.
And Trump may be a fool in some respects but he has a lifetime of experience skirting the law and several effective techniques to avoid consequences. Most criminals get caught because they are extremely inexperienced, stupid, and have to physically commit crimes themselves. Trump just issues a vague command that his underlings all understand but is vague enough to not be provable. He also destroys most documents when he’s done with them.
But again, your hypothesis is premature. He hasn’t been acquitted of anything so there’s no reason to believe these are wild, unjustified accusations. The system moves slowly and we still need to wait and see what the evidence is before we can know for sure—although in my view at least some of these crimes are well-supported by publicly available evidence.
They are talking about 80-90 inditemints (or counts?) Why not just focus on the thing they have evidence for? So they don't dilute the case, make it straight forward, with evidence and make it stick?
You can just say you have no idea how the criminal justice system works. It's ok, but you should probably learn before having such strong, ignorant opinions.
I will repeat my unpopular opinion, but it seems like they are thowing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks...
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. He's crimed all over the place, in a variety of ways. The legal systems are just responding to that. I don't know how you expect crimes in Georgia to be ignored because he's committed crimes in New York, for example.