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
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.
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 heās done with them.
But again, your hypothesis is premature. He hasnāt been acquitted of anything so thereās 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 sureāalthough in my view at least some of these crimes are well-supported by publicly available evidence.
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?
He would have had to have to focus his criming on one criminal act, in one jurisdiction. Heās crimed all over the place, in a variety of ways. The legal systems are just responding to that. I donāt know how you expect crimes in Georgia to be ignored because heās committed crimes in New York, for example.
Iām talking about the people going after Trump. Ofcourse you donāt 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 technicalityā¦
That wont be popular, and looks highly political.