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.”

  • @Fal
    link
    fedilink
    English
    08 months ago

    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?

    • @mydude@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      08 months ago

      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?

      • @mmcintyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        38 months ago

        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.

        • @mydude@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          08 months ago

          I’m talking about the people going after Trump. Ofcourse you don’t 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 technicality…

          That wont be popular, and looks highly political.