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.”

    • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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.

      • mydude@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yes, I keep getting told this, years ago. So i stopped paying attention to Trump-stuff, that’s why i’m asking…

        • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          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.

          • mydude@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            8 months ago

            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…

            • ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              Nobody is talking about impeachment, you picked the wrong script. Talk to your boss and get the latest talking points.

              • mydude@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                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.

            • Fal@yiffit.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 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
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 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
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  8 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
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    8 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.