Murkowski votes ‘guilty’ but Trump is acquitted

By
Suzanne Downing
-
143

Sen. Lisa Murkowski voted “guilty,” on the one charge in front of the U.S. Senate, which had assembled itself into a court and tried a former U.S. president for inciting what the Left and media is calling an “insurrection” at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

Sen. Dan Sullivan voted to acquit former President Donald J. Trump.

The 57-43 vote was a majority vote to convict but it was not the two-thirds needed. The Senate came up short by 10 votes. Murkowski was among seven Republicans who voted to convict.

The trial was historic in that it was impeaching a person who is now a citizen, not a president.

This was the the second impeachment of Trump in one year, and the second acquittal. Trump’s attorneys said that the trial was unconstitutional, because Trump is no longer in office and that his speech, which encouraged peaceful and patriotic protest, is covered by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Also, no Supreme Court Justice presided over the trial because it was seen by the Supreme Court as illegitimate.

The other six Republicans who voted with the Democrats were: Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

After the acquittal, Sen. Mitch McConnell gave a speech in which he eviscerated Trump for his behavior.

“There’s no question, none, that Pres. Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day. No question about it,” he said. But he said the question of impeaching a former president is unconstitutional. If Trump was convicted, then the House of Representatives could hold impeachment trials for any private citizen, he said.

“Article 2, Section 4 must have force,” he said. ‘Donald Trump is no longer the president … Removal is mandatory upon conviction. That mandatory sentence cannot be applied to someone who has left office. The entire process revolves around removal.”

Hear McConnell’s speech at this link.

143 COMMENTS

    • I like to call it the RINO Protection Act, because it also reelects all of the China Republicans in the state legislature

      • If only that were true! But sadly the progressive ‘uniparty’ in Alaska will do nothing of the kind. Note that few run races as ‘democrats’ in Alaska. They needn’t because they fit right into the ‘republican’ party and control the legislature even when ‘democrats’ have a paper minority. Not just Leeza, the whole ‘republican’ establishment needs a thorough review and cleaning.

      • Only way to remove RINO Lisa from office is by the US Senate or next election by the voters voting here out of office.

    • What’s interesting about this whole impeachment deal is that the video that the Democrats showed were filmed on smartphones. Not subject to livestream mainstream media and shown only shown in retrospect. I watched mainstream media and even sleuthed two YouTube live streams. Fact is, No one knew the Capitol had even breached until after guy came out with bloody shirt. Democrats photoshopped evidence.

      • Sure. And there was certainly a second shooter on the grassy knoll. Oh yeah, Jack Ruby was a mafia operative. And don’t forget that the towers were blown up via controlled demolition — the planes crashing into the towers on 9/11 were photo shopped.
        And there really is a basement under Ping Pong Pizza on Connecticut where a child exploitation ring operates.
        Keep sleuthing Nick. Look long enough and you might even find your marbles.

  2. Primary Murkowski….if by chance she runs for reelection or recall her now…..

    Purge our voting system of noncitizens…deceased persons….any ineligible to vote people….

    Insure that our voting system is not tampered with….

        • Prop 2: poorly written and violates the guidelines for voter approved propositions (single intent), then passed by late night absentee vote drop with no tracking validation. If we had a court following the law as written, Prop 2 should be laughed away. As it is, ????? Until (or unless) this state and nation return to valid honest elections, Prop 2, Lisa and many other progressives will reign. And it is a uniparty system of progressive and more progressive parties in a moderate-conservative nation.

    • The voters cannot recall a US Senator once elected and sworn into office…they are there until the next election and can be punished by the Senate itself but that somehow never happens….
      I certainly agree an effort must be made to clean up Alaska’s Voter rolls and hopefully the court case to have Ballot measure#2 found unconstitutional will be successful. if not the far left and her merchants of death at Planned Parenthood will pour millions into keeping her in office…

      • The only “good” thing about Prop 2 is it validates what many of us have said for years. There is no real two party system. There is just shades of Democrat.

        If we had a real GOP they could censure her, tell her not to run as a Republican, pull any and all party support, announce their intent to oppose her, recruit a real challenger. recruit and train a support team for said challenger, rebuke her publicly, on and on and on.

        But this is the same group that gave us Dunleavy

        • Progressive republican and ultra progressive democrat parties make a uniparty system. Conservatives are locked out. It’s time for a new party but big money will assure that doesn’t happen.

      • Charlie, you wanna drain the swamp? Repeal the 17th Amendment. This measure was designed to weaken the States and increase the purchasing power of special interests.

  3. The democrats’ dog and pony show is over and our Senator Murkowski voted to convict.
    She knows she is untouchable now that ranked choice voting was ‘passed’.
    We need to demand an audit of the 2020 votes.

    Welcome to the ‘fake’ Independents like disgusting Al Gross and the other ‘fake’ independent like the woman who ran against Don Young breezing through the next election.

  4. Another day and another vote where Alaska Senior Senator put on full display her hate filled actions for our Nation and the Constitution of the United State of America. for over four years she has supported the far left and their lies and actions against the President and our nations best interests…

    • If there is any justice in this universe, there is a particularly unpleasant place in Hell waiting for Lisa, and for all the other power-mad, self-serving, anti-american traitors like her.

      • Yes you are correct. She is a turncoat plain and simple. Not only for our Republican President while in office but for the entire state of Alaska. She pretends to
        be Republican but is really a Democrat. She does nothing for the people of our state. Does she actually care what she is contributing to our economy by going along with the Green New Deal ruining Alaska’s economy by so many North Slope people losing their jobs, lives of the natives, and those of us here who chose to live and work here in this state.
        The answer is no. She will either run as a Democrat or an Independent but I think to many Alaskans are tired of her senate position being used as her career and not backing her supposed political party. We need new blood and she need to take a hike and retire.

  5. I loved listening to the clerk call out the votes: “Senator Murkowski…guilty.”

    Truer words have never been spoken.

  6. Good for you Mam. To bad Sullivan is such a coward, morals are meaningless, in Alaska. Money and egos are all that matter. This is how the rich protect each other. Folks say what you will. It took GUTS to stand up to this horror show. None of U would want your wives or daughters hanging out with Mr Trump, would ya. Ya Dan would let your daughters near the Man.

  7. One of only seven GOP senators that did their job and followed the law. Lisa is one of the few the voted on the facts instead of political security. Shame on all other republicans for their fear and immoral vote.

    • Article 2 section 4 of the US Constitution is the law pertinent to this discussion, it says “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” How do you remove a person from office that doesn’t hold office? Those who voted for conviction did so unconstitutionally and obviously hold our Constitution and the rule of law in low esteem, they did not follow the law but simply disregarded it.
      .
      Fact is you can’t remove a person from office who does not hold office. Full stop. End of story.

      • That was only a cop-out used by a few GOP senators, including McConnel who prevented the impeachment proceedings from taking place while Trump was still in office. And, of course, the law hasn’t been challenged but was upheald in the Senate, but your law degree (from Liberty university?) suggests otherwise? Heheh! Keep em coming!

        • Bill,

          Please explain how you remove a person from office who no longer holds office and refrain from your typical nonsensical ranting and raving.

          • Every Legal scholar I’ve read mentioned that if any president could resign and avoid impeachment it makes the idea moot and without teeth. Further, the Senate did away with your idea itself but a few dolts (McConnell) held onto your idea as a way to avoid ruling on the merits. Of course I didn’t count on your Liberty University Law degree to have such influence on your thinking. Heheh!

          • Bill,

            You need to read different legal scholars then, broaden your horizons friend, gain a different perspective than the echo chamber you listen to.
            . Impeachment is designed to remove a person from office, if they no longer hold office impeachment does nothing. The reason you can’t explain how you remove a person from office who no longer holds office is because it’s nonsensical.

          • For some reason you are wigged-out by someone questioning your logic here. You usually don’t get right down into the mud this fast. I’m detecting a chink in your armor. Heheh! Your turn.

      • US Constitution, Article I., Sect 3……Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under to the United States; but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgement and punishment, according to law.
        Chew on this a bit.

        • Yep, “removal from office” the next word following a comma is “and” that means in addition to. Since removal from office is the subject the word “and” means that in addition to removal from office.
          .
          Still waiting for you to explain how you remove someone from office who doesn’t hold office.

          • Nice making thing up as you go here. Try this: “Whether or not you put a comma before and depends on how you’re using and. There’s no single rule that applies to all situations. You usually put a comma before and when it’s connecting two independent clauses. It’s almost always optional to put a comma before and in a list.” These two independent clauses make your explanation BS so your turn.

          • Steve-O, for some reason Suzanne has deleted my response to your comment. I suggest you look into other interpretations of grammar as yours doesn’t pass the smell test. Tough noogies.

          • Bill,

            This should help you and your lack of understanding, if not let me know…https:// http://www.archives . gov/founding-docs/constitution
            .
            Dictionary.com
            .
            Good luck on your journey of knowledge friend, you have a long road ahead of you.

        • Yes Billy, let’s chew on it. How about a real trial where real evidence is admitted. Not the slutty political theater your boys have going.
          BTW Billy, what news of the arrests of the Blamtifa gangsters in the capitol on 6 January?

        • ” …. removal from office AND disqualification to hold and enjoy any office …”
          .
          Note, oh failed legal scholar, “AND”, not “or”.
          .
          Honestly, countering your dishonesty, disingenuousness and outright lies is like shooting radical leftist fish in a barrel.

    • Get a job Jefferson or at least get engaged in something about which you know something. Your personal spew is nothing more than political vomiting in the public square that passes for the blog forum in the modern world.

  10. Was Lisa spurred by Trump? Did she want to be Mrs Trump #4? Only a spurred woman is this vindictive and irrational.

    But that’s to Prop 2, she’s more likely to die in office of old age than be voted out.

    Congratulations Alaska. You screwed yourself good this time.

  11. AMEN on an end to this circus! Now lets get down to work getting this new party organized. As for you Lisa I’m now counting the days.

    • The LOSER was el Donaldo. He lost by millions in the popular vote and plenty via the electoral college vote.

  14. OUCH! … How’s the foot feeling Lisa!

    ATTENTION Alaskan Republican Party: Rank Choice Voting has been “repealed ” in North Carolina; Ann Arbor, MI; Aspen, CO: & Pierce County, WA … get busy and start researching …

  15. Lisa- just another back-stabbing double-agent communist disguised as a republican. Message to the GOP- don’t call or beg for donations until you kick her to the curb. I only support Americans.

  16. Lisa Murkowski was whining about Trump during her own fundraisers back in the summer of 2016. Rank Lisa Murkowski last in 2022. Game on.

  18. AK-VSTROM has it right. She’s guilty of much more than this latest pile but, if the AK Republican Party doesn’t sever their ties with her (I just sent my THIRD email to them), then they too become part of the problem. The native corps and unions are sitting back ready to grease Goiter Girl Murk’s gears so she can bring home the unearned bacon for them. I’d suggest contacting Senator Sullivan to make sure he isn’t part of the establishment trash heap so we don’t end up with two zombies representing Alaska.

  19. Lisa Murkowski does nothing but pander to the left wing mainstream media. She avoids confrontation so she can remain in the swamp. She has some soul searching to do. She also needs to realize she will never be one of them. The Squad hates her and always will. Kamala Harris won’t give her the time of day and Biden would probably just want to sniff her hair. The kangaroo court has failed twice trying to impeach Trump so Murkowski can add this to her achievements.

  20. I agree that Lisa the Mega Rino needs to go….but I cannot come up with a solid conservative name to replace her …. when I look at economic and public policy decisions that will have to be made soon….any ideas on a solid electable conservative?

  21. Murkowski has never been in alignment with the Republican Party and she regularly reminds everyone of that by her conduct and by her comments. After she lost to Joe Miller in the Primary a few years back, and then not only didn’t support him in the General (like an ethical Republican team player would have), but ran an unethical and probably fraudulent campaign as an “independent”against him, to double down on that lack of “Republicanism”. And as soon as the election was done she went right back to calling herself a Republican. And worse, with apparently the full blessing of the Republican Party. Or a least they did nothing to censure her or separatate the Party from her; which has the effect of endorsing and encouraging such behavior. Even in a world where most politicians are little more than political prostitutes, Murky distinguishes herself as one of the losest tramps at the party. But she does this with the full blessing of the impotent Republican Party of Alaska leadership. This is the true problem. At least the Republicans in WY censured Cheney. The AK Republicans continue to support this despicable woman and allow her to run as a Republican over and over. Glenn Clary even defends her on talk radio. Murkowski needs to go, Clary needs to go, and all the rest of the feckless, gutless establishment Republicans either need to discover integrity and grow a pair or they need to go too. Truely pathetic.

    • Earliest convenience will be the republican primary, we are stuck with lm until then. Senators cannot be recalled.
      In the meantime prop 2 needs to be removed from our voting system.
      Republicans can not accept lm representing this party. If she runs again let it be with the democrats.

  24. I do not understand some of you. You complain when a legislator lacks the fortitude to stand for their convictions and only does what they think will get them re-elected. Then you complain when a legislator has the courage to stand up for their convictions, knowing full well that they risk losing the next election because of it. It seems your premise is that the only way the world should exist is if everyone thinks exactly like you.

    • There’s nothing courageous about what she did or who she is. Her FATHER appointed her. She then Made deals and used the power of incumbency to stay in office. A corrupt machine continued to prop her up, year after year, as she became more and more a part of that machine. We sent one guy to stand up to that machine, and she and her ilk tried to thwart him at every turn. She is the epitome of the swamp creature; a talentless, small minded hack, who sells their vote whenever possible to stay wealthy and well connected in DC. She loathes real voters and Alaskans, and only spends as much time as she has to here, and now she has a law to help her retain her seat (surprise). You may very well want a group of wealthy elites with zero character selling us out to China and other foreign powers, running the country..well that is your prerogative. None for me thanks. This lady should be censured by the party and voted out of office, prop 2 or no, and she should be held up as a clear and accurate example of how corrupt and inept these people are. Never again should Alaska let itself be put in this position, allowing a newly elected governor to appoint his own daughter to take his seat, yielded fruit as corrupt and dishonest as the act itself.

  25. She usually uses her interpretation of the Constitution to hide her progressive leaning votes—Her hate for former President Trump was front and center on this vote—She was in the shadows holding back appropriations of funding for the Coast Guard and the wall on the southern border—She also voted on the section 230 of the Communications Bill to allow broad protections that allow powerful companies to restrict free speech of conservative positions—We need to find a conservative representative to better represent the voice of ALASKANS

  26. Murkowoski clearly ignores the constitution, the language so plain that even she should be able to understand it. The writers of the constitution clearly knew exactly what the documents intent and meaning was for the record is well documented.

    • Did Trump want exactly what transpired on the 6th to take place? Would he have preferred more or less violence?

      If he got what he asked for as commander in chief, what responsibility does he and that office bear?

      Certainly, any citizen can ask for what he did under the first amendment. For the commander in chief to do so threatens the integrity of the republic and needs to be addressed under the constitution.

      If a Democrat threatened our republic in such a way, would Republicans respond in the same way?

      Please reference Washington’s farewell address for moral guidance.

  27. Uber-Conservative Mitch McConnell spoke the truth after the vote, saying that Trump was guilty as heck. That’s the important truth here. But of course, he, along with many more conservative Senators, hid behind some feeble “he’s no longer the President and can’t be convicted BS”.

    If they all think that their loyalty will be repaid, they are sadly mistaken as history has shown that Trump only understands that concept when it operates in one direction.

    Murkowski, to her eternal credit, voted her conscience, and actually did what most other GOP Senators wanted to do, but couldn’t summon the courage. She may pay the price by surrendering her position of power, but if so, she will forever go down as a true Patriot – one who put the good of the Country and the support of the Constitution before her own interests. She will sleep soundly every night.

    Let’s see if the same measure of grace will be extended by a jury of regular citizens, when Trump is charged for causing the injury and deaths of those at Capitol on 6 January.

      • Are you asking questions or answering them yourself? Something tell anybody to go down there and take hostages and scare the pants off of AOC? Yes he’s pissed off because the election was stolen from him and so is half of the country. I guess the only thing that makes any difference here between the coup attempt by Pelosi and the loser Hillary Clinton is that we won that fight. We weren’t smart enough to stop the stealing of the votes this time. I don’t know what we would have done if the Democrats had done this. Guess we’ll have to wait and see on that one.

      • So Jeffy, would you characterize Mr. McConnell as a Democrat? A liberal? A radical? A moderate?
        Come on, show us the power of your deep thinking and analysis.

    • Article 2 section 4 of the US Constitution is the law pertinent to this discussion, it says “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” How do you remove a person from office that doesn’t hold office?
      .
      One time in the history of this country has a person been impeached while not in office and many thought it unconstitutional then, just as now. Secretary of War William Belknap was acquitted as well, since he no longer held office to be impeached from.

      • Here is another take on Belknap’s impeachment: “The House impeached him after his resignation, and while Belknap objected to being tried in the Senate because he’d left office, the Senate heard three days of arguments on the topic and then deliberated in secret for over two weeks before concluding Belknap could be tried.” Belknap was acquited but not for your “since he no longer held office to be impeached from.”
        Anyway, your law degree from Liberty University notwithstanding, the law that is involved does not “specifically bar impeaching a former president.”

        • It does specifically bar impeaching a former office holder, just read the words of the constitution “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It doesn’t say former office holder will be removed from office does it Bill? It specifically says who may be impeached and what impeachment does, removal from office.

          • Gibberish Steve-O! Precedent has it that it’s constitutional as it’s now been done twice. Tough noogies to you. Keep on saying what’s not the case as if you know what you’re talking about. Nothing in your section says a thing about baring an office holder that’s already left.

          • Bill,
            “Nothing in your section says a thing about baring an office holder that’s already left.”
            First off, it’s not “my section” it’s the constitution. Second, we’ve been over this Bill, what is an office holder that no longer holds office…not an office holder, impeachment is to remove an office holder from office. There’s no section in the constitution about removing former office holders from office because that is nonsensical.

  28. “Above all, I felt the person I appoint to the remaining two years of my term should be someone who shares my basic philosophy, my values, but particularly one who shares on the issues of Alaska matters that are before us. Someone whose judgment I trust in representing the state and all of its people,”
    Frank Murkowski, 2002
    So, is this what you had in mind, Frank? Someone to represent all the people?
    Thanks for nothing

    • Frank Murkowski’s most significant legacy to Alaska was to appoint his daughter… a monumental error in judgement… from a guy who told the media, “I need a personality transplant.”

      • Yes and just as soon as he did that we changed the rules so that he can never do it again or somebody like him. Same thing happened when FDR died. We took steps to have term limits for the presidency instead of somebody getting to be king all over again.

      • Wayne, Wayne, Wayne. You are far too harsh on old Frank the Bank. Frank’s list of accomplishments might not fill up a phone book but he was as dedicated to his principles as anyone Alaska has ever elected.

  29. Sorry folks, Lisa is a symptom of a larger problem. If you wanna drain the swamp, Repeal the 17th Amendment.

    • Well, she did beat Phony Tony and eventually beat Joe Miller, perhaps the third cheesiest candidate advanced by the Republican party. Whatever your sentiments about Lisa Murkowski, she certainly seems to have more staying power in Alaska politics than most candidates. Why is that?

  33. The only greater disgrace than Murkowski to the Republican party is those pathetic Alaskans who voted her in. Prior to her last election, she had a long record of betrayal…. meaning everyone who voted for her knew she was a traitor and yet they willingly hired her anyway. Many of these voters are now commenting here. They are the real disease—Murkowski is merely the symptom. Truth is a bitter pill.

    • Lisa is a disgrace to her mommy, Nancy, mainly because of her cafeteria -style leanings with the Catholic Church. But to Daddy, Frank, she can do no wrong because she actually makes her daddy look intelligent…….even with his 15 IQ.

    • Wayne: Having smashed through the guardrails of normal political discourse and resorted to unsupported political cant, it would be appropriate to take your foot off the accelerator, stop your rig, turn off the ignition and call a wrecker to have your crash car towed back to the right-of-way, if not the highway.
      You can do better.
      At least you sign your screed material, for which you are to be commended.

  34. Lisa is a brainless, nepostista, democrat in RINO clothing…. She promised to support whomever won the primary. Lies A Lot Murky……….

    Flunkgate: Did Lisa Murkowski Cheat on Her Bar Exam – Or Does She Just Like to Hang Out With the Wrong People?
    By Thomas Lamb | 10/02/10 | 5:26 AM EDT

    In 1987, after flunking the Alaska Bar exam four times, Senator Lisa Murkowski seems to have begun a long-term close relationship with a bar exam preparation company later hit with an 11.9 million dollar copyright violation judgment for wrongly acquiring currently in use bar exam questions to provide to exam applicants for a fee.

  35. I voted for President Trump, and very much wanted him to win. No other US President did as much for Alaska. I continue to support Senator Murkowski, and unless she changes her position and doesn’t push back against the coming White House efforts to implement gun registration, which Democrats call universal background checks, I will be knocking on doors in her next campaign. (This White House avidly awaits the next school shooting.) I hope she does run. I was sometimes skeptical about her positions on US Supreme Court nominations but those worked out best for everyone in the end, as I hoped they would. What I think about her ideas regarding President Trump is that if we are going to allow women to vote then some are going to successfully run for office. If we then have a US President who brags that he grabs young women by the crotch then I cannot be surprised if those elected women push back. I’m a little surprised that any man with daughters can fervently support President Trump, but most of the Alaska women I know carry .38 revolvers, and grabbing their crotch or their daughter’s crotch could be a fatal mistake. My support for Senator Murkowski doesn’t come from pragmatism but I honestly believe that given the cards Alaska has now drawn we cannot come up with a better person to send to Washington, DC.

    • Wow. There is a patriotic call to action based on principles that somehow do not seem particularly patriotic.
      My recommendation is you head back down the stairs to your fantasy video game room in the basement and dial into that reality.

  38. 1. We need to have a protest rally at the Federal building during the next time the Senate is in recess. We need to be PEACEFUL, LAWFUL AND LOUD!
    2. McConnel calling for criminal charges against President Trump. He has been accused, tried and found not guilty, thus that would be in violation of the 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
    3. Chucky is pushing for making it unlawful for President Trump from running in 20124 by invoking Clause 3 of the 14th Amendment. “No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” The Congress charged him with supporting insurrection and found not guilty. So to do this could also be construed as double jeopardy under the 5th Amendment, much less no way could the Senate get 2/3rds of the vote of both houses.
    Lisa must go in 2022!

    • Mike,

      An impeachment isn’t a criminal case, it is about removing a person from office…that’s why this recent impeachment trial is nothing more than political theater. Article 1 Section 3 clause 7 of the constitution says “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

      • Go ahead and give us the part where the constitution bars the impeachment of someone who has left office and, of course, it’s been done before. Take your time here. heheh!

        • Bill,

          There’s no need to remove someone from office who doesn’t hold office, that’s the part you keep skipping over. Impeachment is to remove an office holder from office.

        • You are wrong, as usual Shrill Yankee. The US constitution expressly and explicitly bars impeachment of anyone out of office. The fact that it was attempted once before only means that emotions were obviously overriding reason and legality in that case just as much as they are today with all you sufferers of Trump Derangement Syndrome, a fatal mental illness that leads to hysteria and the loss of all reason and rational thought.

  39. This woman is apparently not smart enough to realize every one of these techniques will be used on her next.
    Ballot box stuffing? Yep, Murkowski is not getting re-elected. No way the left will allow someone who ever had (R) following their name to get elected again.
    Sham trials based on one party’s interpretation of how a word is used? Coming her way as soon as her campaign starts. She better not use the word “fight” at any point in her campaign. Otherwise, she is calling for a rebellion.
    .
    Useful idiot is the term I am thinking of here.

  40. Evidence was doctored, dates changed, videos falsified, they admitted to the crime of providing this false information, cant get much “in your face” then that!
    Murkowski, take a hike, you are done, move on.

    • Yeah……but her house-husband will not have any income source. He’s been piggy-backing off Lisa’s job for over 20 years. Hell have to go on welfare because he has no skills of his own. But he does have his teeth and can still smile.

  42. Lisa and the rest of uniparty RINO’s are as dishonest as the day is long….in the middle of summer, in Alaska !!

  43. The Supreme Court NEVER said the trial was illegitimate. The Constitution says the Chief Justice shall preside over the trial of a sitting President. All other impeachment trials are presided by the Chief a justice at their discretion.

    Why is it so hard to stick to the facts?

  44. Murkowski is the guilty one here. Guilty of not representing Alaska as a Republican and Guilty of not listening to facts presented-she has not acted in our interests for way too long now

  46. Well that didn’t work Ms. Lisa. What’s next? Think you’ll just have to keep wearing that scowl cause you can’t stop what’s coming

  47. Just one more act, of many, proving and demonstrating complete Dereliction-Of-Duty. Alaskan Republicans need to seriously decide how much of this their willing to accept or, if they’ve simply had enough.
    I stopped voting for her a few election cycles ago as it was clear to me that she didn’t represent any amount of fundamental conservative values. AND, I’ll never vote for her in the future! The question then becomes, how will AK Republicans vote in the future?
    I’m hoping – trusting that Glen Clary has a strong alternate candidate to offer.

  48. Had to circle back here with a comment on our missing in action Alaska Republican Party. I’ve sent emails, tried to leave voice messages and short of driving to Anchorage (which I won’t) to leave a hand-written note about their inability to come together and say something, anything, about her atrocious behavior.
    Why is it so easy that they, ARP, can take my donations, yet find it difficult, if not downright impossible, to answer a simple question on censuring Lisa Murkowski? Could it be that the Alaskan Democrats have the ARP by the balls?
    No more Mr. Nice Guy here … forget about any more money coming out of my wallet for the do-nothing, say-nothing Alaskan Republican Party. Go kiss my grits!

  49. It became very clear that Senator Sullivan is a better Constitutional lawyer than Lisa Murkowski. Her hatred of Trump blinded her to the constitutional provision providing for the authority to remove someone from office through impeachment. If someone is not in office after an election, the impeachment provision as to that person is inapplicable! I am very disappointed in her judgment. An embarrassment for those of us who voted for her in the past. I am am sad that the same hate driving the D’s has infected Murkowski.

  50. Has she even read the Constitution?
    The Constitution provides that “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States. Again. Shall not extend further than to removal from office. ” Trump had all ready been removed by the election. Her claims of following the constitution are nonsense.

    • You said it with,” and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” Try reading what you post! If you don’t think that’s “extended further” than removal from office then let me sell you some bridges. Heheh!

      • I’m glad you left the word “and” in your quote, I just wish you would read what you quoted and posted!
        The key word is still “and”. As in “removal from Office, AND disqualification”. You can’t remove a person from office who doesn’t hold office, AND disqualify them, it’s nonsensical.
        .
        conjunction
        (used to connect grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses) along or together with; as well as; in addition to; besides; also; moreover:
        pens and pencils.
        added to; plus:
        2 and 2 are 4.
        then:
        He read for an hour and went to bed.
        also, at the same time:
        to sleep and dream.
        www . dictionary.com/browse/and?s=t

        • I’ve already posted the Gramar relative to your spew here and it’s gone over your head, evidently. It’s nothing more than a list and neither takes place first, but you know that. Just can’t admit it. Keep trying.

          • Pretty funny Bill, you don’t even know what the word “and” means.
            .
            Let’s forget about the word “and”. Impeachment is to remove an office holder from office, if a person does not hold office how are they to be removed from office? Tue disqualification from holding future office is a COMPLETELY separate issue from impeachment, it requires a separate vote after an impeachment conviction, it is up to the discretion of those who voted for and achieved an actual impeachment conviction, it is not automatic upon impeachment conviction, it is the “and” as in addition to the removal of office by the impeachment conviction.

          • If the word “and” did not mean what it means then the House could have a disqualification vote without an impeachment trial and conviction. No such thing exists because the word “and” is located after the comma in Article 1 Section 3 clause 7.

Comments are closed.