Sen. Lisa Murkowski Calls Trump’s Actions ‘Shameful and Wrong’ but ‘Cannot’ Convict Him

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), considered a potential swing vote in the Senate’s impeachment trial, said that she “cannot” vote to convict President Donald Trump on either article of impeachment passed by the House. 

Speaking on the Senate floor on Monday, Murkowski voiced her disapproval of Trump’s actions and slammed him for not “upholding the integrity” of the office of the president. 

“The president’s actions are shameful and wrong,” Murkowski said, adding, “His personal interests do not take precedence over those of this great nation.”

She added:

“The president has the responsibility to uphold the integrity and the honor of the office. Not just for himself, but for all future presidents. Degrading the office by actions or even name-calling weakens it for future presidents, and it weakens our country.”

However, she said she could not vote to convict Trump on either article of impeachment and suggested that the House could have pushed for a motion to censure the president instead. 

“The response to the president’s actions is not to disenfranchise nearly 63 million Americans and remove him from the ballot. The House could have pursued censure and not immediately jumped to remedy of last resort. I cannot vote to convict. The Constitution provides for impeachment but does not demand it in all instances.”

Watch Murkowski’s speech below:

Additionally, she slammed the “careless media” for allegedly trying to “put out the fire with gasoline” by stoking a conversation about calling witnesses, rather than focusing on the arguments and facts in the case.

She knocked the impeachment process and alleged that House Democrats “rushed” the impeachment to meet an “artificial, self-imposed deadline.”

However, Murkowski rebuked lawmakers from both sides for not keeping an open mind throughout the proceedings.

“The House failed in its responsibilities. And the Senate, the Senate should be ashamed by the rank partisanship that has been on display here,” she said, later adding, “It is clear to me that few in this chamber approached this with a genuinely open mind.”

Murkowski added that when she felt that the impeachment process threatened to damage the reputation of the Supreme Court, she decided to vote against witnesses.

“And when it became clear, that a tie vote here in the Senate would simply be used to burn down our third branch of government for partisan, political purposes I said, ‘Enough.'”

Other lawmakers have floated the idea of censuring the president instead of proceeding with impeachment. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) called for a motion to censure Trump but added that he still is undecided on whether he will vote to convict Trump. 

Murkowski is one of several senators seen as potential swing votes in the upcoming vote on the articles of impeachment. There are three Democratic senators — including Manchin— and two Republicans who appear to be undecided, but they could announce their decision shortly. 

Senators are scheduled to deliver speeches Tuesday through Wednesday afternoon to explain their decision on how they’ll vote on the articles of impeachment. 

The Senate is expected to hold an up or down vote on the articles of impeachment on Wednesday.

Responses

  1. ST, maybe Slick’s roll of quarters is more of a “grower” than a “show-her”. “Leaning left” is almost redundant. Maybe I’m just a little prematurely judgmental when it cums to Slick!

    In all fairness, maybe he just got out of the pool or cold shower. Nah! Just tiny! Maybe that’s why Hillary was never satisfied.

  2. Slick Willie thought his “roll of quarters” was beyond reproach. A “roll of quarters”? That’s not only small but embarassing, especially for someone of his size. Maybe his lying was overcompensating.

    Ever hear about people who think themselves “too smart” to get caught? Like the Bidens, who aren’t that smart, but think they are. Exactly like those who might vote for such a mediocre, low-achievement braggart like Gropin’ Joe. Have I mentioned overcompensating?

    Joe may be going down, despite the MSM and DNC running the same skunking of Bernie lie 2016. Will you vote your party or your country if Comrade Bernie gets the nomination?

  3. Phil,

    You’re TDS is clouding your recall of history, but Dimocrats make history up to suit them anyway.

    Clinton committed criminal acts like perjury AND suborning perjury. Under oath. He literally outsmarted himself. A less “triangulating” weasel would have simply admitted messing with Lewinsky, which is bad, but not a crime. He lied and tried getting others to do so instead.

  4. Let me sum it up for you, SyPhyllis. The Clinton impeachment was more about his engagement in a cover up regarding his inappropriate behavior towards Paula Jones and the civil case she filed against him. Clinton lost his law license and nearly $1 million to hush it all up. The media and the Democrats who adore him, would rather cover that all up and make it about a premature ejaculation on a blue dress.

    Who’s believing in myths now, bee-atch!”

    One things for sure, deluded idiots like you care NOTHING about mistreatment of women when it’s THEIR side that’s guilty of committing it!

  5. Again SyPhyllis got it wrong. Clinton was impeached for more than lying about his blowie in the oval office or sharing the cigar Ms Lewinski kept in her “humidor”. Slick racked up 11 counts of felonies that the media and you idiots like to whittle down to his “affair”. The FACT was, is, and always WILL be, Bill Clinton had a hard time (pun intended) keeping little Willie (I think that was Paula Jones actual description along with “it bent to the left”.)

    For your information, here are the charges against Bill Clinton

    Pursuant to Section 595(c) of Title 28, the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) hereby submits substantial and credible information that President Clinton obstructed justice during the Jones v. Clinton sexual harassment lawsuit by lying under oath and concealing evidence of his relationship with a young White House intern and federal employee, Monica Lewinsky. After a federal criminal investigation of the President’s actions began in January 1998, the President lied under oath to the grand jury and obstructed justice during the grand jury investigation. There also is substantial and credible information that the President’s actions with respect to Monica Lewinsky constitute an abuse of authority inconsistent with the President’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws.

    There is substantial and credible information supporting the following eleven possible grounds for impeachment:

    1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

    2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

    3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.

    4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.

    5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones’s attorneys.

    6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President’s purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky’s false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

    7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.

    8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky’s involvement in the Jones case.

    9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.

    10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President’s false statements to the grand jury — and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.

    11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 — all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States.

    1. It has been described as less than impressive by numerous sources. “A roll of quarters’ IS PRETTY DAMN SMALL.

  6. Marco Rubio has already tweeted that Trump’s acts were impeachable, so it is not necessary to ask him. BUT ALL other Senators who vote “not guilty” on both counts, need to inform the public, on the record, WHAT is an impeachable offense you would vote “guilty”? We already know the 1998 votes of Senators Pat Roberts, Lindsey Graham, Mike Enzi, and Mitch McConnell perceive a POTUS should be removed for lying to the Grand Jury concerning an extramarital affair. Shelby only voted guilty on the obstruction of justice article. If the media fails to ask them, I will at least ask Senator Toomey.

Comments are closed.