Republicans who are appalled at Trump's attacks on Democracy

Trying to influence state legislators to overturn the will of the people in their states is unprecedented and undemocratic, and a new low for Trump that is making some Republican senators really upset.

Here are the courageous Republicans who have criticized the president in the hardest terms (including, saying that he is making us look like a Banana Republic, and should stop playing golf and concede):

Senator Mitt Romney
Senator Susan Collins
Senator Ben Sasse
Senator Lisa Murkowsky
Senator Pat Toomey
Governor Larry Hogan
Former Governor Chris Christie

For now, the list is woefully small, which is a shame.

I hope this list will grow. If people want to add to it when new prominent Republicans add their names to the list of Americans who possess some integrity and some respect for the traditions of our democratic republic, please do.

One can only hope that Mitch McConnell will add his voice to this still small but growing number of decent Republicans.

Allegedly these 21 Republican senators have privately expressed profound contempt for Trump, in talks with Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein:

John Cornyn (Texas), Rick Scott (Fla.), Senate Majority Whip John Thune (S.D.), Rob Portman (Ohio), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Ben Sasse (Neb.), Roy Blunt (Mo.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Mitt Romney (Utah), Mike Braun (Ind), Todd Young (Ind.), Tim Scott (S.D.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Richard Burr (N.C.), Pat Toomey (Pa.), Martha McSally (Ariz.), Jerry Moran (Kansas), Pat Roberts (Kansas), and Richard Shelby (Ala.).

Of these, 5 spoke up already. What is holding down the other 16?

 

I think they are afraid of a backlash.

Trump has well- trained his followers to bag out anybody that criticizes him. I think from another thread I saw that Trumpers are encouraging conservatives to vote against republicanl "traitors" in Georgia that have seemingly disavowed or contradicted Trumpl.

Doxing/online retribution has a lot of power nowadays. Scary times!

 

How is he trying to influence them?

 

What is astonishing is stark comparison with state and local GOP office holders from the county precinct to the secretary of states office or even the GOP Governors. The vast majority of those with far less power and influence is to stand up for the full vote count and to refuse to be silent or intimidated by Donald Trump and his cult. Every one of the senators and congressmen that you mentioned is personally wealthy enough that they need never get a single vote for the rest of their lives. They don't need their jobs and can afford to have a backbone. These folks at the municipal, county and state level, will see their political 'careers' blow up if their dare defend the votes in their backyard. Yet they have shone more principle, more spine.

 

Part of how Trump operates is to apply loyalty tests to his followers. This is one of those tests. How far will GOPers go to be loyal while he is doing his nonsense? Apparently, many of them are willing to go quite far, putting loyalty to Trump over loyalty to the country.

 

Sooo funny...

 

So much nonsense so little time first off in at least four states the will of the people had nothing to do with the out come.

2nd Dead people and computer algorythms have nothing to do with the will of the people.

 

They have nothing to do with reality either

 

Oh but they do. Unreality is assuming that math lies ..

 

Math doesn't lie. Trump does.

 

The exact opposite...

Globalists are simply lobbyist driven.

So the higher up you go, the more leverage is for sale.

 

But in this case either they are both telling the truth or both are lying.

 

3rd: RW conspiracy theories have nothing to do with the will of the people.

In 2016, already, Trump was elected by a EC fluke against the will of the people. In 2020, they clearly repudiated him, no matter how much you would like empty land to have more voting power than people in cities.

 

I really thought Mitch would have stepped up by now.

This is truly embarrassing.

 

no doubt he made offers to the Governor of Michigan when he came to chat.

 

I think that's ok, but how could they not see this coming when they voted to save Trump at his impeachment trial. They are still co-responsible. Maybe Romney is exempt, but the rest earn no points for doing too little too late. They put their political interests before the country's.

The rest, those who have not denounced even THIS, are just deplorable.

 

Exactly. Republicans who criticized Trump's actions with the president of Ukraine but refused to convict when they got the articles of impeachment, said "but we'll let the voters decide." That was the excuse they used to give him a pass. Now the voters have decided... and they are silent.

-----------

Adding to the list: one more, John Kasich, former governor. So 8, so far. Mostly with the exception of Ben Sasse and Pat Toomey, people who were already critical of Trump.

I'm still waiting for someone to say "I used to support the president but he went too far when he put pressure on state officials to change the results; I no longer support him and I want him to step down."

 

What are you talking about? His meeting with some Michigan legislators? It's an unfounded dem conspiracy theory that he is / was "Trying to influence state legislators to overturn the will of the people in their states". Here's what CNN reported about the meeting:

"Trump did not apply any overt pressure on the lawmakers to try and shift electors from Biden to himself, or to prevent the vote from being certified, the person familiar with the meeting said...".

There's nothing here to condemn except fake news hyperbole and hand-wringing.

 

uh huh

 

Yeah right your guy won so you don't that the sausage is full of poison ..

 

Maybe you are right. But who knows what was said behind closed doors? The timing is very suspicious.
I mean, Trump's side has advanced the most outrageous and unproven claims of a vast conspiracy to defraud the elections, with not an ounce of proof, as bizarre as saying that Hugo Chavez - who is long deceased - was behind it. So, can't Biden side also advance the possibility that the timing of this meeting is suspicious and might indicate the possibility of threats/bribes? I mean, I frankly find it less far-fetched than supposing that Chavez is behind it (from Hell, we'd think).

 

One more, Senator Rob Portman of Ohio.
It's dripping dripping one by one.

So, now, 6 senators, one sitting governor, and two former governors. Still a long way to go.

 

Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Dirty Donald golfed while U.S.democracy crumbled.

 

We've got a pretty good idea what was said behind closed doors, if you believe CNN's anonymous source:

And then of course the legislators themselves said what else was discussed:

They can "advance the possibility" of whatever they want, but if they're doing so without any evidence, as they are in this case (and in fact in direct opposition to the evidence we do have), they don't deserve to be taken seriously, and the false rumors they're spreading don't deserve a pass.

Look, I don't mean to come down on you overly hard, but there's this inclination among anti-Trump folks to just fill in what they don't know with their worst imaginable nightmare scenarios and treat it as if it were true, and that's exactly what I see happening here: "We don't know what was said with the Michigan legislators, so Trump was probably trying to pressure them to 'subvert the will of the people and undermine our democracy'". Except that there's no evidence of that. In fact, there's evidence to counter that claim. But that gets ignored in this attempt to craft a narrative (not necessarily by you, I think you're more of a victim here while the media and partisan leftists are the perpetrators).

 

Fair enough, I like the tone of your post. Still, why do you suppose I'm reacting this way? The fault is Trump's, actually. He's been spewing conspiracy theories even BEFORE the election. He is reaping what he sowed, in terms of my distrust.

I hope that you are aware that he says stuff in Twitter, his lawyers give wild, bizarre press conferences laden with serious accusations, but then his lawyers CAN'T say the same to judges and justices in a court of law, because there is a legal consequence in lying to a judge (like Senator Ben Sasse correctly noticed). So, judges have asked REPEATEDLY "are you saying that there was widespread fraud in the election?" and his lawyers have been answering REPEATEDLY "No, your honor." Because there wasn't! They know that there wasn't.

Trump knows it too, but still, keeps lying, saying that the election was stolen from him and he won, that the votes that defeated him were illegal... funny that he never thought of calling the votes illegal and the voting rigged in the states he narrowly won like North Carolina. Funny that this vast conspiracy by Democrats - with the help of dead people like Hugo Chavez - weirdly forgot to also defraud the numerous GOP senators who got re-elected, resulting in the Dems losing the opportunity to capture the Senate, and narrowing their advantage in the House. This, alone, shows that there wasn't widespread fraud. People simply, like me, got sick and tired of Trump and voted for Biden just to kick him out, while also voting for the Republican senator (which is exactly what I did).

I do question a bit your willingness to believe in what this unnamed source said about the White House meeting with the legislators, and what they said themselves (which could have been self-serving). So, yes, sure, let's believe in our elected officials, right? So, pray tell, why doesn't your side believe in the Republican Secretary of State in Georgia when he says that there isn't any evidence of fraud in his state? Why don't you believe in the NSA Cybersecurity official who said that this Dominion conspiracy theory is bogus because there is no evidence of any changed votes by these electronic machines and the election was the most secured ever? (Which irked Trump, who fired him)

My point is, if you simply take the statements of this anonymous source and these state legislators as EVIDENCE like you put it, I'm happy to do that too, as long as you ALSO believe in the NUMEROUS officials all over the country from both parties, who have issued statements that there was no widespread fraud consequently the election was not stolen, and you call it EVIDENCE too.

Frankly, can you put yourself in the opposite shoes? Say, Obama called state legislators from Michigan and Pennsylvania to the White House to talk to them about Hillary's loss. Some anonymous source then said "the president didn't threaten or bribe the officials." Would you immediately say, "Oh, OK, then. I guess that's it, all legit, all good." Would you? Be honest.

Because what we saw was the very opposite. TO THIS DAY both Trump and posters here accuse Obama of having spied on the Trump campaign, despite Republican-led congressional committees having looked into it and found that this conspiracy theory is unsubstantiated. Well, instead of accepting it as EVIDENCE like you recommend, people continued to doubt Obama, huh?

Frankly, for a supporter of a president who spent the last 2 and a half weeks making the most outrageous accusations without an ounce of evidence, to kind of berate me for my suspicion, of which in your words "there's no evidence of that" is a bit rich. I hope you say the same thing to President Trump, or at least about what he says, given that I suppose you don't have direct access to him (well, you can always reply to one of his tweets).

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I do believe that the president's baseless and relentless accusation of widespread fraud and the election being "stolen" from him is detrimental to our Democracy.

Not to forget, in public affairs, the appearance of impropriety is also to be avoided. President Trump should NOT have invited these state officials to the White House in this current context. He chose to do that, so he exposed himself to suspicion and criticism. Choices have consequences.

You may want to realize that a Republican senator, Lisa Murkowsky, called it unprecedented undemocratic interference. I wasn't the only one who was taken aback. Is she also a victim of the partisan media and the leftists?