Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Kidding! 
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
UNROLLED: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/948358756852789248.html
1. We really have to think about this threat to the planet in terms of Trump's legitimacy. The Russians helped him win. Fact. It's there that we find the beginning of the debate over his legitimacy as president.
2. If Greg Weiner's New Year's Day op-ed in the New York Times is any indication, impeachment is in the air. A professor of political science at Assumption College, in Worcheser, Massachusetts, Weiner cautions Congressional Democrats against moving too far too fast. He writes:
3. "The prudent path forward lies somewhere between 'fiat justitia, ruat caelum" and 'Vox populi, vox Dei' — 'let justice be done though the heavens fall' on one hand and 'the voice of the people is the voice of God' on the other."
4. I agree, but let's set impeachment aside for a moment. (I'll come back to it.) Let's discuss what we can assess right now, namely President Donald Trump's legitimacy.
5. Legitimacy is the right to govern in the name of the people. It is an complex subject in democratic theory with no hard outlines, but one thing is certain. To argue against Trump's legitimacy, we need not prove beyond a doubt he committed a crime.
6. The starting point has been established already. The Russians helped the president win.
7. Whether Trump knew about Russian President Vladimir Putin's campaign to move public opinion against Hillary Clinton is secondary to the fact that Putin prosecuted just such a campaign.
8. We know how the Russian president did it and why. That a U.S. president is the beneficiary of interference might not be be enough to question that president's legitimacy, however.
9. Here's what might: Trump has not done much, if anything, to protect us from similar future attacks.
10. And you have to ask: Why?
11. Of course, the case against Trump's legitimacy is based on so much more than Putin's influence campaign. Over the weekend, the Times ran a bombshell report detailing why the FBI opened an investigation into the Trump campaign.
12. According to the report, foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos let slip to an Australian official in May 2016 that the Russians had dirt on Clinton. Two months later, Wikileaks started releasing stolen emails. That's when the Australian government alerted the FBI.
13. How much Papadopoulos knew and how much he related to the Trump campaign is unknown. What is known is that Papadopoulos continued "for months to try to arrange some kind of meeting with Russian representatives, keeping senior campaign advisers abreast of his efforts,"
14. according to the Times report. The implication is that the Russian influence campaign might have been a coordinated effort.
15. The question of Trump's legitimacy should be kept at the center of our national debate because the president and allies are clouding the waters with pap about collusion not being a crime. During a recent interview with the Times, he repeated this point, again and again.
16. In fact, it's debatable – collusion probably is a crime – but it's beside the point. If a president colludes with a foreign power, is that president a legitimate president?
17. Fortunately, polling data helps answer that question. Based on Trump's aggregate approval rating (38 percent per FiveThirtyEight), I'm guessing a majority of Americans would say no, he's not a legitimate president.
18. Given the president's approval rating has not risen above 40 percent since May, when he fired James Comey, the former FBI director, I'm guessing most Americans doubted his legitimacy fairly early into his presidency.
19. The case against Trump's legitimacy appears to haunt him. During the Times interview, the president said "collusion" 23 times in barely coherent sentences. Some suggest he's projecting, signaling that yes, I colluded.
20. But you can say he's merely obsessed with legitimacy, especially the appearance of a strongman failing to vanquish his foe on his own.
21. Which brings me to impeachment, and legitimacy's role in it.
22. If Congressional Democrats pursue impeachment after the midterms, they must, as Weiner says, tread lightly.
23. But if they do not, we face a different problem with respect to legitimacy: future presidential candidates habitually seeking the aid of foreign powers to sabotage the democratic will.
24. Yes, impeaching Trump is risky. The Democrats could botch it and look like they're mounting a coup.
25. But not impeaching Trump might be risky, too.
26. Not impeaching him might in effect legitimize illegitimate behavior.
27. I don't know the answer to this paradox any more than anyone else. I just hope that with time comes clarity. We're going to need it.
28. Thanks for reading. Please share and argue. We need it. usnews.com/opinion/thomas…
1. We really have to think about this threat to the planet in terms of Trump's legitimacy. The Russians helped him win. Fact. It's there that we find the beginning of the debate over his legitimacy as president.
2. If Greg Weiner's New Year's Day op-ed in the New York Times is any indication, impeachment is in the air. A professor of political science at Assumption College, in Worcheser, Massachusetts, Weiner cautions Congressional Democrats against moving too far too fast. He writes:
3. "The prudent path forward lies somewhere between 'fiat justitia, ruat caelum" and 'Vox populi, vox Dei' — 'let justice be done though the heavens fall' on one hand and 'the voice of the people is the voice of God' on the other."
4. I agree, but let's set impeachment aside for a moment. (I'll come back to it.) Let's discuss what we can assess right now, namely President Donald Trump's legitimacy.
5. Legitimacy is the right to govern in the name of the people. It is an complex subject in democratic theory with no hard outlines, but one thing is certain. To argue against Trump's legitimacy, we need not prove beyond a doubt he committed a crime.
6. The starting point has been established already. The Russians helped the president win.
7. Whether Trump knew about Russian President Vladimir Putin's campaign to move public opinion against Hillary Clinton is secondary to the fact that Putin prosecuted just such a campaign.
8. We know how the Russian president did it and why. That a U.S. president is the beneficiary of interference might not be be enough to question that president's legitimacy, however.
9. Here's what might: Trump has not done much, if anything, to protect us from similar future attacks.
10. And you have to ask: Why?
11. Of course, the case against Trump's legitimacy is based on so much more than Putin's influence campaign. Over the weekend, the Times ran a bombshell report detailing why the FBI opened an investigation into the Trump campaign.
12. According to the report, foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos let slip to an Australian official in May 2016 that the Russians had dirt on Clinton. Two months later, Wikileaks started releasing stolen emails. That's when the Australian government alerted the FBI.
13. How much Papadopoulos knew and how much he related to the Trump campaign is unknown. What is known is that Papadopoulos continued "for months to try to arrange some kind of meeting with Russian representatives, keeping senior campaign advisers abreast of his efforts,"
14. according to the Times report. The implication is that the Russian influence campaign might have been a coordinated effort.
15. The question of Trump's legitimacy should be kept at the center of our national debate because the president and allies are clouding the waters with pap about collusion not being a crime. During a recent interview with the Times, he repeated this point, again and again.
16. In fact, it's debatable – collusion probably is a crime – but it's beside the point. If a president colludes with a foreign power, is that president a legitimate president?
17. Fortunately, polling data helps answer that question. Based on Trump's aggregate approval rating (38 percent per FiveThirtyEight), I'm guessing a majority of Americans would say no, he's not a legitimate president.
18. Given the president's approval rating has not risen above 40 percent since May, when he fired James Comey, the former FBI director, I'm guessing most Americans doubted his legitimacy fairly early into his presidency.
19. The case against Trump's legitimacy appears to haunt him. During the Times interview, the president said "collusion" 23 times in barely coherent sentences. Some suggest he's projecting, signaling that yes, I colluded.
20. But you can say he's merely obsessed with legitimacy, especially the appearance of a strongman failing to vanquish his foe on his own.
21. Which brings me to impeachment, and legitimacy's role in it.
22. If Congressional Democrats pursue impeachment after the midterms, they must, as Weiner says, tread lightly.
23. But if they do not, we face a different problem with respect to legitimacy: future presidential candidates habitually seeking the aid of foreign powers to sabotage the democratic will.
24. Yes, impeaching Trump is risky. The Democrats could botch it and look like they're mounting a coup.
25. But not impeaching Trump might be risky, too.
26. Not impeaching him might in effect legitimize illegitimate behavior.
27. I don't know the answer to this paradox any more than anyone else. I just hope that with time comes clarity. We're going to need it.
28. Thanks for reading. Please share and argue. We need it. usnews.com/opinion/thomas…
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
41 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read