(THREAD) This thread shows how Trump aided (18 U.S.C. § 2) Russian computer fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1030)—an impeachable offense. Please retweet.
1/ 18 U.S.C. § 2 prohibits aiding, abetting, or procuring a crime against the U.S. The penalty is the same as for the underlying offense.
2/ To be eligible for conviction for aiding, abetting or procuring (paying for) a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2, certain conditions must be met.
3/ There must be a crime. You must know the crime is afoot beforehand. You must aid, abet, or procure it. And you must intend to facilitate.
4/ 17 intelligence agencies concur—Russia committed computer fraud in an effort to hack our election systems on or just before Election Day.
5/ So there are a series of dates for the relevant offenses—18 U.S.C. § 2—to include Election Day and the several days and weeks just prior.
6/ On August 17th, 2016, Donald Trump received his first-ever official briefing from the intelligence community as a presidential candidate.
7/ He was told "U.S. officials had drawn 'direct links' between Putin's government and recent hacks and email leaks."
....... 50 tweets ........

(THREAD) BREAKING: George Papadopoulos claims to have had direct, significant contact with Trump on two occasions the White House never disclosed—and possibly a one-on-one meeting. His claims prove Trump is lying about his relationship with Papadopoulos.
(2) After Papadopoulos' plea affidavit became public, Trump quickly attacked him as a "low-level" staffer, a "liar," someone "few people knew," and a mere "volunteer" (which many players on his campaign were, including his Campaign Manager, Paul Manafort).

Trump Belittles George Papadopoulos as ‘Low Level’ Adviser
In his first comment on George Papadopoulos, the president said “few people knew” him and that he “has already proven to be a liar.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/us/politics/trump-manafort-papadopoulos-mueller.html

(3) But Papadopoulos' claims of having spoken personally with Trump multiple times—and this does not include his appearance at a meeting of Trump's NatSec team at the Trump International Hotel on March 31, 2016—confirm, if true, that Trump has been lying about their relationship.
(4) Papadopoulos told Greek media—Athens daily Kathimerini, by reputation the New York Times of Greece—that he had a 5-minute phone interview with Trump several days prior to being announced as a member of Trump's National Security team on March 21, 2016: .....

............ 25 tweets .......

..... The idea that the entire investigation was based on the dossier, and nothing but the dossier, has been built up by Fox and other Trump organizations over weeks, and supported by statements from Trumpists like Florida Representative Ron DeSantis. Trump sprayed the whole thing out in a Christmas break twitter rant.

Link to tweet

In truth, many items from the dossier have proven to be accurate, and former intelligence operative Christopher Steele continues to stand behind his work. ..... dKos .....

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…