This argument proves too much. The sittign president BY DEFINITION won the last election, and impeaching him BY DEFINITION is a repudiation of him or her. If you think "he was elected president" is a refutation of impeachment, then you don't think impeachment should exist.https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/1187044927345188866 …
The president's popular legitimacy is a factor that matters, which is why Congress has removed a bunch of judges but never an elected president. But I agree it doesn't end the argument.
-
-
I dunno isn’t that mostly because there are way more judges than presidents?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
well sure, but that's *always present*, and probably somewhwat diminished when the president's "popular legitimacy" is unusually precarious
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What's your response to Cornyn. Don't be shy
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Popular legitimacy? We *are* talking about Donald, right? The minority asterisk president elected by empty acres with the help of a foreign autocrat? That dude?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.