,
10 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
1. A thread. The collusion charge was an indirect (or direct) way of saying that Trump was illegitimately elected. In the absence of evidence, this was a pretty serious claim and one that undermined faith in the democratic process among millions of Democratic voters
2. So an outcome of "no collusion" is the best possible outcome for American democracy. However much you hate Trump, there's simply no way to be angry or disappointed—from a small-d democratic standpoint. It might be going too far to say "rejoice" but yea kind of
3. That said, it's pretty concerning that anyone was willing to advance these claims and conspiracy theories *in the first place*—specifically because of the seriousness of the charge. You don't mess with foundational questions of democratic legitimacy unless you're damn sure
4. I remember in one group chat, me and like three friends would wonder if we had lost our minds. What were we missing? At the peak of the fever Russia collusion became a mainstream thing. Let's not pretend it was fringe. It wasn't. A lot of people made us feel like we were crazy
5. Or as @faysalitani put it: "They nearly made me doubt my own skepticism for so long"
6. Two years of the purposeful delegitimization of a legitimate democratic outcome is not okay. Trump's very real badness has no bearing on the question of legitimacy. Some were careful in their claims and tried to depend on evidence. Some weren't. There should be accountability
7. Russiagate was always bigger on the center-left than the left. And for good reason. If you were a rationalist, there could be no "rational" reason that someone as horrible as Trump won. So there needed to be scapegoat, as I argued here: wsj.com/articles/why-t… 
8. I know it's hard to imagine being a Trump voter, but try for a second: You hear the media and Democrats talking constantly about, quite literally, a conspiracy, as if to suggest that you needed to be manipulated to "vote against your own interests"
9. To focus so resolutely on uncovering collusion—and being sure of the outcome before (and *after*) the results—was driven by a desire to explain the inexplicable. In practice, that meant deemphasizing or delegitimizing the legitimate drivers that led so many to vote for Trump
10. As @samhaselby puts it: "By definition, if someone really can't imagine the appeal of a political opponent who triumphs in a democratic contest (yes flawed but nonetheless won on its rules) it's impossible to understand what's happening. Which leads to really bad theories"
