Thread by @SethAbramson

South Africans would be stunned to learn the only purpose of their Truth and Reconciliation Commission was "vengeance." And I think the people of America would be stunned to learn career DOJ officials are now considered "partisans." This is a sad article. washingtonpost.com/outlook/truth-…

The argument for letting some people be above the law and not face justice for their actions is always a political one. And columnists like this dress up that political argument in all sorts of ways that fraudulently rest on "principle"—usually by misidentifying motives/actors.

Having rule of law means you investigate violations of the law no matter by whom they are committed—and you do so impartially and without regard for political considerations. Those who argue for a different way should have the courage to say that they are being nakedly political.

Democrats and those in media who elevate elections above principles habitually hide their motives by speaking in terms of principles—when in fact their only fear of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission is that it could hurt Democrats in elections down the line. That's cowardice.

To be charitable, I will say that there are probably some Democrats and some in media who simply don't know *what Donald Trump did*, and therefore do not see the need for justice because they literally haven't researched what offenses any measure of justice might be required for.

But it's historically nauseating cravenness to say that any attempt to investigate the most corrupt administration in American history automatically qualifies as "vengeance," and anyone who thinks rule of law requires it must be regarded as a "partisan." That's an outrageous lie.

And the reasoning here is so circular: we mustn't have an investigation of whether Trump colluded with the Saudis and Emiratis and Israelis to win the 2016 election because, says this writer, you don't investigate presidents who were "democratically" elected in a "fair" election.

Andrew Weissmann's book underscores that Mueller found significant evidence of pre-election coordination (collusion)—but couldn't prove conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt once Trump obstructed justice (beyond a reasonable doubt) to shut down critical witnesses. See the problem?

Other courses of collusion were either ignored by media—see the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report—or as far as we know never yet fully investigated (collusion with Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Israel, with the feds just needing one more big break on Trump-Egypt collusion).

The witnesses who needed pressure applied to advance these cases—Nader, Flynn, Manafort, Giuliani, Bannon, Broidy, Prince, Trump Jr. and more—never had that pressure applied, for political reasons. But the evidence shows they fought to *prevent* "fair elections" in 2016 and 2020.

To say that historians should do this research is preposterous, and I say that as someone who wrote the history of these events as they happened, across three books and 2,500 pages. My work was stopped—ultimately—by a devastating lack of coordinated investigation and prosecution.