Setting aside the whole question of accountability, this piece has some horrible both-sides stuff. For example: "After Watergate, the parties pursued what...has [been] called “politics by other means” — the politics not of elections but of investigations and indictments..." 1/x https://twitter.com/NickKristof/status/1317811812440723458

Let's look at the record, shall we?

Iran-Contra investigation: actual crimes.
Whitewater: not so much.
Bush administration: multiple potential crimes, not investigated as such.
Benghazi: no crimes.
Trump: actual crimes.

One side only is pursuing "politics by other means."
2/x

And then this:
"Democrats brought Supreme Court nominations to the public, in 1987, running television ads against Reagan nominee Robert Bork." Excuse me? Democrats damaged "faith in democratic institutions" by...mobilizing public sentiment?

And finally this: "[T]he strongest argument against either criminal trials or a truth tribunal, should Biden win, is that it would let the Democratic Party and every other institution that is not the Republican Party off the hook for driving the nation into a flaming cauldron."

I can't even begin to make sense of this. "GOP Pres committed crimes but then Dems defeated the SCOTUS nomination of a guy who helped him so both sides"? "Trump committed crimes, but Dems impeached him so both sides"? If not that, then what is she trying to say?

And that's all aside from accountability, which she waves aside with an airy "peaceful transfer of power". But of course Trump hasn't committed to a peaceful transfer. Can we really restore faith in democratic institutions by letting the people who damaged them off the hook? 6/6

Also check out this excellent thread from @Ben_Alpers: https://twitter.com/Ben_Alpers/status/1317812519646486530