I say all of this not as a historian of the US' many injustices, but as a legal/ political historian who's read the final report of every nationally recognized truth and reconciliation commission in Latin America since the first completed TRC in Argentina in 1983.

Somewhat to my everlasting bewilderment, I am something of an expert on this topic. Dr. Lepore's article is ill-informed at best, and exceedingly arrogant at worst. I'm angry about my field being distorted, so I'm going to go through all the things I find distasteful and/or false

1. One of the worst fallacies JL expresses comes early; the idea that TRCs aren't appropriate or useful when the transfer of power comes without the threat of violence or vengeance, or that they require a circumstances like "Nazi Germany... [or] a nation defeated in war."

TRCs are a useful tool even when not being used as mechanisms of transitional justice. Transitional justice IS NOT JUST USED WHEN THERE'S A COUP which would basically mean that states should only research and collectively confront their past injustices if violence takes place.

2. JL writes that the Trump Administration's wrongdoing "should be investigated by journalists, chronicled by historians and, in some instances, tried in ordinary courts." Not to make light of this, but what does she think historians, journalists, and jurists do during TRCs?

Twiddle our thumbs? If anyone's curious, I can give you hundreds of examples of historians, journalists, lawyers, judges, and, best of all, ordinary people who have stopped their lives to work from within TRCs rather than waiting for papers to eventually wind up in an archive.

4. This brings me to another misunderstanding of TRCs that underlies most of JL's argument: ordinary courts can absolutely participate in post-TRC lawsuits and criminal cases without any kind of special tribunal. We have dozens of examples of this; though I argue that..

..system doesn't work particularly well, it's still absolutely possible.

5. Here's where we get to what I think is the most significant issue with this article. The entire argument rests on the idea that what has happened here in our country in the last four years has neither been horrific enough nor lasted long enough to be worthy of a TRC.

JL argues that because Tr*mp is a "democratically elected president who... will have been the choice of 2 out of 5 American voters," a TRC after his eventual defeat would be "a means for the winners of a democratic election to issue a verdict on the losers." This is just false.

She also holds that a fair election "is itself a verdict on an administration." The idea that JL could believe this given her training as a historian is mind-blowing to me. Not only do we have the complicated history of the electoral college, not only are we a republic not..

...a democracy, but also, popularity of support does not come anywhere close to meaning atrocities weren't committed. People popularly support atrocities all the time, though they often convince themselves otherwise, and it still doesn't make those atrocities acceptable.

One of the easiest ways to tell JL hasn't done her research on this piece is her assertion that a TRC would "bypass" institutions like the press, the judiciary, public dissent, and legislative action. Honestly, I'm just not really sure where she got this, because it's just false

I realize that I've now been rage-tweeting about this for 45 minutes and should probably drink some chamomile tea and calm down, but first, I want to tell you my biggest problem with this article:

Honestly, I'm offended. This article offends me. The idea that I should just sit by, wait for the Trump Papers to make it to NARA, and then separately let jurists and journalists come to their own conclusions is offensive to me. The idea that the violence (and I don't mean

theoretical violence, I mean actual, physical violence) of this administration somehow doesn't merit an effort for collective justice is offensive to me. The idea that women whose children were taken from them and locked in cages while their own uteruses were removed are...

... expected to use the regular justice system to find out who did this to them and why offends me. The idea that the people who were kidnapped by federal agents in unmarked vans should wait for a NYT investigation to find out who did this to them and why offends me.

The idea that historians, journalists, and jurists should be relied on to carry out justice separately, as though this were a normal historical event to be used as a lesson in primary sources in classes offends me, and the idea that this is future historians' job, when it's ours.

Dr. Lepore once wrote that "History is the art of making an argument about the past by telling a story accountable to evidence." That's a wonderful sentiment. We should all be held accountable to evidence, even in Washington Post opinion pieces.