Accountability and competing narratives

Letter writer Michael Imhof calls for accountability in government. I agree with that principle. Government officials should be held accountable when they break rules, mislead courts or abuse power.

But accountability is not the same as naming a list of political enemies and declaring them guilty without proving the charge. The Justice Department Inspector General found serious failures in the Carter Page FISA process, and those failures deserved correction. But the same review also found that the Russia investigation was opened with sufficient factual predication and did not find evidence that political bias drove that decision.

Special Counsel Durham sharply criticized the FBI, but he did not prove the sweeping criminal conspiracy alleged. Robert Mueller did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia, but he did document Russian interference in the 2016 election.

If no one is above the law, then evidence matters. Due process matters. Specific charges matter. Rule of law is not restored by replacing one political narrative with another. It is restored by applying the same standard to everyone, even when the result does not satisfy partisan anger.

Dan Doviddio

Wheaton