Democrats: Investigate Republicans

But why bring up lawbreaking by the Democrats who preceded them? We don’t want to criminalize policy differences do we?

The sooner we stop pretending there is a “rule of law” which binds the power of our government, the better off we’ll all be.

Author: Scott Horton

Scott Horton is editorial director of, director of the Libertarian Institute, host of Antiwar Radio on Pacifica, 90.7 FM KPFK in Los Angeles, California and podcasts the Scott Horton Show from He’s the author of the 2017 book, Fool’s Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan and editor of The Great Ron Paul: The Scott Horton Show Interviews 2004–2019. He’s conducted more than 5,000 interviews since 2003. Scott lives in Austin, Texas with his wife, investigative reporter Larisa Alexandrovna Horton. He is a fan of, but no relation to the lawyer from Harper’s. Scott’s Twitter, YouTube, Patreon.

5 thoughts on “Democrats: Investigate Republicans”

  1. “The sooner we stop pretending there is a “rule of law” which binds the power of our government, the better off we’ll all be”. That’s it exactly. Republicrats investigating Republicrats, yah thats gonna work.


  2. There will be no investigations, no special prosecutors, no anything concerning torture. We have a president given only to gesturing when it comes to the moral. And where action has been in evidence, its been to cause or support profoundly immoral action: Baby killing seems to be the specialty, by drones in Af/Pak, by the knife in the abortuary and by needle in the laboratory. But, no, the torture question will be suppressed because Democrats just might be implicated, so forget pursuing war crimes charges. Better to bring charges against Obama as a serial killer.

  3. There was an article by Seymour Hersh on VP Cheney and the JSOC killings. One Thomas wrote lamenting the belief that there was no interest in the matter as there were no published comments. I just want to disabuse him of that impression. In fact there were dozens of comments which the website chose not to publish. We are not as free as we like to think, and the subject was one that arouses so much emotion that it was bound to encourage controversial responses–certainly not to the administration likings. I suppose that’s the reason ANTIWAR backed away so quickly from it.

Comments are closed.