btbg

I have done some research. The committee was supposed to have 13 members, not nine and of those there were supposed to be more than two Republicans. There was no justification for refusing to allow legally appointed members to the committee.

They did not follow house rules regarding how the committee was selected. That is a fact. Once they don't follow house rules nothing the committee does from that point on is legitimate.

btbg

You want to get Trump so badly that you can't even see what the 1/6 committee is doing to our country. I have no idea why you hate the man so much. I get not liking his personality. I even sort of get not liking his policies although they are far better than Biden's, but I don't get the hate.

If you can't see that Trump is being treated much different than other politicians have been, then you are a hopeless case and there is no point in having further dialogue. My point has nothing to do with Trump's guilt or innocence. It has to do with Trump being treated different than other politicians who have said inflammatory things, and or done things that were clearly illegal. When you go after the face of one political party with a vengeance and ignore the crimes of the other party then we as a country are no better than Russia, China or Venezuela. Is that really the kind of country you want to live in, because that is the direction that we are heading.

I have not said that Trump supporters will react in violence, although I fear that could happen. I am saying that the actions the 1/6 committee have taken endanger the future of our nation because those actions are going to fan the flames of division 1,000,000 times over anything that has happened up to now.

If you really want a functional democratic republic without the current division then prosecuting Trump is not the answer. It is part of the problem.

btbg

No kidding about your last paragraph. Actually, there are many who believe that legislative gridlock is almost always better than the legislature passing new laws. As Regan once said, “Government is not a solution to our problem government is the problem.” That is the case far more often than not, so gridlock is rarely a bad thing.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Your research is a bit lacking. McCarthy submitted the names of five GOP Congressmen and three were accepted. He was asked to submit two others and instead got his panties in a bunch and pulled the three that had been accepted.
Two others from the GOP volunteered and sat on the committee.
Of note, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, both Conservative, Republicans remained while McCarthy then stomped away like a little spoiled child.
In the end, if you believe the GOP was not well represented then you need to understand that it was McCarthy who was responsible for this inequity. Now this same inequity that he caused has become his battle cry to try to discredit the committee.
You may also want to look at Cheney and Kinzinger's voting record and then tell me these weren't true conservative republicans.

mwalsh Loc: Houston

I think you are conflating the rules for standing committees versus special investigative committees. Majority leader has more leeway on special committees. Pelosi did not violate the rules as I understand them.

McCarthy is solely to blame for the lack of GOP members.

btbg

Then, if Pelosi did not violate the rules, please explain to me why the committee has five fewer members than the rules called for. Also, even assuming you are right that the majority leader has far more leeway on special committees, do you truly believe that the committee was established to find the truth? Because if they were after the truth they would have investigated did Trump really offer National Guard Troops. Why when the FBI was warned that there was a likelihood for violence no one acted to protect the capitol, and a host of other questions. Because remember, they claim they were just there to find the truth. Well no matter what side of the aisle one is on the truth is always much more complex than people try to make it.

mwalsh Loc: Houston

Can you cite the rule for special investigative committees that dictate the number of members?

The GOP was underrepresented because McCarthy played a political game, took his ball, and went home.

The committee was definitely established to look for dirt on trump. Time will tell if they actually found anything.

What I remember reading was that trump asked for guard troops for his rally not for the capital...he of course claims different today. Time will tell if there is any evidence one way or the other.

I haven't seen the evidence, if it exists, that would justify charges...but perhaps this committee held some stuff back from the public. If not, there will be no charges by the DOJ.

btbg

Well, as far as your first question, I'm not sure where to get the accurate number of who was supposed to be on the committee. However, here is an article about the committee makeup. You will note that it shows Pelosi appointing seven Democrats and Cheney and that McCarthy was supposed to appoint five more Republicans. That makes a total of 13. Note also that according to the article McCarthy picked "a safe choice" rather than potentially controversial members. That is important to understand because the Democrat narrative is that they were denied because they were controversial, but the media did not consider them to be controversial. That was made up in an effort to make sure that the committee was one sided and looked as legitimate as possible. Here's the link. Note, this is CBS news, not some right wing site. So, no, McCarthy wasn't the one playing the political game, Pelosi was. This should document that.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mccarthy-january-6-committee-republicans/

As to your second point, I agree that was what the committee was established for, but that was not it's stated purpose. Just more evidence that it was politically motivated and was not intended to be a fact finding mission.

As to the National Guard troops, that is exactly my point. If we want to know what really happened on 1/6 and why it happened shouldn't we want to know if Trump or anyone else asked for National Guard troops or not? If the committee was doing what it was supposedly formed for that would be one of the first things they checked.

As to your final paragraph on that we are in agreement.