And? Lurker said Republicans chose not to participate. That is a lie.
And Coach is right about this committee being a sham. It's a joke. No reasonable person who isn't a partisan hack takes that committee seriously.
And Lurker does not know the difference between an investigation, a hearing, or a trial, or what a fair process looks like. But you folks don't care about fairness. So long as we persecute the bad orange man.
Assuming when you addressed us as 'you folks' you are including me. Honestly, you have no idea what I care about or how I feel about fairness. My guess is there are many people who are not partisan or hacks who take the committee seriously. If not, they should because House and Senate committees, have the power to recommend and influence decisions which can come with some serious consequences.
Seven Democrats and two Republicans are on the 'bipartisan' January 6th Committee. All of them were appointed by Nancy Pelosi. I think it is fair to say labeling this committee bipartisan is a huge stretch. IMO to be considered bipartisan it should be peopled by as close to an equal number of House Democrats and House Republicans all of whom participate responsibly... meaning they are not serving on the committee solely to disrupt the investigative hearing process. I fully understand why reasonable people view this committee as being a 'stacked deck.' When the newly elected House Representatives take office in January and form committees as they say they will, it will be interesting to see whether these committees are truly bipartisan or not.
You might be interested in reading The Current Congressional Committee System. [https://archives-democrats-rules.house.gov/Archives/jcoc2d.htm] In the opening paragraph, the article identifies that there are 'perceived abuses'. This doesn't surprise me. Many if not all official constitutions and bylaws are written and rewritten as needed correct errors and language and interpretational changes. It has been my experience when these changes are made, they sometimes add confusion instead of clarification. Also, these documents tend to get wordier and longer mired in legalize.
BTW, I have testified at various state level committee hearings. I also served as a juror a fair number of times on different types of trials. I am a union activist and was a member representative (shop steward) for upwards of 1,500 classified employees during much of the 30 years I worked at the school district. As such, I participated in several HR investigations and successfully bargained more than a half dozen classified employee contracts. Lastly and not incidentally, I am a trained mediator who has helped several folks who were at odds come to consensus on an array of different issues although not political in nature in the strictest sense, (is political consensus even possible in a partisan environment like we have today?).
That Trump is sometimes jokingly referred to as 'the orange man' is of his own making. I imagine he overdid or overdoes the use of a 'bronzer' which on many complexions turns orange. In the photo below, the difference between where bronzer or make-up was applied and where it is his natural skin color is evident.
