I regard tonight as important not only to me but to the entire country

[Sandman]

I must remind myself that the committee presentation will have a slant (editorial spin) and to take what is presented and analyze it …

IMHO.. The slant/bias will exist because the committee members were physically threatened on January 6. The physical threats, the fear that committee members experienced were something that they were not expecting or prepared for and to different degrees it traumatized them.

After January 6 the committee members were (and continue to be) verbally attacked (if it were me, I would awaken every day defaulting to pizzed off at the mention of my attackers (physical and verbal attackers) So the committee members probably have varied degrees of bias.. again analyze the presentation.

Additionally, we would have an independent council doing the investigation but the Republicans would not allow it..

Just my opinion, I could be wrong..

And as stated previously.. someone is hiding something big and stories have changed, serious attacks on our LEOs are being down played and talk show hosts are preaching a more and more biased/inaccurate “analysis” of January 6..

[Honda]

You want to know what fear is? Just take a walk in Justice Kavanaugh's shoes. Not only fear for his own safety but his family yet Nancy pelosi and the Democrats will not place the supreme Court protection law before the House to vote. It becomes more despicable when you see that the Senate passed the legislation unanimously. So while they spend all these millions of dollars grandstanding in this committee they're not willing to protect a co equal branch of the government that I would suggest is under greater danger than they are. These are some really uncaring individuals who are enslaved to their political ideology at all costs.

[Sandman]

The House will not vote Thursday on a Senate-approved plan to increase security for Supreme Court justices’ families amid partisan disagreements over whether those protections should extend to other employees of the high court.

Senior Democrats had scrambled to nail down a bipartisan agreement on the bill, which took on fresh urgency after police arrested an armed man making death threats Wednesday outside Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home. But Senate GOP leaders have rejected proposed language from House Democrats who argue that other employees, such as court clerks, should have similar protection.

Politico..

I don’t think it’s The Dems holding it up.. Dems want to add more protection..

[Honda]

What they're trying to add is ridiculous it's nothing more than obstruction of the bill. No branch of government has every one of its employees protected by the secret service or provided another form of individual Federal protection. As Kevin stated and didn't want to believe, and I don't want to believe that there is politics at play to the detriment of supreme Court members protection. But it's starting to look like it more and more everyday.

[Kevin]

After thinking about the hearing for a couple of days I am convinced it is nothing more than political grandstanding with little thought given to justice.

General St. Clair said the same thing in 1792. So has Oliver North, Hillary Clinton, Dick Nixon, Donald Trump...

Notable Senate Investigations: https://www.senate.gov/general/Featu...ns_display.htm

Notable Congressional Investigations: https://www.history.com/news/6-famou...investigations

We are of the opinion,” wrote Justice Van Devanter for a unanimous Court, “that the power of inquiry—with process to enforce it—is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. . . . A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information—which not infrequently is true—recourse must be had to others who possess it. Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed. All this was true before and when the Constitution was framed and adopted. In that period the power of inquiry—with enforcing process—was regarded and employed as a necessary and appropriate attribute of the power to legislate—indeed, was treated as inhering in it. Thus there is ample warrant for thinking, as we do, that the constitutional provisions which commit the legislative function to the two houses are intended to include this attribute to the end that the function may be effectively exercised.”

McGrain vs. Daugherty, 1927

“The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste.”

Watkins vs. United States, 1957

The power of inquiry has been employed by Congress throughout our history, over the whole range of the national interests concerning which Congress might legislate or decide upon due investigation not to legislate; it has similarly been utilized in determining what to appropriate from the national purse, or whether to appropriate. The scope of the power of inquiry, in short, is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution.

Barenblatt vs. United States, 1959

Apparently, the Supreme Court is pretty convinced that the investigative power of Congress, even if it does not result in legislation or to court action, is pretty well-established. I think some here are taking an ahistorical view of the investigatory function of Congress.

[Kevin]

What they're trying to add is ridiculous it's nothing more than obstruction of the bill. No branch of government has every one of its employees protected by the secret service or provided another form of individual Federal protection. As Kevin stated and didn't want to believe, and I don't want to believe that there is politics at play to the detriment of supreme Court members protection. But it's starting to look like it more and more everyday.

I don't want to believe it, but it certainly seems to look as if Dems are playing politics with people's lives. Otherwise, they'd leave that provision out, pass the bill protecting our Justices, then come back and fight about whether to add other employees for protection. But they'd get what they could first!!! And NOW!!!!

[Phillbo]

After thinking about the hearing for a couple of days I am convinced it is nothing more than political grandstanding with little thought given to justice.

Ding Ding Ding ... we have a winner..... Political sh!t show.

[Honda]

I don't think anybody is questioning congress's ability to investigate. They have to be able to investigate in order to hear from the people and experts when they are considering making law. The the way this is being investigated and presented makes it very hard for me to find a pure intent.

[Phillbo]

I don't think anybody is questioning congress's ability to investigate. .

If you had a car accident would you want congress to investigate to determine fault?

[Truckman]

A quote variously attributed to Eddie Chiles, Lee Sherman, Ross Perot and others states the federal government's only roles should be "defend our shores, deliver the mail and leave me alone"...I always liked that one......Ben

[Blue74]

Argue among yourselves.

Until the Republican Terrorist Party takes responsibility for the actions of its members and condemnation of the people responsible for trying to overthrow the government there can not be and should not be another Republican President with that amount of power.

[Kevin]

Pure intent is not possible with human beings. We are a mass of contradictory impulses and self-interest dressed up as good intentions. Pure intent was only reached by one human being and it took God being reborn as man to achieve this. So if the standard of judgment is purity of intention, no one will ever meet that. In everything, it is human beings that are the tools and humans are flawed.

For me, the question is not pure intent. I'd ask if, realizing that the tools being used are humans and thereby flawed, is there good being done here? Perfection is not achievable so in the realm of what can be done, is there good that is going to come from this effort?

I'd answer, yes, I believe so. This investigation, though the people involved are annoying and maddening, is important in telling the American people what happened. Who did what, who tried to do what, what is the cohesive story line that allows me to put some sense to January 6? Right now, I've got titillating pieces of information, headlines that have been designed to capture my dime as Paul Simon says. It is important to put it all together and see how the separate pieces that we've been given in dribs and drabs over the last 18 months all hang together into a meaningful whole, so I can get my hands around something as terrible as January 6, where I almost lost my country to a coup attempt by the cult of people surrounding Trump.

All politicians grandstand. That's who they are. But the question is, despite that, is important information being given to us? Expecting perfection from humans is not reasonable. Limiting the role of Congress to a legal referral to Justice is not what the Supreme Court itself believes is the role of the investigatory function. The process is not perfect. But are we learning something? Yes, we are.

There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear. I think it's time we stopped, hey what's that sound, everybody look what's going down...

[Mike]

A quote variously attributed to Eddie Chiles, Lee Sherman, Ross Perot and others states the federal government's only roles should be "defend our shores, deliver the mail and leave me alone"...I always liked that one......Ben

AMEN, Ben!!!