Los Angeles Times

Republican­s on Jan. 6 committee

-

Re “Enabling a coup by sitting out,” letters, June 12

A reader complains about how the membership of the Jan. 6 committee was establishe­d. That’s not the first time this point has been raised. Even columnist

Nicholas Goldberg, a liberal as far as I can tell, has commented on that.

How the committee was constitute­d matters only if one believes that who is listening to the testimony could change the content of that testimony. For example, former Atty. Gen. William Barr told a Democrat-dominated committee that he told former President Trump the election fraud allegation­s were nonsense (using a more colorful term). Would his testimony have been different if there were more Republican­s, or different Republican­s, on the committee?

The suggestion just highlights the Republican­s’ preference for sycophants over truth tellers. Or perhaps the theory is that the Trump Republican­s, by their presence on the panel, could intimidate witnesses into lying. What good would that do the country? June Ailin Sewell

Marina del Rey

A reader seems upset that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) rejected Republican­s offered by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfiel­d) for the Jan. 6 committee. He said, “Her action is akin to the prosecutin­g attorney selecting the defense counsel in a criminal trial.”

First of all, the Jan. 6 investigat­ion is not a trial.

She has no obligation to put known troublemak­ers on the committee.

Second, what does the letter writer think about Republican senators as “jurors,” preventing a conviction in the two Trump impeachmen­t trials? Those were actual trials. Sherwyn Drucker

Winnetka

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States