Letters to the Editor: How Nancy Pelosi saved the Jan. 6 committee from sabotage

House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy speaks at a news conference with Reps. Jim Jordan, center, and Jim Banks.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) speaks at a news conference with Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), center, and Jim Banks (R-Ind.) after Jordan and Banks were rejected from serving on the House Jan. 6 committee.
(Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times)

To the editor: Nicholas Goldberg’s Memorial Day op-ed column fails to look back far enough to find the true original sin plaguing Congress’ investigation of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. It wasn’t Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-San Francisco) blackballing of Republican Reps. Jim Jordan (Ohio) and Jim Banks (Ind.); it was that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) selected such obstructionists in the first place.

Was he trying to sabotage the committee, protect himself or both?

Pelosi should have taken further action after she blackballed Banks and Jordan, both of whom have since been subpoenaed to testify before the committee. She should have asked other Republicans to serve.

If Republicans would have stepped up, we would have a committee that isn’t as vulnerable to charges of bias. If she tried but failed to find these members, she would not have actually “failed.” She would have shown the nation just how craven Republican members of Congress are.


Mary-Lynne Fisher, La Crescenta


To the editor: Goldberg’s column is a study in contradictions. He makes many supportive observations about the necessity of the Jan. 6 committee’s efforts in determining the facts and truth of what occurred that day, and then proceeds to undermine its legitimacy. The committee is not “nominally bipartisan” — it’s actually bipartisan.

Just because Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) are rational Republicans with solid conservative credentials, and not obnoxious Trump defenders whose intent would have been to obstruct the committee, does not mean that Pelosi was obligated to accept McCarthy’s bad-faith proposal to include Jordan and Banks. Indeed, she was very wise to reject it.

To conclude, as Goldberg does, that “it’s a shame that so much of the panel’s credibility was frittered away on opening day by Pelosi’s decision” is an outrageously irresponsible and unfair statement.

Marcia Goodman, Long Beach


To the editor: I agree with almost everything in Goldberg’s thoughtful column criticizing Pelosi.

But what was she supposed to do when one party has been playing by the rules and the other has mangled the rules and created “alternative facts”? The Republicans have stacked the Supreme Court, and the Trump enterprise is now working to destroy democracy in favor of an authoritarian regime.


I doubt Pelosi’s decision to exclude Jordan and Banks will significantly alter the course of events. I only hope that Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland’s Justice Department will do its job.

But I fear that, 10 years from now, it’ll be their Putin versus our Putin.

Bruce Shragg, Tarzana