>"It may be a tiny amount of the dialog, but even then it's often the tiny amount that actually is decisive in motivating the hearings, in much the only way tha

>"It may be a tiny amount of the dialog, but even then it's often the tiny amount that actually is decisive in motivating the hearings, in much the only way that advertising may be a minority of the airtime on commercial TV networks, but it's 100% of the purpose." That's a completely absurd analogy. "Throwing jabs" is most certainly not 100% of the purpose. The purpose of making committee hearings public was part of The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 as well as an earlier reform effort in the 1940s.[1][2]. These acts mandated that standing committees be open to the public. This was done for transparency, accountability and to keep overly powerful chairmen in check. That is 100% of the purpose. Facts matter. You are also free to attend open hearings in person, its first come first served. If you don't happen to live in Washington, D.C. however public access is by televising these. I posted a link above last weeks hearing in its' entirety. Please point out the "jabs" and "grandstanding." [1] https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Committees.htm https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing... [2] https://lahood.house.gov/sites/lahood.house.gov/files/brief_history_reform_committees.pdf https://lahood.house.gov/sites/lahood.house.gov/files/brief_...