It’s not an easy question.
The reviews are very favorable from both partisan Democrats, most “independents,” and most pundits. The Committee has delivered a strong, coherent, story to the public based on the evidence it has gathered. The Committee proceedings have not been a continuing tug-of-war between Trump defenders and opponents: witnesses testifying about Trump’s actions have not been personally attacked by his defenders.
That is because of the peculiar legislative history of the proceeding. First the Committee was proposed as a Joint Committee of the House and Senate with near-equal representation between the two parties. Minority Leader McConnell rejected that. Then it was structured as a special House Committee with near-equal representation. Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy submitted the names of Representatives who were not only infamous for partisan attacks, but were also implicated in the Jan. 6th insurrection. Speaker Pelosi rejected those names and announced a Committee with only two Republican members. We got a Committee that makes no attempt to use the adversial process so beloved by lawyers.
What my question really means is: if we think this Committee structure works well for investigations, could either party unilaterally impose it in the future?
Could we have a Special Committee on Voting Rights with only a couple of Republicans who actually support them? Could we have a Special Committee on Climate Change?
Conversely: if Republicans re-take the House, could they appoint a Special Committee on the Immigration Crisis with only a couple of compliant Democrats?
I think the answer, under House rules, is Yes. The bigger questions are: would these proceedings continue to work well—or would they become discredited? (One can imagine the complaints of bothsider pundits).