committee before? yes, she did. >> the vote would have possibly been different if it would have been more legitimate of a committee. >> we warned you from that moment in time she was playing politics. >> as they've proven yet again today over and over again, they only care about attacking their political enemies. >> it really has turned out to be nothing more than a partisan committee just to investigate the former president. >> i think it's very clear to the american public, this is a sham. >> keeping them honest, it's not. but it might have been so far from what we know of the committee, it's been diligently focused on facts, not tangents, and seems to have bent over backwards to accommodate witnesses even when they're trying to obstruct or delay the committee's work, like mark meadows. the two republicans who do serve on the committee have distinguished themselves across party lines. joining us now is "washington post" opinion columnist dana milbank. his latest piece is titled "meadows texts show trump did what gop falsely claimed clinton did in benghazi." "jordan in his addendum to the