"The review process was conducted in an extremely bipartisan manner. Minority members of the Judiciary Committee were responsible for the invitation of 1/3 of the witnesses who appeared"

Jo Bonner’s statement emphasizes the collaborative and balanced approach adopted during the review process by the Judiciary Committee. The use of the term “extremely bipartisan” highlights a deliberate effort to move beyond partisan divides, suggesting that both major political parties, usually the Democratic and Republican parties in the context of the U.S. Congress, worked together during the proceedings. By focusing on bipartisanship, Bonner implicitly addresses any concerns or criticisms that the review might have been conducted unfairly or with political bias. Such a process gains legitimacy when oversight or investigation includes input and participation from various political perspectives.

The statement further substantiates the claim of bipartisanship by providing a specific example: minority members invited a substantial portion, approximately one-third, of the witnesses. In the legislative context, minority members refer to representatives of the party not in control of the committee. Allowing them to invite a significant fraction of the witnesses suggests a process that actively seeks out differing viewpoints and ensures that multiple voices are heard. This move can be seen as an effort to include checks and balances, prevent groupthink, and allow for a more comprehensive examination of the issues at stake.

Moreover, shining a spotlight on the invitation ratio (one-third) implies that the minority members had a meaningful role in shaping the proceedings, rather than being mere bystanders to decisions made by the majority. Such involvement tends to foster trust in the integrity of the committee’s findings, both among committee members themselves and the broader public observing the process. It demonstrates a commitment to transparency and fairness, foundational principles in legislative oversight and investigation. Bonner’s articulation, therefore, is not just a defense of procedure, but also a reassurance to observers that the findings or recommendations resulting from the review were thorough, balanced, and shaped by a diversity of perspectives.