To an extent, I agree with
@pcgeek11 with this. However, I don't have much of a problem with the questions Democrats asked. Some were not fairly constructed, but in general they were pertinent. Asking "gotcha" questions is not a problem when there is someone to be got. I have been told more than once that a lawyer is not going to ask you a question on the stand for which they don't already know the answer. While this is not quite the same, getting someone on record about some malfeasance is appropriate.
But, predictably, they weren't going to get straight answers from Barr, and the time structure of these hearings makes it impossible to do so unless the witness is trying to be cooperative. It is possible to coordinate follow up questions with others and to have a counsel with extended time to mitigate that, but it's difficult. As we've discussed, the answer is to hold people accountable to the rules and be prepared to continue doing so with the ramifications that come with it.
Back to
@pcgeek11. He's right that the function therefore is merely political if they weren't prepared to do that. I don't share his anger at lawmakers and particular bothsiderism here. There is a marked difference between the legitimacy of the content pursued in a half-assed politicized fashion between the D's and the R's, and the background situation that brought the hearing is one that should not be partisan.