I know they took them out yesterday when things got a bit heated. And, maybe school hasn't started for them? They may go to private school (highly

likely), or are home schooled, etc. Or, maybe the parents thought this would

be a very memorable thing for them to see....before they thought out how

things turn out these days. Have seen children at lots of political job swearing

in, etc, ceremonies actually. Maybe the parents thought this would be over and

done quickly. As heated and un-professional as this is getting, I wouldn't

want kids of any age there...from any party.

I have never thought that hearings of any type other than perhaps custody or guardianship were a place for young people unless it was something like a school trip. Certainly not in confirmation hearings where they are certain to see and hear things about their parent that will upset and/confuse them. How a parent is for most is different at home than when they are at work.

With it being (potentially) a monumental event in the life of their father, and by osmosis, theirs as well, I see no reason for them not to be in attendance.

And the fact that they were removed when things got heated, shows that their parents (probably Mom) is definitely keeping an eye out.

I can understand them being at the swearing-in. I just don't see the need for them to sit through the hearings. That seems like a place for adults.

I think there's a tradition of family members being present for Senate confirmations.

Other than very young kids who'd have trouble sitting quietly for so long, I can't think of any reason why children shouldn't attend. Compared to spending these few days at school, a parent's hearing is a much more important event and learning opportunity.

Kids learn and grow by being exposed to as many things in the world as is possible for them to see and do, not by being sheltered from them.

Elmer, I agree with you on this..,well stated.

Thanks for taking the time to say so.

I think it's an excellent learning / historical experience for kids their age. I also think there might be times (as there was) for them to 'take a break' from it for a short time.

They are witnessing history - up front and personal, that involves their family.

I think it's wonderful that his girls are there. I know that, if it were my father there, wild horses couldn't keep me away. I am angry about the protestors--this is neither the time nor the place for that nonsense. They should be prosecuted; perhaps that would give them pause before acting up. And, if it turns out that someone is paying them, that person or organization needs to spend some serious time in the hoosegow.

It's fine there are there. Very educational and unforgettable. Also works as window dressing as well. Can't hurt.

wanda, free speech is guaranteed and people aren't prosecuted for peacefully protesting. Suggesting that they should be ignores this basic right.

As for being paid? That's an extreme thing to allege, but I wonder why you think it would matter? If that concerns you, look no further than the Russians who hacked, interfered, and offered up so much disinformation in support of Trump, and who consulted with his campaign. They were well paid, by the Russian government.

Many have suggested the Russian government may have damning information on Trump that they're using as leverage against him. How else to explain his bizarre conduct toward them and unwillingness to stand up to them. Does that concern you? It should.

Given the news media climate I think it would be best for anyone to actually SEE and HEAR with their own eyes. The age of trusting unbiased accounts of anything are a thing of the past in that profession. There is little I take on face value,from one source. This is their FATHER who is being shredded in the public eye. Better for them to see the truth as it plays out. But I would guess most of this is waaaay over their heads. All they will see is the hateful way he is being treated. Not really a great view of American leadership.

Thank you all for sharing your well-reasoned opinions!

There's nothing wrong with US media. What may give a wrong impression is that on the national scene, they're covering the most unqualified, unethical and ignorant person ever to hold the highest office. Reporting his comments and activities leads to the sometimes extreme, sometimes salacious tone of the stories, not because of the personal views or orientations of the reporters.

Elmer, I am fully aware that free speech is guaranteed and people aren't prosecuted for
peacefully protesting. We may have a difference of opinion in this matter. I do not believe that disrupting a congressional hearing falls within the right to protest, as guaranteed by the Constitution (just as loud, uncontrolled screaming in a court of law would not be tolerated). Their behavior far exceeded the parameters of peaceful protesting. With regard to my comment about someone paying them, I heard an unsubstantiated report that they were being paid. In my opinion, that is akin to inciting to riot. To repeat, this is MY opinion, to which I am entitled.

Way back in the administration of G.H.W. Bush, we were having a rather heated debate between the parties about whether to raise taxes to improve the balance sheet. R's were opposed, D's in favor. Sometimes, when the budget of a program was not increased as much as the D's wished, that was called a "cut" -- even though no actual cut occurred, even when the budget was actually increased -- and that "cut" terminology would be repeated in every news story on the topic. The reporters knew that no cuts were happening.

The Soviet Union was falling apart and the Russian economy was floundering. The Dems proposed that we send them economic assistance, including cash IIRC.

I recall hearing a report on CBS News about the debate on the proposal. A Dem sound bite in favor was played, then a sound bite in which Newt Gingerich said that it was irresponsible, if our national budget was in need of a tax increase, to then be sending money that we didn't have to Russia. The reporter then wrapped up by saying, in an acerbic tone, that no one had said anything about raising taxes.

Was the reporter (who is now an anchor for 60 Minutes) unable to see the big picture or was she deliberately shading the reporting, by ignoring context, in order to make Gingerich look silly? Of course what she said was strictly true -- and yet, not true.

By the way, conservative media is no cleaner.

I relate all this to make the point that it isn't just newly and all about the jerk who is currently president-- it has been going on for decades. They just have been gifted a mother lode of idiocy to make hay with in this presidency.

" this is neither the time nor the place for that nonsense. They should be prosecuted; perhaps that would give them pause before acting up. And, if it turns out that someone is paying them, that person or organization needs to spend some serious time in the hoosegow. "

wanda, of course you're entitled to your opinion. If their conduct were illegal, the Capitol Police who removed them from the room would have arrested them.

As for sending illegal activity perpetrators to the hoosegow, isn't that what the Special Prosecutor and US Attorneys are working on doing? Including the many Russians, some indicted and others remaining to be. I hope you support these efforts and push back on Trump's potentially illegal interference.