How Many Ways Are There to Plead the Fifth?

 The January 6 Committee has released its first 34 transcripts, consisting mostly of various witnesses taking the Fifth.  By way of reminder, four witnesses -- Steve Bannon, Mark Meadows, Pete Navarro and Dan Scavino refused to testify altogether and were referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution for contempt.  The DOJ decided to prosecute only Bannon and Navarro.  Meadows apparently cooperated enough to avoid contempt proceedings, and Scavino (presumably) was not important enough to go after.

During the hearing, committee members mentioned that over 30 witnesses appeared and took the Fifth, as is their right. The hearings played excerpts from some of the most prominent witnesses to take the Fifth -- John Eastman (the lawyer who suggested having the Vice President choose which electors to qualify), Jeffrey Clark (the DOJ official who wanted to endorse claims that the election was corrupt), Michael Flynn and Roger Stone. It seemed a safe assumption that many of the others who took the fifth were less well known.  The release of transcripts reveals this to be true.

Many people have expressed outrage at the obscure and innocuous questions that some witnesses refused to answer.  (Roger Stone would not give his age or place of residence).  Others offered in the witnesses' defense that the Fifth Amendment is all or nothing -- one must either answer all questions or none.  The transcripts do not bear that out.  Some witnesses were actually quite cooperative and others only invoked the Fifth for specific subjects. Much to my surprise, these included Stewart Rhodes, founder and leader of the Oath Keeper, testifying from jail and later convicted seditious conspiracy.  Enrique (Henry) Tarrio, chairman of the Proud Boys, was also surprisingly cooperative despite excellent reasons not to be.*  Both men gave extensive details on their organizations that other members might see as betrayal.

Other witnesses, by contrast, gave general background information but shut down when the conversation moved to particulars.  Some (including Roger Stone) refused to answer beyond just acknowledging the subpoena they received.  Witnesses Phillip Luelsdorff and Robert Patrick Lewis, rather to the consternation of the committee, refused to even acknowledge the subpoena they received.  (Both men, it should be noted, belonged to the same organization and had the same lawyer, Leslie McAdoo Gordon).  

Also significant -- you could get some idea how important the committee thought a witness was by how many members attended the deposition.  For an an unimportant witness, only one committee member would attend, or sometimes no committee members would attend and staffers would conduct the deposition. More important witnesses rated more committee members.  Jeffrey Clark tipped the scales with all nine members present for his first deposition.  (This is the only deposition of the 34 released that Chairman Bennie Thompson attended).  Six members attended the second deposition.  Clark appears to have been the only DOJ employee willing to use the Department to overturn the election result, which does, indeed, make him important. Five committee members attended the deposition of Roger Stone.  Here again, if there was a link between the corridors of power and the insurrectionists in the street, Roger Stone is the most likely suspect, so he was, indeed, important.  John Eastman scored four committee members, as did Julie Fancelli, a donor and rally organizer who I must admit to not having heard of. Alex Jones scored three committee members, as did Jenna Ellis, Trump's election lawyer.  Michael Flynn rated a mere two.  (Sounds like an insult).

But above all, I must admit to a certain childish fascination with how many different wordings the witnesses found to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights.  I began to be interested in that trivial subject during the hearings after noticing that Eastman said, "Fifth," while Flynn said, "The Fifth," and Roger Stone said, "On the advice of counsel, I will assert my Fifth Amendment right to respectfully decline to answer your question."  The depositions released gave a wealth of other wordings. Usually the witness invoked the Fifth, but sometimes the lawyer objected on behalf of the witness.  Often the witness or the witness's lawyer gave an extended invocation of the Fifth Amendment and either offered an abbreviation or was given an abbreviation by the committee. Media members usually invoked the First Amendment as well as the Fifth.  Leslie Gordon, on behalf of her clients, also claimed a rules violation.

Consider, then, the extraordinary array of wordings witnesses and their lawyers chose to say the same thing.

Kathy Berden, Michigan fake elector, "The Fifth, please."

Alexander Bruzewitz, CEO of X Strategies, LLC, "On the advice of counsel, I invoke the Fifth Amendment."

Patrick Casey Live stream and paid content. His lawyer said on his behalf, "Same objections, First and Fifth Amendments."

Dion Cini, Proud Boy, "I plead the Fifth."

Jeffrey Clark, "Fifth." 

James DeGraffenreid, Nevada Republican Party official.  Extended speech on the Fifth Amendment, followed by, "On the advice of counsel, I assert the prior privilege."

Enrique de La Torre, associate of Roger Stone, "I assert my Fifth Amendment right."

John Eastman, "Fifth." 

Jenna Ellis, "Pursuant to the advice of counsel, I will invoke my constitutionally protected right to assert the Fifth Amendment." 

Kimberly Fletcher, founder and president of Moms for America, "I decline to answer pursuant to the rights afforded me under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments."

Michael Flynn, "The Fifth." 

Nick Fuentes, racist and rally speaker, "Upon the advice of counsel and in reliance upon the Constitution of the United States, I most respectfully refuse to to answer that question on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me."  (Later just, "Fifth Amendment.:")

Julie Fancelli, donor, protest organizer, "I invoke."  .

Bianca Gracia, founder of Latinos for Trump, "I rely on my Fifth Amendment privilege."

Alex Jones, "On advice of counsel, I'm asserting my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent." 

Charlie Kirk, leader of Turning Point USA, "On the advice of counsel I'm invoking my Fifth Amendment right not to testify and decline to answer that question." (Later, "I'm invoking my Fifth Amendment right.")

Antonio LaMotta, member, Veterans for Trump, "I invoke the Fifth Amendment."

Phillip Luelsdorff and Robert Patrick Lewis, member, First Amendment Praetorians, both represented by Leslie Gordon, "Rules, First, and Fifth."  

Joshua Macias, member, Veteran for Trump, "I invoke the Fifth, sir."

John Matze, founder and CEO of Parler, "Same objection; Fifth Amendment."  (Spoken by his lawyer, Brian Kelly).

Michael McDonald, Chairman of the Nevada Republican Party, "Based on the advice of my attorney, I'll be invoking my Fifth Amendment privilege."

Mayra Rodriguez, fake elector from Michigan, "I take my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent."

Mike Roman, official with the Trump campaign, "The Fifth."

Roger Stone, no stock phrase, but something similar to, "Once again, on the advice of counsel, I will assert my Fifth Amendment right to respectfully decline to answer your question."  Always used full sentences and not just one or two words. 

James Philip Waldron, preparer and presenter of Power Point slide on election fraud, gave one explanation of his invocation of the Fifth and then "Same reply."

Kelli Ward, chair of the Arizona Republican Party, "I rely on my Fifth Amendment privilege." (Like Roger Stone, she would not even give background information).

Garrett Ziegler, aide to Peter Navarro, "I invoke my right to silence," or "I invoke my right to silence under the Fifth Amendment."

______________________________________
*Tarrio was arrested on unrelated charged slightly before January 6, 2021 and took no part in the insurrection, but he as later charged with conspiracy.

General Comments on the January 6 Committee: The Importance of Bennie Thompson

I don't know what role Bennie Thompson plays behind the scene in January 6 Committee, although I don't recall any of the clips playing testimony in which he asked questions.  Certainly he has not dominated the public hearings the way that Adam Schiff dominated to first impeachment, or the way (to a lesser extent) that Jamie Raskin dominated the second impeachment.  Thompson's public role has been mostly ceremonial.  He calls the committee to order and adjourns.  He makes brief introductory and conclusory remarks, swears in the witnesses, and often asks a few superficial questions, leaving the in-depth questioning and the presentations to the questioner(s) of the day. 

To the extent that anyone has publicly dominated the hearings, it has been Liz Cheney.  As vice chair, Cheney gives the detailed opening and closing statements explaining in depth what the Committee will present, and what to expect next time.  She also questioned Cassidy Hutchinson, perhaps the most shocking witness to date.  She also asks questions during some of the pre-recorded testimony.  

And it isn't just Liz Cheney who overshadows Thompson.  He is also overshadowed, to a lesser extent, by Adam Kinzinger as the only other Republican on the Committee, Adam Schiff as first impeachment manager, and Jamie Raskin as second impeachment manager.  Any really, every member of the Committee has had as least one day in the spotlight -- one opportunity to ask witnesses and present evidence -- except for Thompson.

Bennie Thompson

And yet I have come to the conclusion that Thompson brings something to the Committee that none of the others could offer, and that there is a reason why Nancy Pelosi chose him.  Or perhaps it might be more accurate to say, there is a reason Pelosi chose a 74-year-old Black man from Mississippi.  And yes, I understand at this point that right wingers will be outraged that I suggest that race should be a factor.  To which I say, Thompson's race is a factor -- as is his age and state of origin.

You see, Thompson was not old enough to had any major role in the civil rights movement, although apparently he did take part in voter registration drives.  But he was part of the first wave of Black candidates to run for office.  And, as such, he met with every dirty trick the white establishment could find to thwart election results, regardless of the vote total.  And so what to the other Committee members was a shocking, unheard-of, almost unthinkable event was, to Thompson, an all-too-familiar story.

And that, I believe, is what has made his contribution to the Committee, however quiet and low key, of indispensable importance.

Trump and Pence are Goofus and Gallant

 

 Donald Trump and Mike Pence spawns a lot of jokes about the libertine President and his uptight, rather prudish Vice President.  For those of us old enough to remember Bill Clinton, it struck a chord.  A lot of them sounded very much like jokes about Bill Clinton and Al Gore.*

But Trump and Pence go well beyond Clinton and Gore.  But with the latest story about how Pence meticulously catalogued the government documents in his possession and turned them over the proper authorities, suddenly I realized who Trump and Pence are. They are Goofus and Gallant.  For anyone (including me) who is not old enough to remember Goofus and Gallant, they were apparently a cartoon giving lessons to children.  Goofus showed children what not to do; Gallant showed children what to do.  And suddenly Trump and Pence made a lot more sense.

Goofus runs off with random government documents, including some marked "Top Secret."  Gallant meticulously catalogues his documents and hands them over the the proper authorities.

Goofus gets two scoops of vanilla ice cream with his chocolate pie when everyone else just gets one.  Gallant has a plate of fruit for dessert.

Goofus discards his wives as soon as their beauty starts to fade.  Gallant has been married to the same woman for 37 years. Goofus grabs women by the pussy.  Gallant avoids any potentially compromising situation with any woman.

Goofus responds to a fire in an iconic cathedral with unsolicited advice that fire fighters have already rejected as impractical. Gallant responds with reverence and compassion.

And, of course, Goofus responds to losing an election by egging on a mob baying for Gallant's blood.  Gallant won't let even a howling mob keep him from his constitutional duty.

But here is the thing.  The comparison may be apt in more ways than one because, let's face it.  Everyone hates Gallant.**  He's just too much of a goody-goody.  Any one good thing that he does will no doubt meet with approval.  But being constantly so good is hard to read as other than a rebuke to the rest of us for not living up to Gallant's standards.

And that, of course, is the secret to Trump's appeal.  He gives us permission to be Goofus.  In fact, he celebrates our inner Goofus as "authenticity" and dismisses Gallant as mere snobbery.  And let's face it.  Everyone would rather be Goofus than Gallant. We just don't want everyone else to be Goofus.

__________________________________________________________

*Example: When the impeachment report came out detailing everything Bill Clinton did that met the legal description of sex used at his deposition, the joke was that Tripper Gore would have to explain half of that stuff to Al.  When rumors of the peepee tape came out, someone joked that a very uncomfortable staffer is now explaining to Mike Pence what a "golden shower" is.

**When I searched for imagines of Goofus and Gallant, at least half were spoofs of some kind.

Applying Trump's Razor to the Mar-a-Lago Raid: He's a Patrimonialist

But her emails!

The lessons of the Mar-a-Lago raid for Trump supporters should be obvious.  Don't go out on a limb to defend Donald Trump.  He will saw it off every time.

The lessons for our side are to remember, reality is almost never as juicy as your imagination.  I learned that the hard way with Trump/Russia.  My imagination filled in all sorts of sordid details.  The truth was bad, but nowhere near as bad as what I had imagined. And furthermore as someone (don't remember who) pointed out, our most lurid speculations play into the hands of Trump supporters.  They eagerly publish our side's most lurid fantasies, and then claim vindication when the truth turns out not to be quite that bad.  

So stop speculating that he wants to sell top secret documents to the highest bidder (they are too hot to handle) or that he is using them for blackmail, or that he is hiding something deeply incriminating.*  Instead, it is best to apply Trump's Razor -- that in trying to understand The Donald, but stupidest explanation that can be reconciled with the available facts is usually right.  The stupidest explanation here is that Trump took the documents home as a keepsake, a sort of hunting trophy.  He refused to turn them over because he had no real concept of what top secret documents are and thought that government documents were his own personal property.  He resisted turning them over because why should he turn over his personal property?  In other words, Trump was being a patrimonialist, treating the government as his private property and making no distinction between public and private patrimony. Nothing deeper or more sinister was at work.  Of course, what is the point in having a trophy unless you can show it off?  Especially if you have an ego like Donald Trump's.  No sinister plot is needed to make letting Donald Trump get his hands on top secret documents a very bad idea.**

And, incidentally, all this is further proof of why Ron DeSantis, though clearly dangerous, is a better choice than Trump. At least he understands that top secret documents are not his private property.

_________________________________________

*That last motive sounds particularly implausible.  It is not clear that Trump recognizes that anything can incriminate him.  Remember, this is the man who releases the readout of the Ukrainian extortion call because he thought it made him look good, who said that his call to pressure the Georgia Secretary of State to change the vote count was "almost as perfect," and who couldn't fathom what was wrong with a rampaging mob baying for his Vice President's blood.

**It also reminds me of Conor Friedersdorf's prophetic warning:

Absurdly, many seem to have convinced themselves that Trump, who won’t release his tax returns, as every presidential candidate has for decades, will be better on transparency; that a man whose finances we don’t even know, who used his charitable foundation to illegally funnel money to an attorney general investigating him for fraud, will be better on conflicts of interest; that an erratic man who blurts all manner of things out on Twitter and has shady ties to Vladimir Putin will somehow be a more trustworthy guardian of classified information. Trump is likely to be worse across all those metrics!

General Comments on the January 6 Committee: I Will Never Confuse Mark Meadows and Mick Mulvaney Again

 

Hovering over the January 6 Committee hearings was an absent presence, a man who never testified, never even took the fifth, but knew perhaps more than anyone else about what was really going on, who had cooperated just enough to seriously incriminate himself, but not enough to get off on a plea. If there was any sort of coordination between the White House and the rioters, this is the one who would know it.

I refer, of course, to Mark Meadows, the White House Chief of Staff at the time of the election and aftermath.  

Confession:  I have been known to confuse Mark Meadows and Mick Mulvaney.  Consider all they things they have in common.  Both have the initials MM. Both were elected to Congress from a Carolina state.  Both were leaders of the Freedom Caucus, along with Jim Jordan.*  Both left Congress to serve in the White House, including as White House Chief of Staff.  Both were loyal Trumpsters.  The main difference, so far as I could see, what that Mulvaney looked so much more Irish than Meadows.  (Meadows is actually quite handsome).

Mulvaney, it must be emphasized, was a very much a loyal Trumpster.  As director of the Office of Budget Management (OMB), Mulvaney withheld military aid to Ukraine, a policy opposed by essentially everyone else, and described by National Security Advisor John Bolton as a "drug deal" between Mulvaney and envoy Gordon Sondland. Mulvaney refused to testify at the first impeachment hearings.  As chief of staff, Mulvaney encouraged the insane decision for the Trump Administration to have the entire Affordable Care Act overturned in court against the better judgment of William Barr.

So Mulvaney's credentials as a Trump supporter are beyond dispute.  But, as luck would have it, in March, 2020 Mark Meadows took over as White House Chief of Staff, while Mulvaney became special envoy to North Ireland.  As such, Mulvaney was out of the country during the attempt to overturn the election and took no part in any aspect.  He resigned in protest after January 6 and later became a CBS commentator.

Meadows, by contrast, was in the thick of things.  Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony about Meadows was devastating.  Liz Cheney hinted without actually saying that Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, and Rudy Giuliani may have been involved in planning the insurrection.  Hutchinson confirmed that Meadows (1) discussed the rally with Giuliani, (2) warned that it might get violent, (3) planned to travel to the Willard Hotel to make plans with Giuliani, but Hutchinson talked him out of it, (4) when she tried to warn Meadows that a riot was starting at the Capitol he twice closed his car door on her and seemed uninterested when he did find out, (5) Meadows spent the rest of the day sitting on a couch, scrolling through his phone, strangely indifferent to the riot going on, and doing nothing to talk any sense into Trump. 

Mulvaney could only describe Meadows' response as a sort of nervous breakdown.  He said it was Hutchinson's testimony that convinced him that Trump's behavior was criminal.  I have to wonder whether Mulvaney, listening to what Meadows was doing during those fateful days, ever wonders if he would have done any better under the circumstances.  Does he ever say to himself, "There but for the grace of God go I"?

_____________________________________________________

*Jim Jordan, on the other hand was impossible to confuse with the others because (1) his initials were JJ, (2) he stayed in Congress, (3) his schtick of showing up in his shirtsleeves, (4) his signature style of yelling and ranting, and (5) the whiff of scandal over the University of Ohio wrestling team.

General Comments on the January 6 Committee: Donald Trump is a Stone Cold Sociopath

 The usual phrase to describe the latest revelations about Donald Trump is "shocking but not surprising."  And I must say the revelations about Donald Trump during the January 6 hearing have been quite shocking, but (mostly) not so surprising.  And they have made fleshed out what should have been clear for a long time -- Donald Trump is a stone-cold sociopath.

Trump's reaction to the concept that there were laws barring what he wanted to do was blank incomprehension.  His reaction to Sidney Powell and Michael Flynn making blatantly illegal proposals to seize voting machines was to say that at least they were doing something.  Donald Trump's reaction to Justice Department officials saying that they did not have the authority to seize voting machines, and did not even have the technological expertise of the Department of Homeland Security was to call Ken Cuccinelli at Homeland Security and say, "I'm sitting here with the acting attorney general. He just told me it's your job to seize machines. And you're not doing your job."*  His reaction to a violent mob rampaging at the Capitol was to rejoice and not understand why no one else was rejoicing.  It took great pressure to force him to urge the mob to be peaceful. His reaction to hearing the mob call out to hang Mike Pence was to say that Mike Pence deserved to be hung and to send out a tweet urging them on.  His only comment at the end of that shocking day was to say, "Mike Pence let me down."  He did not think the mob at the Capitol did anything wrong, nor could he see anything wrong with killing his own Vice-President!

Another way of putting it is to quote Dave Barry, who described Wall Street speculators as having "the ethical standards of tapeworms."  The comment is funny, not just because tapeworms have no ethical standards at all, but because the whole idea of a tapeworm having ethical standards is self-evidently absurd.  Tapeworms are incapable of having ethical standards.  They're tapeworms!  Tapeworms can't help sucking the nutrients out of their hosts.  It's what they do.  They are incapable of doing otherwise.**  

Well, Donald Trump has the ethical standards of a tapeworm.  Not only does Donald Trump have no ethical standards, the whole idea of Donald Trump having ethical standards is self-evidently absurd.  Donald Trump is incapable of having ethical standards.  He's Donald Trump!  Donald Trump can't help evaluating events solely in terms of his own interests.  It's what he does.  He is incapable of doing otherwise.

It is also unclear to me whether Donald Trump has any concept of objective reality apart from his personal interests.  It is not clear he can distinguish between wanting to win and actually winning, or between the size of crowd he saw from his specific vantage point from his inauguration to the entire crowd on the ground and so forth.  Once again, I am reminded of when John Hinkley, Jr. shot and wounded President Reagan and got off on a plea of insanity.  An outraged columnist asked if Hinkley was sane enough to know that he was loading bullets, not raisins and firing a gun, not a roman candle.  Certainly, I think that Trump has that much sense of objective reality.  He understands objective reality well enough to know that it is not in his interest to jump off Trump Tower and try to fly by flapping his arms.  Whether he might think that a follower whose loyalty he was starting to question should prove it by jumping off Trump Tower and flapping his arms to fly I could not say.

All of this is why the question of whether to prefer Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis should be a complete no brainer.  Yes, I grant, DeSantis is a fairly typical Republican these days who appears to believe no Democrat can legitimately win an election,*** that media may not legitimately criticize Republican politicians, regulatory agencies and law enforcement may not legitimately investigate or prosecute Republican politicians, corporations may not legitimately express "woke" viewpoints, local government may not differ from state policy, social media may not legitimately ban any right-wing post, and (presumably) that it should be a defense to any crime that it was done to advance the Republican Party or platform.  Yes, he is smarter and more competent than Trump and would no doubt be more effective. And no, these are not just ordinary policy disputes. They are part and parcel of the entire Republican Party's apparent belief that it is entitled to a monopoly on political power and that its opponents are illegitimate by definition.

But Ron DeSantis is not a stone cold sociopath.  He is, no doubt, a cynical opportunist and authoritarian, but he is not a stone cold sociopath.  A President DeSantis would understand the difference between his wishes and objective reality, even if he chose to lie about it. He would not throw his plate at the wall when someone told him news he didn't want to hear.  He would understand what was wrong with a mob rampaging through the Capitol, howling for his Vice President's blood.  I do not doubt that, if elected, DeSantis would implement something like Trump's plan to remove civil service protections from some 50,000 mid-level managers in the federal government and replace them with loyalists.  But I would expect him to put his loyalists to more traditionally Republican uses.  Until recently, I would expect a Republican to act as an economic royalist and use this power simply to halt all economic regulation of any kind.  Times having changed and the Republican Party have moves somewhat away from economic royalism, I would expect a President DeSantis use regulatory power to bar all "woke" policies and punish companies that express any "woke" opinions, but to otherwise refrain from all economic regulation. 

But I would expect a President DeSantis to focus on typical conservative targets such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Internal Revenue Service, with the goal of gutting them, except to punish "wokeness."  I would not expect him to focus on the "daddy" branches of the government, such as the Justice Department, the intelligence community, or the Pentagon.  He might bring some pressure to bear to let them know they were never to investigate any Republican office holders or candidates, and that ordinary crime should be forgiven if done on behalf of the Republican Party or right wing causes.  But I would not expect him to use the government's coercive mechanism to rig the election apparatus (at least not to the extent that Trump apparently plans to), or to persecute political rivals and allies who "betray" him. 

I would expect a President DeSantis to push for a de facto Republican one-party state and seek as much as possible to use the federal bureaucracy to advance the fortunes of the Republican Party.  But I would not expect him to push for a de facto personal dictatorship, or to be a patrimonialist, equating his private business fortunes with the public good. 

 In short, I would expect DeSantis, or any other Republican President to seek a de facto one party state, but also wish to maintain at least the facade of democracy and the rule of law.  

I would expect democracy and the rule of law to mean as much to Trump as, well, to a tape worm.

_________________________________________

*To quote the full account:

President was very agitated by the acting attorney general's response, and to the extent that machines and the technology was being discussed, the acting attorney general said that the DHS, Department of Homeland Security, has expertise in machines, and certifying them, and making sure that the states are operating them properly. And since DHS had been mentioned, the president yelled out to his secretary, get Ken Cuccinelli on the phone. And she did in very short order. Mr. Cuccinelli was on the phone. He was the number two at DHS at the time.

I was on the speakerphone. And the president essentially said, Ken. I'm sitting here with the acting attorney general. He just told me it's your job to seize machines. And you're not doing your job.

**And this can act to their disadvantage as well.  I remember as a child when our cat got deworming medicine I asked if the tapeworms might recognize that the drug was bad for them and refuse to partake.  The answer -- tapeworms soak up what is there, good or bad.  They cannot do otherwise. 

***At least for President, Congressional majority, or statewide office or legislative majority in a red or purple state.  I do think Republicans are willing to concede Democrats a minority in both houses, control in certain hopeless blue states, and maybe even big city governments in red states.  Hence the wish to limit municipal autonomy.

General Comments on the January 6 Committee Hearings: Should We Miss the Republicans?

So, as we watch the Select Committee hearings, a certain haunting questions won't go away.  Should there be Republican nominees?  

Just by way of quick reminder, Republicans rejected forming a blue ribbon commission to study the insurrection, so the House voted for a 13 member committee with eight members to be chosen by Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and five by Republican leader Kevin McCarthy.  Pelosi then chose seven Democrats, including both impeachment managers, and Liz Cheney.  McCarthy chose five Republicans, including Jim Jordan.  Pelosi then rejected both Jordan and Jim Banks as inimical the the committee's mission.  McCarthy then withdrew all his nominees, so Pelosi appointed Adam Kinzinger as the only other Republican willing to serve.

The result has been -- unusual.  Committee hearing do not follow the same rules of evidence as a  trial, but traditionally they have been an adversarial process, with partisan divisions and aggressive cross-examination of witnesses by the minority party.  (Jim Jordan is particularly notorious in this regard).  Committee hearings also tend to involve into preening and posturing, with each committee member asking the witness many of the same questions and being more focused on showing off than eliciting information. 

Without those things, the hearings really do seem sometimes not to be "real" committee hearings, with a proper adversarial process, but something more staged and predetermined.  Opponents refers to the hearings as a show trial.  I think it would be more accurate to call them a documentary.  On the one hand, what's wrong with that?  Good documentaries can be informative.  This is certainly a good documentary.  But documentaries do not leave a lot of room for spontaneity, or opposing views.  

And so, yes, I saw the committee show a selection of videotaped testimony and wondered if it was deceptively edited.  Of course, the entirety of their deposition testimony would have gone on for hours and hours and much of it was presumably deathly dull.  And, yes, I can absolutely imagine that Republicans would insist on showing witness testimony in its entirety precisely to bore to audience into tuning them out. Still, the Democrats would have had a majority of 8-5 or at least 7-6 (depending on which way Liz Cheney wanted to go) and should have been able to make some reasonable rules, allowing each party to submit the parts of videotaped depositions it considered genuinely relevant, but not long portions intended solely to confuse and bore.

Even live testimony, if brief, felt staged. Longer testimony had more give and take, more spontaneity, more feeling of reality. But not the real genuineness and spontaneity that goes with hostile cross-examination in an adversarial process.  At the same time, "real" hearings can degenerate into round-robins of each committee member asking the same question, speechifying, preening, and posturing.  The January 6 Committee avoided this problem by having only one or two members ask questions at each hearing.  They could have set the same rule for Republicans -- only one member is allowed to cross examine per hearing.  The Democrats took care to give each member a chance to shine, but by all means, let the Republicans decide who to put forward.  Whether they wanted to have a difference member cross-examine each time, or to have Jim Jordan ranting and raging each time should be entirely up to them.

There is only one problem here.  It presumes that the Republicans are good faith actors with good faith disagreements.  It presumes that Republicans are prepared to concede the committee some degree of legitimacy and do not want to destroy it altogether.  The evidence rather suggests otherwise.  Others have pointed out that Republicans' opportunities to undermine, obstruct, selectively leak, and even pass information on to Trump and his inner circle, would probably have completely sabotaged the Committee.

In other words, good faith Republicans could have contributed to the Committee's mission to get to the bottom of things by challenging them and forcing them to prove everything.  Bad faith Republicans could (probably) have sabotaged the committee and made it unworkable.  And given the choice between that and a committee that seems just a little too slick, too scripted, and too much like a documentary instead of a committee -- well, I think what we have now is very much the better choice.