Yeppers. Talk about compelling TV!

I'd lay in a railcar full of popcorn to watch that.

This is about another man's delusion, not yours...

I'd like to see Pelosi strong-arm McCarthy from the outset, come with her own shortlist of eligible Republicans from which he has to choose, rather than wait for him to suggest members.

This is a good read, Chris, though there is one minor glitch. McCarthy had no say in the selection of members for the Benghazi House special. Select committees are the purview of the Speaker who was John Boehner at the time. He no doubt consulted with the majority leader but that was Eric Cantor in May 2014, not Qevin McCarthy.

But it certainly was McCarthy who, the following year, blurted out in an interview that the real objective of the Benghazi special was to tank Clinton's popularity ahead of her presidential run in 2016. That public boast cost him the Speakership which infuriated Boehner who had to work bloody hard to persuade Paul Ryan to agree to stand since he was the only other person who could attract a majority of votes from the very fractured House Republican conference.

I admit I wasn't a fan of a select committee on Jan 6 but I do understand the pressure on Pelosi to do this and I admire the way she's going about it, particularly with respect to its membership. The wording of H.Res.503 says only that she'll consult with McCarthy regarding the five republican positions. It does not give Qevin the power to appoint without the Speaker's consent.

If Qevin does present her with a list - all of whom will be bomb-throwers - she can reject them all and appoint five republicans herself. H.Res.503 gives her that authority - and I rather hope she's annoyed enough to do it!

Of course her Republican choices could turn down her offer of a position on the committee but I don't think it would bother her too much if Kinzinger and Cheney were the only two who agreed to serve.

By the way, I think media reports that Pelosi is considering putting an extra Republican on the committee is a misunderstanding of the resolution's wording. Pelosi has the authority to choose all five Republicans so she doesn't need to swap out a Democrat to add a Republican. The media doesn't seem to understand that "consult" is not the same as "power to appoint".

I don't know who Pelosi will choose but I'd like to see Tim Ryan in the chair, partly because he's running for the Senate next year so the higher profile could do him some good.

I'm having a hard time narrowing down the other choices to just seven because there are so many talented Dems currently in the House. I finally came up with:

• Jason Crow (CO)
• Mikie Sherrill (NJ)
• Terri Sewell (AL)
• Katie Porter (CA)
• Lauren Underwood (IL)
• Hakeem Jeffries (NY)
• Joaquin Castro (TX)

From the Republican conference, I'd like to see Pelosi choose:

• Adam Kinzinger (IL)
• Peter Meijer (MI)
• Anthony Gonzales (OH)
• Brian FitzPatrick (PA)
• Liz Cheney (WY)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUrUfJW1JGk

I would consider it malpractice on her part if she doesn't. She very good at her job, so I'm fairly confident that she will.

So all those House Republicans who now will flood the cable news airwaves with their faux outrage and indignation . . .

These two sentences are kind of at odds, no? The first one really should say: Most House Republicans are pretending to be incensed.

This type of language matters. Reporters drive me nuts telling us what Florida Man "believes" rather than telling us what he "says".