I think that those you have identified are solid choices. I'm not sure that every person selected would have a speaking role, or that the questioning would be made into equal amounts of time. There may be advantages of having some on the floor closely following the trial, and passing messages to those who are in speaking roles.

I think Gerald Nadler is very smart on the Constitution, but I don't think he would he would be one of the best questioners.

Nadler is the House's leading expert on impeachment. I doubt there is anyone in the country who knows as much as him, much less more. He should be on the floor, though I agree he isn't the strongest public presenter. We are at a time when the package of the presenter is too often valued more than the message.

Appearance over substance.

can see the effect it's having on Trump from his daily tweet storms. Mitch is still going to get a quick no-content trial so the make up of the House team doesn't matter too much. By dragging the process out Pelosi is illustrating what a farce the Senate trial will be.

She is very good.

Would be very effective on the support team. Every time I've had the opportunity to watch her question a witness it has been a demonstration of excellence.

She's great. She just keeps making her point and I love to see them squirm.

this aint the same game.