Most of the witnesses being interviewed by the Senate and House committees investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election have been granted a remarkable courtesy. The norm in Washington is for testimony to be conducted before cameras in a public setting, where congressmen and senators compete for attention and interrogate witnesses in the hopes of achieving a viral “gotcha” moment. But in recent weeks several figures central to the investigation, including Jared Kushner and Donald Trump, Jr., have been allowed to sit for interviews behind closed doors.

The closed-door interview has become the unfortunate new norm, in which the public is denied insight into an important investigation. Roger Stone, Trump’s longtime on-again, off-again adviser, who is scheduled to testify before the House Intelligence Committee next week, requested a public hearing but was told it would be closed. The private conversations seem to be the product of a bipartisan agreement: Democrats get the witnesses they want, and Republicans are able to reduce the anti-Trump spectacle of the hearings. But what is lost is the transparency Americans have come to expect from congressional investigations going back decades—Watergate, Iran-Contra, the various Clinton scandals, the 9/11 Commission. The investigation by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, will remain behind closed doors and confidential until its conclusion, as is common of probes into potential criminal conduct. But the various congressional committees are looking at the broader implications of Russia’s attack on our democracy, an inquiry that cries out for open testimony as a way to inform the public.

Unlike the aggressive congressional investigations of Watergate and Iran-Contra, today’s private interviews have afforded witnesses in the Russia investigation with a unique opportunity. Both Kushner and Trump, Jr., released long public statements that were not subject to tough cross-examination in public by members of the committee. The statements have become increasingly fatuous and more like press releases. Kushner’s statement was filled with pabulum about a life and career dedicated to quiet public service.

“First in my business and now in public service, I have worked on achieving goals, and have left it to others to work on media and public perception,” Kushner said, clearly trying to shape public perception. His statement strayed far away from the pertinent questions of collusion. “Donald Trump had the right vision for America and delivered his message perfectly,” Kushner wrote of his father-in-law. “The results speak for themselves.”

Trump, Jr.,’s statement actually included fewer Trump-like boasts about the greatness of the campaign and the size of Trump’s victory. (Though he did note that his father “was fortunate to prevail in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts and many other states.”) But after Trump, Jr.,’s private testimony, congressional investigators were reportedly frustrated with some gaps in the chronology of events in his public statement. In an arrangement that favors witnesses, rules have barred members of the committee from discussing the interviews, but witnesses are free to release increasingly bold pre-testimony statements brimming with posturing and spin.

After Trump, Jr., the Senate Intelligence Committee decided that it had had enough of witnesses releasing long, self-serving statements before they went behind closed doors for a private grilling. Richard Burr, the chairman of the committee, and Mark Warner, the ranking member, demanded that witnesses refrain from making any public comments.

The first test of that new rule came on Tuesday. Michael Cohen, Trump’s longtime lawyer at the Trump Organization, was scheduled for a closed-door interview before members and staff of Burr and Warner’s committee. Cohen is of interest to investigators because he was the man behind the attempt in 2015 and 2016 to build a Trump tower in Moscow, at the time that Trump was running for President and denying any connections to Russia. Taking his cues from Kushner and Trump, Jr., Cohen released his thousand-word opening statement to the press before he met with investigators.

Taking a meandering, conspiratorial, and combative tone, Cohen denied any wrongdoing and attacked the author of the infamous Trump dossier, which mentioned Cohen repeatedly and included an unfounded allegation that he met with Russians to discuss the election on a surreptitious trip to Prague. “Let me tell you where I was on the day the dossier said I was in Prague,” Cohen wrote. “I was in Los Angeles with my son who dreams of playing division 1 baseball next year at a prestigious university like USC.”

The statement was filled with even more hyperbole, grievance, and spin than those of the previous witnesses, with other references to Cohen’s wife and children, and the requisite paean to Trumpism being under siege. “Many Trump-supporting Americans are also paying this cost,” he said, suggesting that he was being targeted because of his support for Trump. “Like the twelve-year-old child in Missouri who was beaten up for wearing a Make America Great Again hat.”

Soon after Cohen arrived on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, he slipped behind closed doors to begin his testimony. Unexpectedly, he left about an hour later. Burr and Warner were so aggravated by his violation of their ban on pre-testimony spin that they cancelled Cohen’s appearance.

“We were disappointed that Mr. Cohen decided to pre-empt today’s interview by releasing a public statement prior to his engagement with Committee staff,” the senators said in a statement. “As a result, we declined to move forward with today’s interview.” They added, “The Committee expects witnesses in this investigation to work in good faith with the Senate.”

Cohen is scheduled to return to the committee late next month. The testimony will be done in public—the way it should be.