GOP protest overshadows impeachment hearing

House Republicans stormed a closed-door hearing Wednesday to protest the Democrats’ swift-moving impeachment inquiry, captivating Capitol Hill and delaying the deposition of a top Pentagon official who later testified about President TrumpDonald John TrumpCensus Bureau intends to wrap up count on Oct. 5 despite judge's order Top House Republican calls for probe of source of NYT Trump tax documents New Yorkers report receiving ballots with wrong name, voter addresses MORE’s dealings with Ukraine.

Roughly 20 GOP members charged into the secure space in the Capitol basement where three House committees were set to interview Laura Cooper, a career Defense official who oversees Ukraine, as part of the House investigation into whether Trump sought help from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to boost his own reelection in 2020.

ADVERTISEMENT

“They crashed the party,” said Rep. Harley RoudaHarley Edwin RoudaUS Chamber of Commerce set to endorse 23 House freshman Democrats OVERNIGHT ENERGY: Watchdog to weigh probe of Trump advancements on Pebble Mine | Interior finalizes public lands HQ move out West over congressional objections | EPA to issue methane rollback: report Watchdog to weigh probe of Trump administration advancements of Pebble Mine MORE (D-Calif.), a member of the Oversight and Reform Committee, one of three House panels leading the impeachment probe.

Even for a Capitol accustomed to chaos, the protest was a remarkable escalation of the partisan battle royal surrounding the impeachment investigation, pitting Democrats accusing the president of abusing his powers against Trump’s Republican allies, who say the whole process is designed to sink Trump’s reelection chances next year.

Where the Democrats sense high crimes and misdemeanors, Republicans smell naked politics.

“All of us already know that this is a sham process that the Democrats are using for the 2020 elections. It’s Russian collusion 2.0, which was a total hoax,” said Rep. Mo BrooksMorris (Mo) Jackson BrooksOvernight Defense: Trump hosts Israel, UAE, Bahrain for historic signing l Air Force reveals it secretly built and flew new fighter jet l Coronavirus creates delay in Pentagon research for alternative to 'forever chemicals' OVERNIGHT ENERGY: House Democrats tee up vote on climate-focused energy bill next week | EPA reappoints controversial leader to air quality advisory committee | Coronavirus creates delay in Pentagon research for alternative to 'forever chemicals' Coronavirus creates delay in Pentagon research for alternative to 'forever chemicals,' official says MORE (R-Ala.), who participated in the sit-in. “They used it to gain House seats in the 2018 elections, and they’re pulling out the same playbook in 2020.”

The protest quickly triggered a wave of frustration among Democrats, who called it a political diversion to distract from damaging testimony William Taylor, a top diplomat to Ukraine, gave the committees Tuesday.

“This is a pathetic stunt. They are storming a castle that they already occupied,” said Rep. Tom MalinowskiThomas (Tom) MalinowskiDCCC reserves new ad buys in competitive districts, adds new members to 'Red to Blue' program The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - First lady casts Trump as fighter for the 'forgotten' Hillicon Valley: Lawmakers introduce resolution condemning QAnon | US Cyber Command leader vows to 'defend forward' in protecting nation from cyberattacks MORE (D-N.J.), a former State Department official. “It is impossible to understand this from a rational point of view other than there was devastating testimony against the president.”

Republicans who took part in the “storm the SCIF” group led by Trump ally Rep. Matt GaetzMatthew (Matt) GaetzSunday shows preview: Lawmakers prepare for SCOTUS confirmation hearings before election Trump faces tricky choice on Supreme Court pick Florida attorney general scrutinizing Bloomberg paying fines for felons to vote MORE (R-Fla.) did the demonstration to loudly protest the process in which Democrats have been conducting their impeachment inquiry — behind closed doors, limiting members’ access to transcripts, without an impeachment vote by the full House, and without giving Republicans the power to subpoena their own witnesses.

“As a member of Congress, I think I have the right to see the evidence. If we are going to vote on something that is as consequential as this is, I think every member of Congress has the right to see the evidence, and we should go where the evidence leads us,” said Rep. Gary PalmerGary James PalmerComer tapped to serve as top Republican on House Oversight Top GOP post on Oversight draws stiff competition Trump takes pulse of GOP on Alabama Senate race MORE (Ala.), a member of Republican leadership. “It is an extraordinary thing to do something like that, but there is a limit to the secrecy, there has to be.”

Still, some GOP staffers who are on panels overseeing the impeachment probe privately voiced concern that by violating the secure room process, Republicans were undermining their argument that Democrats were flouting the proper procedure for impeachment.

And Democrats were quick to point out that, under House rules, the closed-door depositions are limited to members — Republicans and Democrats — of the three committees leading the investigation: Intelligence, Oversight and Reform, and Foreign Affairs.

“Their attempt to act like Freedom Riders is really an attack on the committee system in Congress,” said Rep. Jamie RaskinJamin (Jamie) Ben RaskinOVERNIGHT ENERGY:  House passes sweeping clean energy bill | Pebble Mine CEO resigns over secretly recorded comments about government officials  | Corporations roll out climate goals amid growing pressure to deliver On The Money: House panel pulls Powell into partisan battles | New York considers hiking taxes on the rich | Treasury: Trump's payroll tax deferral won't hurt Social Security House panel pulls Powell into partisan battles over pandemic MORE (D-Md.). “Essentially, they’re saying that 535 members should be in that room. Obviously, they’re just trying to shut it down.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The five-hour protest came to an end just after 3 p.m., shortly after the House Sergeant at Arms, Paul Irving, was seen going alone into the secure room. It doesn’t appear that Republicans won any concessions, however, and some GOP lawmakers are already suggesting they’ll protest future depositions if Republicans aren’t granted more powers.

“I would imagine that things will get worse, not better, if the process doesn’t improve,” said Rep. Lee ZeldinLee ZeldinDCCC reserves new ad buys in competitive districts, adds new members to 'Red to Blue' program Overnight Defense: House panel probes Pompeo's convention speech | UN council rejects US demand to restore Iran sanctions | Court rules against Pentagon policy slowing expedited citizenship The Hill's 12:30 Report: Republicans conduct in-person convention roll call MORE (R-N.Y.), a Trump defender who has loudly criticized the impeachment inquiry.

The committee subpoenaed Cooper for her testimony after the Department of Defense sought to direct her not to appear for her scheduled deposition and in order to prevent the Pentagon from seeking to limit her closed-door testimony, according to an official working on the impeachment inquiry.

Democrats hope Cooper, who has worked in the federal government for almost two decades, can shed light on any role the Pentagon played in withholding aid to Ukraine.

Her testimony comes a day after Taylor offered what Democrats described as some of the most damaging testimony yet — in which the top diplomatic official to Ukraine linked the administration’s decision to withhold roughly $400 million in aid to demands for politically motivated investigations.

Republicans have sought to downplay Taylor’s testimony, saying he relayed mostly secondhand information as it related to an alleged quid pro quo. They also have argued that there could not be a quid pro quo if Kiev was not aware that the aid was withheld.

“Name me one thing that Ukraine did to release the money. Nothing,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthyKevin Owen McCarthySunday shows preview: Lawmakers prepare for SCOTUS confirmation hearings before election House to vote on resolution affirming peaceful transition of power Ginsburg becomes the first woman to lie in state in the Capitol MORE (R-Calif.) said. “To have a quid pro quo, you have to exchange one side for another thing.”

Democrats, however, say that while the quid pro quo is important, they believe the president asking Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 presidential election is enough.

“A quid pro quo is not required,” said Rep. Stephen LynchStephen Francis LynchOvernight Defense: Pentagon redirects pandemic funding to defense contractors | US planning for full Afghanistan withdrawal by May | Anti-Trump GOP group puts ads in military papers Official: Pentagon has started 'prudent planning' for full Afghanistan withdrawal by May Overnight Defense: Dems divided on length of stopgap spending measure | Afghan envoy agrees to testify before House panel | Trump leans into foreign policy in campaign's final stretch MORE (D-Mass.), who says he “definitely” believes there was one. “However, merely soliciting a foreign government to do a political hit job on your political opponent in a U.S. election is a violation of [the law]. So, quid pro quo is really a canard. That is a straw man. It’s not relevant to the discussion.”