The House’s latest impeachment hearing repeatedly ran off the rails Monday as the parties clashed over both substance and procedure, including the Democrats’ unorthodox move to have staff counsels grill one another on whether President TrumpDonald TrumpJulian Castro knocks Biden administration over refugee policy Overnight Energy & Environment — League of Conservation Voters — Climate summit chief says US needs to 'show progress' on environment Five takeaways from Arizona's audit results MORE’s conduct toward Ukraine is impeachable.
Both sides brought sharpened knives to the fight, reflecting the heightened stakes as impeachment enters the homestretch toward the drafting of articles and lawmakers dig in for the final, holiday-season battles in the biggest public relations war of their congressional careers.
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee sought to amplify their argument that Trump’s pressure campaign on Kyiv marked both an abuse of office and a threat to the future strength of American democracy.
“President Trump's persistent and continuing effort to coerce a foreign country to help him cheat to win an election is a clear and present danger to our free and fair elections and to our national security,” said Daniel Goldman, senior Democratic counsel for the House Intelligence Committee, which had led the investigatory phase of the fast-moving impeachment inquiry.
But Republicans, crunching the very same evidence, reached a decidedly different conclusion, arguing that Trump’s conduct in Ukraine merely reflected his desire to protect U.S. taxpayers from corruption in Kyiv. The Democrats’ case, said Stephen Castor, the Republican counsel, is based on “hearsay, innuendo and presumptions.”
“The Democrats do not have the proof,” he added.
If the partisan arguments were the same during Monday’s hearing, the tone was not, as Republicans proved notably effective in delaying and disrupting what may be Democrats’ last public hearing related to Trump asking Ukraine to open two politically motivated investigations.
The hearing was riddled with GOP lawmakers raising objections, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold NadlerJerrold (Jerry) Lewis NadlerBiden to raise refugee cap to 125,000 in October Ocasio-Cortez, Bush push to add expanded unemployment in .5T spending plan Angelina Jolie spotted in Capitol meeting with senators MORE (D-N.Y.) forcefully banging his gavel to stunt their protests, and Republicans ignoring his decisions to overrule their complaints. Crosstalk between Nadler and a bristling Republican arguing over process often plagued the hearing.
And when both sides got to substance, the arguments were markedly familiar, with Democrats alleging Trump abused the power of his office and is a threat to the integrity of the 2020 presidential election, while Republicans painted Democrats as impeachment-hungry leftists who will do anything to overturn the results of the contest in 2016.
The repetition is deliberate, as both sides are seeking to win over the public’s favor heading into the final phase of the process: drafting the articles to remove Trump from office. Monday’s open hearing, broadcast in full on cable television, allowed both parties to spread their message as far and as forcefully as they can.
Staff attorneys dominated the first half of the hearing, as two Democratic counsels — Barry Berke and Goldman — and Castor dueled over the parties’ conflicting narratives about the propriety of Trump’s handling of foreign policy in Ukraine.
But in one of the most stunning moments of the hearing, Berke moved from appearing next to Castor at the witness table, where the pair delivered opening arguments on behalf of the Judiciary panel, to sitting on the dais, next to Nadler, where Berke grilled the Republican counsel over the accuracy of the GOP minority impeachment report.
The change prompted fierce pushback from Republicans, who argued Berke could not jump from being a witness to questioning one.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (Texas) was not the only GOP critic of that shift, but he was the most forceful in raising a point of order during Berke’s questioning of Castor.
“This is not appropriate to have a witness be a questioner ... it’s just wrong,” Gohmert said, adding that “he should not be up here.”
Then things got more personal.
“How much money do you have to give to get to do that?” jabbed Gohmert, highlighting how Berke had donated to Democrats prior to becoming a counsel for the Judiciary panel.
Others went further in going after Berke and Goldman for their previous political donations, painting them as partisan, while arguing otherwise for their own.
Rep. Matt GaetzMatthew (Matt) GaetzBipartisan senators to hold hearing on 'toxic conservatorships' amid Britney Spears controversy Eric Trump lawyer in New York attorney general's fraud case quits Republicans keep distance from 'Justice for J6' rally MORE (R-Fla.) questioned Goldman on how much he has donated to Democrats while also propping up a sign featuring a tweet of Goldman’s made before his time on the Intelligence panel, which made references to unverified allegations against Trump.
Other Republicans focused their ire on one of the most prominent faces of impeachment: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffJan. 6 panel subpoenas four ex-Trump aides Bannon, Meadows Schiff: Criminal contempt charges possible for noncooperation in Jan. 6 probe The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Alibaba - Biden jumps into frenzied Dem spending talks MORE (D-Calif.), who Republicans have demanded make an appearance to outline the findings of his report — and defend his handling of the process that led to it.
“Where's Adam? It's his report. His name,” said Rep. Doug CollinsDouglas (Doug) Allen CollinsLoeffler meets with McConnell amid speculation of another Senate run Georgia agriculture commissioner launches Senate campaign against Warnock Poll shows tight GOP primary for Georgia governor MORE (Ga.), the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “Mr. Goldman, you're a great attorney, but you're not Adam Schiff and you don't wear a pin.”
To drive home the point, Republicans also erected a poster on the dais with an edited milk carton “Missing” ad with Schiff’s face on it.
Republicans also were steaming over Schiff’s decision to include in his report the call records from certain prominent figures involved in the White House pressure campaign on Ukraine, including Rudy GiulianiRudy GiulianiThree Democrats call for investigation into Sidney Powell to move 'swiftly' Fox News bans Rudy Giuliani from appearing: report Alabama official dismisses Lindell claim that 100K votes were flipped from Trump to Biden: 'It's not possible' MORE, Trump’s personal lawyer, and Lev Parnas, a Giuliani associate. Those records swept up the private communications of Intelligence ranking member Devin NunesDevin Gerald NunesLIVE COVERAGE: Ways and Means begins Day 2 on .5T package Biden faces unfinished mission of evacuating Americans Nunes sues MSNBC, alleging Rachel Maddow defamed him MORE (R-Calif.), whose contacts were included in the majority report.
“It was a gratuitous drive-by that you wanted to smear the ranking member,” Collins charged, aiming his frustration at Goldman. “I'm going to assume he [Schiff] ordered this.”
Still, despite the performances on either side, the future of the impeachment inquiry appears all but set: a vote in the House on impeaching the 45th U.S. president.
Sources have told The Hill that a Judiciary Committee markup of articles of impeachment could come as early as this week, as Democrats race to wrap up their inquiry ahead of the holiday recess.
It's a vote Republican campaign operatives are already highlighting as they target vulnerable moderate Democrats in battleground districts next year. Party leaders insist, however, that impeachment has nothing to do with election politics.
“I'm not at all concerned where polls are,” said Rep. David CicillineDavid CicillineDemocrats seek to cool simmering tensions Hillicon Valley —Apple is not a monopoly, judge rules Judge rules Apple is not 'illegal monopolist' in high-profile Epic case MORE (R.I.), head of the Democrats' messaging arm. “This is a fundamental question of protecting our democracy.”