The senate confirmation hearings were not likely to be a dull formality given that Donald Trump’s cabinet was to be interviewed on everything from protecting LGBT rights to dealing with Vladimir Putin.

In a series of what can only be described as the most public and intense job interviews one could ever witness, there was a small but determined number of senators - and employees - who were determined not to let the President-elect's cabinet picks off the hook.

As the hearings continue this month, below are five of the most heated and powerful clashes so far.

Al Franken v Jeff Sessions

Democratic senator Franken successfully cross-examined the incoming attorney general on his civil rights record.

Although Mr Franken does not have a law degree, while Jeff Sessions has been a lawyer for all of his adult life, it became apparent that Mr Sessions’ claims that he filed 20 to 30 cases to desegregate schools were inaccurate.

Mr Sessions’ name had simply been on the paperwork, and most of the schools were already desegregated by the time he came to office, according to Igor Volsky, deputy director of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

The admission may seem a small detail, but highlights the lack of transparency and integrity when it comes to Mr Sessions’ self-defense that he "fought" for civil rights throughout his career, instead of, as he has been accused, denigrating the rights of people of colour in Alabama.

Mr Franken said he would not vote for Mr Sessions.

Elizabeth Warren v Ben Carson

The Massachusetts senator was determined to pinpoint the incoming US housing and development secretary over whether he would establish programs that would financially benefit Donald Trump, the real estate developer turned President-elect.

"Can you assure me that that not a single taxpayer dollar that you give out will financially benefit the President-elect and his family?"

He could not, at least according to Ms Warren.

Mr Carson, who just weeks before had turned down a government role because he said he would feel like "a fish out of water", insisted he would manage money in way that would benefit "all Americans".

Kirsten Gillibrand v James Mattis

The New York senator pushed the soon-to-be defense secretary on his previous anti-women and anti-LGBT views.

In recent speeches the retired general said that allowing women and LGBT people to serve in the military and in the ground combat roles would lead to "reduced standards" and "diminish the power" of the military.

Ms Gillibrand pushed Mr Mattis as to whether he had since changed his view.

James Mattis grilled over views on women and LGBT in the army

"Frankly, senator, I’ve never cared much about two consenting adults and who they go to bed with," he insisted, adding that he would not plan to roll back policies which permitted their inclusion in the army.

Ms Gillbrand asked for his pledge in writing before she ran out of time to question him further.

Marco Rubio v Rex Tillerson

The former presidential candidate went hard on the appointed secretary of state and oil tycoon, grilling him over his views on Russia, Ukraine and Syria.

To Mr Rubio’s frustration, the ExxonMobil CEO gave lengthy, non-answers about cyber threats coming from "all corners of the word" and refused to promise to impose sanctions on Russia.

"Is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?" Mr Rubio asked.

"I would not use that term," Mr Tillerson replied.

Mr Rubio said he is not willing to commit himself to voting for Mr Trump’s pick, based on concerns he shares with the likes of Republican senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain.

Employees v Andy Puzder

The rich fast food CEO who is about to be labour secretary, a sworn foe of the minimum wage, was challenged the most by his own workers.

One 47-year-old woman, a mother of six, told the senate hearing she was not being paid for her 30-minute lunch breaks, reducing her salary to $500 every two weeks. She alerted management and the problem was resolved, but she did not receive any back pay.