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 Trump Donald John TrumpBiden says voters should choose who nominates Supreme Court justice Trump, Biden will not shake hands at first debate due to COVID-19 Pelosi: Trump Supreme Court pick 'threatens' Affordable Care Act 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.

ADVERTISEMENT

“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 Nadler Jerrold (Jerry) Lewis NadlerDemocrats shoot down talk of expanding Supreme Court Schumer: 'Nothing is off the table' if GOP moves forward with Ginsburg replacement Top Democrats call for DOJ watchdog to probe Barr over possible 2020 election influence 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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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 Gaetz Matthew (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.) 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 Schiff Adam Bennett SchiffSchiff to subpoena top DHS official, alleges whistleblower deposition is being stonewalled Schiff claims DHS is blocking whistleblower's access to records before testimony GOP lawmakers distance themselves from Trump comments on transfer of power 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 Collins Douglas (Doug) Allen CollinsDemocrats ramp up pressure on Lieberman to drop out of Georgia Senate race The Hill's Campaign Report: Biden on Trump: 'He'll leave' l GOP laywers brush off Trump's election remarks l Obama's endorsements GOP, Democrats look to galvanize women with SCOTUS fight 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.”

ADVERTISEMENT

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 Giuliani Rudy GiulianiThe Hill's Campaign Report: GOP set to ask SCOTUS to limit mail-in voting CIA found Putin 'probably directing' campaign against Biden: report Democrats fear Russia interference could spoil bid to retake Senate MORE, Trump’s personal lawyer, and Lev Parnas, a Giuliani associate. Those records swept up the private communications of Intelligence ranking member Devin Nunes Devin Gerald NunesOvernight Defense: Stopgap spending measure awaits Senate vote | Trump nominates former Nunes aide for intelligence community watchdog | Trump extends ban on racial discrimination training to contractors, military Trump nominates former Nunes aide to serve as intel community inspector general Sunday shows preview: Justice Ginsburg dies, sparking partisan battle over vacancy before election 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 Cicilline David Nicola CicillineClark rolls out endorsements in assistant Speaker race Races heat up for House leadership posts The folly of Cicilline's 'Glass-Steagall for Tech' MORE (R.I.), head of the Democrats' messaging arm. “This is a fundamental question of protecting our democracy.”