You've been watching the House Judiciary Committee, this impeachment hearing

getting more contentious this afternoon as lawyers for the Democratic

majority and Republican minority

answer questions about their findings presenting their cases for and

against the impeachment of President Trump.

Laura Coates, let's start with impeachment of President Trump.

Laura Coates, let's start with you.

I mean, the second part of this hearing felt different than the first part,

almost like a trial with the various staff members almost being cross-examined by individuals on the

committee.

And it might have seemed very counterintuitive as to why this would be an appropriate tactic.

But the reason they were doing us as opposed to a general presentation of evidence showing the pros and cons in favor of essentially elements of what abuse of power would look like a presentation to convince and persuade the American people and of course the Senate for a looming trial that may take

place is they were trying to talk about the way in which the questions were

presented or asked of the over a dozen witnesses in the public hearings to say

what did you fail to present what was the angle you

were trying to the lens you want American people to view this in about a these of

powers they were able to go at one another the different lawyers to ask the

questions to say hold on a second when the

American people heard something in the public hearings it was because you were

trying to pursue a narrative not the whole comprehensive truth here and that

wasn't immediately obvious as you wondered

and even I think his name was Gomer or Congressman Gomer who said why are we

...