Norm Eisen, counsel to the Democrats, left, during a House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Inquiry hearing into President Donald Trump featuring testimony from Steve Castor, counsel to the Republican minority of the House Judiciary Committee, Daniel Goldman, counsel to the Democrat majority of the House Intelligence Committee, and Barry Berke, an attorney for the majority with the House Judiciary Committee, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, on Monday, Dec. 9, 2019. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM

As the House prepares to pass articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, a handful of legal staffers typically relegated to behind-the-scenes action have found themselves at the center of the political spectacle.

Outside lawyers and investigators hired by Democrats have emerged as both witnesses and questioners during the House's impeachment inquiry.

Lawyers have been a running theme throughout the House's impeachment inquiry. Staff led the questioning of fact witnesses during the closed-door depositions. And lawyers also starred in the two public hearings the House Judiciary Committee held, before they started considering the articles of impeachment.

Two former federal prosecutors from the Southern District of New York, Daniel Goldman and Daniel Noble, led the Democratic questioning of witnesses behind closed doors. They were hired to work on Democratic investigations, before impeachment was fully on the table, but pivoted to handle the inquiry.

"It made all the difference," Democratic Rep. Peter Welch, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said of the investigators' work during the closed-door depositions and public hearings.

"There was focused preparation and focused questioning, and I think in the Intelligence Committee you saw the immense benefit of it, where we're able to largely focus on the facts and the information with a minimum focus on self-serving speeches by members," Welch said.

Lawyers Norm Eisen and Barry Berke played a significant role once the House Judiciary Committee took over the inquiry. Eisen questioned a panel of constitutional scholars, while Berke both delivered an opening statement on the evidence presented in the probe and then questioned congressional investigators.

Those lawyers too were hired before the Ukrainian-based impeachment inquiry took shape, instead working on lawsuits seeking information to help bolster a Mueller-focused impeachment. But they too shifted to home in on Ukraine. And other attorneys, such as impeachment expert Joshua Matz and former House Judiciary Committee staffer Ted Kalo, came on board to help.

Harvard's Laurence Tribe, who co-authored a book on impeachment with Matz, also visited Washington over the weekend to speak with lawmakers about the evidence gathered in the inquiry and the potential articles against Trump.

Berke's dual role became a point of contention for some GOP members of the Judiciary Committee, who objected to him playing either part. Georgia Rep. Doug Collins and other Republicans have long opposed the use of staff questioning, asking during the passage of committee rules that established the procedure during impeachment hearings why counsel should be given more time for questioning than elected members of Congress.

While Democrats have sought outside help to assist their existing legal staff, Republicans have chosen to rely on their existing committee counsel.

Ranking Member Rep. Doug Collins, R-Georgia, left, and Minority Counsel Stephen Castor, right, during a House Judiciary Committee hearing to debate two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, and the Republican-proposed amendments, on Thursday, Dec. 12, 2019, inside the Longworth House Office Building in Washington, D.C. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM

GOP counsel Stephen Castor, a longtime House staffer who's working for top Trump ally Rep. Jim Jordan, has been a steady presence during both public and private hearings. He led the Republican questioning of witnesses during the closed-door depositions and was temporarily lent to the Intelligence Committee so he could interview witnesses during the public hearings.

Judiciary committee counsel Paul Taylor also had a moment in the spotlight, as he questioned Castor and Goldman during a hearing this week on evidence gathered as part of the inquiry.

As House Judiciary Committee members began debating the articles of impeachment, the lawyers remained an active presence in the room. A pair of committee counsel consistently flanked Nadler and Collins on the dais, while others sat behind the row of seated lawmakers.

Republican lawyers in particular, such as Castor and fellow GOP Judiciary Committee counsel Ashley Callen, deliberated with both members and fellow staff during the markup of the articles. Democratic staff members, such as Arya Hariharan, similarly consulted with members throughout the hearing.

Rep. David Cicilline, a Judiciary Democrat, said those consultations were largely about the evidence from the investigation, as well as guidance on the "prevailing legal standards and about the constitutional provisions."

"The kind of traditional work a lawyer would do in this kind of a proceeding," he added.

Republicans have invoked the constitutional law scholars' testimony, given last week, during the deliberations on the articles of impeachment. Several mentioned George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley's remarks about the inquiry, including his warnings about the speed of the proceedings.

But Republicans were generally critical of the heavy reliance on legal experts and staff lawyers. They said the House Judiciary Committee should have called fact witnesses to testify, rather than relying on advice from the constitutional law scholars and evidence presented by committee counsel.

"We've got law professors and staff asking staff questions," said Rep. Andy Biggs, chairman of the conservative Freedom Caucus, in criticizing the proceedings.

The staff lawyers have also gained a sort of internet celebrity through the impeachment proceedings. Those who support the impeachment inquiry used Twitter to cheer questioning by Berke.

Castor also gained notoriety when a clip of him showing up to testify using a The Fresh Market grocery bag to carry his belongings went viral.

The Judiciary Committee itself is full of lawyers. Rep. Jamie Raskin, a constitutional law scholar, at one point spoke to offer "constitutional context" about the House's investigative powers, describing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Nixon, which affirmed the House has the authority to conduct its own impeachment proceedings in the way of its choosing.

And Rep. Eric Swalwell, a member of both the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees and a former local prosecutor, said he misses being in court because "you had judges that could rule on evidentiary matters, you don't have that here."

"Facts and evidence matter, and sure, you have to make the case to the American people," Swalwell said. "But to be around people that have done that with juries, it just helps me, and I think my colleagues who did not practice, make the best case."

Read more:

Impeachment, Lawyers and the Views from the War Rooms

House Judiciary Just Added an Impeachment Scholar as Trump Inquiry Ramps Up

Bribery, Abuse of Power and Obstruction: Judiciary Committee Lawyers Lay Path for Impeachment

Barry Berke Makes House Debut With Lewandowski as Democrats Push Impeachment