It’s Tuesday, the traditional day for elections and for our pause-and-consider newsletter on politics and policy.

[link removed]
[link removed]
Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

It’s Tuesday, the traditional day for elections and for our pause-and-consider newsletter on politics and policy. We think of it as a mini-magazine in your inbox.

IMPEACHMENT ON THE TABLE
By Joshua Barajas, @Josh_Barrage ([link removed])
Senior Editor, Digital

Matt Loffman, @mattloff ([link removed])
Politics Producer

There was a version of this week’s newsletter sitting pretty this morning, ready to be edited.

But folks, the House had other plans. (**Throws out old newsletter.**)

The topline: On the same day the House returned, Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced that he’ll direct the chamber to open an impeachment inquiry ([link removed]) into President Joe Biden.

The California Republican said in his nearly four-minute statement that House Republicans uncovered “serious and credible allegations” involving the president and family business dealings.

Ever since the GOP took control of the House, Republicans have sought to connect the president — so far without evidence — to a “culture of corruption,” ([link removed]) often invoking his son Hunter Biden’s ongoing legal troubles.

Staring down a potential government shutdown, McCarthy finds himself stuck between opposing factions inside the GOP and eager to hold onto his speakership. And today’s move is a toe-dip into the waters of impeachment proceedings. Let’s break it down.

What did McCarthy say?

[link removed]
Watch the speaker’s remarks in the player above.

* After weeks of signaling a possible impeachment inquiry, McCarthy endorsed the move Tuesday ([link removed]) , saying House Republicans have gathered enough information to warrant more investigation."These allegations paint a picture of a culture of corruption,” he said.
* What are the allegations? In his remarks, McCarthy cited Biden, in his capacity as vice president, being on certain phone calls and in dinners involving Hunter and his business partners. The speaker also said Biden lied about whether he knew of Hunter’s dealings and that he gave his son “special treatment” in the criminal tax investigation against him. McCarthy also said that the family made millions from overseas firms.
* But. These instances do not directly link the president to Hunter and his actions. Despite GOP allegations that seek to tie Biden to his son’s business dealings, House Republicans have not produced evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” as outlined in the U.S. Constitution ([link removed]) , or that show the president took any official action.
* Who is leading the inquiry? McCarthy appointed the chairs of the House Judiciary, Oversight and Ways and Means committees to lead the inquiry. These three committees have already launched their own Biden family probes this year, and joined forces to look more closely at how the Justice Department handled its investigation of Hunter’s tax and foreign business dealings. They obtained financial records through subpoenas and also pointed to whistleblower testimony that suggested federal officials slow-walked their investigation, but have not substantiated that Biden participated in his son’s work.
* The White House has repeatedly said the president was not involved with his son’s business dealings. Spokesperson Ian Sams said on X, formally known as Twitter, that McCarthy’s step was “extreme politics at its worst.” ([link removed])
* Also. Days ago, CNN reported ([link removed]) that a newly released memo ([link removed]) from the House Oversight Committee said it didn’t need to find direct payments to Biden to accuse the president of corruption, effectively widening the goal posts for their investigation.
* A quick point. NPR’s Steve Inskeep noted that McCarthy repeatedly referred to “Biden’s family” ([link removed]) — and not Biden — in his statement.


What happens now? As McCarthy himself has repeatedly ([link removed]) said ([link removed]) to fellow members and reporters before Tuesday’s announcement: Opening an impeachment inquiry into Biden is not the same as voting for articles of impeachment, which comes further into the process.
* What about the House vote? McCarthy previously said ([link removed]) he would not open an impeachment inquiry without a full House vote. That hadn’t happened as of this writing, and it’s unclear at this juncture whether a vote could still happen.
* A quick process note. While a House vote could formalize an inquiry, it’s not required ([link removed]) in the Constitution. If Republicans decide after today that there’s enough evidence to move forward, then the Judiciary Committee would mark up articles of impeachment. Those articles would need to be voted out of the committee, and the House would need a majority to approve them and formally impeach. Remember: The House has the power to impeach an official for possible wrongdoing, but the Senate only has the power to convict or remove someone from office ([link removed]) .
* Not everyone is sold on impeaching Biden. Before Tuesday, multiple rank-and-file Republicans were unsure ([link removed]) about whether to launch a formal inquiry into Biden. Some said there wasn’t enough evidence to take that step.
* For some, the aim seems to be more information. Sen. Thom Tillis said the move is about “doing our homework.” But, the North Carolina Republican added: "I don't think that it's going to result in a removal on the Senate side, but if there's meaningful information that they think the American people need to know about, I'm OK with it."
* The latest on Hunter. Beyond the congressional probes, a plea deal on tax and gun charges recently fell apart in the Justice Department investigation into Hunter. Now, federal prosecutors may seek a new indictment ([link removed]) by the end of September.
* What Biden has said. As of this writing, Biden has yet to directly address today’s news. When asked about the ongoing investigations into him and his family, the president told Judy Woodruff ([link removed]) in February: “Public's not going to pay attention to that. They want these guys to do something. If the only thing they can do is make up things about my family, it’s not going to go very far.”
* A 2024 strategy. The GOP-led emphasis on Biden alleged wrongdoing is part of a strategy to shift attention away from his most likely opponent in the 2024 — former President Donald Trump, who was impeached twice and has been indicted four times ([link removed]) since leaving office. He faces additional ([link removed]) civil lawsuits ([link removed]) , too.
* For this week. McCarthy is expected to have a few closed-door discussions with lawmakers about next steps.
* For the near future. McCarthy said Tuesday that this initial step will be to expand the committee’s ability to investigate the president for financial wrongdoing or corruption. “We will go wherever the evidence takes us,” he said. McCarthy did not take questions after delivering his statement.

The pressure on McCarthy is mounting. For weeks now, far-right members of the House Republican conference have been pushing McCarthy to open a formal impeachment inquiry into Biden as part of any deal to fund the government (more on the looming shutdown below).
* McCarthy’s power. A far-right flank has said McCarthy hasn’t followed through on his promises when they ultimately elected him as speaker in January after 15 rounds of voting ([link removed]) .
* The threat of ouster. Not long after McCarthy announced the inquiry, Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla. — who has openly called ([link removed]) for McCarthy’s ouster — criticized the move as a “baby step,” adding that, “We must move faster.” (That’s a thought that seems to be percolating ([link removed]) in the minds of other House GOP lawmakers.)

[link removed]
Watch the clip in the player above.
* A reminder. Any of McCarthy's opponents can call a vote at any time to try to oust the speaker.


The major deadline on the horizon. We are now less than three weeks away from a possible government shutdown beginning Oct. 1.
* Far from agreement. A temporary stopgap funding measure is something both House and Senate leaders agree on. But as we’ve covered before, the two chambers don’t see eye-to-eye ([link removed]) on spending priorities.
* The list of demands. Members of the House’s far-right Freedom Caucus have made certain demands ([link removed]) they want included in any stopgap measure. Republicans have only a five-seat majority in the House, which allows the caucus to have a louder bullhorn.
* There is little wiggle room. The House, which resumes today, has only 11 working days ([link removed]) before the government runs out of money on Sept. 30.
* Shortly before the August recess ended, Sen. Mitch McConnell summed up the expected spending fight: “Honestly, it’s a pretty big mess.” ([link removed])

And now, there’s the business of an impeachment inquiry to deal with.
More on politics from our coverage:
* Watch: McCarthy orders an impeachment inquiry ([link removed]) into Biden.
* One Big Question: How do Republican threats to ramp up an impeachment inquiry factor into Biden’s reelection bid? NPR’s Tamara Keith and Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter weigh in ([link removed]) .
* A Closer Look: The Justice Department takes Google to court in the biggest monopoly trial ([link removed]) of the modern digital era.
* Perspectives: Why Biden’s first-ever trip to Vietnam was significant in the face of China’s growing influence ([link removed]) .

#POLITICSTRIVIA
By Ali Schmitz, @SchmitzMedia ([link removed])
Politics Producer

In 2011, presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy ([link removed]) was awarded a post-graduate fellowship to attend Yale Law School.

During his time at Yale, he was introduced to several influential conservative voices, including one classmate who went on to serve in the U.S. Senate.

Our question: Which senator attended Yale Law School with Ramaswamy?

Send your answers to [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) or tweet using #PoliticsTrivia. The first correct answers will earn a shout-out next week.

Last week, we asked: Which major party candidate has had the shortest presidential campaign in modern history?

The answer: Sen. Fred Harris. The Oklahoman’s White House bid lasted just 48 days ([link removed]) in the 1972 cycle, according to a study by the University of Minnesota's Smart Politics website.

Congratulations to our winners: Michael Wall and John Cleveland!

Thank you all for reading and watching. We’ll drop into your inbox next week.
[link removed]
Want more news and analysis in your inbox?
Explore all of the PBS NewsHour's newsletters ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]

============================================================
Copyright © 2023 WETA, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:
3620 South 27th Street
Arlington, VA 22206

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
** update subscription preferences ([link removed])