House Republicans and Attorney General Merrick Garland clashed Wednesday at a testy hearing that offered a preview of the coming Republican impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden focused on allegations surrounding his son, Hunter Biden.

A high-ranking Internal Revenue Service official has disputed claims by a whistleblower whose allegations about political interference into the Hunter Biden tax investigation are central to House Republican impeachment inquiries against President Joe Biden.

Attorney General Merrick Garland defended his handling of the years-long federal investigation of Hunter Biden on Wednesday as he faced a slew of questions from House Republicans.

Garland is appearing before the House Judiciary Committee as part of a routine oversight hearing. But Republicans are, unsurprisingly, focusing almost entirely on the Hunter Biden investigation — specifically, the appointment of David Weiss as special counsel and IRS whistleblower allegations of interference with the probe.

Garland largely deflected questions about details of the Hunter Biden inquiry, while indirectly batting down allegations that he had meddled in the investigation into the president’s son.

“I promised the Senate … that I would leave Mr. Weiss in place and that I would not interfere with his investigation. I have kept that promise,” Garland said in response to a question from Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.).

He added in a separate back-and-forth that he would not “discuss internal Justice Department deliberations whether or not I had them” in regard to the Hunter Biden probe.

But he specified that no one at the White House had provided direction to him or other senior DOJ officials. He also said he didn’t believe he had discussed the matter with officials at FBI headquarters.

IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley has alleged that U.S. Attorney David Weiss said he wasn’t empowered to decide on whether to bring charges in the Hunter Biden probe outside of his Delaware district. An FBI official involved in the investigation also indicated that the U.S. attorney in California had declined to partner with Weiss in pursuing tax charges against the president’s son, though others interviewed by the panel have indicated that they believed Weiss had full authority.

Both Garland and Weiss have previously said — publicly and in letters to Congress that Weiss had the ultimate power to bring charges in the case, whether in or outside of his Delaware jurisdiction. Among the options under discussion at the time was giving Weiss special attorney status, which would have let him bring charges outside of his district even if another prosecutor declined to partner with him.

Garland ultimately gave Weiss special counsel status instead, telling the committee that Weiss believed he had reached a stage where it would be appropriate.

“A U.S. attorney in another district does not have the authority to deny another U.S. attorney the ability to go forward, and I have assured Mr. Weiss that he would have the authority one way or the other,” Garland said.

Not all the Republicans on the panel were critical of Garland's handling of Weiss. Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), who has been critical of his party's impeachment inquiry strategy, touted the attorney general's professional background and argued that Republicans would have accused Garland of trying to obstruct the Hunter Biden if he asked for Weiss's resignation when he became attorney general.

Garland’s testimony comes at a key moment — it’s the first time he has appeared before the House GOP committee since the whistleblower allegations emerged, the implosion of Hunter Biden’s plea deal and Weiss’ later appointment as special counsel for the Hunter Biden investigation.

Jordan, in a letter this week, asked DOJ to confirm that Weiss will appear before his committee next month. Garland indicated on Wednesday that he expected Weiss to testify publicly but did not say when.

Garland also used his testimony to defend DOJ from fierce criticism by House Republicans — some of whom have threatened to defund his office or the department as a whole.

“Our job is not to do what is politically convenient. Our job is not to take orders from the president, from Congress, or from anyone else, about who or what to criminally investigate. As the president himself has said, and I reaffirm here today: I am not the president’s lawyer,” Garland said.

White House spokesperson Ian Sams knocked Republicans for holding the hearing, calling it a "not-so-sophisticated distraction campaign to try to cover up their own actions that are hurtling America to a dangerous and costly government shutdown."

Josh Gerstein contributed.

As Kevin McCarthy navigates a spending fight with his speakership on the line, some of his critics are privately mulling who they could back if the California Republican loses his gavel.

Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.), a member of the Freedom Caucus, told POLITICO he had a name in mind — which he declined to disclose — though he argued the conference’s immediate focus should be on the spending fight, where conservatives are pushing for steeper spending cuts.

“I think I know who the right person is,” Bishop said when asked if the dynamic had changed since January, when McCarthy’s opponents went through a rotating list of names without a clear consensus pick.

Bishop said he had “muttered” the name he has in mind to a couple of other people and “have found surprisingly that they have been thinking very much the same thing.”

During January’s historic speaker gavel fight, McCarthy’s opponents supported several other contenders. Each name, however, struggled to gain momentum within the broader conference, including Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) and former President Donald Trump.

And even if the GOP rebels were able to boot McCarthy from the speaker’s office, it’s far from clear that that another consensus candidate would readily emerge. Some of the Californian’s allies have suggested they would simply keep voting for him as long as he wants it.

There’s no sign McCarthy’s critics are ready to imminently attempt removing his gavel. But they’ve warned they are closely watching his actions as he navigates the conference’s intra-party battles over funding the government, as well as his actions on a separate impeachment inquiry.

But Bishop, who is running for North Carolina attorney general, has said he personally supports a motion to vacate against McCarthy, though he would not file one on his own. And on Wednesday he said Republicans’ focus for now should be on trying to get their conference to embrace spending cuts and the border policies they want in a government funding bill. Congress has until the end of the month to prevent a shutdown.

“I think our priority and our efforts would be better exerted on … the immediacy of the appropriations process. Focusing on delivering a different course than what has been done before,” he added.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), a Freedom Caucus ally, has threatened to trigger a motion to vacate against McCarthy if he brings a “clean” short-term spending bill to the floor. He also left himself multiple other opportunities to trigger a motion to vacate and pushed for McCarthy to hold votes on balanced budgets, term limits and Biden family subpoenas and the impeachment of Joe Biden.

A reporter on Tuesday found a resolution in a Capitol bathroom that appeared to be a motion to vacate resolution drafted recently by Gaetz.

The Florida Republican said on Tuesday that he hadn’t seen the tweet, but didn’t deny he had drafted the resolution. Instead, he argued that if McCarthy gets a motion to vacate actually filed against him depends on the Californian’s actions.