A top federal prosecutor is set for a closed-door interview with House investigators on Tuesday as part of the GOP's impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, according to two people with knowledge of the plans.

Matt Graves, the U.S. attorney for D.C., is scheduled to appear for a voluntary transcribed interview with the House Judiciary Committee on the same day that the president’s son, Hunter Biden, is arraigned in Delaware on gun charges.

A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Graves' appearance. A Judiciary panel spokesperson declined to comment.

Two IRS agents have told the House panel that Graves declined to team up with U.S. Attorney David Weiss of Delaware, who is supervising the long-running investigation into Hunter Biden. Without that cooperation, Weiss would have been required to seek special authority from Justice Department headquarters in order to work on Graves’ turf.

During the interview, Graves is all but guaranteed to face GOP questions about why he decided against helping Weiss bring a broader case against the First Son.

House Republicans on Thursday will take their latest step toward a historic impeachment of President Joe Biden — even as they downplay any future plans to try to boot him from office.

The House Oversight Committee will hold its first impeachment-related hearing since Speaker Kevin McCarthy formally launched an inquiry into Biden earlier this month amid pressure from his right flank. The opening salvo comes two days before an all-but-guaranteed government shutdown that Republicans have vowed won’t slow down their impeachment probe.

Conservatives who want to quickly recommend removing Biden from office continue to face skepticism from their own colleagues about the strength of the case for impeaching the president based on the evidence uncovered so far.

“The president has made false statements. …Whether or not we have reached the level to bring impeachment — clearly if we had, we would have. We’re not [there],” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif:), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) have spent months seeking proof that Joe Biden – as president or vice president – acted to benefit his family or in exchange for payments to his family. The Oversight panel has gathered bank records, Treasury documents and interviewed associates of First Son Hunter Biden, who faces an ongoing federal case of his own after his plea deal imploded.

But no evidence has emerged that the business dealings of Hunter Biden or other family members directly affected Joe Biden’s decisions. That investigation is expected to escalate. with Comer preparing to subpoena records pertaining to Hunter and the president’s brother James Biden.

Democrats and the White House have criticized the GOP investigation as a political stunt aimed at damaging Joe Biden in next year’s election with no evidence of wrongdoing. They’ve also knocked Republicans for holding the hearing on the eve of a government shutdown, with no signs of an agreement that could avert a funding lapse. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Oversight Democrat, brought a sign counting down the time to a shutdown to the hearing.

“Neither the Speaker nor the Committee Chairs have set forth any facts establishing any wrongdoing by the President, let alone the ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’ required for impeachment under the Constitution. Instead, they have made clear that their inquiry will focus on baseless accusations that have already been repeatedly disproven,” House Oversight and Judiciary Committee Democrats wrote in a Thursday memo.

And while the House GOP investigation has turned up new evidence that Hunter Biden tried to leverage his family’s name to boost his business, Issa isn’t the only GOP lawmaker acknowledging that, so far, there’s no evidence that Joe Biden committed an offense that reaches the bar of impeachment.

Ending an impeachment inquiry without holding a vote on booting Biden from office would be an unusual step – one that would likely create peril for McCarthy. But centrist Republicans and their allies have also privately questioned if the speaker would force his vulnerable front-line members to take an impeachment vote absent a smoking gun that directly links Joe Biden’s official actions to his family’s business operations.

Thursday’s hearing is expected to provide little new information on that front. None of the witnesses will have direct knowledge about the Biden family businesses. Instead, the hearing is designed to serve as an explainer for an impeachment inquiry and the allegations being pursued by Republicans.

“They’re going to focus on how an inquiry phase is supposed to operate, why it was warranted,” Jordan said about what he expects from the GOP witnesses at Thursday’s hearing.

Republicans circulated a new memo on Wednesday night to their members outlining the scope for their impeachment inquiry, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO.

The memo outlines why Republicans opened an inquiry, as well as the scope of the investigation. In addition to probing if Joe Biden’s actions as president or vice president were meant to benefit his family, the party also plans to dig into the federal investigation into Hunter Biden.

Comer is expected to take the lead on the first piece, while Jordan will lead on the second. Ways & Means Chair Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) is involved in the investigation because the panel he leads has the ability to release Hunter Biden records that would otherwise be protected by strict taxpayer privacy laws. IRS whistleblowers have been giving information to the Ways and Means panel, including a new tranche of documents released this week.

Comer, Jordan and Smith, in the memo, also caution that they haven’t yet come to a conclusion on whether or not Joe Biden has done something that warrants impeachment.

“This impeachment inquiry will enable the Committees to gather information necessary to assess whether President Biden has engaged in impeachable conduct. The decision to begin this inquiry does not mean that the Committees have reached a conclusion on this question,” the three chairmen write.

The memo also outlines the timetable for the probe, which will “span the time of Joe Biden’s Vice Presidency to the present, including his time out of office.” Republicans’ work will also include attempts to access Joe Biden’s records, as well as family members, Biden family associates and Biden and Obama administration officials.

To understand the challenge Speaker Kevin McCarthy will have in getting any solution to avoid a government shutdown past his conference this week or weekend, look no further than what happened Wednesday night on Ukraine aid.

A bipartisan group in the House had previously defeated amendment pushes to remove Ukraine aid from the annual defense spending legislation — albeit with considerable GOP support. Yet the Rules Committee still convened an emergency meeting Wednesday to remove $300 million in aid from the defense bill and make it a separate measure.

"Trumpism is alive and well here, because you're trying to overturn another vote," Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on Rules, said at the meeting.

Also worth watching today: House Republicans are circulating a new memo on their scope of the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, our Jordain Carney reported, saying it "will span the time of Joe Biden’s Vice Presidency to the present, including his time out of office." The House Oversight Committee holds a first hearing on the basis of the inquiry Thursday at 10 a.m.

All eyes will be on Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer again as Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) is expected to address his Democratic colleagues. More than half of Democrats — and now the bulk of leadership other than Schumer — have called for Menendez to resign amid his federal indictment on bribery and corruption charges.

Leaders of House offices got their warning Wednesday about what a government shutdown would mean for them if Congress cannot find a way to fund the government by this weekend.

The release of what is essentially a shutdown handbook is seen by many Hill staff as a tacit acknowledgement by House Republicans that a shutdown is highly likely less than four days before funds run out.

Inside the document: Democratic chiefs received the 23-page guidance document titled “Legislative Operations During a Lapse in Appropriations,” issued by the House Administration Chair Bryan Steil, during a Wednesday evening briefing. House Republican chiefs of staff will receive a briefing Thursday.

Read the full document.

The guidance from Republicans on the House Administration panel alerted them that employees not deemed “essential” by their office or committee will be furloughed and could miss paychecks depending on how long the shutdown lasts.

The list of activities deemed essential by Steil and the House Administration panel are much broader than guidance issued by the House GOP in 2013, signaling that many more Hill staff may be expected to keep working.

Impeachment lives on: The document specifically says that “impeachments” are included in members' constitutional duties and instructs House offices to retain the employees essential to performing tasks related to impeachment.

Individual members and committee chairs will decide which staffers are classified as "essential" and will keep working during the shutdown and which staffers get sent home. All will see backpay, eventually.

Furloughed employees will still get health and life insurance benefits. Furloughed employees are still employed and cannot collect unemployment benefits.

Unlike previous shutdowns, Hill staff are now guaranteed retroactive payment once the shutdown concludes. But contractors on the Hill, including food service workers and contracted security, would not receive back pay.

Interns, go home: Interns, paid and unpaid, are determined by the House “not to be part of core constitutional duties” and will be furloughed.

Shutdown sweat: The House staff gym will be closed. The members’ gym will be open, “ but will not be staffed or cleaned.”

Daniella Diaz and Sarah Ferris contributed to this report.

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.

Republicans in Washington say they’re going to stay out of the race to replace Sen. Mitt Romney — for now — but they still have predictions on what's coming next for the solidly red seat.

“I think the people of Utah will elect someone who represents mainstream Republican values. And I don't think you're going to see a MAGA Republican coming into the Senate,” said Romney, who added that he doesn’t plan to endorse in the primary.

“I really don't think we're gonna get someone off the wall,” he added.

The intrigue: As one of the few GOP senators who voted to convict former President Donald Trump in impeachment trials, and the only one who did so twice, Romney regularly drew fire from the MAGA-aligned right. His antics and reputation became a divisive topic for his Republican constituents, and he'd already drawn a GOP challenger before he'd decided not to run. Now that he's out, the wide-open race will test the allegiances of Republicans in Utah.

The main question, now, is whether the National Republican Senatorial Committee will get involved in the primary. Romney was already facing a challenge from conservative Riverton Mayor Trent Staggs, who announced in May, and Utah House Speaker Brad Wilson has long been considered a potential successor.

The NRSC chair didn't give any hints in a statement Wednesday: “I join my Republican colleagues in expressing gratitude to Senator Romney for his years of service to our country and the state of Utah,” Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) said. “We are going to nominate a candidate who will keep Utah red in 2024.”

However, one national Republican strategist said it’s “unlikely the NRSC gets involved in Utah," adding that “Daines has made clear his focus is on winning a Republican majority.” Daines has intervened in some primaries, but typically in states that are more competitive.

Senate Republican Conference Chair John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) also told POLITICO, “I'm very confident that Republicans will hold the seat and I’ll support the Republican nominee. I campaigned last time in Utah with Sen. Lee and I'll be ready to campaign with our Republican nominee in Utah this year.”

A look at the candidates: Staggs has openly criticized Romney for the senator's penchants for both bipartisan deals and antagonizing Trump. The Republican mayor said in an interview shortly after Romney’s announcement that “those that are jumping in really had reservations and were being deferential to Sen. Romney. Whereas we just took him on. We took him on no matter what.”

Wilson, a conservative who established an exploratory committee for the seat earlier this year, released a statement Wednesday telling onlookers to “stay tuned.”

Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes had also considered running for the seat, including in a potential primary challenge to Romney. But in a statement Wednesday, Reyes said he’s forgoing a run for the Senate, opting to run for reelection for his current role instead.

“That opens up an opportunity for a dear friend of mine who is a great conservative, patriot and warrior to run and serve as the next Senator from Utah. This person will be making an announcement in the days to come,” Reyes added.

Let’s be clear: The impeachment inquiry in the House is dominating the Hill, but the real circus of hearings and public witness testimony isn't coming anytime soon. Hunter Biden won’t be marched into Longworth next week.

The announcement of the launch of an inquiry is instead the start of a likely slow burn — that Republicans hope results in fireworks and solid public evidence down the line.

What changes? Not much, many centrist Republicans were saying Tuesday following the announcement. They brushed off the idea that impeachment could distract from the increasingly urgent need to fund the government.

“I'm all in favor of having an inquiry but nothing changes with this inquiry that isn't going on already and hasn't been going on for six or seven months," said Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.). "Judiciary will continue looking. Oversight will continue looking and ways and means we'll continue to look at issuing subpoenas reviewing document. That's what they've been doing, and that's what they will continue to do.”

Speaker Kevin McCarthy himself is signaling the prioritization of spending bills, making those the topic of this morning's GOP conference meeting, with a second impeachment-focused meeting on slated for Thursday.

Who will be busy? The same trio of GOP committee chairs who have taken the lead on investigating the Biden administration and family will continue to have starring roles in the impeachment saga:

• House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.)
• House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)
• House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith’s (R-Mo.) (His panel will take the lead on getting confidential tax info from the IRS.)

House conservatives are glad they finally got their impeachment inquiry. But they were quick to say it won’t shield Speaker Kevin McCarthy from potential efforts to boot him.

Their issues with McCarthy when it comes to government spending, they argue, are separate from any impeachment considerations. Plus, they criticized him Tuesday for moving too late to launch a formal inquiry into President Joe Biden.

When asked if McCarthy's impeachment announcement placates conservatives who are still considering forcing a vote to boot the speaker, Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) replied that the two topics are “independent of one another. So I don't think it has any such effect, from my perspective.”

“To me, the commencement of an impeachment inquiry is overdue. It has been moving far too slowly. It shows tentativeness and hesitancy when it needs to show commitment to getting to it,” added Bishop, a House Freedom Caucus member.

It’s a negative sign not just for McCarthy, but any Republicans who hoped an impeachment inquiry could make conservatives more agreeable to avoiding a shutdown. The MAGA-aligned group, which isn’t always in agreement, was fairly united on the point Tuesday.

Freedom Caucus Chair Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) called the inquiry “long overdue" but said it didn’t have any effect on possible future efforts to boot the speaker — known as the motion to vacate. Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) said “no, not at all,” when asked if the inquiry calms McCarthy ouster talk that picked up over the House’s five-week recess.

Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), another member of the group, put it even more bluntly: "Him starting an impeachment inquiry gives him no — zero — cushion, relief, brace, as it applies to spending.”

Clyde expressed frustration that the House didn’t work throughout the recess to try to deal with Sept. 30's looming government spending deadline. And while he declined to discuss how he thinks it plays out for McCarthy in the long run, he said simply: “If motion to vacate happens, it is because it is deserved.”

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) said she wants an impeachment vote on President Joe Biden, rather than just an escalation of investigative efforts, pointing generally to evidence uncovered by House committees.

“I am not waiting throughout the rest of this Congress to hold Joe Biden and the rest of his family accountable,” Boebert added. “I’m ready for a straight up and down vote on the floor.”

But it wasn’t just Freedom Caucus members decoupling impeachment from McCarthy's future. Some Republicans outside the group, who tend to vote similarly to the House GOP rebels, said they concurred.

“If you are trying to do the impeachment inquiry, thinking that is going to somehow keep you away from the motion to vacate … that's not going to work,” said Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.), who acknowledged he tends to vote with the Freedom Caucus members most of the time.

“We know exactly what the timing is," he added. "We know the D.C. Dance — when people started getting into trouble, they dangled just enough red meat over it to be able to try and make sure that the conservatives, and constitutionalists, and the other brothers on the far right can actually have something to bite onto. We know the fight is going to be in Appropriations.”

Still, some like Rep. Barry Moore (R-Ala.) did agree it may calm the waters a bit for the speaker.

“I think the impeachment is a good step in the right direction and I think Kevin's doing the right thing,” Moore said.

Centrist House Republicans aren’t upset that Speaker Kevin McCarthy reversed himself on holding a vote to formally launch the GOP’s impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.

Some are even relieved.

“I think it is better if he is doing this than making everyone take a vote on this. I am not sure a vote would have passed," said one centrist Republican, who was granted anonymity to speak freely.

This centrist said that flagging GOP support for an inquiry vote was communicated to McCarthy — underscoring that some Republicans are leery that the party's investigations have so far not yielded a direct link between the president and his son Hunter’s business dealings.

Another moderate Republican echoed that position, but dismissed the argument that an impeachment inquiry would land negatively with voters back home.

“I’m not [concerned]. The Bidens are a hot mess, and people see that,” said this centrist, who also spoke candidly on condition of anonymity.

Less than two weeks ago, McCarthy told Breitbart that he would hold a vote on launching an impeachment inquiry. On Tuesday after his announcement, a McCarthy spokesman confirmed no plans to hold a vote.

Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.) said he assumes that his party's centrists “are happy they don’t have to vote on" an impeachment inquiry, describing it as a “tough vote.” But he also recalled hearing his constituents push for one “every single day.”

As to McCarthy's about-face, Armstrong said former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats created a bad precedent by launching an inquiry into then-President Donald Trump without a formal vote.

“Pelosi gave us the playbook. You can look at it as hypocrisy or say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,” Armstrong added.