Despite recent public doubts, Senate Republicans are mostly unconcerned with the House's newly announced impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden.

Instead, they see Speaker Kevin McCarthy's Tuesday announcement as a possible way to address their bigger concern: staving off a government shutdown on Sept. 30. Several GOP senators speculated that moving forward with the inquiry was a way for McCarthy to placate conservatives, who have signaled they are open to temporarily shuttering the government if their demands aren't met.

“It sounds like that’s the deal in order to start moving some of these [spending] bills. I think that will help,” said Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), who added the inquiry is House business. “They need to find a way to come together. If it’s part of the negotiations, then so be it.”

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) echoed that sentiment: “It seems like it's maybe part of the bargain over there to keep some folks in line on maybe the budgetary stuff.”

Technically, Senate Republicans can do nothing concrete to stop an impeachment inquiry in the House anyway, so they're not looking to undercut their colleagues now that it's officially moving forward. Still, after months of panning impeachment efforts, senators' lack of vocal opposition on Tuesday is notable.

And when it comes to an actual Biden impeachment, everyone from contrarian Rand Paul to conservative Josh Hawley to centrist Mitt Romney said that’s an undecided question. Instead, senators said the House GOP is just looking to unlock more investigative tools to get answers about Hunter Biden’s potential business connections with his father, an allegation the president has denied.

GOP senators also agree there's still a possibility the investigation could come up short, avoiding an actual impeachment vote. But that could be wishful thinking, since it would come with the side benefit of keeping Republican senators out of another tough impeachment trial.

“The president indicated that he was unaware of his son's business dealings. But then we find that he had phone calls, where he was involved in conversation which included those business partners. Questions are legitimately raised, and apparently Speaker McCarthy wants to look into them,” said Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who is a top skeptic of actually impeaching Biden.

In interviews with more than 10 GOP senators on Tuesday morning, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) seemed most perplexed by the inquiry: “I don't know where they're going with this. I don't know what the evidence is.” Capito serves as the No. 5 GOP leader, and her comments are in line with many past quotes from GOP senators.

Yet as McCarthy actually makes his move, most Senate Republicans tacked toward acceptance rather than resistance. Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said his focus is on winning elections but he acknowledged that McCarthy’s “under a lot of pressure over there.” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said if the House GOP wants to “head down that path, I think they are gonna wanna do their homework. And that sounds to me like what the speaker is advocating.”

“It sounds like they have legitimately identified concerns that rise to that level” of an inquiry, said conservative Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.).

If the House eventually goes through with an impeachment vote, it would then become the Senate GOP’s problem, setting them up for a lengthy trial and bruising political votes on witnesses and President Biden’s guilt or innocence. For now, the squeeze is on the House — a bit of a relief to Senate Republicans.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, for his part, avoided weighing in on the inquiry: "I don't think the Speaker McCarthy needs any advice from the Senate on how to run the House."

McCarthy downplays calls for Biden impeachment: 'We will not play politics'

lead image

McCarthy says he plans to kick three Democrats off their committee assignments if Republicans win majority next year

1 00:00:00,090 --> 00:00:05,280 >> The Democrats have created a new thing where they're picking and choosing who could be on committee. Never in the history have 2 00:00:05,280 --> 00:00:10,680 you had the majority tell the minority who could be on committee. But this new standard which these 3 00:00:10,680 --> 00:00:16,140 Democrats have voted for. If Eric Swalwell cannot get a security clearance in 4 00:00:16,140 --> 00:00:21,900 the private sector there's no reason why he should be given one to be on Intel or homeland security. 5 00:00:21,900 --> 00:00:27,510 >> So that will not he will not be serving there. So you're going to hear the speaker to remove him 6 00:00:27,510 --> 00:00:32,910 from those Camille had Omar should not be serving on foreign affairs. What about any Committees fail on Omar you 7 00:00:32,910 --> 00:00:38,220 know this is this is a new level of what the Democrats have gone through. You look 8 00:00:38,220 --> 00:00:44,070 at Adam Schiff. He should not be serving on intel when he has openly knowingly now 9 00:00:44,070 --> 00:00:48,830 used a fake dossier lied to the American public in the process. 10 00:00:48,870 --> 00:00:54,360 >> And doesn't doesn't have any ill will says he wants to continue do it. So we're going to reshape I 11 00:00:54,360 --> 00:01:00,030 mean think about what happened Afghanistan. Why did Afghanistan collapse so fast. Was the Intel Committee under 12 00:01:00,030 --> 00:01:05,490 Adam Shift focused on impeachment and not on the safety of America why are people coming across 13 00:01:05,490 --> 00:01:10,980 the border that aren't a terrorist watch list what are they doing about it and their own members on that committee says 14 00:01:10,980 --> 00:01:12,770 it's not happening when it's true. 15 00:01:12,840 --> 00:01:18,660 >> We need to have an Intel committee that looks at what's happening around the world and keeps America 16 00:01:18,660 --> 00:01:24,180 safe. It should do exactly what it was created overseeing of our agencies and 17 00:01:24,180 --> 00:01:29,430 others and so we're going to hold people to a higher standard in the process if they want to be on the 18 00:01:29,430 --> 00:01:33,390 Intel Committee and then and then the training of what to be a part of that.