The Biden administration is rebuffing House Republicans’ request to speak with current and former White House officials as part of their impeachment inquiry — and using a Trump-era justification for doing so.

White House counsel Richard Sauber on Friday sent a four-page letter — a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO — to Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), accusing them of issuing an “irresponsible set of subpoenas and requests for interviews” and flip-flopping on whether or not an impeachment inquiry needed a formal vote.

“You also claim the mantle of an ‘impeachment inquiry’ knowing full well that the Constitution requires that the full House authorize an impeachment inquiry before a committee may utilize compulsory process pursuant to the impeachment power — a step the Republican House Majority has so far refused to take,” Sauber wrote in the letter.

Sauber was referring to a Justice Department opinion under former President Donald Trump that declared that impeachment inquiries in the House are invalid unless the chamber formally votes to authorize them.

“For all these reasons, you should reconsider your current course of action and withdraw these subpoenas and demands for interviews,” Sauber added.

At the time, the Trump Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel was pushing back on then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) decision to launch an impeachment inquiry against Trump without initially holding a vote for it. Republicans were also deeply critical of Pelosi’s strategy at the time.

While Pelosi did eventually hold a vote weeks later on the inquiry, the opinion gained new attention earlier this year after then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) similarly opened an impeachment inquiry without a vote on the House floor.

“If President Biden has nothing to hide, then he should make his current and former staff available to testify before Congress about his mishandling of classified documents,” Comer said in a statement responding to the White House Friday. “We are not deterred by this obstruction and will continue to follow the facts and hold President Biden accountable to the American people.”

Meanwhile, House Republicans have ramped up their subpoenas as part of their multi-pronged investigation into Biden and his family.

Comer subpoenaed former White House counsel Dana Remus and requested interviews with four White House officials earlier this week. Republicans are seeking the testimony as part of a probe into Biden’s handling of classified documents, which is also being investigated by a special counsel.

But in a letter to Remus’ attorney, Comer and Jordan tied that probe to their larger impeachment inquiry, which has been largely focused on the business deals of Biden’s family members. Comer has also subpoenaed Hunter Biden and the president’s brother James Biden, as well as requested voluntary interviews with other family members.

Republicans are months into that probe. And while they have uncovered examples of Hunter Biden trying to use his last name to further his business deals — and poked holes in some of Biden’s and the White House’s previous statements — they’ve struggled to find a smoking gun that would link Joe Biden’s official decisions to his family’s business deals.

If an effort to expel George Santos comes to the House floor, it’s looking increasingly likely that it will succeed.

Unlike previous attempts to remove the embattled New York Republican, the latest push led by Ethics Committee Chair Michael Guest (R-Miss.) could actually get the two-thirds majority that is required to expel him. If all Democrats vote to boost Santos — the most likely outcome — then roughly 80 GOP members would need to join them in order to oust him.

And nearly 60 House Republicans tell POLITICO they now plan to vote for his removal, including the 24 who previously sided with a push to expel him. That includes a number of members who have shared their support publicly.

A total of 60 House members, both Democrats and Republicans, have indicated either publicly or to POLITICO that they plan to change their vote in favor of expelling Santos after reviewing the damning findings of the Ethics report released Thursday. Only eight GOP members said that they would still vote against such an effort, with others still reviewing the ethics report or weighing their decision.

And the number of members in support is ticking up.

“Rep. George Santos has proven that his ethics do not align with what we expect from our leaders. In light of the Ethics Committee report, I will vote to expel him from Congress for his illegal and unethical behavior should he choose not to do the right thing and resign,” Rep. Randy Feenstra (R-Iowa) announced Friday in a statement.

A GOP leadership aide, granted anonymity to speak bluntly, predicted: “He’s fucked.”

Those numbers are already more than double the number of House Republicans who previously voted to remove Santos earlier this month. Many Republicans expect Santos may still have some support in the right flank of the party, where he has worked to build allies after he was ostracized by the broader rank-and-file members earlier this year. And other members aren’t thrilled about the prospect of further narrowing their slim majority.

A spokesperson for conservative Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) on Thursday told POLITICO he does not intend to vote to expel, citing “other pressing issues in Congress than this.”

The ethics report Thursday found “substantial evidence” of Santos’ criminal wrongdoing, including accusations that he padded his own pockets with campaign money, falsely reported personal loans to his campaign and failed to properly file his financial disclosure forms.

Across the aisle, 46 Democrats had previously voted either present or against booting Santos from Congress, but 21 of those members now confirm to POLITICO they plan to vote in favor of expulsion. Some, like Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas), had voted “present” on the last vote because of their roles on the Ethics panel, but with the report now public and their investigative work wrapped up, she said in a statement: “I intend to vote yes on any expulsion resolution brought against the Congressman.”

Others, like Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) expressed reservations about removing Santos before the Ethics or the criminal investigation concluded and had voted “present” previously. But after seeing the report, she said in a statement to POLITICO: “I believe he should no longer be in Congress. If there is a vote to expel Rep. Santos, I will support it.”

House Democratic leadership hasn’t publicly weighed in yet on the expulsion resolution, but Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has repeatedly called Santos “unfit” for office. And Speaker Mike Johnson is urging members in both parties to “consider the best interests of the institution as this matter is addressed further,” according to his spokesman Raj Shah, who said the Louisiana Republican found the report’s findings “very troubling.”

Some members have continued to cite Santos’ due process as they consider whether to expel him. He faces 23 charges in federal court, and his trial is scheduled to begin in September.

However, Santos may still resign before his fate is put to the ultimate test on the floor.

He has announced a press conference slated for Nov. 30, two days after the House is set to resume business following the Thanksgiving break. That came shortly after he separately announced on social media that he would not seek reelection next year, though he signaled he would finish this term.

Jennifer Scholtes, Anthony Adragna, Katherine Tully-McManus, Jordain Carney, Daniella Diaz, Caitlin Emma and Sarah Ferris contributed to this report.

Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly stated the amount of members who plan to flip their votes in favor of expelling Santos. About 60 members have indicated they plan to change their votes, according to a whip count compiled by POLITICO.

CORRECTION: A previous version of this story incorrectly stated the amount of members who plan to flip their votes in favor of expelling Santos.

The House Ethics Committee’s GOP chair on Friday released his proposal to expel George Santos from the House, setting up what could prove a decisive intra-party clash over the disgraced New Yorker when Republicans return to Washington after Thanksgiving.

Rep. Michael Guest (R-Miss.) made his move one day after the Ethics panel released damning bipartisan findings from a lengthy investigation, reporting “substantial evidence” of criminal wrongdoing by Santos along with violations of House rules and other misconduct by the fabrication-prone first-year Republican lawmaker.

Guest in turn told POLITICO after the Ethics report’s release that he would push to expel Santos from Congress in light of its findings. Still, he did not take steps Friday that would formally start the clock for a vote. The Mississippi conservative said he intends to make his measure privileged, which he is expected to do when the House returns in late November. That would trigger a floor vote within two days’ time.

“The evidence uncovered in the Ethics Committee’s Investigative Subcommittee investigation is more than sufficient to warrant punishment and the most appropriate punishment, is expulsion,” Guest wrote in a statement accompanying his resolution. “So, separate from the Committee process and my role as Chairman, I have filed an expulsion resolution.”

Guest’s five-page expulsion resolution reiterates the various findings in the Ethics report, including that Santos falsely reported loans to his campaign which he allegedly used for personal purposes, that he failed to either file or properly file financial disclosures, and that he failed to demonstrate necessary candor with the committee.

Santos, who has publicly attacked the bipartisan probe, announced after the panel released its findings that he wouldn’t run for reelection — despite previously vowing to do so. He has also announced a press conference on Nov. 30, two days after Congress begins its next session in Washington, with no disclosed subject matter.

Many House Republicans believe Santos plans to announce his resignation, though others admit they simply hope he will do so on Nov. 30 to take his personal drama off of GOP plates that are already chock-full of other beef. While multiple Republicans have said they want to review the report before making a decision on expulsion, the number of members ready to push out Santos are steadily growing — enough to raise real concerns in the New Yorker’s camp that he may be booted if he doesn’t voluntarily leave office.

If Guest’s expulsion resolution does come to a vote later this month, it would require two-thirds of the House to vote for Santos’ ouster. Some Republicans don’t want to take that step until there is a conviction, but Santos’ trial on 23 federal charges isn’t set to begin until late 2024.

“Wish he would do the nice thing and resign,” said one House Republican, who plans to vote to expel the New Yorker at the next opportunity. “Would be the first respectable move he’s made since arriving.’

Rep. William Timmons is a conservative facing a new twist on a familiar problem in the House GOP: a primary from the right, focused on his support for Kevin McCarthy back in January.

Adam Morgan, a state representative for parts of Greenville, South Carolina is slated to launch a formal campaign against Timmons on Thursday night. Morgan, a co-founder of the South Carolina Freedom Caucus chapter, says there is a “void” between Timmons and the ruby-red district because he has not engaged in bigger fights with GOP leadership — or joined the rebellious House Freedom Caucus.

“On the fight in January, William was completely absent. He wasn’t with the Freedom Caucus. He was with McCarthy. And that’s a huge stain on his record,” Morgan said in an interview with POLITICO ahead of his launch.

Calling his conservative voting record the “bare minimum,” Morgan added: “Where are you on the big fights that are really impacting and changing the system? The concessions that the conservatives got from McCarthy, like those are some of the biggest changes in a generation for the operation of the House of Representatives. And it’s like: how in the world are you not present in that fight?”

Primary challenges from the right aren’t anything new for House Republicans. But Morgan is making a new implication among conservatives more explicit: it’s not enough to back the right flank’s priorities anymore, you also have to be willing to rebel against party leadership.

But Morgan’s lane in the primary race isn’t clear. While he runs to the right of Timmons, the South Carolina incumbent has largely voted with the right-wing corner of his party since he was elected to office in 2019. Timmons has the endorsement of conservative darlings like Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a co-founder of the Freedom Caucus, and a good relationship with former President Donald Trump. Heritage Action, which scores Republicans based on how they vote on conservative policy, has rated Timmons at a 95 percent lifetime score and a 100 percent in this Congress.

So Timmons is essentially scoffing at Morgan’s critiques.

“You’re hard pressed to find someone more conservative. You might find someone louder, but you’re not gonna find somebody more conservative,” Timmons said in an interview. “Just because I don’t scream and yell, doesn’t mean we’re not fighting.”

As for his challenger, Timmons argued Morgan’s record shows he is “destructive” versus “productive,” saying his new opponent has been “extremely ineffective in Columbia” as well as a “chaos agent.”

That split also reflects the divide among House Republicans, particularly since January. A smaller group of GOP lawmakers frequently argue leadership hasn’t gone far enough, while the majority say conservative purists are hurting the institution and the party with their refusal to take smaller wins in the interest of pursuing impossible goals, like severe spending cuts or changes to abortion policy under a Democratic president.

As for whether he would’ve joined the push to oust ex-Speaker McCarthy, Morgan demurred, remarking he would’ve needed more information.

Josh Kimbrell, a South Carolina state senator who previously ran against Timmons in a crowded primary for the open seat in 2018, said Morgan’s line of attack was mostly on strategy.

“The only possible angle of attack is to say that Congressman Timmons’ tactics haven’t been aggressive or obstructionist enough,” Kimbrell said. “But we, as conservatives, have to learn not only to be conservative, but to govern effectively.”

“For Rep. Morgan to run against Congressman Timmons on fiscal issues, or on government waste is ridiculous,” he added.

He noted Timmons has high marks with the conservative Club for Growth. And Timmons himself noted that it’d be “very detrimental to their efforts if they were to spend money against someone that had their second highest score.”

Some in the South Carolina GOP believe Morgan may be running this time around to raise his name I.D., or that he’d be better suited to challenge someone with a different voting record, like Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) — a far less conservative member who did vote to boot McCarthy — but Morgan indicated he also saw an opportunity in going after Timmons.

Last cycle, Timmons defeated multiple GOP primary challengers, winning just over 50 percent of the vote for South Carolina’s 4th Congressional District. After that, he skated to reelection with 91% of the vote.

Morgan touted his record of fighting for transparency and budget reductions, as well as “shutting down a pediatric transgender clinic that was fully state funded, fighting to get CRT and political indoctrination out of schools.” Timmons pointed to his work on the House Modernization Committee where he served as vice-chair, and the bills he enacted that include designating an Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Greenville as the “Lance Corporal Dana Cornell Darnell VA Clinic” and efforts to promote secure 5G use.

Timmons, a former prosecutor, is likely also further protected because of his ties to Trump. There is little chance he risks incurring the wrath of the ex-president — as others facing primary challengers may — because he has endorsed and serves on the presidential frontrunner’s leadership team in the state. Morgan, however, has not endorsed in the presidential primary.

“I will outrace him 10 to one and I have Trump. Trump has about a 68 percent approval rating in my district,” Timmons said.

Morgan argued that if Trump and Jordan knew he was running, he’d earn their endorsements.

“I think if Donald Trump looks at this race, he’s gonna endorse me. I think if he compares it and looks at my record, what I’ve done and what I’m talking about, I wouldn’t be surprised if I ended up getting the endorsement,” Morgan argued.

Morgan is expected to roll out some endorsements of his own — including potentially some of Timmons’ colleagues in the House.

“He’s a mover and shaker in the house,” said Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus. “He’ll be substantial.”

Timmons, asked about the possibility Norman would support his challenger, also didn’t hold back: “He has a personal gripe that I got on Financial Services before him, even though he was more senior. And I hate that for him, because I had nothing to do with that.”

House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan is ramping up a probe into how financial institutions shared customer information in the wake of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

Jordan (R-Ohio) on Thursday compelled Bank of America to turn over records related to information sharing with the FBI, according to a copy of the subpoena first obtained by POLITICO.

Bank of America “has refused to provide the committee and select subcommittee with the filing it turned over to the FBI,” Jordan wrote in a letter to Bank of America’s CEO.

The subpoena comes after Jordan and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) announced earlier this year they were investigating the financial institution and requested a tranche of records. Jordan noted in his Thursday letter that so far they had received 223 pages of documents responsive to the request.

Jordan’s letter to Bank of America includes a screenshot of an email between a bank employee, whose name is redacted, to a redacted FBI email, saying that they should have received “our filing on the parameters you discussed … last week.”

But Bank of America wrote in a June letter to Jordan, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO, that it was acting under a legal authority established by the Department of Treasury.

A day after a Trump-era Treasury official reached out on Jan. 14, 2021, to a number of banks, per the Bank of America letter, the FBI and Treasury met with banks, and in a follow-up email provided with search parameters that “it indicated were relevant to the inaugural threats being investigated.”

The discussions between the federal government and financial institutions, based on the Bank’s letter to the committee, appeared touch on both so-called suspicious activity reports, which don’t necessarily indicate wrongdoing, and travel and purchases the federal government was interested in and alerting banks to.

“Further at all times following the events of January 6 the Bank complied with its obligations and acted within the bounds of the legal process and all applicable laws,” counsels for the Bank wrote to Jordan in the letter.

Jordan is giving Bank of America until Dec. 15 to turn over documents or communications since Jan. 1, 2021, that refer to or are related to providing financial records to federal law enforcement about transactions in the D.C. area between Jan. 5, 2021, and Jan. 7, 2021. That includes any communications with federal law enforcement on the same topic.

Bank of America, in a statement to POLITICO, reiterated that it “followed all applicable laws in our interactions with the Trump Administration’s Treasury Department and law enforcement.”

In addition to his investigation, Jordan said that the committee could consider legislation, like changing consumer privacy laws, in response to the information sharing and would need a copy of the “filing” to help inform the discussion. Bank of America, in its statement, said that it had “cooperated with the committee as they evaluate whether the laws … should be changed.”

Thursday’s subpoena comes after Jordan also subpoenaed CitiBank earlier this year as part of a larger probe into if, or how, banks shared transaction data from customers in the D.C. area around the Jan. 6 attack with federal law enforcement.

Jordan’s investigation is one piece of a multi-pronged dive House Republicans have done back into Jan. 6 since taking back the majority. In addition to the bank information, Jordan has requested information on the investigation into pipe bombs found near the Capitol.

Rep. Dan Kildee will not seek reelection in his battleground Michigan district after a decade-long career in the House.

The Flint, Mich. native — who has risen through the House Democratic ranks over six terms — told POLITICO he made the decision to leave elected office following this term after battling health issues this year.

“One of the things about going through a tough health diagnosis and then coming out OK … it does cause you to sort of sit back and say, OK, what are my priorities?” Kildee said, referring to the cancerous tumor he had removed earlier this year.

His decision will open up a competitive seat in mid-Michigan — the newly redrawn 8th District that Kildee handily won last fall after the GOP struggled to recruit a strong challenger. So far, Republicans also lack a serious candidate for this cycle, though that task will suddenly become more urgent for the GOP as they look to flip a seat that narrowly backed President Joe Biden in 2020.

But while he is stepping away from elected office, Kildee said he is “definitely not retiring” and plans to campaign actively across Michigan in 2024. And with nearly $1 million of cash in his own campaign war chest as of the last quarter, he’ll have the resources to help Democratic candidates, particularly whoever decides to run for his own Flint-area seat.

The Michigander, who serves as co-chair of the Democratic caucus’ steering committee and sits on the powerful Ways and Means panel, is particularly close to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. After the two arrived in Congress together in 2013, Kildee served on Jeffries’ whip team for the 2018 leadership elections and urged Jeffries early in their Hill careers to seek the caucus’ top spot when it opened up.

When he sat down with Jeffries to inform him of the decision, he told the New Yorker it was difficult to leave when he could miss out on serving under the first Black speaker in history if Democrats flip the House. (He promised to be there for the swearing-in, even if he was no longer a member of Congress.)

Kildee, a longtime Joe Biden ally, also informed the president of his plans, and the two plan to meet at the White House soon.

Kildee’s departure from the House — while a surprise to many of his colleagues — is not entirely unexpected among those who know him. In the last few years, the Michigan Democrat grappled with his own health challenges, and has been increasingly vocal about the growing dysfunction and trust issues among House members.

“When I weigh how things are working here, and maybe a different way I can make a difference back home and be close to family, it became a pretty easy decision,” he said.

In January 2021, he was among two dozen members trapped in the House gallery as pro-Trump rioters attempted to force their way into the chamber. He was later treated for PTSD, and has been public about his mental health struggles — as well his ability to work closely with Republicans after many in the party largely downplayed the attack.

Two years later, he was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma. By April of this year, he had been declared cancer-free.

For most of the year, Kildee said he was actively planning to run again. But he said his cancer battle led him to “reassess” his path — a decision he toiled over for several months. And while he hasn’t decided what he’ll do next, he will not run for any other elected office and suggested he could return to his roots in the nonprofit sector.

As for his legislative legacy, Kildee will perhaps best be known for championing the $170 million package to fix Flint’s massive water contamination crisis — one of the worst municipal water crises in modern history.

Kildee recalled the moment in December 2016 when then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sent him to then-Speaker Paul Ryan’s office to directly hammer out a funding deal for Flint.

She had informed Ryan on the phone that he would need to meet one of Democrats’ priorities to advance a year-end spending deal, but didn’t say which. She simply told Ryan: “I’m going to send someone over right now to work out the details,” Kildee recalled.

As Kildee walked into the speaker’s office, Ryan told him, “I guess I know which one of your priorities we’re going to take care of.” Seven hours later, the deal was done.