A junior aide to Sen. Ben Cardin is no longer employed by the Senate, the Maryland Democrat’s office said Saturday, following news reports linking the staffer to a sex tape filmed in a Capitol Hill hearing room.

Portions of the tape were published by the Daily Caller on Friday showing two men having sex in the cavernous Hart Senate Office Building hearing room that has played host to Supreme Court nominees, 9/11 Commission meetings and former FBI Director James Comey’s blockbuster 2017 testimony on Donald Trump. The American Spectator previously reported that a Cardin staffer was involved.

Neither report named the staffer, but other conservative outlets identified one person seen in the video as Aidan Maese-Czeropski, a legislative aide to Cardin.

Cardin’s office, after not commenting yesterday on what it called a “personnel matter,” said in a statement first provided to POLITICO on Saturday morning that “Aidan Maese-Czeropski is no longer employed by the U.S. Senate.”

“We will have no further comment on this personnel matter,” the statement added.

Maese-Czeropski on Friday night posted a statement to LinkedIn that did not unambiguously deny involvement.

“This has been a difficult time for me, as I have been attacked for who I love to pursue a political agenda,” he wrote. “While some of my actions in the past have shown poor judgement, I love my job and would never disrespect my workplace. Any attempts to characterize my actions otherwise are fabricated and I will be exploring what legal options are available to me in these matters.”

He separately denied allegations that he had accosted Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio) in a Capitol hallway Wednesday by telling the Jewish lawmaker, “Free Palestine.”

Attempts to reach Maese-Czeropski on Saturday were not immediately successful. He had worked for Cardin since October 2021, according to congressional records, and previously worked as an intern for Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in 2018.

U.S. Capitol Police did not respond to an email Saturday asking whether an investigation is underway. Aides to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell declined to comment.

Like this content? Sign up for POLITICO’s Playbook newsletter.

House Republicans are entering a new phase in their potential impeachment of President Joe Biden — one that raises plenty of questions about what comes next.

The GOP investigation, which centers on the business deals of Hunter Biden and other family members, has yet to find any clear link between Joe Biden’s actions as president or vice president and his family’s financial arrangements. Despite that, every House Republican on Wednesday supported a formal inquiry to try to uncover a smoking gun.

That unity sent GOP lawmakers home from Washington with high spirits, even as the president and Democrats torched their efforts as a politically motivated sideshow.

Regardless of the substance of their impeachment inquiry, the vote to formalize it does give them more legal authority as they seek to enforce their subpoenas and records requests. It also creates a new set of hurdles for them to clear before they decide whether to pursue formal articles of impeachment.

Here’s a guide to the basics — and the complications — of the impeachment inquiry.

Does Congress always vote to formally launch impeachment inquiries?

Congress has extremely wide latitude in what it chooses to investigate. But the House’s vote to formalize an impeachment inquiry strengthens the probe’s legal power as its committees issue subpoenas and demand documents. It also sets parameters and assigns panels to lead the investigation.

The House has impeached a president before without a vote to greenlight an inquiry. Former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment, for example, saw articles introduced five days after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

On the other side was the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton, when House Republicans voted not only to launch an inquiry, but again months later to expand the scope of the probe beyond what was in the initial resolution.

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) eventually followed that formalizing model in 2019 for Trump’s first impeachment. After months of unofficial investigations into Trump, she put an official launch of the inquiry into Trump to a vote on the House floor after pushback from the White House.

Do you need a formal inquiry to subpoena witnesses and get records?

The technical answer here is no — Republicans have held depositions and received tens of thousands of documents already without a formal vote.

But as they’ve tried to lock down final interviews, they’ve gotten pushback from the White House, which is taking a page from an unusual corner: Trump’s administration.

White House counsel Richard Sauber, in a letter last month, rebuffed House Republicans’ subpoena of a former White House counsel, pointing back to a January 2020 DOJ opinion. At the time, the Trump administration had pushed back on Pelosi’s decision to launch an impeachment inquiry without initially holding a vote, declaring Democrats’ demands invalid unless the chamber formally authorized them.

“[W]e conclude that the House must expressly authorize a committee to conduct an impeachment investigation and to use compulsory process in that investigation before the committee may compel the production of documents or testimony,” wrote Steven Engel, then the head of DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel.

Does a formal inquiry mean we’ll see public hearings?

Not necessarily. And in this case, it’s possible they skip the dramatic public hearings before drafting articles of impeachment.

Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who are leading the inquiry, have not ruled out more hearings — and they’ve even said they are willing to do one with Hunter Biden if he sits for a closed-door deposition first. The inquiry resolution passed this week also lays out what those hearings would look like.

But as the two chairs plot out the final weeks of their investigation, they have a clear priority: finishing transcribed interviews and getting the rest of the documents they’ve requested. They are also preparing to go to court to compel testimony from two DOJ tax officials, and potentially also a former White House counsel.

Plus, Hunter Biden defied Republicans’ subpoena this week, showing up to the Capitol but skipping a closed-door interview. Rather than give in to his demands to hold a public hearing, Comer and Jordan have indicated they’ll likely push a vote to hold him in contempt of Congress.

Who DECIDES whether to introduce articles of impeachment?

Jordan referenced Trump’s first impeachment as a blueprint for how and when articles could be drafted for Biden — meaning that the Oversight Committee will likely issue a report and then, per the Ohio Republican, “the conference will make a decision on whether there’s articles.”

Ultimately, the decision to bring articles of impeachment to the floor rests with Speaker Mike Johnson. But with an agonizingly small majority, the posture of the GOP conference will play a significant role in that choice.

Johnson will face pressure from his right flank to impeach Biden while centrists, Republicans in battleground districts and even some old-school pragmatists may want a proverbial smoking gun if they are going to take the vote.

How long does it typically take between the House starting an inquiry and a vote to impeach?

Despite the tumult of the last four years, impeachments are exceedingly rare. And none have taken more than a few months between the start of an inquiry and a vote to actually remove a president.

Two of American history’s four impeachments have taken the House about three months from the announcement of an inquiry to a vote on the House floor:

Trump’s first impeachment: Pelosi announced that six House committees would begin a formal impeachment inquiry into Trump on Sept. 24, 2019. The House voted on Dec. 18 to impeach Trump on two counts: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. 

Clinton Impeachment: On Sept. 24, 1998, the House Judiciary Committee announced a resolution to begin an impeachment inquiry. On Dec. 19, the House voted to impeach Clinton on two charges: perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. 

The other two impeachments moved quickly. That includes the second time the House tried to remove Trump from office, which was nearly immediate. Though the chamber flirted repeatedly with moving to boot former President Andrew Johnson back in 1868 the final vote happened swiftly.
The Biden probe is on track to take a bit longer. For months, vulnerable Republicans fought against formalizing the impeachment inquiry, and the House GOP also spent three weeks trying to replace Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) as speaker. Key investigators say they’re aiming to decide whether to draft articles of impeachment as soon as mid-January.

Kevin McCarthy’s biggest antagonists gave Mike Johnson a honeymoon. But that’s over now, they say, and it’s time for the new speaker to start making some tough decisions.

Johnson sent the House home for the holidays on Thursday with no indication he’ll bring them back to Washington to take up a possible Senate deal on border security and Ukraine aid. He could soon have to choose whether to try to push a proposal that his right flank is likely to hate.

He also sidestepped a decision this week on government surveillance, a topic that has Republicans warring over competing proposals to rein in spy powers. In the process, he inflamed some of the same hard-liners who brought down McCarthy.

Once Congress returns next year, Johnson will have big problems to resolve: government funding that starts to expire Jan. 19, the potential border-Ukraine fight and warring surveillance proposals that are bitterly splitting the GOP conference.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), who challenged McCarthy for speaker in January, said Johnson’s approach to the surveillance fight was more like “appeasement” than leadership — and that it could reflect the Louisianan’s leadership style and not just the tricky battle lines of the spy fight.

“When you try to please both [sides], you never please anybody,” Biggs said. “Maybe that’s just his personality? I don’t know. My thought was always we could shore him up, but I’m not so sure.”

Conservatives aren’t close to entertaining an effort to oust Johnson, given that McCarthy’s departure will soon shrink their majority to just two seats. But GOP hard-liners are clearly displeased with his attempts to stay above the fray, and they’re poised to make real trouble for him if he doesn’t start making hard calls. Of course, even if he does start choosing sides, he risks blowback of a different kind — particularly if he advances proposals that conservatives dislike.

Once the House returns to session, it will have less than two weeks before its first government funding deadline, with the second coming on Feb. 2. The House left town on Thursday without even reaching a bicameral agreement on how much total money to spend.

Asked when Johnson should take a hands-on approach to the funding fight, senior appropriator Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) jokingly replied: “Yesterday.”

“He’s trying to satisfy all of our conference, which I don’t know that he can. But I think he’s trying to do that. He’s listened to everybody,” Simpson said. “But you gotta remember this is the first time he’s been in this role, not even as an assistant majority leader, so it’s like drinking from Niagara Falls.”

When it comes to negotiations on pairing border changes with Ukraine and Israel aid, Johnson has called for the inclusion of the House GOP’s immigration bill — a conservative plan that would go nowhere in the Senate — while carefully avoiding any commitment to taking up a deal that has yet to materialize. The House has largely stayed on the sidelines of those talks.

If he bends at all toward the Senate, however, Johnson is likely to face more blowback from his right.

“We don’t know how to negotiate with the Senate. … The institution has to be more proactive,” said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.). “We could have probably solved the Israel thing already. We could probably have done the border thing easier.”

“It helps if the speaker is involved,” Bacon added, while acknowledging that the House has been sidelined in major talks long before Johnson’s ascension.

So far, the Louisiana Republican has relayed to the White House, the Senate and to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that in order for the bill to be approved by the House, it has to include transformative change in border policy, provide accountability and oversight of Ukraine dollars, and get a clear articulation of the strategy from White House on what it will take for Ukraine to win its war with Russia.

His coming to-do list doesn’t just include spending or Ukraine aid, which Johnson also has asked for more oversight of before advancing any ultimate bipartisan deal. Congress has to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration and will return to the surveillance fight in April.

In many of those cases, Johnson has to quickly get up to speed on policy fights that he didn’t have to concern himself with before. And he has to do it while navigating what’s soon to become a two-seat majority — until the February special election to replace George Santos. Should a Democrat win that contest, Republican control of the House would hang by a one-seat thread.

Among some GOP colleagues, Johnson’s handling of the spy powers fight drew unflattering comparisons to a spat of 2018 immigration infighting that still rankles Republicans.

“Mike’s done a good job listening to people … but to execute, you’ve got to smash people together in the room and say this is what we’re going to do,” said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), one of three conservatives McCarthy installed on the powerful Rules Committee that determines which bills come to the floor.

Faced with the same surveillance squabble that Johnson’s encountering, Roy said he would have told both sides to “go sort this out” to select an option for a floor vote, or “I’m going to pick one.”

But despite that frustration on the right, conservatives argue Johnson is still better than his predecessor.

One of the right flank’s biggest complaints about McCarthy was their limited window on his decision-making for the conference, on top of what they saw as an unreliable tendency to go back on his word.

“McCarthy just didn’t tell the truth,” said Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), adding that the “uniparty [establishment] doesn’t know what to do with” Johnson yet.

McCarthy allies, who still argue he was unfairly ousted, note that the former speaker stepped into the role with years of leadership experience that Johnson doesn’t have, not to mention the added benefit of time to vet his strategies. And some argue it’s too early in Johnson’s tenure to truly compare his style to McCarthy’s.

“It’s tough. Somebody who came into the position the way he did — unlike Kevin, Kevin knows everybody,” Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio) said. “It’s taking [Johnson] a little bit longer and [he’s] taking the time to try to make sure he’s not making any decisions hastily.”

McCarthy himself applauded his successor’s performance so far during an exit interview this week. The California Republican advised the new speaker to not be afraid of the internal rebellion that ousted him from the top job.

Chaos within the House GOP “isn’t Johnson’s problem to fix,” McCarthy said. “This is the conference’s problem to fix.”

Yet some corners of the conference appear uninterested in taking chaos fully off the table. Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) — known as a leadership antagonist and set to be the next chair of the Freedom Caucus starting in January — is already issuing warnings to Johnson.

Good predicted this week that if Johnson fights for conservative policy wins next year, the hard-line bloc would be his “greatest cheerleaders.” But if he agrees to compromises that the right flank takes issue with, Good told reporters, “then the Freedom Caucus will absolutely be a problem.”

Mia McCarthy contributed to this report.

House Republicans are scrambling to fix a potential nightmare that’s unfolding in a must-win race in northwestern Ohio.

The GOP is eager to block J.R. Majewski from winning its nomination to challenge veteran Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur. Majewski lost his previous bid for Congress last year, after a news report on his military records indicated he lied about combat duty in Afghanistan.

Republicans turned to former state legislator Craig Riedel to beat Majewski in this cycle’s primary. But last week, an audio tape surfaced of Riedel calling Donald Trump “arrogant” and vowing not to endorse the former president. Now the primary looks poised to become a referendum on which is worse in today’s GOP: criticizing Trump or allegedly lying about one’s military valor.

Republican strategists don’t believe Majewski can win a general election against Kaptur, given his record and how purple the district is. Yet the audio of Riedel may have tanked his chances of defeating Majewski.

So Republicans in Ohio and Washington are in damage control mode, holding high-level discussions about trying to find a new candidate before the state’s Dec. 20 filing deadline, according to three people familiar with the effort who were granted anonymity to speak candidly.

“Unless he’s found somebody that knows he was in Afghanistan, and he can have some proof that he was in Afghanistan, I don’t know how he overcomes that issue,” Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) said of Majewski. “It’s a disqualifier for anybody that does it. I’m not saying he did. But so far, last I heard, he didn’t have a good answer.”

Top party strategists are urging Trump’s team and allies not to rush to endorse Majewski, citing his liabilities. Republican campaign officials are also deploying screenshots of a nearly two-year-old private message that appears to show Majewski calling Trump “an idiot.” Those pictures of the alleged Majewski message were shown to the former president, according to a fourth person familiar with the interaction.

“You could take a self-funder with over half a million dollars to put in that race and win the primary and have a better shot at beating Marcy Kaptur than J.R. Majewski … who will lose by 20 points,” this Republican said.

House Republicans from Ohio met Thursday afternoon with the topic of a possible new candidate on the agenda, according to a fifth person familiar with the meeting, who was granted anonymity to address it candidly.

Recent redistricting turned Kaptur’s Toledo-based district into one of the nation’s most competitive; she is one of just five Democrats who represents a district that Trump carried in 2020. But Majewski’s reported misrepresentation of his service record sank his last bid, and he lost by 13 points.

With a minuscule House majority to protect, the GOP can’t afford to whiff in the race again.

Majewski’s attempted comeback bid didn’t initially worry national Republicans, in part because Riedel is the only well-funded contender in the primary, with over $500,000 banked by the end of September. Until last week, when Charlie Kirk — leader of the pro-Trump group Turning Point USA — leaked audio of Riedel telling a potential donor that he isn’t seeking Trump’s endorsement and won’t support the former president in 2024.

“I think he is arrogant. I don’t like the way he calls people names. I just don’t think that’s very becoming of a president,” Riedel said of Trump in the recording, the date of which is unclear.

In an effort to repair his prospects in the primary, Riedel quickly endorsed Trump after the audio leaked. Riedel also released a cable ad Friday highlighting Majewski’s alleged criticism of Trump that will air in a Florida media market more than 1,000 miles away: the former president’s home base of West Palm Beach.

“Craig is a great candidate. He has done all the things he needs to win this race. He has tremendous support in the district — all up and down the district. And so if people are serious about flipping the seat, we welcome their support to do just that,” said Riedel spokesperson Mark Harris.

Asked for comment via email on this story, Majewski posted a response on X that calls himself a “supporter of Donald Trump who’s never strayed.” He accused the GOP of “pandering fake news in their partisan attempt to muddy my primary.”

“I don’t have to run ads 1000 miles away from my district in Palm Beach to prove that I am a Trump guy,” he wrote, adding a middle finger emoji. His campaign later sent a similar statement.

Riedel’s Trump endorsement may have been too late to stop Majewski from gaining momentum.

Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio), a former Trump aide, withdrew his endorsement from Riedel after the leak, though he isn’t backing Majewski. Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) threw his support behind Majewski, along with Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who is running in the GOP primary to unseat Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).

“People say that J.R. was a bad candidate,” Vance said in a brief interview. “I think he had a very dishonest smear come out against him, and he had national Republicans abandon him. That’s not his fault.”

Conservative favorite Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), asked if he planned to withdraw his endorsement of Riedel, said that “I’m talking with our political guys. I haven’t spoken with Craig.” Asked if Riedel had made a big mistake, Jordan replied: “We told him to endorse President Trump months ago.”

Before the gaffe, Speaker Mike Johnson and his team had touted Riedel in recent meetings in an effort to drum up financial support.

“He made a mistake,” Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said of Riedel. “We’re obviously having conversations with people on the ground. I don’t know what the next steps are.”

But both candidates are facing allegations of Trump disloyalty.

In a Jan. 31, 2022 direct message on X, Majewski’s campaign account called Trump “an idiot,” according to screenshots of the exchange provided by Sam Melendez, a Democratic operative in northwest Ohio. Melendez showed POLITICO his exchange on X with Majewski in a video call to demonstrate the images he provided were not doctored.

He posted those screenshots to X on April 23, 2022 — the same day Trump was holding a rally in the state.

In an RV parked at the event, Majewski panicked and ordered his aides to help him figure out how to explain the messages to Trump’s team, according to multiple people close to the Majewski campaign with direct knowledge of the incident. Among the possible options: he could say the screenshot was photoshopped, or that his X account was hacked. Majewski later posted that the screenshot Melendez circulated was “100% fake and photoshopped.”

“Mr. Majewski has never sent a single message that disparages President Trump and amplifying these lies is intentionally misleading voters,” his campaign said in a statement.

During Majewski’s 2022 campaign, he cast himself as an Air Force combat veteran who deployed to Afghanistan. But records published by The Associated Press showed he was stationed in Qatar for six months in the early 2000s, loading cargo planes far away from the fighting.

Publicly, Majewski has vigorously denied the AP’s reporting. But he has offered a variety of explanations for his conflicting version of events, including that records of his time in Afghanistan were classified and that he flew in and out of the country to load and unload cargo planes.

He successfully petitioned the Air Force this year to add the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal to his record. That medal is offered to service members who deployed abroad after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. He has pointed toward that as proof that he served in Afghanistan, but it is also awarded to those who served in other countries, including Qatar.

Republicans continue to urge Majewski to furnish proof to rebut the Democratic attacks.

“I personally like the man,” said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), a retired Air Force brigadier general. “He’s got to be able to show that he was in Afghanistan. Otherwise, the Democrats will use that as a weapon.”

Kentucky’s Supreme Court on Thursday upheld Republican-drawn boundaries for state House and congressional districts, rejecting Democratic claims that the majority party’s mapmaking amounted to gerrymandering in violation of the state’s constitution.

The court noted that an alternative proposal would have resulted in nearly the same lopsided advantage for Republicans in Kentucky House elections and would not have altered the GOP’s 5-1 advantage in U.S. House seats from the Bluegrass State.

The new district boundaries were passed by the GOP-dominated legislature over Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear’s vetoes in early 2022. The new maps were used in last year’s election.

The justices referred to redistricting as an “inherently political process” assigned to the legislature.

“An expectation that apportionment will be free of partisan considerations would thus not only be unrealistic, but also inconsistent with our constitution’s assignment of responsibility for that process to an elected political body,” Justice Angela McCormick Bisig wrote in the majority opinion.

The court concluded that the once-a-decade mapmaking did not violate Kentucky’s constitution. It upheld a lower court ruling that had concluded the new boundaries amounted to “partisan gerrymanders,” but said the constitution doesn’t explicitly forbid the consideration of partisan interests during redistricting.

The new maps were challenged by the state Democratic Party and several individuals, including Democratic state Rep. Derrick Graham. Their lawsuit contended the new boundaries reflected “extreme partisan gerrymandering” in violation of the state constitution. It claimed the state House map divided some counties into multiple districts to “dilute the influence” of Democratic voters.

With the new districts in effect in last November’s midterm election, Republicans increased their legislative supermajorities. Several Democratic state House members lost their reelection bids after having Republican-friendlier territory tacked onto their districts.

Democrats’ biggest objection to the redrawn congressional boundaries focused on an extension of the sprawling 1st Congressional District, situated mostly in western Kentucky, to include Franklin County, home of the capital city of Frankfort in central Kentucky.

The 1st District is represented by powerful Republican Rep. James Comer. Comer has been at the center of the House GOP’s impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden as chairman of the House Oversight Committee.

Comer and his wife have homes in Monroe and Franklin counties in Kentucky. They purchased the Franklin County home when he was state agriculture commissioner, when his work was based in Frankfort.

For decades, Democrats wielded complete control in setting legislative boundaries, and then shared that power once the GOP took control of the state Senate. Last year was the first time the legislature had redrawn districts since Republicans consolidated their control of the legislature. The GOP took control of the state House after the 2016 election.

In last year’s election, the GOP won 80 of the 100 state House seats. Under an alternative plan relied upon by the plaintiffs, Republicans were projected to win at least 77 seats, the Supreme Court said.

“We note that every seat is important,” Bisig wrote. The court concluded that a difference of three seats in the 100-seat Kentucky House didn’t rise to the level of a “clear, flagrant and unwarranted” violation of constitutional rights.

State GOP spokesperson Sean Southard said the high court rightfully rejected “a pathetic attempt” by Democrats to throw out Kentucky’s congressional and state House maps.

Kentucky House Democratic leaders said they disagreed with the ruling. “It gives legislative majorities much more authority to protect themselves at the expense of many voters while guaranteeing more political polarization for decades to come,” they said in a statement.

WASHINGTON D.C. — Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) started this year hearing his name cast as speaker — a dream he had held throughout his political career.

On Thursday, McCarthy wrapped up his 2023 on Capitol Hill with a farewell speech.

The California Republican said goodbye to Congress on a House floor that saw a 15 round speaker election, multiple failed procedural votes and the first ousted Speaker of the House in Congress’ 234-year history. McCarthy secured the gavel in early January, only to lose it in nine months’ time.

“It’s kind of bittersweet,” McCarthy told reporters Thursday. “It’s not the timing I wanted.”

For most of his life, McCarthy had his eyes on the top House leadership post that’s second in line for the presidency. After being elected to Congress in 2006, he worked his way up the ranks. For five years he served as leader of the Republican Party, where he was considered a fundraising powerhouse that helped clinch the GOP majority last year.

But all of that ended in October when Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz, a member McCarthy had once backed during his primary, made a motion for the speaker’s ouster as punishment for using Democratic votes to avoid a government shutdown.

“There’s people who study that type of crazy mind,” McCarthy told reporters Thursday about the Florida Republican. “I think from that perspective, history will prove right what we did.”

Earlier this month, McCarthy announced he would be leaving office at the end of the year “to serve America in new ways.” Thursday was the last day the House was in session for the year, and it was also McCarthy’s last day as a member on Capitol Hill.

It was a routine day for McCarthy despite its significance: He cast his vote on annual legislation, talked with fellow Republicans on the House floor and chatted with a gaggle of reporters.

But to mark the moment, fellow California Republicans gave personal tributes on the House floor. His close friend Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) called him “the legislative equivalent of an elite power athlete.”

It was not a final farewell though, as California Republicans said they expect McCarthy to help them keep a House GOP majority in 2024. McCarthy said that he will be assisting on the fundraising front, especially in “challenging races.”

He also didn’t rule out a future government gig or even a position in a Trump cabinet, despite his complicated relationship with the former president.

The well wishes on McCarthy’s last day were bipartisan — with former House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) speaking about his time serving alongside the former speaker despite their years of disagreement.

“When we could agree, [McCarthy] took the opportunity to act upon that agreement,” Hoyer said. “It was good for the House. It was good for the country.”

During McCarthy’s nearly hour-long exit interview with reporters, he reflected on the past year from his hideaway in the Capitol — a room he moved to after losing the speakership. McCarthy greeted reporters in a true history-buff fashion: with a story about how former President Harry Truman — then vice president — found out he was going to lead the nation in the same room.

McCarthy described the past tumultuous year, noting that the ups and downs of someone’s life are what defines them. He used Abraham Lincoln as an example. “Think about Lincoln,” McCarthy said.

“He loses a race for speaker — which I admire,” McCarthy adds with a chuckle.

It was only a few months earlier that McCarthy held a bipartisan viewing of the movie “Lincoln,” something McCarthy said he had done as an attempt to unite the House. He thought members would act more cordial with one another, especially with a plus one from their district at their side. Had he been speaker in 2024, he said he hoped to host a carnival and music night at the Capitol to do the same.

The California Republican now heads back to his home state, where his political options are dim in the blue state.

While he said his departure was “bittersweet,” the former speaker ended the last day of his 17 years in Congress on a high note.

“I loved the job,” McCarthy said. “I loved every minute, good or bad.”

ALBANY, N.Y. — House Republicans in swing districts are trapped between the wishes of their GOP base to move forward on an impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden and the risk of being portrayed as extremists as they defend their seats in the 2024 midterm elections.

Vulnerable GOP members are trying to perform a high-stakes balancing act: Support the inquiry, but refrain from a full-throated endorsement of impeachment.

And whether they are successful could determine which party controls the chamber after 2024.

The 221-212 party-line vote Wednesday in the narrowly divided chamber to further the impeachment process underscored how little wiggle room Republicans have to allow their more vulnerable members, particularly in coastal blue states like New York and California, to duck the politically charged issue.

Democrats are eager to highlight Republicans trying to have it both ways. Party leaders are gearing up to make sure an impeachment push proves to be a potent issue for their candidates next year, in addition to abortion rights, as they try to offset Biden’s weakness at the top of the ticket.

“They’re gift wrapping an issue for Democrats to prosecute against them in 2024. Most of these guys were off-year wins and have never had to defend these seats in a presidential election year,” Neal Kwatra, a New York Democratic consultant, said. “With Democrats focused on pickups in New York, this gives them fresh meat and motivation.”

Democratic House candidates, too, expect impeachment could provide fodder for ads to hit their Republican opponents in swing seats and create a clear opening to tie their opponents to former President Donald Trump in those battleground districts.

“This is another example of the extreme side of the MAGA movement that has held our government hostage,” Democrat John Mannion, who is running to unseat Rep. Brandon Williams in a Syracuse-area House seat, said in an interview.

Democrats expect the issue will remain a potent one for voters — allowing their candidates to talk about substantive matters, while portraying Republicans as obsessed with attacking Biden.

And in New York and California, which have a plethora of competitive House races, early signs show Republican discomfort over the issue.

New York GOP Rep. Mike Lawler said in a statement to POLITICO there is not yet sufficient evidence to impeach Biden and set a removal trial in the Senate, despite voting to advance the process. Lawler prevailed last year in a suburban New York City district that Biden won by 10 percentage points in 2020.

“To my constituents, I promise to approach this inquiry with the seriousness it demands, keeping in mind the core American value that someone is always innocent until proven guilty — and you will always have my word that I’ll put what’s right for our country before what’s right for my party,” Lawler said in a statement.

But Wednesday’s vote put all House Republicans on the record in backing the initial phase of establishing the impeachment inquiry.

Republicans are reviewing the international business dealings of Biden’s son Hunter, but have insisted they are primarily interested in whether the president financially benefited.

While the issue has been an animating one for Republican voters, swing district GOP lawmakers are framing the vote for the inquiry as a way to shore up their bipartisan bonafides.

Rep. David Valadao, a California Republican in a district Biden won by 11 points in 2020, emphasized in an interview that he was simply voting to advance the probe, not to impeach the president.

Asked if voters in his swing district will make that distinction, he said, “We’ll find out.”

“I’ve voted on the Trump one. I voted on the expulsion of Santos. I’ve taken a pretty bipartisan approach on this one,” Valadao said. “When they’re wrong, they’re wrong — call it.”

Republican Rep. Marc Molinaro, who represents a Hudson Valley district in New York to the north of Lawler, also comforted himself with the shaky view voters have of Biden.

“Now, with serious questions about President Biden, Congress has a responsibility to check it out. It is our job to do so,” he said in a statement to POLITICO. “Because if he handles his personal affairs anything like he does inflation, crime, or the border — there’s reason for us to be suspicious.”

Other Republicans are making a plea for restraint.

Rep. Anthony D’Esposito, a Long Island Republican, urged his GOP colleagues “to advance this inquiry in a level-headed fashion and let only the facts guide us.”

D’Esposito, Lawler and Molinaro are among the five House Republican freshmen from New York with credible Democratic challenges next year. Given the razor-thin majority the House GOP holds, their seats are expected to be key in determining which party controls the chamber after 2024.

Republican Rep. Mike Garcia, who represents a battleground district near Los Angeles, has been outspoken in his support for the impeachment inquiry — and is framing the move as due diligence.

“The White House has made it clear that they’re not going to cooperate in any kind of inquiry until it’s formalized,” Garcia said. “So let’s formalize it. We get the information, we have an obligation to not turn a blind eye to this stuff.”

For some California Republicans, that vote “is akin to walking the plank,” said Mike Madrid, a GOP strategist and co-founder of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project. He argued that the many voters won’t know or care about the distinction between a procedural and impeachment vote.

Still, some Republicans fear the price of inaction for the party on pursuing impeachment against Biden, whose popularity with voters continues to sag.

Former Rep. John Sweeney (R-N.Y.) pointed to broad support within the Republican base for a Biden impeachment.

Not acting against Biden could hamper Republican turnout, Sweeney said. But at the same time, top GOP lawmakers need to explain to more moderate voters why the inquiry is necessary.

“It could be risky.It could also be risky to do nothing” he said. “It depends on how thorough and how effective the Republican majority is at communicating the evidence they’ve got.”

Congress reacts to House approving Biden impeachment inquiry

lead image