House Republicans are setting a lofty goal for a next step in their sweeping impeachment inquiry: Interviewing Joe Biden himself.

At the end of an hours-long hearing with two former Hunter Biden business associates, Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) said that he would invite Joe Biden to testify in front of the committee.

“In the coming days I will invite President Biden to the Oversight Committee to provide his testimony and explain why his family received tens of millions of dollars. … We need to hear from the president himself,” Comer said.

An Oversight Committee aide confirmed to POLITICO that the invitation to the president will be for a public hearing.

Comer made the announcement just before he wrapped up a Wednesday hearing with former Hunter Biden associates Tony Bobulinski and Jason Galanis. Both men reiterated claims they have previously made privately to the panel: That Joe Biden discussed business with Hunter Biden, an allegation both Bidens have denied, and spoke with his son’s associates.

Comer explained that he wanted to invite Joe Biden because there was a “major discrepancy” between the testimony from the two men and Hunter Biden’s private testimony last month. Hunter Biden has reiterated, both publicly and privately, that his father was not involved in his business deals. Republicans also invited Hunter Biden to testify publicly on Wednesday, but he declined the invitation.

In addition to Hunter Biden, multiple former business associates of the president’s son have told the committee privately that Joe Biden was not involved in their business deals.

One of those former associates, Devon Archer, told the committee behind closed doors that Hunter Biden would put his father on speakerphone while at dinners with business associates, but Archer said the conversations were limited to pleasantries. Rob Walker, another former Hunter Biden associate, previously told investigators that Joe Biden wasn’t involved in their business deals and also characterized his appearance at the lunch as an exchange of pleasantries.

Republicans are months into their impeachment inquiry that has largely focused on the business deals of Joe Biden’s family members, as they’ve struggled to find a clear link between actions Joe Biden took as vice president or president to those financial arrangements.

Joe Manchin has a new rule when it comes to President Joe Biden’s judicial picks: If they don’t have Republican backing, he won’t vote for them.

The retiring West Virginia Democrat has quietly voted against several judicial picks this week, making for some close — though still ultimately successful — votes on the Senate floor. Manchin said there’s a method to his opposition.

“Just one Republican. That’s all I’m asking for. Give me something bipartisan. This is my own little filibuster. If they can’t get one Republican, I vote for none. I’ve told [Democrats] that. I said, ‘I’m sick and tired of it, I can’t take it anymore,’” Manchin said in an interview Wednesday.

Manchin’s stance makes party-line nominees even trickier as the election nears, requiring total unanimity among the rest of the 51-member caucus unless a nominee has bipartisan support. At the moment, that might be enough to stop the nomination of Adeel Mangi to an appeals court; Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) came out in opposition to his nomination on Tuesday evening and he has no Republican support at the moment.

Bipartisan support for Biden’s judicial picks can vary widely: Some get dozens of GOP votes, particularly if they are in red states where home-state senators approved the pick beforehand, while others get a total Republican blockade. And several GOP senators, like Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, are often inclined to cross party lines.

But Manchin said he needs to see more of an effort to get GOP votes.

“If they don’t have a Republican, I’m opposing. That’s my way of saying: ‘I’m leaving this place, I’ve tried everything I can. Don’t tell me you can’t get one.’ If you’ve got a decent person you can at least get one. Just go ask Lisa, go ask Susan, even Lindsey,” Manchin said. “Lisa and Susan both are not controlled by just voting party line, I know that. But you’ve got to ask them.”

Manchin also said he’s doing a little work on the side to preserve the legislative filibuster, even as its two strongest Democrat-aligned advocates — him and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) head for the exits. He said he’s telling donors to ask candidates “if they will commit to supporting and keeping the filibuster. If they don’t, you ought to think twice about it.”

Both Democratic and Republican leaders are pushing their own victories in the upcoming six-bill spending bundle, reflecting the high stakes as Congress tries to finally end the nonstop funding drama of the current fiscal year.

During a closed-door party meeting on Wednesday, Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democratic appropriator in the House, championed the legislation’s increase in Title I funding for schools serving low-income students, in addition to hikes for Head Start and child care funding, according to a source familiar with the meeting. DeLauro also celebrated budget boosts for cancer and Alzheimer’s research, a new FBI headquarters and more.

House Democrats gathered as Republicans met in a separate closed-door confab, with Speaker Mike Johnson touting a number of GOP talking points about the forthcoming package, including increased border funding and Covid cuts. He’s hoping to calm conservatives who are already angry about the last-minute nature of the legislation, which is expected to top $1 trillion and needs to clear both the House and Senate by Friday to avert a shutdown. The release of text could slip to Thursday, pushing Congress dangerously close to its deadline.

The concerted effort by both sides to establish talking points shows that leadership is working to head off any last-minute opposition. Appropriators are eager to finally close out the seemingly never-ending funding process of the current fiscal year, which saw four stopgaps and near-constant bickering. No congressional leaders want a partial shutdown, which would affect most of the federal government, including the military and major health programs.

But some of those talking points seem to run directly in contrast to each other, as both sides message their victories in the absence of bill text. DeLauro said the spending package would increase money for climate change efforts, while Johnson told his members Wednesday morning that it would cut such programs. A person familiar with the details of the not-yet-final spending deal said the cuts Johnson claimed were compared to President Joe Biden’s budget request, however, not compared to current funding levels.

The legislation includes a year-long extension of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR — an authorization Republicans had resisted, raising concerns about the program’s funds flowing to abortion providers overseas.

The package would grant 12,000 new visas for a program that allows Afghan allies who assisted in the U.S. war effort to immigrate to the U.S. And it includes more money for the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.

In the Republican meeting Wednesday, Johnson had celebrated the State-Foreign Operations bill for its inclusion of a prohibition on any flags other than the American flag flying at U.S. diplomatic facilities, which would ban flags representing the LGBTQ+ community and confederate flags, for example.

That language isn’t exactly new, however, having already been included in annual defense policy legislation last year for military bases, essentially codifying a Trump-era policy.

Overall, the six-bill package, which leaders expect will get a vote in the House on Friday, would fund the Pentagon, major health programs, the Department of Homeland Security, foreign aid programs, the IRS and more through Sept. 30, the remainder of the fiscal year.

Connor O’Brien contributed to this report.

The idea of making some Ukraine aid into a loan is gaining traction within the GOP. Not with Mitch McConnell, though.

The Senate minority leader — and chief Republican proponent of new U.S. assistance for Ukraine’s defense against Russia — continued to throw cold water on any deviation from the Senate’s massive foreign aid bill and its $60 billion for Kyiv. Speaker Mike Johnson has remained generally supportive of Ukraine aid, though GOP resistance has so far stalled it in the House.

“We’re running out of time. And the best way we can get Ukraine the help they need is for the House to pass the Senate bill. The problem with changing it .. is it can take three days to do the simplest thing here in the Senate. We don’t have the time,” McConnell told reporters on Wednesday.

Some of McConnell’s members are floating the idea of a “waivable loan” for Ukraine. It’s a strategy designed to recognize the ever-growing influence of former President Donald Trump over the congressional GOP. Trump’s support for new Ukraine aid, which he has previously been cool to, would make it easier for Republicans to steer a package through the House.

At the moment, the House and Senate are focused on funding the government past Friday and avoiding a shutdown. Once that saga is over, the battle over whether to send Ukraine another tranche of funding will heat right back up.

And McConnell said his approach is pretty simple: “I’m continuing to advocate to the speaker that he put the bill on the floor and let people vote.”

A high-profile hearing House Republicans had hoped would provide more fodder for their impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden quickly descended into petty bickering.

The House Oversight Committee hearing Wednesday featured two witnesses invited by Republicans — former Hunter Biden associates Tony Bobulinski and James Galanis — who have previously met with the committee in private interviews. In those meetings, both have claimed that Joe Biden discussed business with Hunter Biden and his son’s associates, which both Bidens have denied.

Democrats, in a memo circulated ahead of the hearing, called Bobulinski and Galanis “discredited,” adding that they “have not shown any wrongdoing or [an] impeachment offense” by Joe Biden. And repeating a dynamic in those private sessions, Democrats on the panel soon started having testy exchanges with Bobulinski on Wednesday, who previously attended a 2020 presidential debate as a guest of then-President Donald Trump’s campaign.

Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the panel, teed off against the two witnesses, calling them “loyal servants of Trump world” and “utterly compromised and biased witnesses,” adding that Bobulinski is a “bitterly disappointed wannabe Hunter Biden business partner.”

The hearing is the latest bullet point in the House GOP’s broad impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden, which has flailed recently and seems unlikely to lead to a House vote absent clearer evidence. Republican investigators had hoped Hunter Biden would personally attend the public hearing after a closed-door deposition last month, but the president’s son declined. And the attorney for another business partner and planned witness, Devon Archer, also said he couldn’t attend, instead requesting that the committee propose alternative days, according to a letter obtained by POLITICO.

Bobulinski, in his opening statement, vehemently criticized Joe Biden, who he called a “serial liar.” He also accused Raskin and Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) of lying. When Raskin interrupted to ask if the House’s decorum rules applied to witnesses — noting that Bobulinski “called members of this committee liars” — Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) said decorum regulations cited by Raskin only applied to members.

“Am I supposed to say it’s my time, Mr. Raskin?” Bobulinski quipped.

It wasn’t just Raskin who sparred with Bobulinski. When Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) said that Bobulinski “provided zero evidence — zero evidence — of any sort of link between Hunter Biden and the president as it relates to the business dealing,” Bobulinski interrupted to call that a “blatant lie.”

“Actually it’s my time, sir,” Garcia said, before continuing.

Bobulinski also took a jab at Hunter Biden’s absence during the hearing, asking: “Should I allow Hunter to give his opening statement first?” Hunter Biden, through his legal team, had said he would only testify if Comer also called a hearing with members of Trump’s family, namely son-in-law Jared Kushner.

The other Republican witness, Galanis, testified from prison — a fact Democrats cited to question his credibility.

“I want to remind people he is sitting in prison, that’s why he can’t be here today. He’s sitting in prison for scamming workers’ pensions. I mean how low can you get?” asked Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.).

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), a member of the Oversight Committee, was also name checked by former Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, who was invited by Democrats to testify. Parnas was convicted on charges of campaign finance fraud in 2021.

“My original indictment linked me to an individual referred to as ‘unindicted co-conspirator one.’ We know, now, this individual to be Congressman Pete Sessions who sits on this very committee,” Parnas said.

The committee hearing tensions flared between members, as well. Comer told a Democrat who said they had an inquiry to “state your parliamentary inquiry … we don’t have time for stunts.”

Another GOP member chimed in: “We don’t have time for games by Democrats today.”

Republicans also defeated an attempt by Democrats to subpoena Bobulinski’s phone.

Speaker Mike Johnson is trying to appease his right flank on the unfinalized spending package, using a weekly closed-door GOP meeting on Wednesday morning to champion Republican wins.

In the meeting, Johnson highlighted a boost in detention beds for handling a migration surge at the southern border, billions of dollars in cuts to pandemic-era programs, longstanding anti-abortion rules, measures to limit diversity programs and more. Democrats counter that Johnson is stretching the truth in some of those talking points, accusing him of distorting what’s in the actual bill.

Those alleged GOP victories will likely do little to assuage the concerns of House conservatives, who have already soured on the six-bill spending bundle before its release. They haven’t raised an attempt to boot Johnson from the speakership over the funding bills, but the lack of legislative text combined with a shutdown deadline on Friday is further irritating those rebellious members.

“You don’t need 72 hours to decide you’re going to vote for some 2,000 pages?” said Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), chair of the conservative House Freedom Caucus. “If you’re saying you plan to vote for the bill, and you don’t need 72 hours — you’ll just vote for anything, no matter what’s in there, or what’s not in there, you’re going to vote for it? That’s very concerning.”

Congressional staff are racing to finalize the legislative text of the enormous fiscal 2024 funding package, which is expected to top $1 trillion and covers around 70 percent of federal spending. Congressional leaders are hoping to clear the legislation by Friday, which means Johnson will need to waive a rule that says lawmakers get 72 hours to review text before a vote.

Several Republicans coming out of the closed-door conference meeting said they expect Johnson to ditch that rule, confirming that a vote is likely on Friday. Johnson will have to pass the package under suspension, requiring a two-thirds vote threshold and substantial support from Democrats. And that would leave little time for the Senate to process the package before the deadline.

Some lawmakers are calling for yet another short stopgap bill — which would be the fifth so-called continuing resolution this fiscal year — to buy more time to process the package. Johnson told reporters Wednesday that he didn’t expect to resort to another stopgap, however.

Here are some of Johnson’s talking points about the not-yet-final package:

Defense 

Increases military funding by $27 billion, including a 5.2 percent pay raise for troops.
Cuts funding for climate change efforts within the Department of Defense.
Essentially bars the Pentagon from mandating Covid vaccines.
Cuts funding for diversity and inclusion programs to spending levels signed into law three years ago.
Bars money from going to China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology, where scientists conducted coronavirus research in the city where Covid first emerged. The Biden administration released intelligence on the lab last year, acknowledging that researchers there fell ill in the fall of 2019, shortly before the pandemic began.

Homeland Security 

Increases immigration detention capacity to 42,000 people Immigration and Customs Enforcement can hold at one time. That’s an increase of about 24 percent from the current detention-bed capacity of 34,000.
Provides enough funding for the Border Patrol to have 22,000 agents. That’s the same level House Republicans approved in H.R. 2, the immigration and border security measure they passed last year and have been calling on the Senate to clear for President Joe Biden’s signature.
Increases funding for technology to monitor U.S. borders by 25 percent.
Cuts funding for non-profit groups and faith-based organizations that provide shelter and other resources to undocumented immigrants crossing the border into the U.S.

State-Foreign Operations 

Cuts funding for the State Department and foreign operations by 6 percent.
Prohibits any flags except the American flag from being flown at U.S. diplomatic facilities.
Maintains current prohibitions on federal funding going to groups that perform abortions or provide abortion counseling.
Bars federal money from going to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Members of the Palestinian aid group have been accused of collaborating with Hamas during the Oct. 7 attack on Israel. Over the weekend, Sen.
Chris Van Hollen
(D-Md.) called those accusations “a flat-out lie.”

Financial Services 

Implements a more than $10 billion cut to the IRS.
Cuts funding by more than $2 billion for Covid-related efforts.
Prevents the Biden administration from banning gas stoves.
Bars funding from being used to cover abortions in federal programs, as well as local programs in the District of Columbia.

Labor-HHS-Education 

Decreases funding by more than $4 billion for Covid-related efforts.
Maintains the half-century ban on federal funding for abortions, known as the Hyde amendment.

What’s next: Appropriators fear text for the six-bill funding bundle could be delayed until Thursday, pushing Congress dangerously close to the deadline and increasing the risk of a brief shutdown. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Wednesday that “even with bipartisanship, it’s going to be a tight squeeze to get this funding package passed before the weekend deadline.” He’ll need agreement from all 100 senators to process the package before the deadline.

“I ask my colleagues to be flexible,” Schumer added, “to be prepared to act quickly and to prioritize working together in good faith so we can finish the appropriations process.”

Conservatives, who were never likely to vote for the bill in the first place, are complaining about the rushed timeline.

“I don’t think Republicans should be jamming through a bill that we have less than 72 hours to read and doesn’t do the job on the border,” said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas). “There is no reason why any Texan or anyone in the Republican conference should vote for this bill.”

Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democratic appropriator in the House, said she remains hopeful that the House and Senate will act swiftly before the weekend.

“I’m very optimistic there won’t be a shutdown,” DeLauro said.

The legislation would fund the Pentagon, major health programs, the Department of Homeland Security, foreign aid programs, the IRS and more through Sept. 30, the remainder of the fiscal year.

Jordain Carney and Daniella Diaz contributed to this report.

Mitch McConnell trained his ire on Senate Democrats — and Chuck Schumer — in a floor speech Wednesday, slamming his colleagues on the left for “egregious and hypocritical attempts to influence Israeli domestic politics.”

“They’re an affront to the very independence of the state of Israel, a sovereign nation, a robust democracy and one of America’s closest allies and friends,” McConnell said.

McConnell’s remarks come ahead of a scheduled remote address by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Senate Republicans on Wednesday. And they follow a speech by the majority leader last week that included the New York Democrat’s harshest rebuke of Israel yet. Schumer said “Israel must make some significant course corrections” and called for new elections to replace Netanyahu.

“Our Democratic colleagues don’t have an anti-Bibi problem,” McConnell said. “They have an anti-Israel problem. What else are we supposed to make of the way Democrats have fallen in line behind the position the Democratic leader expressed here on the floor last week?”

The pointed back-and-forth between the Senate leaders captures the political churn caused by growing Democratic concerns about humanitarian conditions in Gaza. On Wednesday morning, a group of Senate Democrats penned a letter to President Joe Biden calling on his administration to establish a path for recognizing a non-militarized Palestinian state.

The letter, led by Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), was signed by 19 Democrats in total. That number includes Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who are both up for re-election this year in vulnerable seats.

“Given the severity of the current crisis, this moment requires determined U.S. leadership that must move beyond facilitation,” the letter wrote, seeking U.S. engagement with a state that would “be governed by a revitalized and reformed Palestinian Authority,”

Schumer’s speech from last week continues to also divide House Democrats — many of whom called it a necessary rebuke that represents how many staunch supporters of Israel feel toward Netanyahu’s leadership.

“He said what a lot of us are already keenly aware of: You can love Israel without loving Netanyahu,” said Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) in an interview of Schumer, , who is the highest-ranked Jewish elected official in American history.

“We have a lot of familiarity with people who think that their personal fortunes are bigger than the country they represent.”

And Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), another prominent Jewish Democrat, praised Schumer’s remarks while not mincing words about Netanyahu’s leadership.

“I view Netanyahu as the worst leader in Jewish history — not Israeli history, Jewish history,’ Nadler said in an interview. “His only plan as to how to keep himself in power. That’s all he cares about. He’s leading to catastrophe for the Israelis and for the Palestinians.”

However, that’s not the consensus view among Democrats toward Schumer’s remarks. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), previously the chamber’s number two Democrat, criticized the approach by the Senate majority leader.

“My own view is that it would have been better for him to do that privately rather than giving a sense of solace to the terrorists — to Hamas,” Hoyer said in an interview.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), a staunch Israeli ally, declined to comment on Schumer’s remarks.

Asked if it was appropriate for Netanyahu to respond in U.S. media, Hoyer didn’t directly reply: “We’re in a time when you need to focus on defeating Hamas and we need to ameliorate the injury and carnage to innocent children and noncombatants.”

House Democrats indicated frustration that government funding measures expected to be considered this week will limit U.S. funding for the main United Nations relief agency for Palestinians, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency or UNRWA. But they conceded those restrictions were likely necessary to ensure government funding gets done, given GOP resistance to significant further aid through the agency.

“It really complicates our ability to effectively surge humanitarian relief to Gaza. UNRWA is the agency on the ground that does it better and more than anyone else,” said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), echoing critiques of other members. “It’s very wrongheaded to completely zero out funding for UNRWA because of a few bad apples.”

The exact language of the aid restrictions in the spending deal has not yet been released.

Sen. James Lankford is pursuing a leadership bid for next Congress, a move that means the top five Senate GOP positions now have candidates.

The Oklahoma senator will run for the vice chair position of the Senate Republican Conference, the No. 5 job in the hierarchy. The current vice chair, Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), is running for the Republican Policy Committee chairmanship, the No. 4 job.

Lankford will announce his bid Wednesday morning and said in a statement that he will “personally ask each of my colleagues for their support in the days ahead.”

“As senators, we were elected to do hard things and to solve problems by doing the right thing, the right way. It is my desire to serve our conference in every way I can as we work together to solve the challenges our nation faces,” Lankford added in a statement to POLITICO confirming his bid.

Earlier this Congress, Lankford was tasked with the toughest job in Washington: Cutting a bipartisan border security deal as a way to unlock Ukraine aid. For weeks, Lankford labored to cut a deal with Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). But when they finally announced it, most Republicans rejected it as former President Donald Trump lobbied against it.

Even so, Lankford was widely praised for his work, and it’s not apparent it’s hurt his standing in the conference. Lankford previously served in the House for two terms, winning a leadership post there before being elected to the Senate in 2014.

On Congress’ iPhone, there’s still three dots floating, as Capitol Hill waits for the text.

It remains unclear precisely when bill text of the six-bill government funding agreement will be released, kicking off the 72-hour clock for House members to review the deal (a clock that could, theoretically, be waived).

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), a senior appropriator, told reporters he didn’t think a short funding stopgap would be needed over the weekend, but “it really does depend on the House.”

He expressed confidence, though, that the measure would get through. “We’re not really known for doing the right thing. But maybe this time we will,” Tester said. “We’ve wasted enough taxpayer dollars with these [continuing resolutions].”

While we wait: Both chambers are in. The Senate will vote at noon and throughout the afternoon on judicial nominations. The House plans to vote in the afternoon on two energy measures: One barring the president from imposing a hydraulic fracking ban for oil and gas and another blocking royalty rate increases for oil companies drilling on public lands.

Off the floor, the House Oversight Committee holds a hearing on allegations of “influence peddling” by President Joe Biden at 10 a.m. And Senate Republicans will hold a special conference meeting to discuss the future of their leadership once current Minority Leader Mitch McConnell steps aside.

Senate Democratic leaders and the White House have a ton of work to do to confirm a historic judicial nominee. They aren’t giving up just yet as they face hurdles in their own caucus.

In interviews on Tuesday, several Senate Democrats expressed reservations with the nomination of Adeel Mangi for a seat on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. President Joe Biden and senior Democrats are standing behind Mangi amid attacks from Republicans that critics knock as Islamophobic, though it’s plainly clear they don’t yet have the votes.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he’s getting questions about Mangi from his Democratic colleagues.

“He’s an excellent nominee,” the Illinois Democrat and Senate majority whip said in an interview. “I know a lot of the other information that’s been generated on the other side is distorted and unfair. So, he’s not without controversy, but I think he’s an extraordinary individual.”

It’s a rare judicial snag for the Senate Democratic majority and Biden, who have generally worked seamlessly on judges — with a few exceptions. And Mangi’s nomination is historic: He would be the first Muslim appeals court judge if confirmed.

Republicans do not appear willing to provide any votes for Mangi at the moment, with many criticizing him for his role as an adviser to the director of Rutgers University’s Center for Security, Race and Rights, which GOP critics said brought antisemitic speakers to campus. Mangi denied knowledge of the speakers amid Republican questioning.

Without GOP support, Mangi needs 50 of the 51 Senate Democratic-caucusing members to support him, a tough task in an election year in which Democratic incumbents are defending seats in purple and red states. Three Democrats — Jon Tester (Mont.), Tammy Baldwin (Wis.) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) — declined to say they’d back the pick in interviews Tuesday. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), another swing vote on judicial picks, said he was not aware of Mangi.

White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said Biden is proud to have nominated Mangi for the post and urged Senate Democrats to ignore “a malicious and debunked smear campaign” against his nomination.

“Every Senate Democrat should side with the qualities that make America exceptional — which Mr. Mangi embodies — not the hateful forces trying to force America into the past,” he told POLITICO in a statement.

Still, it’s going to take a serious whipping effort.

“I do” have concerns, Cortez Masto said, denying she agreed with attacks advanced by Republicans. “My concern is with respect to the organization that supports individuals who kill police officers.”

That organization appears to be the Alliance of Families for Justice, on whose board Mangi sits and which describes its mission as to “support, empower and mobilize families and individuals impacted by the criminal justice system.”

Tester said “we’re still taking input and I have not developed a position yet,” while Baldwin said in an interview that “I thoroughly look at every nominee who comes before the Senate — and I will be doing the same with him.”

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), the chief deputy whip, said because floor action is not imminent the whip team hasn’t fully ascertained whether Mangi can be confirmed. But he also said it’s too early to declare the nomination finished.

Biden formally nominated Mangi in November 2023 to sit on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced his nomination in January on a party-line 11-10 vote. It’s also possible the Senate could move to confirm him after the election. CNN reported last week that the White House is aware of the challenges in confirming Mangi.

One former Republican judicial appointee, Timothy Lewis, urged “the Senate to treat Mr. Mangi with the same respect that I received in 1992” when the chamber confirmed him to an appeals court post as “one of only two Black judges to be nominated to a federal appellate court by President Bush.” The American Bar Association rates Mangi, a veteran New York-based litigator, as “well qualified” for the federal bench.

A number of outside groups, including the AFL-CIO, the Anti-Defamation League, a coalition of Jewish groups and the National Organization of Black Women in Law Enforcement, and the White House have vigorously defended Mangi’s nomination in recent days, slamming GOP senators’ questioning over the Israel-Hamas war and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as “Islamophobic.”

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), one of the leading Mangi backers, said he spoke out in a recent Democratic caucus meeting about the selection and a concerted dark money push to tank his nomination. The Judicial Crisis Network is running ads urging Tester and Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), both incumbents, to vote against Mangi and called the nominee an “antisemite.”

“I’m concerned about the outrageous attacks that are happening to him that have nothing to do with fact,” Booker said in an interview, likening the volley of criticism to “slander” against the nominee.