House Speaker Kevin McCarthy continues to move toward impeaching AG Merrick Garland, and on Monday morning he set a deadline by which an inquiry would start.

A day earlier, McCarthy put out a statement reacting to the latest revelations from IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley. Shapley has accused Garland and Weiss of lying to Congress and the press by saying that the DOJ never interfered in Weiss’ ability to file charges against Hunter Biden (in this case, in California and Washington, DC).

When Garland responded by insinuating that Shapley wasn’t being truthful, the whistleblower called his bluff, naming the names of the FBI and IRS agents who were in the room when Weiss allegedly admitted he had been rebuffed by DOJ leadership.

(See: IRS Whistleblower Calls Merrick Garland’s Bluff, Starts Naming Names)

That led McCarthy to finally start talking about impeachment, and now we have a possible date.

Kevin McCarthy promises swift action if the Biden Crime Family allegations are true:

"If it comes true what the IRS whistleblower is saying, we’re going to start impeachment inquiries on the Attorney General." pic.twitter.com/aAdsebwCaV

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) June 26, 2023

MCCARTHY: By July 6th, because of the allegation from the IRS, because of the whistleblowers and the DOJ Garland, what he is saying and what David Weiss is saying privately are two different things. And if it comes true what the IRS whistleblower is saying, we’re going to start impeachment inquiries on the attorney general.

It’s good to see the Speaker putting a date on things and setting a deadline by which others can hold him to. An impeachment inquiry is the required first step toward a formal impeachment. Without that official investigative step, Republicans will never secure the votes in the House to move forward.

There’s a bit of hedging in McCarthy’s statement, but I don’t necessarily think that’s him knee-buckling, with the Speaker trying to give himself an out to not move forward. He has to be careful in what he says publicly at this point, and he can’t prejudge the whistleblower’s testimony without first corroborating it. The rest of us can prejudge it, but any articles of impeachment filed against Garland will need to be airtight and fully vetted by leadership.

Luckily, corroborating Shapley’s claim shouldn’t be difficult. As noted, he has named all those who were in the room with him and Weiss. The next logical step is to force all of those people under oath before Congress. I have a feeling at least a few of them will tell the truth under penalty of perjury. Some of them may not be too happy with their years-long investigation having been sunk for possibly political reasons as well.

I have to think that if McCarthy was willing to set a date the way he did, he already has a plan to get all that done before then. I also believe that Shapley never would have made his accusation and put himself out there like this, including naming those who witnessed it, if he weren’t telling the truth. Shapley has nothing to gain and Garland has everything to lose. That makes ascertaining credibility fairly easy in this scenario.