Under the proposed compromise, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen would testify before the Judiciary panel next week. | Getty GOP negotiators reach deal to postpone IRS impeachment vote

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Jim Jordan and Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte have reached a tentative compromise to postpone a vote to impeach the IRS commissioner, sources familiar with the talks told POLITICO.

Under the terms of the emerging deal, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen would testify before the Judiciary panel next Wednesday, and any impeachment vote would likely be postponed until after the November election rather than take place on Thursday, the sources said.


Koskinen has also indicated he is willing to appear before the Judiciary panel, people familiar with the talks told POLITICO.

The compromise offers both sides a chance to claim victory. Jordan (R-Ohio) and the Freedom Caucus have been pushing for impeachment proceedings since January, a process that usually begins with the person accused of impeachment presenting his or her defense during Judiciary Committee proceedings. But Goodlatte (R-Va.) has refused to take action, steadfastly disagreeing that Koskinen deserves impeachment.

Next week's hearing, while not officially an impeachment hearing, means Republicans will get a change to grill Koskinen, while giving him the due process typically accorded those facing possible impeachment.

"The House Judiciary Committee will finally hold impeachment proceedings of IRS Commissioner John Koskinen next Wednesday," the Freedom Caucus said in a statement. "This hearing will give every American the opportunity to hear John Koskinen answer under oath why he misled Congress, allowed evidence pertinent to an investigation to be destroyed, and defied Congressional subpoenas and preservation orders."

The deal also keeps impeachment off the floor — for now. Many Republicans don't believe Koskinen deserves impeachment, but they also don't want to be perceived as defending the most despised agency in the U.S. government. The agreement all but assures that any impeachment vote will come after the election, during the lame-duck session, if at all, meaning Republicans won't be casting a potentially controversial votes days before constituents take to the polls.

The accord lands just as centrist Republicans and Democrats appeared to have the votes to block the impeachment effort, sources said. Indeed, one Republican moderate who opposed impeachment quipped that the only reason the Freedom Caucus agreed to the deal was that they knew they didn't have the votes: "They knew they were going to get rolled."

Conservatives say Koskinen impeded a congressional investigation when subpoenaed documents related to the IRS-tea party controversy were destroyed on his watch. Koskinen says he had nothing to do with lower-level employees erasing backup tapes of emails written by Lois Lerner, the IRS official who led the department that singled out conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.

While many Republicans outside the Freedom Caucus noted that conservatives have no proof of a cover-up and say Koskinen is guilty of incompetence, they say his conduct does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Earlier this week, President Barack Obama called the impeachment push “crazy” during a Democratic fundraiser in New York.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), who is friends with both Jordan and Goodlatte, began working to broker the deal Wednesday afternoon with Freedom Caucus co-founder Mark Meadows, who also supported it. Gowdy sat separately with Goodlatte, who opposes impeachment, and Jordan, who has been leading the impeachment effort. Then, the two men came together to agree on the matter Thursday night.

While negotiations were ongoing earlier Wednesday, several members of the group of GOP moderates known as the Tuesday Group were privately discussing voting with Democrats on the motion to table the impeachment resolution. They also had the support of a number of Republicans on the Ways and Means panel, who emerged from a closed-door luncheon divided on the matter.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) was simultaneously working with Republicans to count "no" votes. All 183 Democrats likely to be present for the Thursday roll call were expected to vote against the measure as a unified bloc, according to a Democratic source. It would have taken 34 Republicans to cross over in order to block the impeachment, which has divided the House Republican Conference for months.

"Impeachment is a very serious matter; it shouldn’t be dealt with an overtly political way,” said Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), who co-chairs the Tuesday Group and has led the band of Republicans opposing impeachment. "We’re not talking about just a policy disagreement, here. It’s an indictment, an impeachment of an individual. You have to provide a certain level of due process, and you have to give that individual the opportunity to present evidence to defend himself or herself properly.”

Freedom Caucus members were expected to make an impassioned pitch in favor of impeachment at a Thursday morning Republican Conference meeting. In a warning to GOP lawmakers, hard-liners have argued that a vote to table the impeachment resolution would be a vote to protect the IRS — an agency especially despised among Republican voters.

That sort of accusation, that they’re shielding the IRS, makes even those Republicans lukewarm on impeachment bristle. It’s the reason that many high profile Republicans would not publicly weigh in on the matter right now. None of the top four Republican leaders in the House have said whether they intend to back impeachment. Neither would Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas), who tap-danced around the issue when asked about it Wednesday, saying he was “still considering the matter.”

But even some of the hard-line conservatives backing the effort were doubtful they could get it over the finish line.

“I’m sure it will be tabled,” said Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), a Freedom Caucus member, earlier this week. Conservative Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-N.C.) made a similar prediction Tuesday. “We will not have our vote on it. We will not have our chance to discuss it. … The reality is, there are too many forces in this town that don’t want to have that discussion.”

The big question, however, was whether Republicans who don’t like impeachment would vote their conscience, and buck the Freedom Caucus — or vote the politically safe way. Outside conservative groups such as The Heritage Foundation and Club for Growth aren’t getting involved in the matter, which certainly helps moderates. But standing up to the powerful, 40-member Freedom Caucus, which has become a major force over the past year and a half, isn’t easy — particularly when it involves a red-meat agency like the IRS, which every Republican loves to hate.

It’s one of the reasons House GOP leadership has been mum, even though they privately worry impeaching an agency chief for incompetence will lower the threshold for future impeachments. They did not whip the issue because of the caucuswide antipathy for the IRS — plus, they knew it could damage their already frayed relationship with conservatives.

One moderate House Republican grumbled that leadership’s decision to play “Switzerland” was putting a lot of pressure on centrists, making them take the fall for the team.

“Republicans leaders want see this thing tabled but they’re not willing to lift a finger to help,” the GOP source quietly squawked. “If they weighed in, it’d be a lot easier to get their votes. They’re using us to do the cutting so they can go back and say: ‘This is a member-driven process.’”

On Wednesday, both sides were approaching members to gauge support. Dent could be seen during votes in the chamber carrying a white piece of paper with names on it. The Freedom Caucus, meanwhile, was also approaching members on the fence. They secured the support of Republican Study Committee Chairman Bill Flores (R-Texas), who last week was concerned about due process rights after an RSC meeting with Koskinen.

He now endorses the idea of impeachment wholeheartedly and is warning other lawmakers that a vote to table would be a bad one for them.

“For Republicans to vote to table something when the public is stirred up about the issue is not a vote I could be comfortable with,” he said. “I think it’s a hard vote for them politically at home.”