Happy post-Independence Day to you beautiful readers! The weather punished me for going to Canada for the 4th—I had three flights that were delayed—but I gotta say, Prince Edward’s Island is lovely. It’s like New Hampshire, but more French. And now that I’m back in the good ol’ U.S. of A, I wanted to sit down with our newest member of the Puck family: Abby Livingston, formerly of the Texas Tribune and a Congressional reporter extraordinaire, to help me make sense of what sort of Republican civil war we’re about to return to next week.

But first…

Another sign that Tucker is on the collection plate tour? Next week, he’s attending not one, but two major conservative activist events for the first time since he retreated to his rump state in upper New England. On Thursday, he’ll serve as moderator at the Family Leadership Summit in Des Moines, a time-honored campaign stop for presidential candidates, where he’ll interview attendees. (Guests this year include Mike Pence, Ron DeSantis, Tim Scott, Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley.)

Immediately afterward, he’s off to the Turning Point Action Conference in West Palm Beach—the youth group’s answer to CPAC—where he’s scheduled to speak alongside MAGA megastars like Steve Bannon, Josh Hawley, Lauren Boebert, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump, himself. (The political split between the two events could constitute an entire separate column.)

Sure, Tucker has spoken at these sorts of events before—he is a Turning Point regular, and he appeared at the Family Leadership Summit last year. But they may also be an opportunity to get in front of major Republican donors and media-curious investors, who are frequently one and the same. (In some ways, an investment in Carlson’s media ambitions is actually a valuable workaround campaign finance restrictions.) And it would be a well-timed meeting, too: Twitter, his new home, has been suffering both self-inflicted wounds (Elon Musk’s decision to limit tweet views) as well as external threats (Meta’s Threads, despite that lawsuit). It’s a good time, in other words, to be exploring other options.

Abby Livingston: It can be hard for an outside observer to appreciate what’s truly happening in the House unless they understand how these packs of people interact with one another off-camera and behind closed doors. One of my first bosses told me that if I ever had extra time on my hands at the Capitol, I should sit in the galleries during votes and observe who talks to whom—in particular, which members sit or stand around alone, and don’t have anyone to talk to at all. It speaks volumes about that member’s power to move anything forward. Passing laws is always hard, but it’s especially hard if you don’t play well in the sandbox.

You’re correct that last winter’s prolonged and strange speaker vote set the stage, in many ways, for this chaotic session. But one of the ironies, on the House side, is that this was supposed to be the fun period for the new majority. Campaigns aren’t fully in gear. Appropriations and potential shutdowns are still a few months away. Ordinarily, you’d expect lawmakers to be engaged in the heady work of getting laws passed, or at least forcing Democrats to take uncomfortable votes that can be used against them on the campaign trail.

Some smart Hill Republicans brush off the chaos with the Tom Hanks mantra from A League of Their Own: “It’s supposed to be hard.” But I don’t think this has been fun for most non-Freedom Caucus members. The pragmatists who dominate the House G.O.P. conference are seething as they get rolled over and over again, and everything feels unstable. Moreover, this feels like the calm before the storm. I can’t say this enough: This was supposed to be the easy part.

But I’m curious about your sense of things inside the Freedom Caucus, too—and especially the subgroup that’s been thwarting McCarthy. Do you think they’re playing a long game of some sort? Or are things playing out ad hoc?

Tina: If the 35 members of the Freedom Caucus were unified, that might suggest they have a long-term plan, and they do have a lot of shared strategic goals: cut government spending, investigate Biden’s alleged (but undefined) abuses of power, pass legislation aligned with their anti-woke agenda, and so forth. But the fact that they’re airing their personal grievances with each other publicly doesn’t inspire much confidence. There’s a pretty clear split between the McCarthy hostage-taking faction known as The 20, and the rest of the caucus, which includes McCarthy ally Marjorie Taylor-Greene.

Sure, in recent weeks, she and Lauren Boebert have been hilariously fighting over who is the biggest “bitch” (MTG’s words, not mine), but that’s always been a more personal feud rather than a political battle. What’s more noteworthy is the extent to which Trump’s antipathy toward the Republican establishment has shifted the House culture, both encouraging the far right’s agenda and lowering their standards for acceptable bad behavior.

These days, among the MAGA set, the mere idea of tolerating McCarthy’s efforts to negotiate with more moderate Republicans (let alone Democrats) is viewed as anathema to some members. Last month, for instance, the H.F.C. held an internal vote over whether to eject Greene, along with several other members, for not being sufficiently aligned with the group’s values. Two years ago, Greene was viewed as the terrifying apotheosis of the post-Trump, far-right, QAnon-adjacent generation. Now, for having the gall to support the speaker, some of her peers are questioning whether she’s MAGA enough.

Of course, if there is one issue on which the Freedom Caucus is unified, that’s getting somebody in the Biden administration impeached. Last week, I noted that the Judiciary Committee might actually pull the trigger on filing impeachment charges against Attorney General Merrick Garland, allegedly for interfering in the I.R.S.’s investigation into Hunter Biden. They never seemed to get their act together to impeach D.H.S. chief Alejandro Mayorkas, but the Garland push seems to have legs—even McCarthy has signaled his conditional support.

We’re still a long way from Republicans actually collecting whatever evidence they think they need to make the case for Garland’s impeachment. But say Judiciary does actually move articles of impeachment to a floor vote: How do you see that playing out within the House G.O.P.? McCarthy, after all, can only lose five votes—and maybe less, if anyone falls off a ladder or goes to prison. Will moderates feel the need to support it?

Abby: One of the most important aspects of the two Trump impeachments was that moderate/vulnerable Democrats were all-in. In fact, in Round One, moderates like Elissa Slotkin, Abigail Spanberger and Jason Crow actually led the effort. At the time, Nancy Pelosi smartly attempted to hold off the impeachment push until those national security types gave the green light. And then there was a uniform consensus on Round Two because of, you know, the violent insurrection they all witnessed firsthand.

That’s not the dynamic that’s playing out now. These current impeachment movements are originating from the right wing, not the center. Yes, during this first summer recess, there has been a quiet but steady rhetorical march toward impeachment that is making it begin to feel inevitable. I don’t doubt there will be excitement to impeach well beyond the Freedom Caucus. But the Republicans to watch, especially if they go for the president himself, are the ones who won districts Biden carried in 2020.

Kyle Kondik, who’s part of Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball outfit, pulled together a helpful list of these members. The most interesting of the lot is a Republican congressman named David Valadao. The guy voted to impeach Trump in 2021 and represents a California district that Biden won by 13 points. So Valadao, among others, might be a bellwether. It’s a tough political decision, especially as I’m sure Trump will be watching that potential vote extremely closely.

But tell me, Tina, who is the House Freedom Caucus member you’ve got your eyes on? Someone who’s flying under the radar but far more important than the media tends to recognize.

Tina: Rep. Dan Bishop, hands down. He was one of the guys who was secretly behind the plot to halt McCarthy’s speakership, and in the past several months he’s become a vocal member of the anti-McCarthy, anti-Greene faction. I’d keep an eye on him and Chip Roy for any signal of what the MAGA-aligned faction is really thinking. On a “tickles my fancy” level, I’m utterly fascinated by freshman Eli Crane, who represents the district including parts of Maricopa County, a hotbed of 2020 election fraud conspiracy theories; he may be a leading indicator of the desires of the more conspiratorial parts of the MAGA base. (You may also remember him from his appearance on Shark Tank, where he talked Mark Cuban and Mr. Wonderful into investing in his company that makes bottle openers out of 50-caliber shell casings.)

Meanwhile, we’re about to begin another round of government shutdown chicken when Congress returns to work next week. The Freedom Caucus was burned during the last debt limit fight, when McCarthy and Biden hammered out a deal that barely touched government spending, and now they’re looking to raise hell over the appropriations process. Do you think that McCarthy has another hard fight on his hands, or will he be able to pull off the same play as last time, talking hardliners off the cliff and/or bringing Democrats onboard?

Abby: It’s hard to predict anything when it comes to the House, but I’ll say this: July always seems to be a frenetic month. Part of it is a rush to get things done before a prolonged August recess. But also, Washington is smotheringly hot in July. I’m a Texan who should be used to it, but I find July in D.C. to be exceptionally miserable. Temperaments often correspond with the temperature, which seems to inflame already existing tensions from years’ past: appropriations, the border, the farm bill. I don’t know why this would be any different. But then again, despite all the turmoil, Kevin McCarthy always seems to land on his feet.

Tina: A little bird told me you’re going to be coaching the women’s press team next week in the Congressional Women’s Softball Game. Sounds like the sort of good, wholesome, nonpartisan fun that I haven’t experienced anywhere near Capitol Hill in, oh god, years. Please tell me there are hot dogs.

Abby: It’s honestly the one night of the year that everyone in Washington is on their best behavior. The older, more established Congressional Baseball Game feels like a big rivalry between two varsity high school baseball teams. The softball game is more like The Sandlot.

It is a genuinely delightful event. Kirsten Gillibrand and HuffPost’s Jen Bendery have been going at it with trash talk on Twitter. I spent a recent Saturday at a suburban batting cage, practicing with some of the most accomplished women in media—The Cook Political Report’s Amy Walter, NPR’s Tamara Keith, PBS’s Lisa Desjardins, NBC News executive Carrie Budoff Brown, etcetera—as they straightened out their swings. We lost last year for the first time in a good while, but the team is ready to return the trophy to its rightful place: The National Press Club.