#NNPA BlackPress

Launching Impeachment Inquiries: Reviewing What Happened in 2019 and 2023

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy reneged on his promise not to move forward with an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden without having a full vote by the House of Representatives. When defending his reversal, McCarthy blamed his predecessor, Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi. “Nancy Pelosi changed the rules and the precedent,” McCarthy said on Sept. 13, when responding […]
The post Launching Impeachment Inquiries: Reviewing What Happened in 2019 and 2023 first appeared on BlackPressUSA.

Published

3 years ago

September 19, 2023

Forward Times Staff

“Nancy Pelosi changed the rules and the precedent,” McCarthy said on Sept. 13, when responding to a reporter who asked how he justified not holding a vote before launching Biden’s impeachment inquiry on Sept. 12.

However, Pelosi has pushed back, saying in television interviews that she did hold a vote on the impeachment inquiry into then-President Donald Trump in 2019.

“I say that that’s hogwash. I mean it’s ridiculous, and I don’t know why the press keeps repeating it,” Pelosi said while responding to McCarthy’s claim during an MSNBC interview on Sept. 14. “Don’t blame it on me. Just take responsibility for what you are doing there, and don’t misrepresent the care that we took, the respect that we had for the institution to go forward in a way that really addressed the high crimes and misdemeanors of Donald Trump.”

To be clear, there was no House vote before Pelosi announced, in September 2019, the start of an impeachment inquiry into allegations that Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Biden, Trump’s political foe. The vote came over a month later, when Democrats leading the inquiry were ready to pass a resolution laying out the procedures for the next phase of the impeachment investigation that had already begun.

In the time between her announcement and the passing of the resolution, Pelosi said her caucus was preparing for a vote by developing the facts necessary to make a case for impeachment. But the delay in voting wasn’t a change in “the rules and the precedent,” as McCarthy claimed.

To sort out the conflicting statements, we will review what happened this year, under McCarthy, and what happened four years ago, under Pelosi.

2023 Inquiry

An impeachment inquiry is an investigation into potential wrongdoing that may be grounds for removing a federal official from office via the impeachment process.

As we have written, McCarthy originally told the conservative Breitbart News website that he would require the House to vote on opening an impeachment inquiry into Biden.

“To open an impeachment inquiry is a serious matter, and House Republicans would not take it lightly or use it for political purposes,” Breitbart News quoted McCarthy saying in a story published Sept. 1. “That’s why, if we move forward with an impeachment inquiry, it would occur through a vote on the floor of the People’s House and not through a declaration by one person.”

Less than two weeks later, on Sept. 12, McCarthy went back on his promise and unilaterally announced an impeachment inquiry.

“House Republicans have uncovered serious and credible allegations into President Biden’s conduct. Taken together, these allegations paint a picture of a culture of corruption,” McCarthy said in his remarks. “That’s why today, I am directing our House committees to open a formal impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. This logical next step will give our committees the full power to gather all the facts and answers for the American public.”

McCarthy said the Republican chairmen of the House oversight, judiciary, and ways and means committees will lead the inquiry, which is largely an extension of an already eight-month-old investigation into Biden and the international business dealings of his family members, particularly his son, Hunter.

So far, Republicans on the oversight committee leading that investigation have not produced evidence that shows Joe Biden participated in his family’s business deals, that he benefited from the deals or that he ever used his position as then-vice president to facilitate any of the deals.

Due to the lack of evidence, even several House Republicans have publicly said that the impeachment inquiry into the president should not proceed — suggesting that there likely would not be enough votes to approve the inquiry if McCarthy brought it to the floor for a vote at this time.

Pelosi said not having the support of a majority of the House is one reason McCarthy may have changed his mind about having a vote.

2019 Inquiry

But Pelosi, who was the House speaker in 2019, also proceeded with an impeachment inquiry without holding a vote first.

Democratic-led House committees had been investigating Trump administration activities for months. But Pelosi said she was compelled to start the impeachment inquiry after an intelligence community whistleblower alleged in an August 2019 complaint that Trump, ahead of the 2020 presidential election, had pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, during a July 2019 phone call, to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden. “I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election,” according to the complaint.

Trump’s actions had revealed his “betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections,” Pelosi said while making her announcement on Sept. 24. “Therefore, today I’m announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. I’m directing our six committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry.”

But it was not until about five weeks later, on Oct. 31, that the House voted on a resolution establishing procedures for those committees to “continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist” to impeach Trump.

The resolution passed by a vote of 232 to 196. No Republicans supported it, and two Democrats opposed it.

Then, on Dec. 10, Democrats introduced two articles of impeachment against Trump. Eight days later, the House — for only the third time in history — voted to impeach the sitting president, for abuse of power (230 to 197) and obstruction of Congress (229 to 198).

But Trump was acquitted of those charges on Feb. 5, 2020, after a Senate trial.

Precedent

McCarthy, who was the House minority leader in 2019, was among the Republicans who criticized Pelosi for initiating an impeachment inquiry into Trump before letting the House vote on it.

He introduced a resolution of disapproval, which he said would allow lawmakers to publicly declare if they were for or against the inquiry.

“If Speaker Pelosi refuses to seek approval of the whole House in the critical decision of impeachment — as is longstanding practice and precedent — I will again give all members the opportunity to go on record so their constituents can know where they stand on this issue,” McCarthy wrote in a Sept. 26, 2019, post on the platform then known as Twitter.

“Every Member of Congress should go on record to say where they stand on Speaker Pelosi’s unilateral impeachment. I am once again making a motion to disapprove of her unprecedented actions,” he wrote in a post a day later.

But neither the Constitution nor House rules require a vote before an impeachment inquiry can begin, as Pelosi explained in an Oct. 3 letter responding to McCarthy’s request that she suspend the inquiry into Trump.

Also, in a 2019 report, the Congressional Research Service noted examples of impeachment investigations that were conducted without an authorization vote, as well as examples when the investigation began before an authorization vote was held later.

In the case of President Richard Nixon, for example, the House Judiciary Committee had started the “preliminary phases of an inquiry into possible impeachment” months before the House voted on an authorizing resolution, the CRS report said.

(There was no impeachment inquiry in January 2021, when the House voted to impeach Trump a second time – for “incitement of insurrection” against the U.S. government. Democrats introduced the article of impeachment against Trump on Jan. 11, five days after a mob of his supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol, and the House vote was held on Jan. 13, seven days before Trump was scheduled to leave office. The Senate acquitted Trump of the incitement charge on Feb. 13, 2021, after Trump was no longer president.)

In a CNN interview last week, on Sept. 13, Pelosi said that she waited “a few weeks” before calling for a vote in October 2019, so that the investigating committees could gather necessary information about Trump’s actions and make a case prior to bringing a bill to the floor.

“They’ve had what, nine months of collecting information?” Pelosi said about the House Republicans now investigating Biden. “They have nothing.”

It remains to be seen if McCarthy, like Pelosi, will eventually call for a vote authorizing Biden’s impeachment inquiry.

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104.

If you have a question about COVID-19, email Ask SciCheck, a project of FactCheck.org, at AskSciCheck@FactCheck.org. Tell them you are a reader of the Houston Forward Times. You can read previous Ask SciCheck answers here.

The post Launching Impeachment Inquiries: Reviewing What Happened in 2019 and 2023 appeared first on Forward Times.

The post Launching Impeachment Inquiries: Reviewing What Happened in 2019 and 2023 first appeared on BlackPressUSA.

Forward Times Staff

Posts by Forward Times Staff

Up Next

Congressional Black Caucus Chair Steven Horsford Honored with 2023 NNPA Leadership Award

Don't Miss

Biden-⁠Harris Administration Secures Voluntary Commitments from More Artificial Intelligence Companies to Manage the Risks Posed by AI

Forward Times Staff

Click to comment

#NNPA BlackPress

COMMENTARY: Jim Crow 2.0 at the Pentagon

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — The American people are expected to believe that one extraordinary officer after another suddenly fails to meet some undefined standard of excellence. We are expected to ignore impeccable service records while accepting that political appointees alone possess the wisdom to determine who is worthy of advancement.

Published

1 week ago

August 3, 2026

bpusa-syndication

Pete Hegseth insists that he is restoring “merit” to the United States military. But after months of dismissals, blocked promotions, and ideological purges, the evidence tells a different story. His campaign against so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” has become something far more dangerous: an assault on equal opportunity that falls with particular force on African Americans, while also targeting women, Latinos, gay Americans, and transgender service members.

The latest example is both troubling and infuriating.

Once again, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reportedly blocked the promotion of an exceptionally qualified woman—Rear Admiral Amy Bauernschmidt. Bauernschmidt is no ordinary officer. She became the Navy’s first woman to command a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, one of the most demanding leadership assignments in the world. Her career reflects decades of exemplary performance, operational excellence, and leadership under extraordinary pressure.

Yet once again, a distinguished military career appears to have been subordinated to an ideological agenda masquerading as “merit.”

I call BS!

The American people are expected to believe that one extraordinary officer after another suddenly fails to meet some undefined standard of excellence. We are expected to ignore impeccable service records while accepting that political appointees alone possess the wisdom to determine who is worthy of advancement.

The pattern has become impossible to ignore.

General Charles Q. Brown Jr., only the second African American to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was dismissed despite a career that placed him among the most accomplished military leaders of his generation.

Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first woman ever to serve as Chief of Naval Operations, was removed despite decades of distinguished command experience.

Reports have documented interventions that blocked or delayed the promotions of Black officers and women selected through the military’s rigorous promotion system.

Now Rear Admiral Amy Bauernschmidt joins the growing list of highly accomplished officers whose careers have been derailed for reasons that have never been persuasively explained.

Where is Congress?

Its silence has become deafening.

Congress has an independent constitutional responsibility to oversee the armed forces. Instead, too many lawmakers have watched silently while one of the nation’s most respected institutions is subjected to ideological litmus tests and political interference.

This is not military reform. It is testosterone-fueled performative masculinity disguised as a philosophy of military excellence.

The irony is impossible to miss. Hegseth repeatedly invokes “merit,” yet his rhetoric begins with the assumption that Black officers, women, and other historically excluded Americans must somehow justify their achievements in ways that white male officers are rarely required to do.

That is not meritocracy. It is prejudice wrapped in patriotic language.

No one is asking that anyone be promoted because of race or gender. Americans simply expect that promotions be based on demonstrated competence, leadership, integrity, and service. The officers being targeted have already proven themselves repeatedly under one of the world’s most demanding evaluation systems.

Their records speak for themselves.

The attack on African American military leadership has been especially pernicious.

For generations, Black Americans fought in segregated units, earned decorations while denied equal treatment, and repeatedly demonstrated loyalty to a nation that often failed to extend them full citizenship. They broke barriers not because standards were lowered but because excellence finally overcame institutional discrimination.

Today’s campaign against “diversity” threatens to revive old assumptions under new slogans.

The implication that Black generals and admirals somehow owe their success to affirmative action rather than extraordinary performance echoes some of the ugliest stereotypes of the Jim Crow era. Yesterday’s segregationists claimed Black Americans were inherently less qualified. Today’s culture warriors simply employ more politically acceptable language while inviting the same suspicion about Black achievement.

That is why Hegseth’s campaign increasingly resembles Jim Crow 2.0.

The targets may now wear stars on their shoulders instead of military patches on segregated uniforms, but the underlying message is hauntingly familiar: Black excellence is presumed suspect, while white excellence is presumed earned.

America’s military became the finest fighting force in history because it opened its doors to talent wherever it could be found. It grew stronger after President Truman desegregated the armed forces. It became stronger when women assumed greater command responsibilities. It became stronger when every qualified American was given the opportunity to serve to the fullest extent of their abilities.

Diversity is not a concession. It is a strategic advantage.

The nation’s adversaries do not fear an American military because it is racially homogeneous. They fear it because it draws upon the talents of more than 340 million Americans whose diverse experiences, perspectives, and abilities make our armed forces unmatched anywhere in the world.

Every politically motivated dismissal of a distinguished officer sends a chilling message throughout the ranks: excellence alone may no longer be enough if you belong to the wrong demographic group.

That weakens morale. It weakens recruitment. It weakens retention.

And ultimately, it weakens national security.

Pete Hegseth has every right to pursue military readiness. He has no right to redefine merit in ways that repeatedly cast suspicion upon the accomplishments of Black officers, women, and others who have devoted their lives to defending this nation.

America deserves better. The men and women who wear the uniform deserve better. The Constitution deserves better.

And unless Congress finds the courage to exercise meaningful oversight, history may well remember this period not as a restoration of military excellence, but as the moment political ideology attempted to resurrect, in modern form, the old poison of exclusion.

Jim Crow did not strengthen America. Jim Crow 2.0 will not strengthen America’s military. It will only diminish it

Wade Henderson
Strategic Advisor
Civil and Human Rights
wade@wadejhenderson.com

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication

#NNPA BlackPress

New Judge Could Decide if Karmelo Anthony Gets a New Trial

By Emilie St. John (Contributor) Karmelo Anthony will return to court next month in his first step to overturn his murder conviction. Anthony was found guilty last month in the stabbing death of Austin Metcalf and sentenced to 35 years in prison. His new legal team has filed motions seeking the recusal of State District […]
The post New Judge Could Decide if Karmelo Anthony Gets a New Trial appeared first on BlackPressUSA.

Published

2 weeks ago

July 31, 2026

Oakland Post

By Emilie St. John
(Contributor)

Karmelo Anthony will return to court next month in his first step to overturn his murder conviction.

Anthony was found guilty last month in the stabbing death of Austin Metcalf and sentenced to 35 years in prison. His new legal team has filed motions seeking the recusal of State District Judge John Roach Jr. from overseeing the appeals process.

Two hearings have been scheduled on the motion for Aug. 9 and 10 in the Collin County Courthouse in McKinney, Texas, according to Fox4 News.

On July 14, Senior Judge Sid L. Harle of the 226th District Court was assigned to preside over the defense’s motion to recuse Collin County Judge John Roach. The assignment took effect immediately and authorized Harle to handle all matters related to the recusal request, the filing read.

The Collin County District Attorney’s Office continues to defend its handling of the case by issuing a statement to NBC 5 DFW.

“The defendant’s new lawyers have filed a motion containing several inaccurate characterizations of the trial proceedings. The entire prosecution team and I conducted this trial ethically and in full compliance with the Court’s rulings and any agreements with defense counsel. We look forward to addressing these claims thoroughly in a Court of law in the coming weeks. The jury heard extensive evidence over the course of the trial and returned a unanimous verdict. We remain confident in that verdict and the fairness of the proceedings.”

Anthony’s new legal team, made up of appellate, civil rights, and criminal defense attorneys, was retained following Anthony’s conviction.

“Our responsibility is to determine whether a legal error occurred and to ensure that every issue supported by the record is fully and vigorously presented on appeal,” the team said in a statement.

“We recognize the profound loss suffered by one young man’s family and the uncertainty facing another, and we extend our respect to everyone whose lives have been forever changed by these events,” the release reads.

Anthony was charged with the stabbing death of Austin Metcalf during a track meet in Frisco, Texas, April 2, 2025. Anthony has long maintained it was an act of self-defense.

The attorneys are representing Anthony pro bono. The nearly 200-page notice of appeal seeks a new trial because his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was violated.

“The cumulative and practical effect of these provisions was to exclude members of the public from proceedings at every stage,” the filing reads.

The filing also focused on an alleged “handshake deal” that kept Anthony from taking the stand in his defense.

The defense filing said the agreement was that the jury would not hear that Metcalf and his twin brother had been accused of racism and bullying in the past. In exchange, they also would not see Anthony’s cellphone records or his school disciplinary record, according to court documents reported by the Dallas Morning News.

Anthony’s former defense attorney, Mike Howard, said the defense relied heavily on that deal. The team chose not to ask certain questions of witnesses or call on a separate expert witness based on that agreement. It also abandoned plans to introduce testimony and evidence about the allegations against Metcalf and his brother.

Appellate attorney Russell Wilson is now handling post-trial proceedings and Anthony’s appeal. He recently sat down for an interview, stating, “The court committed multiple errors during the June murder trial, preventing him from receiving a fair trial.”

“You know, we file motions that we expect to prevail on, but we understand that there’s two sides to every story. And at the end of the day, it’ll be a judge that has to make these decisions, but we feel confident in the positions that we’re taking,” Wilson said during an interview with WFAA. “There were substantial issues that we thought a reviewing court needed to look at. We thought these were constitutional irregularities, and we could have them addressed now. And so, we put them into a motion for a new trial.”

Bree West, a former Dallas County Assistant District Attorney, found it startling that so little time was given to Anthony’s team for such a serious “life or death” situation.

“I do think that it’s really challenging that potentially a court decided that you have 10 minutes to make that level of decision when it has the potential of being life-altering,” said West during an interview with Fox 4 News.

Judge Harle is no stranger to high-profile cases, having presided over the prosecution of a police officer charged in connection with the 2022 mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde.

Anthony was convicted on June 9 of the murder of Austin Metcalf and sentenced to 35 years in prison.

The post New Judge Could Decide if Karmelo Anthony Gets a New Trial appeared first on BlackPressUSA.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

#NNPA BlackPress

COMMENTARY: LSMFT! Lord Save Me from Trump!

WESTSIDE GAZETTE — The author criticizes Donald Trump’s rhetoric, noting his use of terms like “Dumbocrats” and “Communist” to describe Democrats and democracy. The column asserts that Trump’s current strategy involves creating doubt about midterm elections due to a lack of Republican agenda.
The post COMMENTARY: LSMFT! Lord Save Me from Trump! appeared first on BlackPressUSA.

Published

2 weeks ago

July 31, 2026

Oakland Post

Frankly Speaking

Wow! Wow! Wow! The swamp drainers have truly stepped down to new levels of stupidity. You remember Weapons of Mass Destruction? We now have Weapons of Mass Distraction. Trump has introduced Dumbocrats and Communists into the conversation about Democrats and Democracy.

Trump lies so much, and his current strategy is to set up doubt about midterm elections because he and Republicans have no agenda!

He has no “Trump “ card, but Iran has a strait! He called it a skirmish; it’s now a War. He said five days; now it’s five months. He said few casualties; now it’s 18 deaths. He knew nothing about Project 2025 but hired its architects! Trump lies about the lies and often forgets these little inventions called cameras and phones

We see and hear and then see and hear the inconsistencies.

I didn’t like 45 and dislike 47 even more!

The post LSMFT! Lord Save Me From Trump! appeared first on The Westside Gazette.

Based on reporting by Westside Gazette.

The post COMMENTARY: LSMFT! Lord Save Me from Trump! appeared first on BlackPressUSA.