Nancy Pelosi Announced a Formal Impeachment Inquiry. Now What?

Share:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at a news conference.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at a news conference. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

September 25, 2019

As questions about President Donald Trump, Ukraine and Joe Biden swirled, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Tuesday a formal impeachment inquiry into the president. In a televised statement, Pelosi said “no one is above the law,” pointing to recent reports that Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate his potential 2020 rival Joe Biden.

“The actions of the Trump presidency revealed dishonorable facts of betrayal of his oath of office and betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections,” Pelosi said. “Therefore, today, I’m announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry and directing our six committees to proceed with their investigation under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry.”

The announcement comes after months of conjecture about impeachment proceedings, but still, many are wondering: now what? FRONTLINE spoke to two impeachment experts to find out what comes next.

What is a formal impeachment inquiry?

A formal impeachment inquiry is a process by which the House of Representatives decides whether to vote on articles of impeachment, which are defined as high crimes and misdemeanors such as treason and bribery. A clause in the U.S. Constitution allows the House, by a majority vote, to impeach any sitting president, vice president or elected official.

Does Pelosi have the power to launch an inquiry?

Yes and no. Pelosi’s statement could be construed as just that — a statement, said Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard University and the co-author of To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment.

“This is clearly a formal impeachment inquiry, and that means that the House is acting in a prosecutorial role,” Tribe said, adding that the House may choose to double down by voting on whether to authorize the inquiry.

What triggered the inquiry?

Pelosi’s statement follows claims that Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate presidential candidate and opponent Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, who sat on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company. The reports hinge on a controversial phone call in July between Trump and Ukraine’s President Zelensky, coupled with an intelligence community whistleblower complaint. The White House on Wednesday published its transcript of the call. Congress has also demanded the White House release the whistleblower complaint. If that doesn’t happen, Tribe said it’s likely the House will simply vote to impeach the president for “obstructing justice in the pursuit of the truth about this incredibly important matter.”

How is this different from impeachment talk that surrounded the Mueller investigation?

Impeachment buzz is nothing new. The Mueller investigation galvanized fresh but ultimately unfruitful calls by the Democrats to topple Trump — but Tribe said this is “totally different.”

The inquiry is “forward-looking, not backward-looking,” he said, focusing on actions Trump may have taken to influence an election while president.

“This is about 2020, not 2016,” Tribe said. “In any event it looks like the odds of actual articles of impeachment being voted now are better than 50/50 and that’s a completely different situation from what would have been the case a couple of days ago.”

What does the president say?

“PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!” Trump tweeted shortly after Pelosi’s announcement. In subsequent tweets, he called the inquiry both “Witch Hunt garbage” and a “total Witch Hunt Scam by the Democrats.”

Trump was at a UN General Assembly meeting in New York when news of the inquiry broke. A statement released by his press secretary further condemned the inquiry, stating that the Trump administration would “continue to be vigorous in laying out the facts and standing up for the many forgotten men and women who elected him.” A transcript of the phone call between Trump and Ukraine’s president was released by the White House the next day.

Can Trump stop the inquiry?

He can try, but he may end up damaging his case in the process, said Allan Lichtman, professor of history at American University and author of The Case for Impeachment. By launching a formal impeachment inquiry, the House has the constitutional right to question witnesses and demand documents related to the investigation.

“The president is entirely at the mercy of the inquiry and what comes next,” Lichtman said, adding that “the courts have not been sympathetic to presidents attempting to interfere with impeachment inquiries.”

Now what?

First, the House must agree on how to conduct the inquiry. Most likely, the House Judiciary Committee will take on the task of investigating Trump to propose what — if any — articles of impeachment should be brought against him. The inquiry could take months, stretching into an election year, before the House reaches a conclusion about whether there are grounds for impeachment. That would be politically advantageous to Democrats by casting a pall on Trump’s presidential bid.

Because Pelosi previously resisted calls for impeachment, the announcement signals there is strong evidence against Trump, Lichtman said.

“I don’t think Nancy Pelosi would have made a dramatic address to the American people and abandoned her long-term opposition to going forward on impeachment if she did not expect this ultimately to result in articles of impeachment against the president,” he said.

The House will vote on each proposed article of impeachment before the issue moves to the Senate. If at least two-thirds of the Senate votes to convict the president, he will be removed from office.

Want to know more?

FRONTLINE has been chronicling Trump’s presidency since the beginning. Here are five documentaries that offer context on how America reached this moment, Trump’s war with America’s intelligence community, and how the president has responded to earlier political challenges.

President Trump
Trump’s Road to the White House
Trump’s Takeover
Trump’s Showdown
The Mueller Investigation

Zoe Todd

Zoe Todd, Abrams Journalism Fellow, FRONTLINE/Columbia Journalism School Fellowships

Twitter:

@ZoeHTodd

In order to foster a civil and literate discussion that respects all participants, FRONTLINE has the following guidelines for commentary. By submitting comments here, you are consenting to these rules:

Readers' comments that include profanity, obscenity, personal attacks, harassment, or are defamatory, sexist, racist, violate a third party's right to privacy, or are otherwise inappropriate, will be removed. Entries that are unsigned or are "signed" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. We reserve the right to not post comments that are more than 400 words. We will take steps to block users who repeatedly violate our commenting rules, terms of use, or privacy policies. You are fully responsible for your comments.

blog comments powered by Disqus

More Stories

In Wake of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Death, McConnell Reverses Course on Supreme Court Vacancy; Vows Vote on Nominee
It’s a markedly different approach than he took in the previous presidential election year of 2016, when a different Supreme Court justice died more than eight months before voters went to the polls.
September 19, 2020
Handling of Public Protests a 'Stress Test' for Police Reform
Violent outbursts have marked the period of unrest since George Floyd died May 25, after Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin pinned the 46-year-old Black man to the ground by his neck. In many cases, police have responded with force to disperse protesters, captured on cameras nationwide — including in Cleveland, Chicago, Seattle and Portland, all cities that were already under court-enforced agreements to reform their police departments. Independent monitors overseeing those agreements say it's possible police could find themselves out of compliance for how they've responded to the recent unrest.
September 18, 2020
Amid George Floyd Protests, a Critical Question: Can the Feds Fix American Policing?
As millions of people rallied in the streets this summer demanding an end to police violence, more than a dozen cities were quietly working on their own police reform process — in conference rooms and court hearings.  
September 16, 2020
A Newark Officer Was Filmed Punching Someone. Jelani Cobb Asked a Police Union Head If It Was Justified.
Their resulting conversation in the new FRONTLINE documentary “Policing the Police 2020” illustrates the debate over use of force in policing: what’s legal, what’s justified and whether those definitions should change.
September 15, 2020