Introduction

The answer to the question as President Obama would put it, ‘Yes We Can’;  well theoretically.

But the question arises why would you want to do it in the first place?

The answer for the UK is that the level of accountability of the Governors has failed and the Governed need another route to ensure their will and security are protected in a democratic framework.

The situation in the US is different, they have concerns over the current abuse of the democratic system and over their history, a propensity towards corruption.

To acquire a better appreciation of its potential usefulness I have reflected on the history and working of both Impeachment Systems in the UK and USA to hopefully provide some enlightenment of its potential value.

The first impeachment in the UK was in 1376 against William Latimer, 4^th Baron Latimer, the  last in 1806 against Henry Dundas, Ist Viscount Melville.

The first impeachment in the USA for the proceedings was in 1797 against William Blount, strangely after he left office, the last in 2021 against Donald Trump!

Not much of an overlap there to draw any useful comparisons or conclusions between the two, nor as it turns out, despite the same wording of the Impeachment acts; or the triggers employed for either Parliament or Congress to initiate such action motivated by entirely different objectives.

In the modern era, impeachment is regarded in the UK as obsolete but if you became the US President you have a very good chance there will be action of impeachment initiated against you during your term of office; oddly though no one has ever yet succeeded !

Impeachment was very rare in the USA over its 250 years history, only three men have ever faced it – Presidents Andrew Jackson, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. All of them failed for a variety of reasons but the procedure still exists, and it seems energetically pursued.

The Founding Fathers may have made the process deliberately difficult but there is very little opposition against it remaining in place. It is regarded as a fundamental instrument of the Constitution and a useful constraint on the misuse of executive power.

The United Kingdom Perspective

It is regarded in the UK that impeachment is obsolete on the grounds of introduction of the doctrine of cabinet responsibility and the recalling members of Parliament should 10% of the voting constituency favour it.

Recent civil unrests point to the issue whether members of parliament and the heads of various regulatory committees have destabilised the checks and balances leading to the failure of responsibility and accountability. Parliament and the organs of State are no longer following the will of the people and the institutions not protecting the citizens, a sort of democratic meltdown.

For the first time in decades there are signs of wholesale unrest. Not against specific issues, as we have known before, but protests against the inept governance of the people. Not protests by the normal mob of activists or anarchists, but ordinary people reaching the end of their tether.

Across the board, organs of state are failing miserably, and some are close to collapse. Whether it be all those regulatory bodies supposed to protect the general public, the judiciary, the inadequate provision of key public services, or more broadly the flouting of British values and ignoring the well-being of all citizens; nothing is working in the nation’s interest anymore as it used to.

If it were just a matter of a bout of ineptitude the nation is suffering from, the tolerance and patience of the nation would sustain during the interregnum, but time has run out. From a wide spectrum of the press, it is reported the electorate is in a frothing state of rage and frustration. Audience phone-ins to tv and radio news stations indicates there is growing evidence the nation has had enough of all of the politicians of whatever colour. Polls suggest something new is being sought in order to restore some sort of commonsense and democratic order.

The ancient invisible thread of acquiescence and acceptance between the governors and the governed has been irreparably broken. This was laid bare for all to witness when a Gillian Duffy, a Rochdale resident in 2010 confronted the PM Gordon Brown. She was a pensioner and had been employed by the local council working for disabled children.

She complained of the numbers of Eastern Europeans infiltrating her town of Rochdale, not on the grounds of ethnicity, but that the sheer numbers were overwhelming the community culture, causing a lowering of labour rates of pay, the undermining local access to services: such as social housing, schools and medical facilities and importantly the community culture she was bred into. She was just an ordinary, caring, mother wishing to protect her children and her community that had changed without their consent. She was called a ‘Bigot’ by the PM when he inadvertently forgot to turn off his mobile microphone. Ooops!

For me she was a courageous hero, standing up to a PM blessed with a privileged education at Edinburgh University, telling him the truth as she saw it, but being crucified for saying it. Although Gordon Brown was made to pay later, the nation didn’t recognise the profound truth of what was happening to them at the time. It took years for Mrs. Duffy’s observations to sink in. Perhaps if she had been a celebrity, Oxbridge Don or a multi-billionaire, someone might have taken due notice. It needed a few more years for it to finally sink in. Later to deepen the malaise the spectre of foreign ethnic grooming gangs abusing and exploiting young vulnerable girls didn’t help much.

Has the fundamentals of a proper functioning of a democracy focussed on caring for the well-being of its people been lost and the governmental powers and regulatory checks and balances failed?

This is a new experience over my long lifetime and for those generations before us. Have we completely lost our way?

The Search for a New Way Forward

The search for a new way forward in the 2024 General Election didn’t provide the answer the electorate were hoping for. New parties had emerged to fill the vacuum but have yet to prove they have the answers to make the seismic changes needed.

For all the so-called checks and balances saturating the system, there is no concerted attempt to bring those committing high crimes and misdemeanours to proper account. Too much regard is given to the process rather than a desire to deliver the right outcome. At worse those failing their guard duties at the frontier portcullis gate may lose their jobs, but not their generous pensions, mostly they are re-circulated to another tower along the border castle wall.

I have tried in my miniscule way to raise serious concerns, be it fraudulent behaviour in public and private organisations, delusional policies over decarbonisation programmes or the Covid epidemic based on unsettled science, patches of negligence in the NHS, Parliamentary obfuscation against Brexit, pathetically weak management in the BBC, all met with sparse success.

As the problems festered and grew like a malignant cancer, the governments and institutions of the day were forced to act once the concerns were gaining control. When those in power saw their political legacies threatened, or positions of power and influence fading away, they were forced to act but at a much greater level of risk and cost.At times, the term traitor has been used as a political epithet regardless of any verifiable treasonable action. This should not be confused within an impeachment process.

A Change in Direction – Impeachment

There is definitely something going awry. Before we search for that elusive magic silver bullet why don’t we apply the tools we employed in the past. Governance is best served by the real and serious threat of proper accountability rather than its actual use. Not falling back on creation of new laws redefining existing statutes in a vain attempt at a pretence of taking action. It is far more likely a leader can act quickly and effectively if not diluted in the process.

Would refreshing and modernising the doctrines of Impeachment help us?

For anyone in public office, or a strategic national enterprise, holding a position of great importance, wouldn’t it be a salutary discipline if they were made aware proceedings could be initiated against them for wrongdoing. Be it initiated by an individual, a sectional interest group or members of parliament? And with-it serious sanctions for wrong-doing, pensions included. No soft landings anymore

As the US Founding Fathers determined 250 years ago, the process must not be made easy, to avoid vexatious claims, nor should it be used to undermine the sovereignty of Parliament.

The Impeachment process needs to be widened but the outcome decided by 100 non-political members of the House of Lords; renamed Knights Templar.

As for MP’s, if 10% of the electorate or a majority of Members of Parliament or the House of Lords voted for an Impeachment then a committee would be required to organise a hearing of the allegations for impeachment.

As for all others in the public sector, it should be open to an individual, interest group, or a petition on behalf of the electorate to initiate proceedings on set of proscribed conditions.

Unlike the cumbersome, costly and time-consuming Public Enquiries, an Impeachment Procedure has the advantage that it would assign accountability at the very outset to allow any judicial enquiry or for the criminal and civil laws to naturally follow. The criminal courts could deal with the matters for penal servitude and the civil courts settlement of damages to the victims.

The process would be timely, cost efficient and where a case was proven, legal support be given for those who have suffered. Taking cases to the High Court would otherwise have formidable financial barriers and risks.

The Acts Giving Rise for Impeachment Proceedings

To consider such a suggested approach perhaps we need to know in advance how such proceedings would work and their effectiveness.

What offences need to occur for an impeachment allegation to be lodged.

Both the USA and UK systems define it as such acts of Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanours.

Treason is the crime of attacking the authority of the state to which one owes allegiance. This typically includes such acts as participating in a war against one’s native country, attempting to overthrow the government, spying on its military, its diplomats, its officials, or its secret services for a hostile foreign power, or attempting to kill a head of state.

At times, the term traitor has been used as a political epithet regardless of any verifiable treasonable action. This should not be confused within an impeachment process.

This may seem at first glance as an academic exercise but perhaps some modern examples may highlight that some events were very close to the mark.

On 23 June 2016 the United Kingdom (UK) and Gibraltar, under the provisions of the European Union Referendum Act 2015, asked the electorate whether the country should continue to remain a member of, or leave, the European Union (EU). The result was a clear majority to leave 52/48. Yet nine years later the EU was recognised under the Windsor Accord for Northern Ireland and still there are initiatives for the UK to participate in the EU Free Trade Area.

If a UK company wished to export goods or conduct services within the boundaries of the EU the normal practice would be for the specific commercial enterprise to comply with EU standards applicable to its own industry. If it applies to all UK enterprises, whether exporting or not, then the UK is unduly fettered in conducting independent free trade agreements elsewhere. Could it be argued these were traitorous acts?

Similarly, when it was decided to secede sovereign control over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius there was UK opposition and from some Chagossians now resident in the UK, who also criticised the deal, their views were totally ignored. There is no perceived territorial connection between Chagos and Mauritius. The Chagos Islands are an important strategic outpost to monitor events in the Middle East and the Pacific and a vital military staging post. The reason for engaging in cessation has never been told to the public.

The PM stated it would cost the UK £3.4bn over 99 years before adjusting for inflation. The Government Actuary Department countered that the decimal point was in the wrong place, it was actually £34bn. In any other walks of life this would be regarded as gross negligence. The defence interests of the UK and for that matter the USA have been compromised and a severe financial burden taken on board without justification to the electorate.  Could it be argued this was a traitorous act?

When the PM demanded certain conditions of Israel in the Gaza War, a long-standing ally of Britain, without conditions being applied to a proscribed terrorist group in control of Gaza could that be argued as a traitorous act?

At the moment for the UK and Europe to have the USA in effect to determine the security and trading interests of Europe over their heads could that be argued as a traitorous act?

The greatest issue of contention at the moment is the effect of mass migration.

There is a great deal of misleading and mischievous data used from both sides of the arguments.

Here are some basic facts. The average annual level of net migration over the five years to 2019 was 258,000. For the next five years it rose to a massive 548,000 even with the effect of Covid.

If you assume the current population is 68.5m, that the required birthrate is 2.1 per female to maintain a constant level of population and there was no immigration, the population will decline. The current rate is moving towards 1,5 per female in line with other European nations. It will require net immigration to average 256,000 a year assuming average life expectancy of 82 years to restore the equilibrium.

You can deduce that the first five years were in line with population stability but in the last five years it is not, by an excess of net migration of 250,000 per annum.

If the numbers per household were 2.7 then the number of houses needed to be built to house them is 90,000 leaving just 60,000 available to the incumbent   new house builds per year the incumbent population is being squeezed out.

The lack of control over the last five years for both legal and illegal migration, could that be argued was a traitorous act?

Other examples could be the decision to go to War in Iraq in 2003 based on a false premise even if perhaps for the right reasons. The failure to resist the Invasion of Ukraine in 2014 to protect Western Europe or even the lack of support to our ally Israel in protecting its sovereignty. Are these too traitorous acts.

Even at the lower echelons of state there are plenty of examples of impeachable acts, mendacious behaviour by the South Yorkshire Police over the Hillsborough Enquiry in 1989, the blood contamination scandal from 1970 to 1990 and the Post Office Scandal dating back to 1999. It is very instructive public enquiries were not initiated by the statutory bodies supposedly having oversight but by fearless individuals, dedicated professionals and investigative journalists.

Perhaps the threat of Impeachment in these areas might have had a salutary effect.

Felonies

A felony is traditionally considered a crime of high seriousness, whereas a misdemeanour is regarded as less serious. The term “felony” originated from English common law (from the French medieval word “félonie”) to describe an offense that resulted in the confiscation of a convicted person’s land and goods, to which additional punishments, including capital punishment, could be added; other crimes were called misdemeanours. Following conviction of a felony in a court of law, a person may be described as a felon or a convicted felon.

In many common-law jurisdictions, such as England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, crimes are no longer classified as felonies or misdemeanours. Instead, crimes are classified by mode of trial as indictable offences, triable by jury, which are usually more serious, and summary offences, triable by summary procedure without a jury, which are usually less serious. The change in classification would still suffice for the purposes of the Impeachment Process.

Now the triggers for impeachment grow exponentially.

For felonies one could simply follow the criminal law but for misdemeanours such examples could be – acting beyond authority; pursuit of policies devoid of scientific or disputed validation; adopting obfuscation tactics with agreed policies; gross failure to meet standards of impartiality and propriety; making misleading statements knowing them to be false; personal manners unbecoming of a minister of the crown etc.

The Procedures for Impeachment

The UK approach varies significantly from the USA both in terms of process and motivation. The USA process of late has become highly politicised.

Impeachment for the UK was described in the first edition of Erskine May thus: any member of the House of Commons with proof of an individual’s crimes could charge them of said crime and move for their impeachment. If the House of Commons voted to impeach, the mover would be ordered to go to the Bar of the House of the Lords to impeach them “in the name of the House of Commons, and of all the commons of the United Kingdom” and “to acquaint them that this house will, in due time, exhibit particular articles against him, and make good the same.”

This is too a narrow a filter and should be widened to allow other aggrieved parties to be involved whilst the route for the investigation process still held within parliament.

In practice, the Commons would usually select a committee to draw up the charges and create an “Article of Impeachment” for each. Once the committee had delivered the articles to the Lords, replies go between the accused and the Commons via the Lords. If the Commons have impeached a peer, the Lords take custody of the accused; otherwise, Black Rod takes custody. The accused remains in custody unless the Lords allow bail. The Lords set a date for the trial while the Commons appoints managers who act as prosecutors in the trial. The accused may be defended by counsel.

The House of Lords hears the case. The procedure used to be that the lord chancellor presided (or the lord high steward if the defendant was a peer); but this was when the Lord Chancellor was both the Lords’ presiding officer and head of the judiciary of England and Wales.

Tony Blair interfered with the constitution of centuries and removed  both these roles by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and in the process created a Supreme Court that complicates the due process of law further. Two new positions were created the Lord Speaker of the house of Lords and a Lord Chief Justice head of the judiciary. It is not certain who would preside over an impeachment trial today. If parliament is not in session, then the trial is conducted by a “Court of the Lord High Steward” instead of the House of Lords (even if the defendant is not a peer). The differences between this court and the House of Lords are that in the House all of the peers are judges of both law and fact, whereas in the Court the Lord High Steward is the sole judge of law and the peers decide the facts only; and the bishops are not entitled to sit and vote in the Court. Traditionally, peers would wear their parliamentary robes during the hearings.

The House of Lords is the largest second chamber in the world bar the 2,000 members of the Chinese Communist Parties Assembly. There could be an opportunity to reform the House of Lords, not in terms of numbers but those with voting power limited to 100 as in the USA Senate. To differentiate those voting Lords, I would propose calling them Temporal Knights and would be subject to an electoral vote. Any person could be nominated providing they could muster at least 100,000 signatories across the nation. Non-voting peers would still bring their wisdom and wide experience to bear in scrutinising the Commons. It would be ideal that none of the peers appointed by a PM were allowed to vote.

The impeachment hearing resembles an ordinary trial: both sides may call witnesses and present evidence. At the end of the hearing the lords vote on the verdict, which is decided by a simple majority (of the 100), one charge at a time. Upon being called, a peer must rise and declare “guilty, upon my honour” or “not guilty, upon my honour”. After voting on all of the articles has taken place, and if the Lords find the defendant guilty, the Commons may move for judgment; the Lords may not declare the punishment until the Commons have so moved. The Lords may then decide whatever punishment they find fit, within the law. A royal pardon cannot excuse the defendant from trial, but a pardon may reprieve a convicted defendant. However, a pardon cannot override a decision to remove the defendant from the public office they hold.

Legal basis

The UK has no codified constitution, and the legal basis for parliamentary impeachment derives not from statute law but from constitutional convention dating to 1376. As with all conventions, however, the scope of impeachment can be and has been modified by Act of Parliament.

The Act of Settlement 1701 restricted the exercise of royal power by preventing the sovereign from using the royal prerogative of mercy to nullify an impeachment: “That no Pardon under the Great Seal of England be pleadable to an Impeachment by the Commons in Parliament.”

Whilst historically judges were removed by impeachment (and constitutionally still may be), the 1701 Act of Settlement provided that a judge of the High Court or the Court of Appeal may be removed by both Houses of Parliament petitioning the Sovereign. This power is now contained in Section 11(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981: “A person appointed to an office to which this section applies shall hold that office during good behaviour, subject to a power of removal by Her Majesty on an address presented to Her by both Houses of Parliament.”

History – Instances of Use

Parliament has held the power of impeachment since medieval times. Originally, the House of Lords held that impeachment could apply only to members of the peerage; however, in 1681 the Commons declared that they had the right to impeach anyone, and the Lords respected this resolution. Offices held “during good behaviour” are terminable by the writ of either quo warranto (e.g. R v Richardson) or scire facias, which has even been employed by and against well-placed judges. After the reign of Edwad IV, impeachment fell into disuse, the bill of attainder becoming the preferred form of dealing with undesirable subjects of the Crown. However, during the reign of James I and thereafter, impeachments became more popular, as they did not require the assent of the sovereign, while bills of attainder did, thus allowing Parliament to resist royal attempts to dominate Parliament. In 1715 the former Lord Treasurer Lord Harley was impeached for high treason, much of it relating to his agreement of the Peace of Utrecht and his alleged support for the Jacobite pretender James Francis Edward Stuart . After two years in the Tower of London he was acquitted in 1717.

The most recent cases of impeachment were of Warren Hastings, governor-general of India, between 1773 and 1786 (impeached in 1788); (found not guilty by the Lords in 1795), and Hendry Dundas, Ist Viscount Melville, First Lord of the Admiralty, in 1806 (also acquitted). The last attempted impeachment occurred in 1848, when David Urquhart accused Lord Palmerston of having signed a secret treaty with Imperial Russia and of receiving money from the Tsar. Palmerston survived a vote in the Commons which meant that the Lords did not need to hear the case.

Queen Caroline

Queen Caroline, the consort of George IV, was tried by the House of Commons and acquitted. The process began as impeachment proceedings but then became a different procedure as a bill of pains and penalties.

Other Parliamentary Powers

In addition to the power of impeachment, the House of Commons claims the right to discipline offenders, both members and non-members, a right that has been accepted by the courts. John Junor, editor of The Sunday Express, was admonished in 1957 for an article which cast doubt on the honour and integrity of Members; he apologised, and no further action was taken. In 1968 the House admonished one of its own members, Tam Dalyell.

Proposals for Abolition

The impeachment procedure has not been used for more than two hundred years, and some legal authorities, such as Halsbury’s Laws of England, consider it now to be probably obsolete. The principles of “responsible government” require the prime minister and other executive officers to answer to Parliament, rather than to the sovereign. Thus, the Commons can remove such officers through motions of no confidence without a long, drawn-out impeachment, although if such officers refused to stand down in such cases, it remains to be seen what other devices can be used to remove them from office other than impeachment. However, it is argued by some that the remedy of impeachment remains as part of British constitutional law, and that legislation would be required to abolish it. Furthermore, impeachment as a means of punishment for wrongdoing, as distinct from being a means of removing a minister, remains a valid reason for accepting that it continues to be available, at least in theory.

The Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1967 recommended “that the right to impeach, which has long been in disuse, be now formally abandoned”. Their recommendation not having been implemented in the meantime, the Select Committee on Privileges in 1977 declared it “to be of continuing validity” and again urged that the recommendation to abolish be adopted.

The Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999 noted the previous recommendations to formally abandon the power of impeachment and stated that “The circumstances in which impeachment has taken place are now so remote from the present that the procedure may be considered obsolete”.

Since the Millenium we have had the benefit of assessing whether abolition is a sustainable argument. The fact that the public institutions from the sovereign parliament and the abject failure of so many state institutions despite a multitude of regulatory bodies seems to point in the opposite direction.

Potential Instances in Modern Politics

In April 1977 the Young Liberals’’ annual conference unanimously passed a motion calling on the leader of the Liberal Party, David Steel, to move for the impeachment of Ronald King Murray, the Lord Advocate, over his handling of the Patrick Meehan miscarriage of justice affair. Steel did not move any such motion but Murray (who later became Lord Murray, a Senator of the College of Justice of Scotland) agreed that the power still existed.

On 25 August 2004 the Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price announced his intention to move for the impeachment of Tony Blair for his role in involving Britain in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He asked the Leader of the house of Commons, Peter Hain, whether he would confirm that the power to impeach was still available, reminding Hain that as the president of the Young Liberals he had supported the attempted impeachment of Murray. Hain responded by quoting the 1999 Joint Committee’s report, and the advice of the Clerk of the House of Commons that impeachment “effectively died with the advent of full responsible parliamentary government”.

On 29 September 2019 The Sunday Times reported that opposition politicians in the Commons were considering impeachment proceedings against the prime minister, Boris Johnson, “on charges of gross misconduct in relation to the unlawful prorogation of parliament”, as well as his threat to break the law by failing to comply with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.2) Act 2019 (which required him in certain circumstances to seek an extension to the Brexit withdrawal date of 31 October 2019).

The USA Perspective

It is much simpler in the USA; the House of Representatives decides whether a case for Impeachment should be heard and the 100 members of the Senate vote on the due outcome after a trial. Unfortunately, their process has been tainted by politics and corrupted by ‘dodgy dossiers’. At least the process arrested the allegations going too far.

The Constitution of the United States gives Congress the authority to remove the President of the United States from office in two separate proceedings. The first one takes place in the House of representatives, which impeaches the president by approving articles of impeachment through a simple majority vote. The second proceeding, the impeachment trial, takes place in the Senate. There, conviction on any of the articles requires a two-thirds majority vote and would result in the removal from office (if currently sitting), and possible debarment from holding future office.

Many U.S. presidents have been subject to demands for impeachment by groups and individuals. Three presidents have been impeached, although none were convicted: Andrew Jackson in 1868, Bill Clinton in 1998, and Donald Trump twice, in 2019 and 2021.

Additionally, impeachment proceedings were commenced against two other presidents, John Tyler, in 1843, and Richard Nixon, in 1974, for his role in the Watergate scandal, but he resigned from office after the House Judiciary Committee adopted three articles of impeachment against him (1. Obstruction of justice, 2. Abuse of power, and 3. Contempt of Congress), but before the House could vote on either article.

Review of Impeachments

Andrew Johnson

The impeachment resolution against Andrew Johnson, adopted on February 24, 1868

President Andrew Johnson held open disagreements with Congress, who tried to remove him several times. The Tenure of Office Act was enacted over Johnson’s veto to curb his power, and he openly violated it in early 1868.

The House of Representatives adopted 11 articles of impeachment against Johnson.

Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presided over Johnson’s Senate trial. Conviction failed by one vote in May 1868. The impeachment trial remained a unique event for 130 years.

Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton made a presentation that ends with a short commentary on the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The presentation is known for the quote “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” I wonder how many men used that excuse for their infidelities to their wives?

On October 8, 1998, the House of Representatives voted to launch and impeachment inquiry into President Bill Clinton, in part because of allegations that he lied under oath when being investigated in the Lewinsky scandal.

On December 19, 1998, two articles of impeachment were approved by the House, charging Clinton with perjury and obstruction of justice. The charges stemmed from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Clinton by Arkansas state employee Paula Jones and from Clinton’s testimony denying that he had engaged in a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. They were:

Article I, charged Clinton with perjury. Article II charged Clinton with obstruction of justice.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist presided over Clinton’s Senate trial. Both articles of impeachment failed to receive the required super-majority, and so Clinton was acquitted and was not removed from office.

Donald Trump

First impeachment

After a whistleblower accused President Donald Trump of pressuring a foreign government to interfere on Trump’s behalf prior to the 2020 election, the House initiated an impeachment enquiry. On December 10, 2019, the Judiciary Committee approved two articles of impeachment (H.Res. 755): Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. On December 18, 2019, the House voted to impeach Trump on two charges:

1. Abuse of power by “pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rivals ahead of the 2020 election while withholding a White House meeting and $400 million in U.S. security aid from Kyiv.”

2. Obstruction of Congress by directing defiance of subpoenas issued by the House and ordering officials to refuse to testify.

On January 31, 2020, the Senate voted 51–49 against calling witnesses or issuing subpoenas for any additional documents. On February 5, 2020, the Senate found Trump not guilty of abuse of power, by a vote of 48–52, with Republican senator Mitt Romney being the only senator—and the first senator in U.S. history—to cross party lines by voting to convict, and not guilty of obstruction of Congress, by a vote of 47–53.

Chief Justice John Roberts presided over Trump’s first trial. As both articles of impeachment failed to receive the required super-majority, Trump was acquitted and was not removed from office.

Second impeachment

Trump was impeached for a second time after he was alleged to incite a deadly attack on the United States Capitol by attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election results after his loss to Joe Biden. On January 13, 2021, the House voted to impeach Trump for “Incitement of Insurrection”.

Although Trump’s term ended on January 20, the trial in the Senate began on February 9. On February 13, the Senate found Trump not guilty of incitement of insurrection, by a vote of 57 for conviction and 43 against, below the 67 votes needed for a supermajority. In previous impeachment proceedings, only one senator had ever voted to convict a president of their own party. This time, seven Republican senators found Trump guilty, making it the most bipartisan impeachment trial.

As Trump was no longer president, the president pro tempore of the Senate Patrick Leahy presided over Trump’s second trial. As the article of impeachment failed to receive the required supermajority, Trump was acquitted.

Resignation During an Impeachment Process

Richard Nixon

President Richard Nixon’s bade farewell to the White House staff, August 9, 1974.

The House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and Contempt of Congress for his role in the Watergate scandal.

On October 20, 1973, Nixon ordered the firing of Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, precipitating the Saturday Night Massacre. A massive reaction took place, especially in Congress, where 17 resolutions were introduced between November 1, 1973, and January 1974. Resolution 803, passed on February 6, authorized a Judiciary Committee investigation, and in July, that committee approved three articles of impeachment. Before the House took action, the impeachment proceedings against Nixon were made moot when Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. A report containing articles of impeachment was accepted by the full House on August 20, 1974, by a vote of 412–3

Although Nixon was never formally impeached, this is the only impeachment attempt to result in the president resigning from office. In September 1974, his successor, Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon for any crimes against the United States that he might have committed while president.

Investigations Without Impeachment

Several investigations were initiated and reached various degrees of conclusion. The judgement is whether the act of the process was sufficient enough to provide greater accountability.

James Buchanan

In 1860, the House of Representatives set up the United Sates House select Committee to Investigate Alleged Corruptions in Government, known as the Covode Committee after its chairman, Rep. John Covode (R-PA), to investigate President James Buchanan on suspicion of bribery and other allegations. After about a year of hearings, the committee concluded that Buchanan’s actions did not merit impeachment.

Andrew Johnson

On January 7, 1867, the House of Representatives voted to approve an impeachment inquiry run by the House Committee on the Judiciary, which initially ended in a June 3, 1867 vote by the committee to recommend against forwarding articles of impeachment to the full House. However, on November 25, 1867, the House Committee on the Judiciary, which had not previously forwarded the result of its inquiry to the full House, reversed their previous decision, and voted in a 5–4 vote to recommend impeachment proceedings, however, the full House rejected this recommendation by a 108–56 vote. Johnson would later, separately, be impeached in 1868.

Joe Biden

On January 21, 2021, the day after the inauguration of joe Biden, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) filed articles of impeachment against the president. She cited abusing his power while serving as vice president. Her articles of impeachment claimed that Victor Shokin was investigating the founder of Burisma Holdings, a natural gas giant in Ukraine. Biden’s son Hunter Biden had served as a member of the board since 2014. However, Shokin was not investigating the company. There is no concrete evidence that suggests Biden had pressured Ukraine to benefit his son.

In June 2021, Donald Trump expressed interest in running for a House of Representatives seat in Florida in the 2022 midterm elections, getting himself elected Speaker of the house, and then beginning an impeachment inquiry into President Biden.

Following the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Afghanistan, the fall of Kabul on August 15, 2021, and the subsequent attack at Kabul International Airport, several Republicans, including Greene, Lauren Boebert, Ronny Jackson, and especially Senators Rick Scott and Lindsey Graham, called for either the stripping of powers and duties (via the 25^th Amendment) or removal from office (via impeachment) of Biden if Americans and allies were left behind and held hostage in Afghanistan by the Taliban. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy pledged a “day of reckoning” against Biden. Some Republicans, including Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn, called for Vice President Kamala Harris and other Cabinet officials to be removed as well. Mitch McConnell did not call for an impeachment inquiry into Biden, however, as Republicans did not have the majority in either the House or Senate.

In January 2022, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) predicted that if Republicans won control of the House of Representatives in the 2022 elections, they would likely move to impeach Biden “whether it’s justified or not”. In August, ‘The Hill’ reported that impeaching Biden was “a top priority” for House Republicans, should they win control of that body in the 2022 mid-term elections, as they eventually did.

In June 2023, the House voted to pass a rule that referred an impeachment resolution against Biden to a committee. The resolution was offered by Republican Representative Lauren Boebert of Colorado. The referral to the committee effectively paused a move to bring a privileged motion to the floor, which would have required members of the House to vote on whether to impeach Biden. The resolution was met with division among House Republicans, and Speaker Kevin McCarthy urged members of the GOP to vote against it. Boebert stated that she pushed for the vote to force her colleagues to make difficult decisions.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy in September 2023 directed three House committees to open a formal impeachment inquiry. In December, under the leadership of Speaker Mike Johnson, the whole House voted 221-213 to formally initiate an impeachment inquiry. The committees — Oversight, Judiciary, and Ways and Means — jointly reported findings in August 2024 that alleged several impeachable offenses and withholding of evidence.

Inquiries Voted Down by the Full House

Thomas Jefferson

On January 25, 1809, Representative Josiah Quincy III (a Federalist from Massachusetts) introduced resolutions which would launch an impeachment inquiry into President Thomas Jefferson, by then a lame duck who was scheduled to leave office on March 4, 1809. Quincy alleged that Jefferson had committed a “high misdemeanour” by keeping Benjamin Lincoln, the Port of Boston’s customs collector, in that federal office despite Lincoln’s own protests that he was too old and too weak to continue with his job. In 1806, Lincoln had written Jefferson proposing his own resignation, but Jefferson requested that Lincoln continue in the office until he appointed a successor. Quincy argued that, by leaving Lincoln in the post, Jefferson had unfairly enabled a federal official to receive a $5,000 annual salary, “for doing no services”.

The resolution received immediate resistance from both Federalists and Democratic-Republicans and saw 17 members of the House speak against even providing consideration of the resolution. Quincy refused to withdraw his resolution, despite the immense opposition. Congressmen argued that the act of requesting Lincoln remain in office was not a high crime nor a misdemeanour, and that there was not even evidence of inefficient management of the customs house. The House voted 93–24 to allow consideration of the resolution. After consideration, it was rejected by a vote of 117–1, with Quincy being the sole supporter.

John Tyler

After President John Tyler vetoed a tariff bill in June 1842, a committee headed by former president John Quincy Adams, then a representative, condemned Tyler’s use of the veto and stated that Tyler should be impeached. (This was not only a matter of the Whigs supporting the bank and tariff legislation which Tyler vetoed. Until the presidency of the Whigs’ archenemy Andrew Jackson, presidents vetoed bills rarely, and then generally on constitutional rather than policy grounds, so Tyler’s actions also went against the Whigs’ concept of the presidency.) In August, the House accepted this report, which implied that impeachable offenses had been committed by Tyler, in a vote of 100–80.

Tyler criticized the House for, what he argued, was a vote effectively charging him with impeachable offenses without actually impeaching him of such offenses, thus denying him the ability to defend himself against these charges in a Senate trial.

Representative John Botts (Whig-VA), who opposed Tyler (who was a member of the same party Tyler had up until recently been a member of), introduced an impeachment resolution on July 10, 1842, that levied several charges against Tyler regarding his use of the presidential veto power and called for a nine-member committee to investigate his actions, with the expectation of a formal impeachment recommendation. The impeachment resolution was defeated in a 127–83 vote on January 10, 1843.

Inquiries Proposed but Not Put to a House Vote

Ulysses S. Grant

Representative Joseph Clay Stiles Blackburn (D-KY) introduced an impeachment resolution against President Ulysees S. Grant in 1876, regarding the number of days Grant had been absent from the White House. The resolution never gained momentum and was tabled in December 1876.

Grover Cleveland

Representative Ilford W. Howerd (Populist-AL), on May 23, 1896, submitted a resolution (H.Res 374) impeaching President Grover cleveland for selling unauthorized federal bonds and breaking the Pullman Strike. It was neither voted on nor referred to a committee.

Herbert Hoover

During the 1932–33 lame duck session of Congress, on December 13, 1932, and on January 17, 1933, Representative Louis T. McFadden (R-PA) introduced two impeachment resolutions against President Herbert Hoover, over economic grievances. The resolutions were read and then immediately tabled by overwhelming votes.

Harry S. Truman

In April 1951, President Harry S. Truman fired General of the Army Douglas MacArthur. Congressional Republicans responded with numerous calls for Truman’s removal. The Senate held hearings, and a year later, Representatives Geoge H. Bender and Paul W. Shafer separately introduced House bills 607 and 614 against Truman. The resolutions were referred to the Judiciary Committee but were not considered by the Democratic-held Senate.

On April 22, 1952, Representative Noah M. Mason (R-IL) suggested that impeachment proceedings should be started against Truman for seizing the nation’s steel mills. Soon after Mason’s remarks, Representative Robert Hale (R-ME) introduced a resolution (H.Res. 604). After three days of debate on the floor of the House, it was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, but no action was taken.

Ronald Reagan

In 1983, Representative Henry B. Gonzalez was joined by Ted Weiss, John Conyers, George Crokett Jr; Julian Dixon, Mervyn Dymally, Gus Savage, and Parren Mitchell in proposing a resolution impeaching  Ronald Reagan for “the high crime or misdemeanour of ordering the invasion of Grenada in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and other high crime or misdemeanour ancillary thereto.”

On March 5, 1987, González introduced H.Res. 111, with six articles against Reagan regarding the Iran-Contra affair to the House Judiciary Committee, where no further action was taken. While no further action was taken on this particular bill, it led directly to the joint hearings of the subject that dominated the news later that year. After the hearings were over, USA Today reported that articles of impeachment were discussed but decided against.

U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese acknowledged, in testimony at the trial of Reagan aide liver North, that officials in the Reagan administration had been worried that the 1987 impeachment could result in Reagan having to resign.

George H. W. Bush

President George H. W. Bush was subject to two resolutions over the Gulf War in 1991, both by Representative Henry B. González (D-TX). H.Res. 34 was introduced on January 16, 1991, and was referred to the House Committee on Judiciary and then its Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law on March 18, 1992. H.Res. 86 was introduced on February 21, 1991, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where no further action was taken on it.

George W. Bush

A protester calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush on June 16, 2005

During the administration of President George W. Bush, several politicians sought to either investigate him for possible impeachable offenses or to bring actual impeachment charges. The most significant of these occurred on June 10, 2008, when Representatives Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Robert Wexler (D-FL) introduced H.Res. 1258, containing 35 articles of impeachment against Bush. After nearly a day of debate, the House voted 251–166 to refer the impeachment resolution to the House Judiciary Committee on June 11, 2008, where no further action was taken on it.

Others

Lyndon B. Johnson

On May 3, 1968, a petition to impeach President Lyndon B. Johnson for “military and political duplicity” was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. No action was taken.

Barack Obama

On December 3, 2013, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on President Barack Obama that was formally titled “The President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws,” which political journalists viewed as an attempt to begin justifying impeachment proceedings. When asked by reporters if this was a hearing about impeachment, Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) claimed that it was not, saying “I didn’t mention impeachment nor did any of the witnesses in response to my questions at the Judiciary Committee hearing.” One witness did mention impeachment directly: Georgetown University law professor  Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz said “a check on executive lawlessness is impeachment” as he accused Obama of “claiming the right of the king to essentially stand above the law.” Impeachment efforts never advanced past this, making Obama the first president since Jimmy Carter to not have a single article of impeachment referred against him to the House Judiciary Committee during his tenure. Perhaps he was one of those politicians who were genuinely unimpeachable. Certainly, my personal recollection was a man determined to reach the highest office and who took steps to ensure there were no grounds anyone could raise to make an allegation of any kind. On a visit to the United Kingdom in advance of a friend’s wedding when he was a very young senator he refused to go on the stag party to avoid any dangers of accusations of impropriety. It doesn’t follow that those of a squeaky-clean character necessarily make the best leaders or prime ministers. Had it not been for the Iran Contra Affair Ronald Regan probably came close to the exception.

Conclusion

It would seem from this preliminary overview there would be merit in considering Impeachment, suitably modernised, to act as another valuable tool to protect our democracy and massively improve accountability.

Ron Kirk

Cancale

August 2025