Five things to know about impeachment

Democrats in the House – and during the 2020 election campaign – are divided on the verge of beginning an impeachment proceeding against President Trump, following the report of Special Advocate Robert S. Mueller III detailing efforts to Trump to hinder Mueller's investigation.

The most convincing practical argument against such an effort is that it is unlikely that it will succeed. This is because the Senate, which is controlled by the Trump government, makes the decision to dismiss it.

If the Democrats choose to pursue impeachment, they will use a heavy measure, enshrined in the Constitution, as an emergency tool. Only two US presidents have been indicted. Here are five things to know about how the impeachment process works.

1. What types of offenses trigger an impeachment procedure?

There is no difficult list. The house decides. The Constitution stipulates that presidents, vice-presidents and other federal representatives may be indicted for "treason, corruption or other crimes and major offenses".

But what are "crimes and serious offenses?" The document does not say. In the past, the House – where impeachment proceedings must begin – had defined these terms as meaning something broader than simply "federal crimes".

The House has also dismissed the Speakers for conduct that undermines the constitutional system or shames the Speaker, whether or not that behavior is criminal.

For example: President Andrew Johnson, who was the first president to be dismissed, was accused of firing a member of his cabinet, in defiance of a law that required him to authorization of the Senate. He was also accused of insulting the Congress. An impeachment article accused Johnson of "scandalous harangues" about legislators, made "out loud".

2. How does the impeachment work?

The House would vote on items of impeachment, which are individual statements of offense. It's enough for a simple majority. If one of them succeeds, the president has been "indicted", which appears to be an indictment in the context of a legal proceeding.

Then the Speaker's case would be referred to the Senate, which acts as a 100-member jury. The Chamber appoints "directors", who act as prosecutors, pleading for the dismissal of the president. The Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings if the President is on trial.

The conviction of the president requires the agreement of two-thirds of the senators. If this happens, the president is automatically removed from office.

3. Has this already happened?

Not to a president. Johnson, who was the first president to be removed from office, escaped conviction by a vote in 1868. Bill Clinton was second: the House instituted proceedings against him in 1998, alleging the perjury and obstruction of 39, an investigation. The Senate acquitted it by a wider margin.

President Richard M. Nixon resigned in 1974 before the entire House could rule on the indictment charges against him.

Beyond cases involving presidents, impeachment is a tool rarely used in US history. Since 1789, only eight federal officials have been sentenced by the Senate and dismissed. All eight were federal judges.

This list includes a current member of Congress: Representative Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla.), A former federal judge who was convicted by the Senate for extorting a bribe in a case before him. Four years after the dismissal of Hastings as a judge, he was elected to Congress.

4. How long does the dismissal last?

In the case of Nixon, nine months elapsed between the commencement of the inquiry into the dismissal of the Judiciary Committee of the House in October 1973 and the approval by the Committee of its first resolution. Nixon resigned in early August 1974.

In Clinton's case, the House has moved much faster. In September 1998, Kenneth W. Starr, an independent lawyer, presented a report to the House in which he recommended the indictment of Mr. Clinton. The House voted to dismiss Clinton in December 1998 and the Senate acquitted him in February 1999.

5. What lessons could democrats learn from the dismissal investigations of Nixon and Clinton?

The Nixon inquiry seems to reinforce the argument put forward by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) That if Democrats think Trump deserves to be removed, they must try.

At the beginning of the investigation, public opinion was in favor of the dismissal of Nixon, but it continued to grow as the investigation revealed new evidence of its abuse of power. His resignation sparked a wave of public revolt against corruption in Washington – and a huge political impetus for Democrats. The 1974 elections were marked by a wave of "Watergate Baby" lawmakers who gave Democrats enormous benefits in the House and Senate.

Clinton's impeachment procedure, however, was not as effective for the opposition party.

In the elections that took place in the middle of their impeachment investigation, Republicans were accused of drifting and lost seats in the House. President Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), Who led the charge, resigned after a disturbance in his caucus.

None of these cases, however, is a very useful case study for today's Democrats, since Clinton and Nixon were on their second term.

Trump is in his first. This has led some Democrats to conclude that they should focus more on Trump's defeat in 2010 than on their previous impeachment.