Civics 101 — Impeachment, or How to Bring Charges to Remove a Federal Government Official from Office

Jane Jewell • August 2, 2022


Don’t like the mayor or governor? Think the local sheriff is lazy? Convinced that Sen. So-and-So is corrupt? Disapprove of the president? Well, you could wait and vote them out in the next election, but what if the situation seems very serious and you want them out now? Then you may feel like joining the cry to “have the scoundrel impeached.”

 

However, at the national level, impeachment is the first step of a multi-step process contained in the United States Constitution to authorize the removal of government officials from office. It doesn’t apply to ordinary citizens, just to certain federal officials. That process begins with impeachment in the House of Representatives.

 

There are many misunderstandings about what impeachment can and can’t do. In fact, it can’t do what many assume are its main purposes; impeachment can’t remove someone from office nor can it impose a fine or send anyone to jail. Presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump were both impeached but neither was removed from office. The impeachment procedure only allows the House to investigate and then recommend for or against handing an impeached official over to the Senate for trial. The House impeaches or indicts; the Senate convicts and removes from office, or acquits.

 

The impeachment process is much like a grand jury that meets to evaluate if there is enough evidence for a particular criminal case to go to trial.

 

England used a form of impeachment as far back as the 14th Century. Ironically, Britain's use of impeachment began to decline at about the same time that an impeachment process adapted from England's process was written into the new U.S. Constitution. The last impeachment in Britain was in 1806. While still legally available, Britons rely these days on a vote of no-confidence when they want to oust leadership. 

 

Although the rules and grounds for impeachment vary, every state except Oregon has an impeachment clause in their state constitutions. In fact, several of these state impeachment clauses — including Maryland’s first constitution — were adopted before the U.S. Constitution was even written. Recently, in 2021, the New York state legislature began an impeachment inquiry into then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, but Cuomo resigned before he was impeached. In February of this year, a Trump-supported Republican lawmaker in Maryland introduced a bill in the state legislature to impeach Republican Gov. Larry Hogan. The bill failed.

 

The process for the Federal level is outlined in the U.S. Constitution; and some relevant parts are quoted below.

 

Step 1. Charges or accusations against a government official are presented to the House by a House member or group of members — similar to introducing a bill. 

 

Step 2. The House or a House committee investigates the charges and writes up Articles of Impeachment. Hearings are held.

 

Step 3. The full House votes yea or nay on the Articles of Impeachment. If the Articles do not pass, then the impeachment process ends and the accused remains in office. If the Articles pass, then the accused person has been officially impeached and the case is turned over to the Senate for trial. Technically, impeachment is over at this point.

 

Step 4. Trial and vote in the Senate. Senate rules state that the trial must begin at 1:00 pm on the day after the Articles of Impeachment are delivered to the Senate. However, there is no rule or time-table about how or when the House must deliver the articles.

 

Step 5. If the Senate votes to convict, then the impeached official is automatically and immediately removed from office. There is no other automatic penalty — no fine or imprisonment may be imposed.

 

Bonus Step. The Senate, in a separate, second vote, may also prohibit the convicted and removed official from ever holding public office again. This prohibition is not automatic upon conviction.

 

To pass, the Articles of Impeachment need a simple majority of those representatives present and voting. Today, if all 435 members of the House of Representatives are present and vote, passage would require 216 votes in favor of impeachment. While impeachment by the House only requires a simple majority, conviction in the Senate requires a supermajority of two-thirds of those present and voting. Almost everyone — House and Senate — shows up for these votes.

 

There are some broad conditions and limits. Articles of Impeachment may be brought only against the "President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States" and only if they are accused of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

 

Treason and bribery are relatively clear and well-understood terms, having basically the same meaning today as they did in Colonial times. However, the Constitution did not precisely define “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” or "civil Officer of the United States." Over the years, there has been a lot of argument and disagreement over these terms. 

 

At the time the Constitution was written in 1787, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was a common term and generally referred to inappropriate and/or illegal activities by those who held a powerful or “high” office, especially when the office itself was used for personal profit, to play favorites, or to promote personal agendas and biases. Most impeachments have been for high crimes and misdemeanors. 

 

While actual impeachment votes in the House are rather rare, demands for impeachment and threats of impeachments, especially of presidents, have been common throughout U.S. history. The ink was barely dry on the Constitution before the calls for impeachment of various officials started way back during George Washington’s administration. The first impeachment vote in the House was in 1797, the second in 1803. In total, the House has initiated impeachment proceedings 63 times but most were unsuccessful or charges were dropped without a vote.

 

To date, the House has voted to impeach 21 times, on charges against 20 people. Three presidents have been impeached — Andrew Johnson in 1868, Bill Clinton in 1998, and Donald Trump in 2019 and 2021. None were convicted. 

 

Only eight impeachments of the 21 have resulted in a Senate conviction — all of those were federal judges. Another seven judges were impeached but acquitted in the Senate. Two other judges — one in 1873 and another in 1926 — were impeached but they resigned and the proceedings were halted before a Senate trial.

 

So far, no impeachments have charged treason. Three were for bribery; two of those officials were tried and removed from office by the Senate. The third resigned before trial and was — ironically — later acquitted by the Senate.

 

Impeachment is not part of the legal system but a congressional judgment on “fitness for office.”

 

Neither conviction nor acquittal affects the official’s exposure to legal prosecution. The accused person can be indicted in criminal court or sued in civil court regarding the same charges. If convicted in the legal system, there can be fines, imprisonment, or other punishments even if the person was acquitted in the House or Senate. 

 

Likewise, impeachment charges do not need to be for actual “crimes,” that is, illegal activities. Officials have been impeached and convicted on charges of drunkenness and biased decisions. Andrew Johnson was charged in two articles for rude language along with bad behavior that reflected badly on the office of the presidency. These actions did not necessarily break any laws.

 

Conversely, some actual crimes have been determined to not amount to high crimes or misdemeanors. The Judiciary Committee of the House previously determined that any tax fraud committed by then-president Richard Nixon was not impeachable because it was committed in Nixon’s private life and was not an abuse of his authority as president. 

 

Benjamin Franklin said that impeachment was a needed recourse for when a president “has rendered himself obnoxious.” In 1970, almost two hundred years later, Gerald Ford, then House minority leader and later president, added that "an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

 

 

Sources and More information can be found at these websites:

40 Facts About the History of Impeachment, Trista, History Collection, May 26, 2019.

https://historycollection.com/40-facts-about-the-history-of-impeachment-and-the-presidents-who-couldnt-escape-its-fate/

 

Constitution Facts

https://www.constitutionfacts.com

 

Impeachment, history.com editors, History, Feb. 21, 2021. 

https://www.history.com/topics/us-government/impeachment-in-us-history

 

Impeachment Fast Facts, CNN Politics, Sept. 27, 2021.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/29/world/impeachment-fast-facts/index.html

 

Impeachment in the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

 

 

Jane Jewell is a writer, editor, photographer, and teacher. She has worked in news, publishing, and as the director of a national writer's group. She lives in Chestertown with her husband Peter Heck, a ginger cat named Riley, and a lot of books.

 

Common Sense for the Eastern Shore

It’s Not Your Grandfather’s Department of Justice

By John Christie • December 16, 2025
When I practiced law, much of my litigation involved issues arising under federal antitrust laws. The Department of Justice (DOJ) was my frequent adversary in court. In some cases, DOJ challenged a client’s conduct as anticompetitive. In others, they claimed an intended client merger would create a monopoly. Some of these DOJ court battles were won, others were not. Overall, I had great respect for DOJ lawyers. They were professional, well prepared, and dedicated to their mission of seeing justice done. They were courteous, honest, and forthright with the courts before which we argued our cases. In those days, without resorting to social media or press conferences, the DOJ spoke entirely through its court filings. Although as an advocate I took issue with various DOJ investigatory decisions as well as decisions to initiate litigation, I never thought politics was involved. Post-Watergate internal rules strictly limited communication with any figures at the White House. Not so, it seems, anymore. Beginning last January 20, all of this changed rapidly and spectacularly . On March 14, Trump triumphantly arrived at the main DOJ building in D.C. to be welcomed by a group of carefully selected VIPs. He was greeted by Pam Bondi, his chosen new attorney general, who exclaimed, “We are so proud to work at the directive (sic) of Donald Trump.” Bondi’s boast that the DOJ now worked at the president’s behest was something never said before and, in effect, surrendered the department’s long and proud independence. And Bondi’s comment was not an empty gesture. As chronicled by reporters Carol Leonnig and Aaron Davis in their new book, Injustice: How Politics and Fear Vanquished America’s Justice Department , within hours of being sworn in, Trump and his lieutenants began punishing those at the Justice Department who had investigated him or those he considered his political enemies. Career attorneys with years of experience under many administrations were fired or reassigned to lesser work, or they resigned. As Leonnig and Davis report, what followed was “the wholesale overthrow of the Justice Department as Trump insert[ed] his dutiful former defense attorneys and 2020 election deniers atop the department.” [Source: Injustice , p. xix.] In the place of years of experience, the new team appears credentialed simply by loyalty to the president’s causes. The DOJ’s conduct in court has since caused damage to judicial and public faith in the integrity and competence of the department. Just Security is an independent, non-partisan, daily digital law and policy journal housed in the Reiss Center on Law and Security at the New York University School of Law. Since January 20, it has documented federal judicial concerns about DOJ conduct. In 26 cases, judges raised questions about DOJ non-compliance with judicial orders and in more than 60 cases, judges expressed distrust of government-provided information and representations. This count was taken the day after a federal court dismissed the DOJ cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. [Source: Just Security , “The ‘Presumption of Regularity’ in Trump Administration Litigation,” Nov. 20, 2025.] As summarized by the Georgetown Law Center’s Steve Vladeck, “It’s one thing for the Department of Justice to so transparently pursue a politically motivated prosecution. But this one has been beset from the get-go with errors that remotely competent law students wouldn’t make. Indeed, it seems a virtual certainty that the Keystone Kops-like behavior of the relevant government lawyers can be traced directly to the political pressure to bring this case; there’s a reason why no prosecutors with more experience, competence, or integrity were willing to take it on.” [Source: One First , Nov. 24, 2025.] Rather than accept criticism and instead of trying to do better, Bondi’s DOJ and the Trump administration lash out in a fashion apparently aimed at demeaning the federal judiciary. At a recent Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, one of Trump’s former defense attorneys, attributed the Trump administration’s myriad losses in the lower federal courts to “rogue activist judges.” He added, “There’s a group of judges that are repeat players, and that’s obviously not by happenstance, that’s intentional, and it’s a war, man.” Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller decries each adverse ruling against the Trump administration as just part of a broader “judicial insurrection.” Not to be left behind, Trump himself regularly complains of “radical left lunatic” judges. In addition to the harm these comments inflict on the federal courts, their premise is simply not true. According to a survey by Vladeck, as of Nov. 14, there were 204 cases in which federal district courts have ruled on requests for preliminary relief against the Trump administration. In 154 of them, district judges granted either a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or both. Those 154 rulings came from 121 district judges appointed by seven presidents (including President Trump) in 29 district courts. In the 154 cases with rulings adverse to the Trump administration, 41 were presided over by 30 Republican-appointed judges, fully half of whom were appointed by President Trump. No, it is no longer your grandfather’s Department of Justice. John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.

Salisbury City Council Appoints Melissa Holland to Fill District 2 Seat

By CSES Staff • December 16, 2025
The Salisbury City Council has appointed longtime public servant Melissa D. Holland to fill the vacancy in District 2. Holland was selected on Dec. 1 after the council reviewed several applicants. A 27-year resident of Salisbury, Holland brings more than 20 years of experience in government, education, and administration. As executive assistant to the president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, she currently oversees operations, budgeting, communications, and planning. Before joining UMCES, Holland worked for nearly 11 years with the Wicomico County Council, gaining extensive experience in legislative procedure, constituent services, research, and budget preparation. Her background includes positions with the Wicomico County Board of Education, the State of Maryland’s Holly Center, and multiple early-learning programs. Approved by a 3-1 council vote, Holland was selected based on her administrative expertise and long-standing community involvement. (Salisbury’s City Council is now comprised of only women.) She has a bachelor’s degree in legal studies from Post University and an associate degree from Wor-Wic Community College. She has also served as PTA president at East Salisbury Elementary and Wicomico Middle School. In her application, Holland emphasized her commitment to maintaining transparency in city government and ensuring that District 2 residents remain informed and represented. “I plan to be well-informed on the issues that matter to the citizens of Salisbury and to listen to their concerns carefully,” she wrote. “I want to make a positive and lasting impact on our city.” Holland’s appointment restores the City Council to full membership as it faces debates over budgeting, infrastructure planning, and local governance initiatives. She is expected to begin constituent outreach immediately and participate fully in the selection of the next council president.

Democrats Ambushed in Hurlock Election

By CSES Staff • November 4, 2025
Voters in Hurlock have delivered sweeping changes in this year’s municipal election, as Republican and GOP-aligned candidates won key races there. The results mark a setback for Democrats and a significant political shift in a community that has historically leaned Democratic in state and federal contests. The outcome underscores how local organizing and turnout strategies can have an outsized impact in small-town elections. Analysts also suggest that long-term party engagement in municipal contests could shape voter alignment in future county and state races. Political analysts warn that ignoring municipal elections and ceding them to the GOP could hurt the Maryland Democratic Party in statewide politics. Turnout increased by approximately 17% compared with the 2021 municipal election, reflecting heightened local interest in the mayoral and council races. Incumbent Mayor Charles Cephas, a Democrat, was soundly defeated by At-Large Councilmember Earl Murphy, who won with roughly 230 votes to Cephas’s 144. In the At-Large Council race, Jeff Smith, an independent candidate backed by local Republicans, secured a 15-point win over Cheyenne Chase. In District 2, Councilmember Bonnie Franz, a Republican, was re-elected by 40 percentage points over challenger Zia Ashraf, who previously served on the Dorchester Democratic Central Committee. The only Democrat to retain a seat on the council was David Higgins, who was unopposed. The Maryland Republican Party invested resources and campaign attention in the Hurlock race, highlighting it on statewide social media and dispatching party officials, including Maryland GOP Chair Nicole Beus Harris, to campaign. Local Democrats emphasized support for Mayor Cephas through the Dorchester County Democratic Central Committee, but the Maryland Democratic Party did not appear to participate directly.

Giordano Sides with Ehrlich Over Hogan, Underscoring GOP Rift as Moore Widens Lead

By CSES Staff • November 4, 2025
In what political observers are calling a clear break from Maryland’s moderate Republican establishment, Wicomico County Executive Julie Giordano chose former Gov. Bob Ehrlich — not former Gov. Larry Hogan — as the guest of honor at her re-election fundraiser in late October. Billed as Giordano’s annual Harvest Party, her event drew conservative activists from across the lower Eastern Shore and featured Ehrlich as keynote speaker. This was immediately read by insiders as a signal that Giordano will embrace the party’s right-wing base ahead of 2026, distancing herself from Hogan’s more centrist, bipartisan image. “Bringing in Bob Ehrlich instead of Larry Hogan wasn’t accidental,” one longtime Republican strategist said. “It shows Giordano wants to plant her flag with the MAGA-aligned wing of the party, the same voters who now dominate Maryland’s Republican primary base.” Hogan, who has hinted at another run for governor, was notably absent from this year’s Tawes Crab and Clam Bake in Somerset County, a high-profile gathering long considered essential for statewide contenders. Coupled with Giordano’s public alignment with Ehrlich, Hogan’s absence has fueled speculation that his influence within Maryland’s GOP is slipping. Those doubts were amplified by new polling data. A statewide survey commissioned by the Baltimore Banner found Gov. Wes Moore (D) leading Hogan 45% to 37% in a hypothetical 2026 matchup, with 14% undecided. The poll, conducted by phone and web from Oct. 7–10 among more than 900 registered voters, carries a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points. The results suggest that while Hogan remains popular among moderates and independents, Moore continues to hold a firm advantage statewide, particularly among Democrats and younger voters. Giordano’s decision to align herself with Ehrlich rather than Hogan further illustrates the ideological divide defining Maryland Republicans heading into 2026. As the party drifts further to the right, analysts say Hogan’s brand of pragmatic centrism may no longer have a natural home in today’s GOP. For now, Ehrlich’s appearance in Salisbury is being seen as a symbolic moment, one that cements Giordano’s status as a leading figure in the state’s Trump-aligned movement and underscores how quickly the political winds have shifted. For Hogan, once seen as the Republican best positioned to reclaim the governor’s office, that shift may mark the end of an era.

New Congressional Map for Maryland and District 1?

By Jan Plotczyk • November 4, 2025
Can Maryland create a new congressional map that will flip the state’s sole Republican district to the Democrats? Gov. Wes Moore has created a Governor's Redistricting Advisory Commission to consider mid-cycle redistricting and Maryland has jumped into the redistricting fray. The commission will conduct public hearings, solicit public feedback, and present recommendations to the governor and Maryland General Assembly. “My commitment has been clear from day one — we will explore every avenue possible to make sure Maryland has fair and representative maps,” said Moore. “And we also need to make sure that, if the president of the United States is putting his finger on the scale to try to manipulate elections because he knows that his policies cannot win in a ballot box, then it behooves each and every one of us to be able to keep all options on the table to ensure that the voters’ voices can actually be heard .” Moore’s commission is one of those options — a response to Trump’s call to Republican-led states to create more GOP House districts before the 2026 midterm elections. Three GOP states — Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina — have completed a Trump gerrymander for a gain of seven seats and three more states — Indiana, Utah, and Ohio — could create new maps with a total of four additional Republican seats. That would make 11, should they withstand challenges. Democratic-led states made a lot of noise at first about countering these GOP efforts, but only California and Virginia have campaigns for new maps underway. California wants to flip five seats and Virginia hopes for up to four. Optimistically, that could add up to as many as nine. Maryland’s goal would be to add one Democratic seat. Other states on both sides could soon follow, in some cases taking advantage of existing redistricting deadlines or ongoing litigation. Maryland State Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Balto City) is not in favor of mid-cycle redistricting, calling it too dicey. “Simply put, it is too risky and jeopardizes Maryland’s ability to fight against the radical Trump administration. At a time where every seat in Congress matters, the potential for ceding yet another one to Republicans here in Maryland is simply too great,” Ferguson wrote in a letter to Senate Democrats. Rep. Andrew P. Harris (R-MD01), whose district would be targeted by redistricting, called the effort "the most partisan thing you could do." He whined, “It just wouldn’t be fair.” Harris warned that any redistricting could backfire on the Democrats. “We will take this to court, it will go as high as necessary, and in the end, a judge could draw a map that actually has two or three Republican congressmen,” Harris said. “I’d caution the Democrats, be careful what you wish for.” Harris and his wife, Maryland GOP Chair Nicole Beus Harris, have perhaps already worked out a strategy. The Governor’s Redistricting Advisory Commission, last constituted by Gov. Martin O’Malley in 2011, will begin its work this month. The five-member commission includes: Chair: Senator Angela Alsobrooks Senate President Bill Ferguson or designee Speaker Adrienne A. Jones or designee Former Attorney General Brian Frosh Cumberland Mayor Ray Morriss “We have a president that treats our democracy with utter contempt. We have a Republican party that is trying to rig the rules in response to their terrible polling,” said Sen. Alsobrooks. “Let me be clear: Maryland deserves a fair map that represents the will of the people. That’s why I’m proud to chair this commission. Our democracy depends on all of us standing up in this moment.” Will Maryland’s First District finally be competitive? Can we at long last replace “AWOL Andy” Harris? Stay tuned…. Jan Plotczyk spent 25 years as a survey and education statistician with the federal government, at the Census Bureau and the National Center for Education Statistics. She retired to Rock Hall.

Residents Turn Out for Offshore Wind Information Session

By CSES Staff • November 4, 2025
In strong numbers, local residents turned out last month for a community information session on offshore wind hosted by the Alliance for Offshore Wind at the Ocean Pines library. The forum heard from industry experts, environmental advocates, and labor leaders to discuss how offshore wind projects can support jobs, clean energy, and coastal resilience along Maryland’s Eastern Shore. Featured were Sam Saluto of Oceantic, Jim Strong of the United Steelworkers, Ron Larsen of Sea Ink Solutions, and Jim Brown of the Audubon Society, all of whom emphasized the long-term environmental and economic benefits of wind development off Maryland’s coast. Speakers outlined how the project, once completed, is expected to create hundreds of high-paying jobs, generate clean power for tens of thousands of homes, and reduce reliance on fossil fuels that cause pollution and coastal erosion. “The potential here is extraordinary,” said Saluto, highlighting Oceantic’s ongoing work to ensure safety and sustainability standards remain at the highest level. “We’re not just talking about wind turbines. We’re talking about revitalizing local economies and protecting the Shore’s way of life.” Union representative Jim Strong echoed that sentiment, noting that Maryland’s labor community sees offshore wind as a chance to rebuild domestic manufacturing capacity while giving workers access to strong wages and long-term stability. Environmental voices, including Jim Brown of the Audubon Society, focused on how properly sited wind projects can reduce carbon emissions while coexisting with marine wildlife and migratory bird patterns. While most of the evening centered on data and community questions, the event briefly turned tense when Ocean City Mayor Rick Meehan, who is leading a lawsuit challenging Maryland’s offshore wind plans, attempted to question the panel. The mayor appeared to lose his train of thought mid-sentence and later cast doubt on the reality of climate change, drawing visible concern from several attendees. Meehan, a New Yorker who moved to Ocean City in 1971 and has held public office since 1985, has become one of the region’s most vocal opponents of offshore wind. His critics argue the lawsuit represents an effort to stall progress rather than engage with the facts presented by energy, labor, and environmental experts. Despite the brief exchange, the overall tone of the evening was forward-looking. Residents lingered after the formal discussion to review informational materials, speak with industry representatives, and learn about opportunities for community involvement. For many, the message was clear: Maryland’s transition to clean energy is not only feasible, it’s already underway, and the Eastern Shore stands to benefit.
Show More