impeachment: Definition and Much More from Answers.com

Is the procedure by which “the President, Vice President, and all other civil officers of the United States,” including members of the federal judiciary, can be removed from office if guilty of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Articles of impeachment, or accusations of misconduct, are drafted in the House of Representatives and approved by majority vote; the trial is before the Senate, with a two‐thirds vote needed for conviction. In cases of presidential impeachment, the trial is presided over by the chief justice. Conviction in a case of impeachment can result only in removal from office and disqualification from holding office in future, but does not prevent the guilty party from being held further accountable in regular courts of law. Finally, the presidential pardoning power does not extend to individuals convicted in cases of impeachment.

Impeachment once prevailed in England as an important mechanism to check abusive, high‐ranking ministers, but in the United States it has mainly become a device to remove corrupt lower federal court judges. The chief, and highly controversial, exceptions to this overall evolution have been the impeachment of Chief Justice Samuel Chase, and the impeachments of President Andrew Johnson and President Bill Clinton. As English usage developed, Parliament not infrequently employed impeachment as a means to charge and try high royal officials, including judges, with conviction ordinarily resulting in the death penalty. The framers of the Constitution reduced the consequences of conviction to mere removal from office, yet appear to have borrowed the process primarily as a means of checking the president. From the beginning, however, the Constitution's extension of the process to other federal officers was understood to include members of the judicial branch.

The Constitution's terse handling of impeachment left open a number of issues that continue to be the subject of debate. Perhaps most important of these is what behavior qualifies as a “high crime and misdemeanor.” While some commentators have argued that impeachable matters are confined to criminal offenses, and Congressman Gerald Ford famously asserted that an impeachable offense was whatever Congress said it was, the balance of opinion and practice holds that impeachable conduct entails some serious abuse of office or breach of public trust. Other vexing issues include: whether impeachment is appropriate for misconduct outside of one's official duties; whether judges can be removed for misbehavior that fails to rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors; and whether the federal courts may judicially review an impeachment conviction. Cutting across these and other issues is the further question of whether the same standards that apply to impeachment of the president should also apply to judges. On this last matter, most experts and practice suggest that at least lower federal judges ought to be more easily removed than the chief executive.

Justice Chase remains the only Supreme Court justice who has ever been subjected to the procedure, and his acquittal played an important role in preventing the application of impeachment from becoming overtly political. Chase was an important and controversial member of the founding generation. A signer of the Declaration of Independence, he was combative, irascible, aggressive, and overbearing. Chase, whom President Washington appointed to the Court in 1796, nevertheless had a first‐rate legal mind and was one of the leading members of the pre–John Marshall Court. He increasingly emerged, however, as an extreme Federalist partisan who vigorously enforced the Sedition Acts, which had been passed during the administration of John Adams to allow prosecution of Republican editors and politicians, especially in the cases of Thomas Cooper, John Fries, and James T. Callender.

While Chase's judicial behavior was improper, the eventual impeachment proceedings brought against him were also highly politicized. In the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson secured the presidency as his fellow Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress, leaving only the national judiciary in Federalist hands. Jefferson himself did not initially desire to attack the judicial department, but more radical Republicans, such as John Randolph of Virginia, did. The new president eventually came to favor the impeachment of Federalist John Pickering, a federal district court judge from New Hampshire. Pickering was both insane and alcoholic and almost certainly engaged in no intentional crime or abuse of office. He became the first federal judge in history to be impeached, convicted, and removed from office as Republican majorities agreed that English and colonial American precedent established that impeachment proceedings could be a means to remove political opponents from office.

The same day that Pickering was convicted, Randolph moved, in the House of Representatives, for impeachment proceedings against Chase. Jefferson, at first, supported this development based upon what he believed to be Chase's ongoing partisan activities from the bench. He withdrew his support, however, when it became clear that Randolph and his allies intended to go after other Federalist members of the Supreme Court, including John Marshall and William Paterson, should Chase be convicted. During the trial itself, Chase and a battery of skilled lawyers mounted a vigorous defense while Randolph, who was not a trained lawyer, botched the prosecution. The conduct of the trial, Jefferson's refusal to enforce party discipline in the final vote, and arguably the realization that a conviction would undermine separation of powers prevented the more zealous Republicans from obtaining the two‐thirds majority necessary to convict.

Chase's acquittal supported the views of those more moderate Republicans who argued that the grounds for impeachment should be either criminal or abuse of office rather than partisan. This view has prevailed down to the present. Although various lower federal court judges have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office, this has occurred only in clear‐cut cases. For members of the Supreme Court the threat of impeachment has been mainly rhetorical. Since Jefferson, all presidents and most members of Congress have generally eschewed the impeachment process as too partisan and cumbersome.

That said, from time to time, individuals, and even groups have called for the impeachment of particular Supreme Court justices for espousing controversial or unpopular points of view. Perhaps the best known example was the campaign to impeach Chief Justice Earl Warren. Instituted by the John Birch Society in the early 1960s, the campaign distributed pamphlets and erected numerous billboards, but had no appreciable effect on judicial behavior. In a similar vein, Congressman Gerald Ford sought to make good his politicized views on impeachment by introducing a resolution sponsored by 110 representatives calling for the impeachment of Justice William O. Douglas in 1970.

While Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presided over the Senate trial of President Johnson, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist later presided over the trial of President Clinton, the Supreme Court itself has not dealt with the issue extensively. Mention of the impeachment process by the justices has been mostly incidental to the discussion of other issues, such as the right to trial by jury or the reach of the pardon power.

A formal accusation of wrongdoing. To impeach a public official is to accuse him of crimes or misdemeanours in the execution of his duties. Impeachment proceedings normally occur in the lower house of a legislature, with any subsequent trial taking place in the upper house. In England, prior to the development of ministerial responsibility to Parliament, impeachment was used as a means whereby the legislature sought to call to account ministers who saw themselves as answerable primarily, if not exclusively, to the Crown. For example, 1677 the House of Commons impeached the King's chief minister, the Earl of Danby, for negotiating a treaty with the King of France. The House of Lords declined to convict Danby although he was dismissed and committed to the Tower for five years. There have been only two cases of impeachment in Britain in the last two hundred years—Warren Hastings was impeached 1786 arising from alleged misgovernment in India, and Lord Melville was impeached 1806 for corruption in the use of public funds.

In the United States the Constitution provides for the impeachment of federal officials charged with ‘Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanours’. The House of Representatives has ‘the sole Power of Impeachment’ and all impeachments are tried in the Senate with the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court presiding. Conviction requires the agreement of two-thirds of the members present. Since 1787 seven federal judges have been removed following impeachment proceedings.

President Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868, but survived in the Senate by one vote. 1974 the House Judiciary Committee agreed three articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon. Nixon was charged with the abuse of his power as President, obstruction of justice, and contempt of Congress. Before these articles could be voted on by the full House the President resigned, after being informed that his impeachment and conviction were otherwise inevitable. 1998 the House agreed articles of impeachment against President Clinton on charges of lying about an extramarital relationship. The Senate failed to summon the necessary two-thirds to eject Clinton. The impeachment distracted all branches of the Federal government for more than a year.

If a federal official commits a crime or otherwise acts improperly, Congress may impeach—formally charge—and remove that person from office. The House of Representatives votes to impeach, an action similar to an indictment in a court of law. Then the Senate sits as a court to determine guilt or innocence. It takes a two-thirds vote of the Senate to remove someone from office.

The Constitutional Convention decided that no one should be above the law and that even the President should be subject to impeachment. All civil officers of the government can be removed if

Congress has resorted to impeaching a President in only three cases: President Andrew Johnson was impeached by the House of Representatives but was acquitted by the Senate after a trial in 1868; the House Committee on the Judiciary reported three articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon in 1974, but he resigned before the full House could vote on them; and President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives but was acquitted by the Senate after a trial in 1999.

Although an impeachment proceeding bears a close similarity to a criminal trial, there are substantial differences. First, the President is not necessarily charged with a criminal offense but with improper conduct in performing the duties of his office. Impeachment is not meant to be a partisan proceeding, nor is it used simply to reflect a lack of confidence in the President's policies or leadership by other branches of government. The Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected attempts to make impeachment overtly political. The delegates rejected proposals to make the President removable on the application of a majority of state governors. They rejected impeachment by a mere majority vote of Congress. They also rejected grounds for impeachment that involved the President's political judgment or vague terms such as “maladministration.” They specified instead that the only grounds for impeachment were “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” These terms referred to the abuse of power, misapplication of public funds, corruption, criminal conduct, or violating the separation of powers mandated by the Constitution.

A President may also be held responsible for the conduct of his subordinates. He may be charged with a cover-up if he knowingly conceals information regarding a violation of the law or if he fails to remove such officials from office when evidence of their offenses comes to his attention. He may also be charged with failing to see that the laws are faithfully executed, with failing to institute procedures so that officials will act lawfully, or with a conspiracy to see that the laws are violated. A President who testifies falsely in a judicial proceeding may be charged with perjury or obstruction of justice.

The Senate managers of an impeachment may attempt to prove that the President committed a statutory crime, though criminal guilt is not necessary in a case involving abuse of power. If they cannot do so, they may present evidence that the President engaged in a course of action or a pattern of behavior that demonstrates “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Those seeking a President's impeachment may argue that grounds need not be limited to federal statutes. The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, in assessing grounds for Nixon's impeachment, argued that a President could be removed “for conduct amounting to a gross breach of trust or serious abuse of power” and that these are “not limited to criminal offenses” but refer to acts that undermine the integrity of the government, whether technically criminal or not.

Presidents have several defenses against impeachment. They can argue that impeachment is a criminal trial, in which all the safeguards of the 5th Amendment, which guarantees the due process of law, must apply. And as Nixon put it, “A criminal offense on the part of the President is the requirement for impeachment.” The Republicans defending Nixon in 1973 also took this position, although it repudiated their 1868 stand against Andrew Johnson. Presidents may also argue that they cannot be held responsible for the conduct of their subordinates.

Presidents can claim that they believed that their actions were constitutional. If they are charged with failure to execute the laws, they can claim that the laws conflicted with other laws or was itself unconstitutional. Or they can argue that the alleged offense was a mere technical violation for which impeachment is too severe a penalty. They can argue that the offense was a “low” crime involving personal matters rather than a “high” crime involving abuse of power or violation of the public trust. Or they may claim that the violation of the law was necessary for national security.

Ultimately, the Senate must assess the motives of the President. Did he act in good faith? Was he attempting to usurp or abuse power? Did the ends justify the means? The judgment the senators come to will be political rather than legalistic. The Senate in the Clinton impeachment trial was influenced by public opinion polls, which indicated that Clinton's job approval ratings remained high and that the public, by a 2-to-1 margin, opposed the conviction. Republicans argued that the constitional law of impeachment was being supplanted by an illegitimate “popular law” nullifying the crimes the President had committed. Democrats argued that the Senate should take into account the judgment of the American people.

Conviction by the Senate does not result in criminal penalties. If the offense involved a crime, judicial proceedings may be instituted after the President is removed from office.

formal accusation issued by a legislature against a public official charged with crime or other serious misconduct. In a looser sense the term is sometimes applied also to the trial by the legislature that may follow. Impeachment developed in England, beginning in the 14th cent., as a means of trying officials suspected of dereliction of duty. The English procedure was for the House of Commons to prosecute by presenting articles of impeachment to the House of Lords, which rendered judgment. Any penalty, including death, might be inflicted. The impeachment (1787) and trial (1788–95) of Warren Hastings was among the last of the English cases.

In the United States impeachment of public officials is provided for in the federal government and in most states. In federal matters the U.S. Constitution gives the House of Representatives the power to impeach civil officers of the United States, including the President and Vice President, but not including members of Congress. Impeachments are tried by the Senate, with the concurrence of two thirds of the members present needed for conviction. The sole penalties on conviction are removal from office and disqualification from holding other federal office; however, the convicted party is liable to subsequent criminal trial and punishment for the same offense.

There have been 16 impeachments tried by the Senate and seven convictions. Three of the best-known cases, which did not result in conviction, were those of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, President Andrew Johnson, and President Bill Clinton (see Lewinsky scandal). In 1974 the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives voted to bring impeachment charges against President Richard Nixon (see Watergate affair), but Nixon resigned before the House took action.

Bibliography

See studies by I. Brant (1972), R. Berger (1973), C. L. Black, Jr. (1974), J. R. Labovitz (1978), and R. A. Posner (1999).

This article is about a step in the removal of a public official. For challenging a witness in a legal proceeding, see witness impeachment.

In the constitutions of several countries, impeachment is the first of two stages in a specific process for a legislative body to remove a government official without that official's agreement. The second stage is called conviction.

Impeachment is so rare that the term is often misunderstood. A typical misconception is to confuse it with involuntary removal from office; in fact, it is only the legal statement of charges, paralleling an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. Most constitutions require a supermajority to convict.

One tradition of impeachment has its origins in the law of England and Wales, where the procedure last took place in 1806. Impeachment exists under constitutional law in many nations around the world, including the United States, India, Brazil, Russia, the Philippines, the Republic of Ireland, and Kyrgyzstan.^[1]

Etymologically, the word "impeachment" derives from Latin roots expressing the idea of becoming caught or entrapped, and has analogues in the modern French verb empêcher (to prevent) and the modern English impede. Medieval popular etymology also associated it (wrongly) with derivations from the Latin impetere (to attack). (In its more frequent and more technical usage, impeachment of a person in the role of a witness is the act challenging the honesty or credibility of that person.)

The process should not be confused with recall election. A recall election is usually initiated by voters and can be based on "political charges", for example mismanagement, where as impeachment is initiated by a constitutional body (usually a legislative body) and is usually based, but not always, on indictable offenses. The process of removing the official is also different.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, the House of Commons holds the power of initiating an impeachment. Any member may make accusations of any crime. The member must support the charges with evidence and move for impeachment. If the Commons carries the motion, the mover receives orders to go to the bar at the House of Lords and to impeach the accused "in the name of the House of Commons, and all the commons of the United Kingdom." However impeachment has not been used for two hundred years (the last impeachment trial was of Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville in 1806).

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). However since the Lord Chancellor today is no longer a judge, 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 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, one charge at a time. Upon being called, a lord 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.

In April 1977 the Young Liberals' annual conference unanimously passed a motion to call on the Liberal leader (David Steel) to move for the impeachment of Ronald King Murray QC, the Lord Advocate. Mr. Steel did not call the motion but Murray (now Lord Murray, a former Senator of the College of Justice of Scotland) agrees that the Commons still have the right to initiate an impeachment motion. On 25 August 2004, 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. In response Peter Hain, the Commons Leader, insisted that impeachment was obsolete, given modern government's responsibility to parliament. Ironically, Peter Hain had served as president of the Young Liberals when they called for the impeachment of Mr. Murray in 1977.

In 2006, General Sir Michael Rose revived the call for the impeachment of the United Kingdom's Prime Minister, Tony Blair, for leading the country into the invasion of Iraq in 2003 under false pretenses.

United States

Impeachable offenses

In the United States, impeachment can occur both at the federal and state level. The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may only be impeached and removed for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." ^[2]. Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes an impeachable offense ^{[citation needed]}. In 1970, then-Representative Gerald R. Ford defined the criteria as he saw it: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." ^[3] Four years later, Ford would assume the Presidency, following the resignation of President Richard Nixon. (Nixon resigned following a committee vote to approve impeachment proceedings, but before actual impeachment by the full House.)

Article III of the Constitution states that judges remain in office "during good behavior," implying that Congress may remove a judge for bad behavior via impeachment. The House has impeached 13 federal judges and the Senate has convicted six of them^[4].

Officials subject to impeachment

The central question regarding the Constitutional dispute about the impeachment of members of the legislature is this: Are members of Congress "officers" of the United States? The Constitution grants to the House the power to impeach "The President, the Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States." ^[5] Many believe firmly that Members of Congress are not "officers of the United States." ^[6]. Others, however, believe that Members are civil Officers and are subject to impeachment.

The House of Representatives did impeach a Senator once^[7], Senator William Blount. The Senate expelled Senator Blount and, after initially hearing his impeachment, dismissed the charges for lack of jurisdiction^[8]. Left unsettled was the question "Are members of Congress civil officers of the United States?" The House has never impeached a Member of Congress after Blount and, as each House has the authority to expel their own members—without involving the other chamber — as impeachment would require, expulsion is the common method of removing Members of Congress.

Jefferson's Manual, which is integral to the House rules, states that impeachment is set in motion by: charges made on the floor; charges preferred by a memorial; a Member's resolution referred to a committee; a message from the President; charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or territory or from a grand jury; or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House. It further states that a proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business.

Process

The impeachment-trial procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. (All fifty state legislatures as well as the District of Columbia city council may also pass articles of impeachment against their own executives.) The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached."

Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. Otherwise, the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, or the President pro tempore of the Senate presides. This may include the impeachment of the Vice President, although legal theories suggest that allowing a person to be the judge in the case where she or he was the defendant wouldn't be permitted. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of someone other than the President), the duties would fall to the President Pro Tempore.

In order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring them from holding future federal office (either elected or appointed). Despite a conviction by the Senate, the defendant remains liable to criminal prosecution. It is possible to impeach someone even after the accused has vacated their office in order to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of their prior office (such as a pension). If a two-thirds majority of the senators present does not vote "Guilty" on one or more of the charges, the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.

History of federal impeachment proceedings

Congress regards impeachment as a power to be used only in extreme cases; the House has initiated impeachment proceedings only 62 times since 1789 (most recently President Clinton), and only the following 17 federal officers have been impeached:

• Two presidents:
  • Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 after violating the then-newly created Tenure of Office Act. President Johnson was acquitted of all charges by a single vote in the Senate.
  • Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote). four other articles of impeachment failed—a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205–229 vote), and one accusing President Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148–285 vote). He was acquitted by the Senate.
• One cabinet officer, William W. Belknap (Secretary of War). He resigned before his trial, and was later acquitted. Allegedly most of those who voted to acquit him believed that his resignation had removed their jurisdiction.
• One Senator, William Blount (though the Senate had already expelled him).
• Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1804. He was acquitted.
• Twelve other federal judges, including Alcee Hastings, who was impeached and convicted for taking over $150,000 in bribe money in exchange for sentencing leniency. The Senate did not bar Hastings from holding future office, and Hastings won election to the House of Representatives from South Florida. Hastings' name was mentioned as a possible Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, but was passed over by House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, presumably because of his previous impeachment and removal. Source U.S. Senate

Many mistakenly assume Richard Nixon was impeached. While the House Judiciary Committee did approve articles of impeachment against him (by wide margins) and did report those articles to the full House, Nixon resigned prior to House consideration of the impeachment resolutions. Both his impeachment by the House of Representatives and his conviction by the Senate were near certainties; Nixon reportedly decided to resign after being told this by Senator Barry Goldwater. He was subsequently pardoned by President Ford.

Other jurisdictions

• Austria: The Austrian Federal President can be impeached by the Federal Assembly (Bundesversammlung) before the Constitutional Court. The constitution also provides for the recall of the president by a referendum. Neither of these courses has ever been taken, likely because the President is an unobtrusive and largely ceremonial figurehead who, having little power, is hardly in a position to abuse it.
• Brazil: The President of Federative Republic of Brazil can be impeached. This happened to Fernando Collor de Mello, due to evidence of bribery and misappropriation. State governors and mayors can also be impeached, though only the latter have actually been impeached.
• Germany: The Federal President of Germany can be impeached both by the Bundestag and by the Bundesrat for willfully violating German law. Once the Bundestag or the Bundesrat impeaches the president, the Federal Constitutional Court decides whether the President is guilty as charged and, if this is the case, whether to remove him or her from office. No such case has yet occurred, not the least because the President's functions are mostly ceremonial and he or she seldom makes controversial decisions. The Federal Constitutional Court also has the power to remove federal judges from office for willfully violating core principles of the federal constitution or a state constitution.
• Iran: Member of Majlis representatives and the Supreme Leader can remove the President. In January 1980, Abolhassan Banisadr, then the president of Iran, was impeached by the Majlis representatives in June, 1981.
• Norway: Members of government, representatives of the national assembly (Stortinget) and Supreme Court judges can be impeached for criminal offences tied to their duties and committed in office, according to the Constitution of 1814, §§ 86 and 87. The procedural rules were modelled on the US rules and are quite similar to them. Impeachment has been used 8 times since 1814, last in 1927. Many argue that impeachment has fallen into desuetude.
• The Philippines: The President can be impeached by the House of Representatives of the Philippines with at least one-thirds vote. After the House of Representatives files the case in the Senate, the Senate can start an investigation. When at least two-thirds of members of the Senate vote to convict the President, he shall be removed from office.
• Romania: The President can be impeached by Parliament and is then suspended. A referendum then follows to determine whether the suspended President should be removed from office. President Traian Băsescu was recently impeached by the Parliament. A referendum was held on May 19, 2007. A large majority of the electorate voted against removing the president from office.
• Russia: The President of Russia can be impeached if both the State Duma (which initiates the impeachment process through the formation of a special investigation committee) and the Federation Council of Russia vote by a two-thirds majority in favor of impeachment and, additionally, the Supreme Court finds the President guilty of treason or a similarly heavy crime against the nation. In 1995-1999, the Duma made several attempts to impeach then-President Boris Yeltsin, but they never had a sufficient amount of votes for the process to reach the Federation Council.
• Taiwan: Officials can be impeached by a two-thirds vote in the Legislative Yuan together with an absolute majority in a referendum. President Chen Shui-bian is currently being impeached.

Presidents who were removed from office following impeachment

• Abolhassan Banisadr, president of Iran, was impeached on June 21, 1981 by the Majlis (the Iranian Parliament).
• Fernando Collor de Mello, president of Brazil, was impeached in 1992, after the Congress rejected his resignation letter.
• Carlos Andrés Pérez, president of Venezuela, was impeached in 1993.
• Raúl Cubas Grau, president of Paraguay, was impeached in 1999.
• Rolandas Paksas, president of Lithuania, was impeached on April 6, 2005.

See also

• Impeachment in the United States
• Movement to Impeach George W. Bush
• HR 333 to Impeach Richard Cheney
• Desafuero

References