Paul Manafort's conviction and Michael Cohen's guilty plea have spurred heated speculation from cable news pundits about the possible impeachment of President Donald Trump -- though far less from Democratic and Republican congressional leaders.

The reason is that such talk remains wildly premature. Several steps would be necessary before proceedings against Trump became a serious possibility, and it's always possible they'll never happen. After all, successfully impeaching anyone, especially a president, requires serious evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors," political will, meticulous preparation and, lest we forget, the votes. None are yet present.

Here is how that could develop:

Serious evidence. Cohen's statement that Trump directed him to make "hush payments" to women alleging sexual relationships raises the implication of possible participation in making an illegal campaign contribution that could ultimately become one count in an impeachment resolution.

But unlike Bill Clinton's 1998 impeachment, Trump won't be impeached just for covering up his sexual misdeeds. Any action will almost certainly depend on more serious charges from special counsel Robert Mueller. There are signs Mueller is considering obstruction of justice charges based on Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey, his repeated threats to oust Mueller and his role in covering up details of the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting.

It's less clear if Mueller will find tangible evidence Trump conspired with the Russians during the 2016 campaign. But Mueller's inquiry remains shrouded in secrecy, since he is not talking.

Political will. Trump's fellow Republicans seem likely to keep ignoring allegations against the president . GOP leaders of the Judiciary Committee, where impeachment proceedings begin, remain more interested in investigating Hillary Clinton than Trump.

The GOP might try to use the impeachment threat to increase turnout of fervent Trump backers in the Nov. 6 elections. The Democrats, meanwhile, prefer to focus on issues like health care and government corruption, lest they drive away some potential suburban Republican voters.

But everything would change if Democrats win the House Nov. 6. Though party leaders remain reluctant to speculate on impeachment -- or even say it is on their agenda -- the combination of a Democratic majority and a strong report from Mueller would almost certainly precipitate proceedings next year.

Preparation. In 1974, the Judiciary Committee took nine months from authorizing an initial inquiry in October 1973 to approving impeachment articles against President Richard Nixon in July 1974. It conducted an intensive staff inquiry into potential evidence, including material from Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski.

The 1998 action against President Bill Clinton was much quicker. The Judiciary Committee bypassed separate fact-finding hearings, approving impeachment resolutions two months after Independent Counsel Ken Starr's provided his exhaustive testimony in the case.

Any 2019 Democratic impeachment effort against Trump would likely fall somewhere in between those time frames, long enough for serious fact-finding but quick enough to ensure action before the onset of the 2020 presidential campaign. But it would certainly take some months after receiving Mueller's conclusions.

Jerry Nadler, who would head the Judiciary Committee in a Democratic House, said on NBC's Meet the Press that impeachment should only be used "to protect the Constitution" against a president "who posed a true threat to American liberty or to constitutional government and the rule of law."

Despite current partisan divisions, the New York Democrat said he hoped any process would produce evidence "so overwhelming" that "the overwhelming majority of the American people, including a lot of the people who supported the other side, would agree that you had to do it."

The votes. Democratic leaders seem unlikely to launch impeachment proceedings without a solid House majority and a strong report from Mueller, since they can't count on Republican support against Trump, barring an unexpected erosion in his solid GOP base.

And even if a House Democratic majority impeached the president, getting the required two-thirds votes for Senate conviction remains a very high barrier, since Senate Democrats are likely to wind up next year with between a minority of 48 and a majority of 52 of the 100 members.

That means getting 67 votes for conviction would require at least 15 Republicans. A lot would have to change for that to become a reasonable possibility. And it raises the question whether doubtful conviction prospects would deter House Democrats.

On the other hand, that did not stop House Republicans in their doomed 1998 effort against Clinton.

Carl P. Leubsdorf is the former Washington bureau chief of The Dallas Morning News and a frequent contributor. Email: carl.p.leubsdorf@gmail.com

What's your view?

Got an opinion about this issue? Send a letter to the editor, and you just might get published.