Were Presidential impeachments Freedom Impeachments or Horrible Impeachments?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm including Nixon even if he resigned to prevent it from occuring.

[SWE]

I would have voted in favor of all of them

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I would have voted in favor of all of them

This though I would have come to regret voting to impeach Bill Clinton post-2018.

[brucejoel99]

Johnson: the Tenure of Office Act was blatantly unconstitutional, so HI. If they wanted Johnson out for being a cantankerous, rambling, drunken fool who did nothing as Black freedmen & Northern teachers were being slaughtered wholesale across the unreconstructed South (often by local law enforcement), then he should've been impeached for malfeasance, as impeachment literally exists to remedy, rather than for breaking a very shady law that was only passed to lay an (evidently unsuccessful) impeachment trap.

Nixon: Watergate. Need more be said? FI.

Clinton: lying about a blowjob in a deposition doesn't warrant removal from office. HI.

Trump: blackmailing another country by tying foreign aid to a personal favor so as to help his re-election effort certainly warrants removal from office. FI.

[KaiserDave]

Andrew Johnson deserved to be impeached and removed, not for that

Richard Nixon was a career criminal, and Watergate was one item on his list of criminal actions.

Bill Clinton lied under oath, and probably deserved to be removed for that

Donald Trump is a career criminal, and Ukrainegate was one item on his list of criminal actions

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

Johnson: the explicit justification for his impeachment was obviously very flawed, but Johnson was so incredibly awful that the ends may have justified the means (admittedly sets a very bad precedent, though)

Nixon: FI

Clinton: HI

Trump: FI

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Johnson and Clinton are of course the trickiest. Johnson deserved it but he was also impeached in what's basically the political equivalent of entrapment. Clinton clearly committed unlawful actions but it's somewhat debatable if those rose to the severity warranting removal from office and the GOP's impeachment campaign against him was clearly a political motivated hack job.

The other two were clear as day FIs. I went with FI for Johnson and HI for Clinton. Johnson's I could buy was HI against a deserving individual, but Clinton's was unquestionably a HI even if Clinton wasn't exactly blameless.

[Sol]

Clinton was a dangerous sexual predator. He should have been in jail, much less the White House.

[SWE]

If you're on trial for sexual harrassment, are questioned about a potentially inappropriate sexual relationship you're engaged in, and lie under oath, you're going to go to jail. I'm not sure how you can defend keeping Clinton in office after that.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

All Freedom Impeachments. I agree with BRTD's more ambivalent view of Clinton's than of the others', but I also agree with my fellow maroon avatars' ultimate conclusion about it. The then-mainstream of the American feminist movement defending Clinton was especially disgraceful.

[WD]

Johnson: FI
Nixon: FI
Clinton: HI
Trump: FI

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

All Horrible Impeachments. At least three of them deserved to be removed though (I don't know about Clinton).

[Wikipedia delenda est]

All Freedom Impeachments. I agree with BRTD's more ambivalent view of Clinton's than of the others', but I also agree with my fellow maroon avatars' ultimate conclusion about it. The then-mainstream of the American feminist movement defending Clinton was especially disgraceful.

At least Andrea Dworkin knew what was up:

I have a modest proposal. It will probably bring the FBI to my door. But I think that Hillary should shoot Bill and then President Gore should pardon her.

[dw93]

Johnson: FI
Nixon: FI
Clinton: HP. He should've be Censured, and I'm glad he lost his law license, but Impeachment was too far.
Trump: FI. He was guilty and should've been removed by the Senate. That said, the Squad saying "Happy Impeachment" as they were walking into the House chamber to cast their vote of Impeachment was vile, and it made a legitimate impeachment look like a partisan hack job. The Democrats needed to use the Nixon blue print for Impeachment and instead, what was a legitimate impeachment ended up backfiring on them much like the Clinton impeachment did on the GOP.

[GALeftist]

Johnson: The Tenure of Office Act was shaky at best but Johnson was the worst president and deserved the impeachment and more, so I'll say that the ends justified the means here, and I really do wish he'd been kicked tf out. FI.

Nixon: He was a crook. FI.

Clinton: Probably the most frivolous but he should not have lied under oath. FI but I don't think it warranted expulsion from office.

Trump: Ukrainegate was really the least of his impeachable offenses. FI.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Johnson: The Tenure of Office Act was shaky at best but Johnson was the worst president and deserved the impeachment and more, so I'll say that the ends justified the means here, and I really do wish he'd been kicked tf out. FI.

There's a reason the decrepit fictional high school in Welcome Back, Kotter was named after James Buchanan and not Andrew Johnson.

[darklordoftech]

Johnson: Horrible justification, but he deserved to be impeached.

Nixon: Freedom Impeachment

Clinton: Horrible Impeachment

Trump: Freedom Impeachment

[S019]

Johnson should have been removed, but not for the reason they wanted, would still support removal though

Nixon covered up a burglary and was at least somewhat knowledgeable or even complicit in what was going on, easy removal vote

Clinton's impeachment seemed overly politicized honestly, and I don't think perjury should result in removal from office

Trump asked a foreign nation to investigate a political opponent, that's clear grounds for removal.

[StateBoiler]

Not going to vote because I deem it rather pointless. The record is the record. FI or HI as it's worked practically throughout history has been whether the president's own party abandoned him, which has happened a grand total of one time. Personally I believe the impeachment rules should be constitutionally amended so that it can only leave the House and proceed to the Senate with three-fifths I think. That way the question doesn't even come up in the Senate unless it has the support of higher than a bare majority (read: some bipartisan support), but still lower than two-thirds.

Johnson: the Tenure of Office Act was blatantly unconstitutional, so HI. If they wanted Johnson out for being a cantankerous, rambling, drunken fool who did nothing as Black freedmen & Northern teachers were being slaughtered wholesale across the unreconstructed South (often by local law enforcement), then he should've been impeached for malfeasance, as impeachment literally exists to remedy, rather than for breaking a very shady law that was only passed to lay an (evidently unsuccessful) impeachment trap.

I think there's not much said about the Johnson impeachment when held against the attempted John Tyler impeachment historically when there should be. We're talking a timeframe difference similar to the one that exists from Clinton to Trump, and the institutional memory of Tyler's attempted impeachment would've been in the minds of the people that wanted to impeach Johnson. Tyler they tried to invent a reason and it was less than half support in the House. Johnson they were literally one vote short although control was far more one-sided due to a lot of Southern states not allowed to be seated. "Malfeasance" likely did not rise to a high crime in the minds of the politicians of the day (malfeasance compared to a few pre-Civil War presidents?).

Nixon: Watergate. Need more be said?

Are we going to hold all other presidents throughout history that had their own Watergates that were never discovered of they should've been impeached? Yeah, he cheated, but all cheats should be removed then. And that's not the standard either party believes in because neither of them are going to throw out their own.

Throw on top of it nowadays what the White House does is hardly record anything.

Clinton: lying about a blowjob in a deposition doesn't warrant removal from office. HI.

Him and his handlers did an excellent job turning all the investigations into him only about sex with a secretary, which under today's morals would be considered some version of sexual assault.

Trump: blackmailing another country by tying foreign aid to a personal favor so as to help his re-election effort certainly warrants removal from office. FI.

The thing is this happens all the time in Washington or really any government. It's just if that president was named Bill Clinton instead of Donald Trump, Clinton would've been smart enough as a slick wheeler-dealer politician to not make it explicitly a quid pro quo and leave himself an out (like he did with all his 1990s scandals that everyone has conveniently forgotten not involving his libido). Let's ring up for example all the conversations Clinton, Albright, and company had with foreign governments from 1996 when they were pushing hard for Boutros-Boutros Ghali to be removed as UN Secretary General to use in the presidential campaign. Not one thing was ever offered in exchange of a vote you think when that was literally the U.S. versus everyone else? Heck, everyone from the far left to the far right thinks this is how Washington lobbying works. Let's line up every person in Congress that takes a campaign donation from someone and then votes on legislation tied to that donor.

In short, anything you think is a "freedom impeachment", you need to be a moral absolutist and be for that all the time, not just when it's politically convenient for you. Politicians I expect to be hypocrites. No one on this board has publicly outed themselves as a politician yet. I can define modern impeachments for everyone rather easily:

Does it affect the other side - freedom impeachment
Does it affect my side - horrible impeachment

When Republicans turn on Trump or Democrats turn on Clinton or better yet turn on the massive DNC-Chinese campaign finance scandal from the 1990s, I'll be less cynical.