Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What are examples of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' from past impeachments like Andrew Johnson 1868 and Bill Clinton 1998?
Executive Summary
The historical record shows Andrew Johnson’s 1868 impeachment centered on alleged statutory and constitutional violations tied to his removal of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton under the Tenure of Office Act, reflected in eleven articles that alleged conspiracy, violation of law, and abuse of power; the Senate acquitted him [1] [2] [3]. Bill Clinton’s 1998 impeachment rested on allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice tied to his testimony about an extramarital relationship, producing two approved House articles and a Senate acquittal, illustrating a narrower, evidence-driven framing of “high crimes and misdemeanors” in modern practice [4] [5] [6]. These cases illustrate that impeachable conduct has ranged from statutory breach of office-removal limits to criminal-like misconduct such as lying under oath, and that political context and differing legal theories heavily shaped charges and outcomes [7].
1. A 19th-century clash: Why Congress accused Andrew Johnson of betraying Reconstruction rules
Andrew Johnson’s impeachment arose after he attempted to remove Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton and install Lorenzo Thomas, actions Congress called a direct violation of the Tenure of Office Act then restricting removals without Senate consent; Congress drafted eleven articles alleging statutory breach and broader abuses of executive power that framed these acts as “high crimes and misdemeanors,” culminating in an 1868 House impeachment and Senate trial [1] [2]. The impeachment record emphasizes Johnson’s conflicts with a Republican Congress over Reconstruction policy, showing impeachment can target presidential resistance to congressional mandates as well as discrete illegal acts. Historians and the Senate record highlight that many articles duplicated the same factual core—Stanton’s removal—so the proceeding blended statutory violation claims with political judgment about Reconstruction authority, a dynamic that shaped the trial and the narrow acquittal outcome [3].
2. A modern test: How perjury and obstruction became Clinton’s impeachable charges
President Bill Clinton faced House articles alleging perjury before a federal grand jury and obstruction of justice tied to his denials about a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, with the House approving two articles in December 1998 while the Senate acquitted him in early 1999 [4] [5]. The Clinton case demonstrates that “high crimes and misdemeanors” can be treated as ordinary criminal offenses—perjury and obstruction—when committed by a president in relation to official investigations, and that the House can focus on provable, court-recognized offenses rather than broad misuse of power. The political fallout and narrow Senate vote margins underline how evidentiary specifics and partisan calculation interact in impeachment, with the legal core centered on false testimony and interference with a judicial process [6].
3. What these examples reveal about the elastic meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors”
The Johnson and Clinton impeachments show that the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” has no fixed checklist and adapts to legal statutes, evidence, and political context: Johnson’s case hinged on a congressional statute limiting removals and broader clashes over reconstruction authority, while Clinton’s relied on criminal-sounding offenses proven in court settings [1] [4]. Constitutional interpretation literature stresses that impeachment is not merely punishment for incompetence but addresses abuses of office; however, historical practice has included both statutory violations and moral-criminal conduct, reflecting an inherent ambiguity that renders impeachment partly legal and partly political [7]. These precedents illustrate that Congress can define impeachable conduct variably, guided by evidence, political will, and institutional prerogatives.
4. How political strategy and evidence shaped outcomes in both trials
Both impeachments ended in acquittal, underscoring that conviction requires a supermajority and is shaped by political alignments as much as legal proofs: Johnson’s senators fell short despite a detailed eleven-article case focused on Stanton’s removal, while Clinton’s article votes in the Senate likewise failed to reach the two-thirds threshold despite crimes alleged and a House conviction [3] [4]. The examples show that impeachment success depends on whether facts presented persuade a sufficient cross-section of legislators to view the conduct as incompatible with office-holding. Each case deployed different evidentiary strategies—documented statutory breach versus recorded testimony and grand jury records—highlighting that the strength and clarity of evidence affect political judgments about removal [2] [6].
5. Big-picture takeaway: Precedent, precedent, and continuing debate over what counts as impeachable
Past impeachments demonstrate that precedent is mixed and contested, with Congress choosing either statutory breaches or criminality as the basis for articles, leaving the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” to evolving political and legal interpretation [7]. Johnson’s eleven articles and Clinton’s two articles provide concrete examples: removal-of-office statutes and obstruction/perjury charges have both been used to occupy the impeachment space, and both produced acquittals, reinforcing that impeachment operates at the intersection of law and politics. Readers should note that historians and legal scholars continue to debate these cases’ implications for contemporary impeachment norms, and that the framers intentionally left the term capacious to allow Congress latitude to police executive misconduct [1] [5] [7].