OK, time for me to chime in on my own thread. There have been some excellent points brought up already.
Paschendale says:
which is a good point. Other than that, Watergate was simply a coverup of a burglary that most likely did nothing at all to influence the election anyway. The president was impeached for covering it up to protect his supporters, which was a prime example of bad judgement on the part of the POTUS.
Compare that to the Lewinski affair, Clinton was not tried for failure to keep his pants zipped, but for lying under oath. How that is less impeachable than covering up a burglary, I'm not sure. Most likely, the general political climate was different during the Clinton era than during the political turmoil of Vietnam and Civil Rights.
Neither was particularly egregious, IMO, but removing the POTUS was/would have been justified in either case.
As for Bengazi, just what laws were broken? This one appears to me to have been a massive screw up on the part of bureaucrats who were below cabinet level positions. It's not half the big deal that it's being made out to be.
That could be wrong, of course. We don't have all of the facts yet.
Now, that brings us to Iran Contra, the selling of arms to the enemy (treason), and using the profits to subvert the will of Congress. In that one, the Constitutional separation of powers was at risk. Moreover, a burglary or perjury does not even come close to treason. It's like comparing shoplifting to armed robbery, a whole other level of wrongdoing.
Iran Contra is the biggest of the four scandals, no question.
IMHO, of course.