One other thing I've seen argued is that Congress did not proceed with impeachment against Richard Nixon after he resigned, so why proceed against Trump even though he's left office? The matter is moot!
This is correct in regards to Nixon, but not Trump. Nixon resigned (thus removal was moot), and this occurred during his second term (making disqualification from office moot because he was term-limited).
Trump can't be removed, but he is still eligible to run again: proceeding with conviction can thus be used to disqualify him from office in the future.
And after writing this, I had to consider something: Nixon *might* have been eligible for another term if he had not been disqualified as one can be president for up to 10 years (he served for ~5.5 years).
I guess things were just different then, and the likelihood that he'd have been able to successfully run were low.
One other thing I've seen argued is that Congress did not proceed with impeachment against Richard Nixon after he resigned, so why proceed against Trump even though he's left office? The matter is moot!
This is correct in regards to Nixon, but not Trump. Nixon resigned (thus removal was moot), and this occurred during his second term (making disqualification from office moot because he was term-limited).
Trump can't be removed, but he is still eligible to run again: proceeding with conviction can thus be used to disqualify him from office in the future.
And after writing this, I had to consider something: Nixon *might* have been eligible for another term if he had not been disqualified as one can be president for up to 10 years (he served for ~5.5 years).
I guess things were just different then, and the likelihood that he'd have been able to successfully run were low.
Both good points