[Charles Henrickson]

Can’t the RATs impeach GWB even *after* he’s left office?

It's inherently illogical, since the PURPOSE of impeachment is to have a trial leading to REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

Not true - have you never heard of posthumous pardons? Why are those done? They are just as “illogical”, no?

[EGPWS]

It's inherently illogical, since the PURPOSE of impeachment is to have a trial leading to REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.

Yes it's illogical.

Which makes the postings at the DU consistently illogical in lockstep with modern day liberal politicians.

[300winmag]

It's inherently illogical, since the PURPOSE of impeachment is to have a trial leading to REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.

Actually, it's completely logical. Impeachment and conviction results in removal from office, and loss of all after-office perks. Bill Clinton can still be impeached on other issues (such as selling pardons) that weren't mentioned in the first impeachment. Conviction by the Senate would result in loss of his cushy pension, lifetime Secret Service protection, and any subsidies to the Clinton Liebary and Massage Parlor. Not that anything will happen to either Bush or Clinton.