The part that you are not seeing is that the Constitution grants the power of impeachment as a “sole” power to the House. For all practical legal purposes, this means that the House gets to define what is and is not an impeachable offence.
I have no doubt that the House might/probably will adopt an interpretation that they can impeach (at any time) for an “offense” that occurred DURING when the person held the office. However, that is playing with fire.
If that interpretation were to be adopted, ANY former officer (Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Obama, etc) could be impeached for any offence that occurred while they were in office. Use that against one party, and the other will use it back when they cycle into power.
Very slippery slope if they go down that path.
They could get away with defining it the way they like but they would not be upholding the Constitution.
Kind of like when you get away with stealing the election.
I’m not seeing? I’ve never disputed they have “sole” power, only that impeachment applies only to “officers” of the US. “Sole” power does mean they can impeach any person on planet earth. The Constitution is a legal document. Terms such President or officer have very precise legal definitions. A former officer is NOT is legally an officer of the US. The law does not apply. 250 years of precedent backs this up. It is silly to even dispute it.