Hillary Clinton isn't the president.
Even if she were, the law is the law. Nixon was nearly impeached for similar transgressions.
This isn't about the basic constitutional requirements for eligibility. Don't confuse that with the issue at hand.
She's guilty of having violated the above statute while she was an officer of the government, so is therefore LEGALLY ineligible to hold federal office again - per the statute.
You are correct.
At present, the question isn't IF she is eligible under the statute, but WHO will enforce that statute?
This seems akin to Zero's birth issue. There is no one who will take the authority to enforce. Congress won't do it, comey won't do it. It's up to the electorate.
I am entirely open to suggestion here.
The authority for the House to impeach the president is found in the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, impeachment is constitutional. I'm not sure where you're going with that.
She's guilty of having violated the above statute while she was an officer of the government, so is therefore LEGALLY ineligible to hold federal office again - per the statute.
The only qualifications for federal office are found in the U.S. Constitution. States may not add qualifications (see U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton - 1995). Congress may not add qualifications outside of the Constitution (see Powell v. McCormick - 1969). The only qualifications for federal office are found in the U.S. Constitution. Statutes, despite your insistence, do not override the U.S. Constitution.