Impeachment?

I hesitated to read it, but a Free Press op-ed's headline claimed "No legal argument against a Trump impeachment trial." First and foremost, the Constitution clearly states "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."  It does not read, "ex-Presidents" or "former Presidents."  The authors (Is it enough to note that one of them was Obama's "ethics czar?????") make the spurious argument that Congress established a precedent in impeaching William Belknap in 1876; Belknap was no longer the Secretary of War. That Congress has never made a mistake, passed a ridiculous resolution or piece of legislation, etc. throws this argument flat on its bejabbers. They also write, "...the Constitution makes clear that impeachment serves two important goals, removing a bad actor from office and forever disqualifying him or her from holding any office....." Hmmm. I don't think I found that it the first sentence of this paragraph, that is, in Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution itself. What they have done is translate a political action by a 19th Century Congress into Constitutional law. I don't think so, Tim. Second and foremost, how can one be "removed from office" if one doesn't hold that "office?" Logically, it is impossible. If it is possible within the law, as the authors claim, then what Mr. Bumble in Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist makes great sense, "The law is a ass, a idiot [sic]."  Third and foremost, how is this going to help us "unite," "come together," etc.?  If anything, it will drive people further apart.  Fourth and foremost, how much time, effort, and money are being spent on this fruitless impeachment?  I've quoted Nobel Laureat Milton Friedman many times on this, "It's easy to spend other people's money." Members of Congress of both parties, especially Democrats, have become quite good at this. Fifth and foremost, what about all those Democrat members of Congress whose speech could easily be suggested has led to violence over the past couple of years, including attacks on the federal, state, and local governments?  Federal court houses and other property, police headquarters, etc. were burned, bombed, and otherwise destroyed.  Law enforcement officials at every level of government were injured or killed.  Even members of Congress were shot, beaten, etc.  Why are these not "assaults on our democracy" incited by Democrats?