Ooooh! Tell me more!!From A Citizen's Guide to Impechment:
9. Does Resignation End Impeachment Proceedings?
Not necessarily. Does it sound farfetched for Congress to impeach and try someone who is no longer in office? It has happened! In 1876, Secretary of War General William Belknap, accused of accepting a bribe, resigned just hours before the House was scheduled to consider articles of impeachment. The House went ahead and unanimously impeached him, and by a vote of 37-29 the Senate rejected the argument that Belknap's resignation should abort the case. The Senate proceeded with the trial, but Belknap was narrowly acquitted. A number of the Senators who voted for acquittal explained that they felt they lacked jurisdiction because of his resignation. (Incidentally, Belknap is the only cabinet member ever impeached.)
By contrast, when in 1926 Illinois District Judge George English, impeached for various acts of wrongdoing, resigned from office six days before the scheduled commencement of his trial in the Senate, the matter was discontinued. The same was true, of course, when Richard Nixon resigned just prior to adoption of articles of impeachment by the House.
The Belknap precedent aside, is there any logic to impeaching and trying an official who is no longer in office? One answer might be the value of establishing a precedent that certain misconduct is (or is not) impeachable. But there's a more direct, practical reason why Congress might choose to proceed even after a resignation. As we have seen, one potential punishment of impeachment is disqualification from future office. Suppose an embattled president resigned, with an eye towards running in the next election. To preclude this possibility, Congress might choose to go ahead and impeach, try, and convict the President, and disqualify him from holding future office.
Evidence suggests that the Framers of the Constitution concurred in this conclusion -- they did not regard resignation as automatically precluding impeachment or conviction.
Now, of course, this is all moot in Clinton's case, since he can't serve as President again anyway, but it could technically be done.
While I concur with your assessment that an elected official could probably be impeached (depending on the resolve of the Congress) even if they resigned, your statement: "The same was true, of course, when Richard Nixon resigned just prior to adoption of articles of impeachment by the House", the House actually continued with the procedure, concluding there was not sufficient evidence to impeach Nixon. This fact is never brought out. If Nixon would have stayed in office, they would not have been able to impeach him - not enough evidence - but he did run the risk of destroying the credibility of his administration. I have always contended Nixon's only crime was when he discovered what his subordinates had done, he did not expose it and fire them all - he covered it up; I'm presuming he covered it up because it was all so embarassing to him; and too I believe he knew people would not believe his aides did this on their own (which I do believe - they did it on their own - having looked at their personalities).
Now, as for Mr. Clinton - HE'S ALREADY IMPEACHED!! What more can we do. Just because the Senate was so stupid as to not remove him from office, it doesn't lessen Clinton's IMPEACHED status. It does stop Clinton from ever holding office in the United States. However, it would not stop him from serving as Secretary General of the UN; which I believe is his current goal.