Fair argument. If he was convicted of war crimes he would probably be imprisoned and possibly executed. The example was brought up primarily to point out that the impeachment, in the same sense as war crime charges, focuses on his conduct as related to his role at that time as opposed to that of a private citizen now. I'm not sure if your use of the term "genuine crimes" is intended to differentiate from the more malleable "high crimes and misdemeanors". I see the inability to hold office as an appropriate equivalent consequence to imprisonment upon the person as a figurehead. True, he didn't murder anyone, and I would agree that anyone who murders another should go to jail so perhaps that's where the war crimes example doesn't hold. In this case however, he is alleged to have knowingly wielded his power and influence as a national leader in a reckless (at the least) way that was intended to overturn the democratic institutions that he is sworn to preserve and uphold (at the most). It's my opinion that if true, then in the context of his role as a president it seems appropriate to restrict him from regaining it. Otherwise we're pretty much saying that it's ok to avoid the established consequences of impeachable offenses as long as you're at the end of your term. Edit: Convicted of reckless driving that resulted in manslaughter = your license to drive the country gets permanently revoked.