That is actually a good question.  It sure would help keep partisan politics out of the process a lot more making it easier for GOP and Dems to vote their conscience instead of party lines.  Then again it also prevent people from holding a congress member to how they vote.  Its a 2 edge sword and I believe there isn't really a right or wrong in this matter.

Several federal judges have been successfully convicted after being impeached. All "federal officers," which includes members of the federal Judicial and Executive Branches, including the President, are subject to impeachment by Congress.

Nixon may or may not have been successfully convicted. Even after the Saturday Night Massacre and the "smoking gun" tapes, large swathes of conservative voters and conservative members of Congress still supported Nixon. Many still supported him even after he resigned. Up until the release of the smoking gun tapes, in fact, most of the public was opposed to impeachment. It would have come down to convincing 67 Senators that Nixon's crimes were worthy of the risk of getting voted out by angry conservatives.

In addition, 20 members of Congress have been expelled throughout history, most recently Jim Traficant (D-OH), who was expelled in 2002 for bribery, tax evasion, and racketeering. Expulsion is somewhat easier as it only involves the chamber of Congress the accused belongs to - the Senate is not involved in expulsion of House members, and vice versa, and the President is not involved in either process.

At the state level, a number of governors and judges have been convicted and removed. My own state successfully convicted a governor, Evan Mecham, in 1988, just a year after he was sworn in, on charges of obstruction of justice and misuse of public funds. He was not pardoned by the governor who succeeded him in accordance with Arizona's order of secession. Mecham and his brother were subsequently tried in criminal courts on six felony charges and acquitted in large part because their legal team refused to let them testify on the stand.  Since the state Senate vote fell short of the two-thirds majority required to disqualify him from ever holding office again in Arizona, he tried to run for governor again in 1990, but was not successful. He also tried unsuccessfully to challenge McCain for his Senate seat.

In most cases, the person accused simply resigns before they can be impeached, as Nixon was. A resignation means a better chance of a pardon, lower chance of being referred for prosecution to begin with, plus no vote to disqualify from office.

Still does not justify the wording of 'Ousted". She was appointed by Obama. Trump changed many ambassadors when he got in. He left others. She was told to leave in May with an option of staying to July. How is this ousting? Of course there was political pressure to remove her. Are you saying she should stay there given the fact the newer Ukrainian Gov did not even want her as well?

Using words like Oust and Conspire are hardly applicable here.

Hmmm, how do you define Giuliani going on record saying that he got her fired.  That he was the influence to the President in making this happen.  You know, that guy that should not have even been involved in this whole mess.  I would say that sounds like Ousted to me.

Do you not understand the core tenets of politics and democracy or something? The whole purpose of electing politicians in a democratic election is to nominate someone to represent you while discussing important issues in congress or senate. That's what voting is for, that's why we have politicians. 

Voting for someone who outwardly and aggressively campaigns on platforms of various kinds of bigotry while having a history of lies and terrible business acumen tells a very clear story: You don't care how it happens as long as we keep the filthy foreigners out. If that's not how you feel, then don't support someone like Trump. It's just that plain and simple. Bush was a fundie, but he wasn't anywhere near this bad. Reagan was wrong in the end but he campaigned on the idea that everyone won if they worked hard enough. We don't hate republicans, we hate people who are bigoted. It just so happens to be that Republicans voted for a bigot. Correlation is not causation, but that doesn't mean the correlation doesn't exist. There's a HUGE correlation between bigots and republicans. That's an observational truth that anyone without bias can easily see. 

And where did I equate religious to hate-filled? Also, there's a HUGE difference between hating someone for their race or gender or ethnicity and hating someone for something they did. IT's perfectly okay to hate OJ Simpson for getting away with murder. It is NOT okay to hate him because he's black. One was his choice, the other was not. If someone is actively making the world a worse, more hostile place for large groups of people, then it's fully reasonable to hate them for that.

So yes, I have hatred, but it's justified. Very, very justified. I think everyone should actively resist those who think that all muslims are terrorists or that all mexicans or blacks are criminals. we should publicly shun and disrespect those who campaign and vote for bigotry. we should be loving one another, but that's very hard when a large portion of people are actively making efforts to make things worse for minorities or people of a different religion or race. IT's despicable behaviour deserving of hate. 

Stop with the disingenuous whataboutism. Stop trying to equate what I'm doing to what trump does. Stop acting like both sides of this discussion are equal in terms of ethics or morality. They are not, and history will prove me right. 

@SpokenTruth.. The sad fact is that people do not actually do any due diligence when the form their opinion. They do not read or follow any of the events and selectively get their information. This is why we get post where people are totally clueless to the process, or even understand any of the events. They will go to websites that selectively give them information leaving out context or just give them excerpt without giving them the complete picture. You put in a lot of work within this thread but you still see people did not take even a slight moment of time to try and digest the info. That is why we are here today, with people still throwing out misinformation. It really is very easy to manipulate people.

The almost perfect divide between party lines proves this whole farce was never about what is right or wrong, it's just bipartisan nonsense.

Trump did two impeachably bad things, and continues to lie and make shit up and act like a petulant child on the worldwide stage and yet Republicans still said 'naw, he cool, as long as he's red'. Sorry, I can't not hate the party after something like this. Republicans remain villains and hopefully history will relegate them as such in the coming decades.

If we're thinking solely based on political strategy, I count this as a win for Senate Democrats.

A lot of senators from where Trump is generally unpopular (Maine, Colorado, North Carolina, Iowa, Arizona) were put in the spotlight and were forced to take a tough vote that is probably not aligned with their constituents. Some were passionate about it, and Dems are sure to use that as advertisements when they try to bring them down. Romney's vote is even better, as a Red State Republican, he robbed Senators of a unified front, making a stronger case against "moderate" Republicans like Maine's Susan Collins.