What practical effect would a successful impeachment conviction of Joe Biden for his actions as Vice President have?

Question

Background

The same day President Joe Biden was inaugurated, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced articles of impeachment against him for his conduct as Vice President.

As Vice President, Joe Biden was the senior Obama Administration official overseeing anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine. Hence, any illegal activity involving corruption conducted by Hunter Biden within or in relation to Ukraine would fall under the purview of the Office of Vice President Biden and the Obama State Department’s anti-corruption efforts. In fact, many State Department officials within the Obama Administration repeatedly registered reservations about Hunter Biden’s role on the board of a corrupt company. Thus, any instances of corruption on behalf of Hunter Biden via his role as a board member of the Ukrainian-operated Burisma energy firm were intentionally not investigated or covered up.

Ignoring the fact that this is a conspiracy theory, these articles seemed to be introduced after the office holder left office, which seems to go a step further than holding an impeachment trial after the person in question has left office. In addition, the crucial difference that I am curious about is if the person under impeachment is currently holding a different office as opposed to no office, which was William Belknap's situation.

Question

If these articles received a majority vote and if the Senate voted 2/3rds to convict ex-Vice President Biden and then subsequently voted as a simple majority to prevent him from running for office again, that seems only to prevent him from running for re-election as opposed to removing him from his present office. Therefore, this leads to my question: What practical effect would these articles of impeachment against President Joe Biden have if successfully voted upon at each stage of the process?

Answer 1

The proposed articles introduced by Greene (even though most likely they won't pass the House) actually say (in the end):

Wherefore President Biden, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Biden thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

In the press release (you've linked to), this is was just summarized as:

President Joe Biden is unfit to hold the office of the Presidency.

Thus it is no different than any other impeachment. Congress can impeach for almost anything it wants. There's nothing apriori disqualifying acts done under any other office or while holding no office whatsoever because Biden is holding an office presently and the impeachment attempt by Greene seeks to remove him from this (presently held) office.

If Biden were convicted under those articles of Greene, he'd be removed as POTUS. The last ask in that para from Greene, for Biden to be disqualified from holding any office (in the future) is also not unprecedented, as it was applied to judge Archbald in 1913.