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.
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?