That's funny he's back to insisting an impeachment is a criminal proceeding after insisting he never said impeachment was a criminal proceeding. Even though did say that, multiple times.
Here's another good one from Constitution:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
I never did insist it was a criminal proceeding, I insisted the subpoenas were based upon criminal proceedings. After you two dildors were so insistent on it not ever being a criminal proceeding I did some more research, and lo and behold your argument was totally wrong. I don't need to change my position for your argument to be wrong, you just have to be wrong. Also note the area in red clearly describing a criminal trial process.
The red part states that the person can still be subject to a criminal trial after the impeachment. IIRC some federal judge (back in 1980s or 1990s) tried to argue that double jeopardy protection should apply to his impeachment and he lost that one. So this actually seems to reinforce the non-criminal nature of impeachment.
Hey look who is here to try to help their dumb pals save face with some unsourced single incident as if it trumps the constitution.
You still aren't addressing the constitution itself.
""Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury."
Trial of crimes (impeachment described as a criminal proceeding) shall be by jury, except criminal proceedings of impeachment. Why even include a reference to impeachment if they were not describing it as a criminal trial? Your argument makes zero sense."