Those are my exact thoughts. I even used one of those exact words as an example.
How about āregained their positionā.
In 1967, Adam Clayton Powell was denied his seat in the House, but won the special election to select his replacement.
No, the judge isnāt a prosecutor.
And congress isnāt a judge, nor does it resolve anything āon the merits,ā so ā¦
Going back to the original OP title question.
Nobody has been unimpeached.
It would never be necessary to do so.
In United States history, there have been three outcomes to impeachment:
- Conviction and removal from office
- Acquittal
- Dismissal by the Senate. In the case of Senator Thomas Blount, the Senate dismissed the impeachment for lack of jurisdiction, finding that Members of Congress are not subject to the impeachment process, only expulsion. In all other cases, dismissal came on a formal request of the House of Representatives, occasioned by the resignation of the person being impeached.
Now if the House of Representatives had second thoughts regarding impeachment and wanted to stop the process AFTER the articles were sent to the Senate, the House Managers could just move for dismissal of the impeachment in the Senate. In that circumstance, the Senate would almost certainly oblige.
Unimpeachment is not a thing.
Dismissal in the Senate upon request of the House of Representatives is a thing.
But Trump did nothing wrong except running against queen Hillary āRā Clinton.
The house managers have a zero chance of doing that. 
They can if they so choose, The House has sole authority over impeachments and gets to make itās own rules.
There is literally no point to being unimpeached because it means nothing without a conviction. Anyone thing the worse of Andrew Johnson for firing that guy?
Depends which democrat you ask.
I donāt understand why youāre trying to push this failed analogy so hard. Itās okay, it didnāt work out.
Yes, the House has sole authority over impeachments and gets to āmake its own rules,ā which has absolutely nothing to do with resolving a prior impeachment āon the merits.ā The Senate is the only body that can do that. .
If the House subsequently un-impeaches the president, it does not resolve the original impeachment on the merits. Only the Senate can do that.
Like I said, it would be the equivalent of a prosecutor saying āI donāt think my predecessor should have charged the defendant and taken him to trial. I officially disagree with that decision.ā And thatās it.
It was meritless, they can pass a resolution to that effect āunimpeachingā him.
Thereās absolutely nothing to prevent it.
There will be no unimpeechment cause that isnt even a thing. Not sure why anyone who supports Trump cares anyway.
Fortunately for Donald 
this was an impeachment lite. Never happened.
There can be if they so choose to do it.
The House has sole power over impeachments and gets to make itās own rules.
Thatās cute you believe that is possible. Misguided but cute all the same
1 Like
And this 116th House made Trump the 3rd impeached President in US history. The 117th will have the same chance to deal with any indiscretions they find in government
They can also undo Trumpās impeachment if they so choose. The house is the sole authority and gets to make itās own rules so thereās nothing preventing them from doing so if they choose to.
No they cant. They cannot undo the impeachment decision of a previous Congress. You cant even find a political pundit that makes the case for this being a possibility much less a political or legal scholar
If you could prove this is a possibility you would of already done so with something other than an opinion
Of course they can, itās done every time an old law is repealed or amended.
A prior congress cannot tie the hands of future congresses.
