As for the Founders, we do know that they recognized the danger to a fledgling republic of an executive who involved foreign powers in domestic politics. At the time, in post-revolutionary America, there was a bit of a divide between anglophiles (Hamilton) and francophiles (Jefferson) in this country, each side highly suspicious of the other. Also having had the experience of monarchic rule and knowing human nature in terms of abuse of power, they were keenly cognizant and even wary of executive power, in a republican form of government.

So, it doesn't take a psychic to know their primary motivations for the inclusion of impeachment. They certainly did not have to include it, as elections can serve to remove bad actors (as you say). However, obviously they felt it was a very important tool to have in special circumstances.

They even named those circumstances, bribery, treason, and the less specific, high crimes and misdemeanors. To my way of thinking, Trump touches all the bases. Bribery? Check-he was getting something of value in return for a policy from his office. Treason? Check-let's call this maximum disloyalty as he was placing the national and security interests of the country below personal interests. High Crimes? Check-for a SECOND time he was attempting to rig an election for his benefit only.

So, what will happen if he is or is not impeached and removed? That, as they say, IS the question, isn't it?
We don't know that answer, because we are literally in uncharted territory. In this case, I prefer to decide based on the principle of right and wrong, and we know what is wrong in this instance.

With that in mind, I know that crimes that go unaddressed only serve to encourage those who are prone to be criminals, so in a sense it does "codify" that kind of behavior. Is that notion even debatable?

You've mentioned on numerous occasions that your fear is that Trump's re-election will be enhanced by a non-conviction in an impeachment trial because he will claim exoneration. Oh, he will for sure. However, a recent Morning Consult Poll has Trump's unfavorables at double digits underwater, in nearly all battleground states. This is while he is referring to the process as a hoax, etc. He is going to say what he is going to say, no matter what.

While I note you reference impeachment along with indictment in a legal proceeding, I would point out that the reason not to seek trial has NOTHING to do with the prospects for conviction but with the strength of the evidence. If the prosecution believes the evidence is strong enough to indict then a trial is in the offing. An impartial jury hears the evidence and delivers a verdict accordingly.