While that's likely how it'd play out, what statute do you feel precludes a President from being convicted?

There is a lot of historical precedent. A US President can generally claim immunity to everything except an impeachment. Regardless of laws, you'd never find someone capable of arrest the US President. Secret service would quickly fill anyone attempting to do so with bullets. Worst case scenario, the President can go hang out at a military base of which he or she has absolute authority. Good luck having the DC Police SWAT one of those.

A little googling and it turns out you are almost right. The Sergent at Arms of the US Senate can arrest anyone who violates Senate rules, including the president.

I have no idea if the emails are related enough, as I don't have voting rights in the US I see no reason to care about them.

If the democrats get the senate as predicted then she won't be impeached.

I believe the House of Representatives brings articles of impeachment, not the Senate, and the House will likely hold its Republican majority.

The Senate is only required to actually convict. It's pretty much a disaster simply to be impeached at all. No conviction is really necessary to permanently damage someone politically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_impeachment

> It's pretty much a disaster simply to be impeached at all.

We've only got one recent example of a President getting impeached, and it worked out pretty well for him.

One would hope that if the Clintons do set that sort of record, it won't be matched or beaten anytime soon...