Absolutely correct. And, if you read my comment, that's not what I said.
The impeachment is the proceeding. The House conducts the "trial" (if you will) to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to convict. If you recall, in the Clinton case, they found sufficient cause for him to be found guilty of the crime of lying.
It is the Senate's duty to assess the penalty, Again, if you recall from Clinton, the Senate voted along party lines NOT to assess any punishment.
So, we have, essentially, a split decision. The House found sufficient grounds to find the president guilty of lying, but the Senate refused to assess punishment. As a result, Clinton's legacy is still stained with the fact that he was impeached despite the fact that no penalty was assesed.
Should 2/3rds have found him guilty, he would have been removed from office immediately.
Again, not true. Removal from office is an option that the Senate can impose as a penalty, but it is NOT a mandatory sentence to be imposed. There are lesser penalties they can impose if they choose, including censure (which os meaningless).
“The House conducts the “trial” (if you will) to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to convict.”
I disagree. The House does not conduct a trial, it is essentially a grand jury which determines if there is sufficient evidence to indict, not convict. If sufficient evidence is found (i.e. impeachment charges are voted in the affirmative), the House then prosecutes the indicted or accused in the senate. The senate conducts the trial and determines if the evidence presented by the House is sufficient to convict by finding the indicted guilty or not guilty of the charge. And if found guilty, the seneate would then assess the penalty.
You may be right on whether the senate could keep a impeached and guilty official in office but I don’t know why they would.