Again, here's how it's stated in Article I, Section 3, Clause 7: “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:
I read it as a minumim punishment. I guess the Senate read it as optional.
“That’s just the type of creative reasoning I’m talking about. Theoretically, the Senate could’ve found him guilty and decided to not remove him from office.”
No, I think you’re misunderstanding the purpose and history of impeachment. Impeachment is a charge TO REMOVE AN OFFICIAL FROM OFFICE. That’s whole point. So the Senate could not have found him guilty and let him keep his office. A guilty verdict MEANS removal from office.
However, in addition to removal from office, the people, through the senate can prevent an individual charged and removed from office from holding any other office of trust or profit under the United States.
The clause you refer to is delineating the extent of the power of the Senate, i.e. the most the senate can do is remove an individual from office and prevent that person from holding any other office. Removal from office is a given, but the Senate need not, if it so chooses, prevent the person from holding any other office. And in the case of Alcee Hastings, that’s what they did, for whatever reason.
According to the history of impeachments, the MINIMUM punishment is removal from office, the MAXIMUM punishment is disqualification to hold any other office.
The reason for delineating the maximum power of the senate was so that it did not move into the judicial realm, that is, charging and punishing for the crime committed. That is within the judicial power, not the legislative.