If it was only impeachment by the House, yes.
Removing an elected President is extremely difficult for good reason and Democrats haven’t met that burden of proof.
To review, no quid pro quo, no bribery and nothing criminal. Not that they haven’t fruitlessly tried to find it.
Impeachment is still DOA.
With all due respect, I think you may be giving the democrats far too much credit for having any scruples, integrity, or caring whether they have any real proof or not. They don’t care, have the one sided rules advantage, will lie, and DO have the votes to impeach in the house and send it to the Senate factual proof or not...
That is indeed legally “impeached” at that point.
The trial in the Senate is only a secondary action to determine whether “to remove from office” or not. But he is still and remains “impeached” from the house vote whether they remove him or not in the Senate. So unless you can miraculously produce a “Republican majority in the house”, this is very very most likely to happen based on lack of scruples and integrity factual proof or not.