So it depends on what the meaning of “and” is?
That, and “extend further”. The Constitution sets an outer limit on what the judgment can be in impeachment cases. The outer limit is removal from office and disqualification to “hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States.”
If the outer limit is the inclusion of all those things, then is there any prohibition on a judgment that is less than that? Alcee Hastings got only part of that judgment against him, so it seems like anything UP TO the inclusion of all those measures is Constitutional. Could they decide not to remove somebody from office but take away all their positions of trust? Well.... where is that forbidden in the Constitution? Could they impeach somebody who was not currently in office and strip them of their profits from the US government? Again, where is that forbidden?
I’m looking at the Constitution and see there’s another place where it talks about impeachment. Article II, Section 4:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
So if the grounds for impeachment are treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, removal from office is mandatory upon conviction in the Senate. I don’t know what impact that has on whether somebody receiving a pension from the United States can still be impeached.
Article II, Section 2 says the President “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
So an impeached President cannot pardon himself.