Sorry, you are wrong. It’s just as I stated it - "impeachment, conviction and removal from office”.
First, Impeachment: This takes place in the House of Representatives. Once the House has passed a Bill of Impeachment, the process passed to the Senate.
Second, Conviction: The Senate is responsible for holding a trial based on the Bill of Impeachment sent to them by the House of Representatives. Only upon conviction by the Senate does the process move to the third phase.
Third, Removal from Office: upon conviction by the Senate, the person convicted is removed from office.
This is how the process works, sir. It is set up this way in the Constitution. No person is removed from office without conviction by the US senate, as you would have us believe. It just does not happen that way.
We’re probably mixing terminology here.
It’s not a judicial ‘conviction’. It’s a Impeachment conviction, or simply successful impeachment. If you read below you’ll note that for punishments beyond simple removal from office, there needs to be another Judicial Indictment, trial and so forth.
I’m referencing Article 1, Section 3
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: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
But things get iffy from Article 2 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.”
Muddles the issue further with different syntax.
So you’re line of reasoning is correct if you mean impeachment conviction, and my line appears to be correct if you mean judicial conviction.
Please tell me you’re not referencing wikipedia, The entry on the Constitution is one of the worst entries I’ve come across.