The evidence you found, you have not presented.

I am correct. Impeachment is an accusation. Nothing more. A trial, even for the president, is in front of a judge, and possibly a jury - not congress. A simple dictionary will prove you wrong once again.

Let me help you out so you wont remain so confused about the matter:

impeach (m-pch) tr.v. impeached, impeaching, impeaches. 1.a. To make an accusation against. b. To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal. 2. To challenge the validity of; try to discredit: impeach a witness's credibility. [Middle English empechen, to impede, accuse, from Anglo-Norman empecher, from Late Latin impedicre, to entangle : Latin in-, in; see IN-2 + Latin pedica, fetter; see ped- below.] --impeacher n. --impeachment n.

from the constitution:

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present.
Judgement 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, judgement and punishment, according to law.


If when it comes to the president, it requires 2/3 votes to remove him from office, but doesn't convict or acquit him of anything. If he broke the law, he can be tried after or before impeachment, as Clinton was and lost his license to practice law over.

In fact, a majority voted to remove him from office, but not enough to make it reality. When compared to an actual trial, at best it would be considered a hung jury. Acquittal is not anything close to what happened with Clinton.