Impeachment

Yes, and then the defendant disproves the evidence of guilt. Often by producing evidence. Or letting witnesses testify.

Wrong antithesis. Completely, 100% wrong.

There's no "and then" to the process.

The prosecution either proves guilt (beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial) or the person is acquitted.

In our current political theater, there's no standard defined to which senators must consider the evidence as having surpassed. That's why the founders required 2/3 of the senators to convict in an impeachment trial. They knew there would be children in the house who would try to pull politically motivated crap, like Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler have tried to pull. They were counting on the adults in the senate to restore order.

Or when the incompetent prosecution has no case whatsoever, and whines like a little bitch about not getting the defense to provide them with imaginary evidence, the jury acquits.
Which is what you'll have this weekend. An acquittal.
An acquittal of a case brought by an aging drunk House Speaker, using two delusional boobs named Schiff and Nadler as point men.
Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler have just guaranteed a Republican landslide in many elections. Guaranteed.

In court, the burden of guilt is on the prosecution. The defense only need show evidence to contradict or refute that evidence. There is no burden on the defence to prove innocence.

Cool. So tell Trump that he actually has to refute the evidence against him.

lol maybe if there was any evidence to begin with, they would have something to disprove.

There's bunches of it. They put it on television. I'll fairly certain you're just willfully ignoring that evidence - and that's NOT how innocent until proven guilty works; straight up ignoring the case against you doesn't ever end well for you.