# Impeachment proceedings...will they happen? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 19, 2019, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795 "2019-04-19T23:08:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/261 "2019-04-25T16:02:40Z")
The Senate did have its own investigatory [hearings on Watergate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Watergate_Committee), giving the impetus to the House to have the Judiciary Committee hold impeachment-oriented hearings. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/262 "2019-04-25T16:10:12Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > False. Impeachment proceedings in the House are whatever the House Judiciary determines to be needful. And in Nixon’s case… > False. Impeachment hearings were held by the House Judiciary Committee starting May 4th 1972, resulting in the public revelation of much new information and evidence, finally culminating in an impeachment vote on Jul 27th 1972. The Senate never took up the matter at all, being that Sens. Goldwater and Rhodes convinced Nixon that the outcome was certain conviction. [(a very easily discovered cite)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon#Impeachment_hearings). > > With the amount of evidence and witnesses Mueller has amassed, and the number of threads that Mueller left unpursued, obstructed, redacted, classified, or punted to Congress, I could easily see House impeachment proceedings taking 4-6 months if they’re thorough. You’ve misquoted your own cite. The very first paragraph (Wikipedia): > [@](#): > > An impeachment process against Richard Nixon was formally initiated on **February 6, 1974** , when the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution, H.Res. 803, giving its Judiciary Committee authority to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States[1] of high crimes and misdemeanors, primarily related to the Watergate scandal. **This investigation was undertaken one year after the United States Senate established a select committee to investigate** the 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. and the Nixon Administration’s attempted cover-up of its involvement. (emphasis mine) There’s more, but I don’t think it is nearly as cut and dried as you have asserted. I would like to go further into this discussion, but I am pressed for time now. More later, unless you all have it resolved before I can return to the thread. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/263 "2019-04-25T16:19:30Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > If the Administration blocks such requests saying… as they are doing… that there is no legitimate legislative need for these investigations, then “Impeachment” is the legislative remedy allowed by the Constitution. ISTM, just like the shutdown, Pelosi wants to make sure that if she has to do the unpopular thing then she wants Trump to take the blame. So f it can be made publicly accepted that Trump’s lawsuits blocking subpoenas are forcing the impeachment, then I would be on board. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/264 "2019-04-25T17:30:11Z")
That’s it. It only makes sense to do it if the national mood is that it \*has \*to be done, not that it’s merely partisan spite like the well-poisoning Clinton episode. We aren’t there yet but it’s possible with some more big revelations, or a stream of smaller ones. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/265 "2019-04-25T18:40:05Z")
What \*\*Carnal \*\*and \*\*Elvis \*\*said. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/266 "2019-04-25T18:58:19Z")
Holy Hell, he really _does_ have to shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue, doesn’t he? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/267 "2019-04-25T19:01:57Z")
> [@SOJA](#): > > God are some of you quoting that pathological liar Lindsey Graham on his wordage of Clinton’s misdeeds? Yikes. That dumbass, because I firmly believe he’s gay, can’t even be honest with himself and come out of his glass closet. > [@SOJA](#): > > … I would love to know what, probably stunning Latina way outside his league, turned him down for him to be such an utter dick later in life aside from the fact he was a dick in high school. There’s a reason Jewish people call him a kapo. I’m not sure what motivates these types of race based and sexuality based comments, but they are wholly inappropriate for this forum, and perhaps everywhere on this board. You’ve been around a while, but don’t have that many posts so I will exercise restraint and caution you against this in the future. [/moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/268 "2019-04-25T20:03:53Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > So, yes: this particular reason for holding off an impeachment vote is massively, vitally, imperatively important. It should immediately be broadcast far and wide. > > There is no counter-argument. There really isn’t. Sure there is. It _may_ be that Pelosi isn’t for impeachment now, but if McGahn and others are subpoenaed and give compelling testimony, such that public support turns in favor of it, she may very well change her mind. IOW, she could be waiting to see how the political wind blows. Some have suggested that if Trump were impeached, McConnell might try to prevent the trial. It could that Pelosi, that despite what Mitch has done in the past, doesn’t think there is any fucking way McConnell would try to stop it, and thus she isn’t even considering that possibility. That is, she isn’t trying to stop impeachment because she thinks the Senate would take control under Mitch put the kibosh on everything, but is simply not going to make a decision on it without more info. And yes, it may even be that like me, and **RTFirefly** and others, that Pelosi thinks Trump being harmed by the whole process more than helped is a distinct possibility. And remember, Pelosi is on record as saying we shouldn’t impeach for political reason, but we should also not impeach for political reasons. ---
**Author:** ![UnwittingAmericans](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d9b06d/32.png) [@UnwittingAmericans](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UnwittingAmericans)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/269 "2019-04-25T20:04:46Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > You’ve misquoted your own cite. The very first paragraph (Wikipedia): > > (emphasis mine) > > There’s more, but I don’t think it is nearly as cut and dried as you have asserted. I would like to go further into this discussion, but I am pressed for time now. More later, unless you all have it resolved before I can return to the thread. HMS transposed 1972 for 1974 a couple of times and I didn’t read the rest of it. In any case: > [@UnwittingAmericans](#): > > People may need to go back and look at the sequence in Watergate: > > [ul] > [li]The Senate opened a committee to investigate early in 1973[/li][li]McCord went into a closed-door session and blew everything wide open, he gave them their roadmap for the investigation. It leaked, so they went to open hearings.[/li][li]There were bombshell revelations during the course of the hearings, including the existence of the tapes.[/li][li]The Senate committee finished and issued a report in June 1973[/li][li]In early 1974, the House authorized Judiciary to investigate. Among other things, they subpoena’d the tapes, Nixon released edited versions, and Judiciary got a Supreme Court ruling for everything.[/li][li]Judiciary voted out articles of impeachment end of July[/li][li]The smoking gun tape was released _ **after** _ that but before a whole House vote was taken[/li][/ul] > > Mueller has done the work the Senate committee did, the difference is, it was on TV and everybody watched, whereas with Mueller, you have a pdf file that nobody will read, and besides, oh look, a kitteh video. If the House thinks they can add to the list (for example on the financial front), they should. They better move fast. #1 should be to get McGahn up there ASAP, I know they already scheduled him, but Trump will surely attempt to block it. ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/270 "2019-04-25T20:07:49Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > So you don’t care who wins the next election? (Sorry, missed this the first time around…) Yes, I do. I also care what they do _after_ the next election. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/271 "2019-04-25T22:46:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Sherrerd > So, yes: this particular reason for holding off an impeachment vote is massively, vitally, imperatively important. It should immediately be broadcast far and wide. > > There is no counter-argument. There really isn’t. > [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > Sure there is. It _may_ be that Pelosi isn’t for impeachment now, but if McGahn and others are subpoenaed and give compelling testimony, such that public support turns in favor of it, she may very well change her mind. … This would be a great counterargument to what I’d said, if what I’d said was “impeachment must be taken off the table.” But _is_ that what I said? Let’s see: > [@Sherrerd](#): > > I haven’t seen anyone arguing that impeachment should be taken off the table. It should NOT be taken off the table. O_kay_, then. > [@CarnalK](#): > > ISTM, just like the shutdown, Pelosi wants to make sure that if she has to do the unpopular thing then she wants Trump to take the blame. So f it can be made publicly accepted that Trump’s lawsuits blocking subpoenas are forcing the impeachment, then I would be on board. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That’s it. It only makes sense to do it if the national mood is that it \*has \*to be done, not that it’s merely partisan spite like the well-poisoning Clinton episode. We aren’t there yet but it’s possible with some more big revelations, or a stream of smaller ones. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > What \*\*Carnal \*\*and \*\*Elvis \*\*said. Me four. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/272 "2019-04-25T23:06:27Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > This would be a great counterargument to what I’d said, if what I’d said was “impeachment must be taken off the table.” I can see how you missed my point. I said a number of things there that aren’t relevant to what you said. So to be clear, I mean that I don’t agree with your assertion with that > [@](#): > > …the Senate hearings-----controlled by Mitch ‘Dictator’s Best Friend’ McConnell, would be basically love-letters to Trump, with a few Democratic Senators grumbling around the edges. > > So, yes: this particular reason for holding off an impeachment vote is massively, vitally, imperatively important. It should immediately be broadcast far and wide. is valid, and thus is not a reason to hold off on anything. That is, I do not believe that it is a forgone conclusion that Trump will benefit from “love-letters” from Republicans more than he will be harmed by “hate-letters” from Democrats. Do you disagree? I want to be sure I understand you. I think it is very possible that the impeachment process may harm Trump more than help him. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/273 "2019-04-25T23:31:58Z")
It is a sad state of affairs that somebody so deserving of impeachment can avoid it, solely because of political considerations. It’s like the Democrats own a gun that is so prone to backfire that it’s un-shootable. But, I think that’s a valid assessment and Pelosi is doing the right thing under those circumstances. Which is: hold pre-impeachment hearings on every possible slimy facet of Trump’s personal and public life. These hearings will unfortunately last another 18 months, at least; and they may never actually end in an impeachment vote. In other words: subject the bastard to The Benghazi Treatment. The irony is delicious. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/274 "2019-04-25T23:57:17Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > … I do not believe that it is a forgone conclusion that Trump will benefit from “love-letters” from Republicans more than he will be harmed by “hate-letters” from Democrats. Do you disagree? I want to be sure I understand you. > I think it is very possible that the impeachment process may harm Trump more than help him. It depends on what you mean by “the impeachment process,” to wit: I believe extensive, targeted hearings into Trump’s wrongdoing will be helpful to the goal of getting rid of Trump. I believe any sort of hearings McConnell might hold in the Senate–likely testimonials from “faith leaders” and other people willing to say that Trump is the most wonderful person walking the earth, etc.–are going to be unhelpful to the goal of getting rid of Trump. Many on the left might assume that masses of Americans would react to such ‘hearings’ with disgust, but the fact is that masses of Americans aren’t paying much attention to Trump’s shenanigans, and would take laudatory ‘hearings’ at face value. I believe that sending articles of impeachment to the Senate would result in a vote of acquittal for Trump, which would be enormously helpful to Trump (due to the large numbers of ‘not paying much attention’ voters as well as Trump’s base). I therefore believe that enabling a quick acquittal vote would be unhelpful in the extreme to the goal of getting rid of Trump. So, if by “the impeachment process” you mean a House vote to impeach, and then a Senate vote to acquit: no don’t think that would harm Trump. But if you mean extensive, targeted hearings in the House, then, yes, I think that could harm Trump. > [@jsc1953](#): > > It is a sad state of affairs that somebody so deserving of impeachment can avoid it, solely because of political considerations. It’s like the Democrats own a gun that is so prone to backfire that it’s un-shootable. But, I think that’s a valid assessment and Pelosi is doing the right thing under those circumstances. > > Which is: hold pre-impeachment hearings on every possible slimy facet of Trump’s personal and public life. These hearings will unfortunately last another 18 months, at least; and they may never actually end in an impeachment vote. > > In other words: subject the bastard to The Benghazi Treatment. The irony is delicious. Agree entirely. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/275 "2019-04-26T01:27:25Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > It depends on what you mean by “the impeachment process,” to wit: > > I believe extensive, targeted hearings into Trump’s wrongdoing will be helpful to the goal of getting rid of Trump. Me too. See below, but for now let me say I don’t see how this can be true, but if it goes to a Senate trial all of sudden it’s some great boon to Trump. > [@](#): > > I believe any sort of hearings McConnell might hold in the Senate–likely testimonials from “faith leaders” and other people willing to say that Trump is the most wonderful person walking the earth, etc.–are going to be unhelpful to the goal of getting rid of Trump. > > I believe that sending articles of impeachment to the Senate would result in a vote of acquittal for Trump, which would be enormously helpful to Trump (due to the large numbers of ‘not paying much attention’ voters as well as Trump’s base). I therefore believe that enabling a quick acquittal vote would be unhelpful in the extreme to the goal of getting rid of Trump. > > So, if by “the impeachment process” you mean a House vote to impeach, and then a Senate vote to acquit: no don’t think that would harm Trump. But if you mean extensive, targeted hearings in the House, then, yes, I think that could harm Trump. Impeachment process (and since this doesn’t really cover the whole bit, hereafter known simply as “the process” ;)): yes, extensive hearings, then a successful House vote to impeach, then a Senate trial. Whether or not Trump is acquitted, I think he will be harmed more than helped, or there will be no appreciable change at all. Trump’s approval/disapproval rating has stayed remarkably similar for the last year, as seen on [538.com](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/) - April 25, 2018: 53.7 to 40.5. Today: 53.2 to 41.4. I don’t see anyone coming over to Trump’s side because of the process and those ratings suggest that people are for the most part decided. Therefore, since I am unaware of any facts that can successfully counter was has been shown in the report, the process can thus only harm him. Now, if there are such counter-arguments, then it’s a whole different ballgame. I hope it’s obvious that there is loads of conjecture implicit in what I’m saying, so I am by no means saying I’m sure of this. It just makes the most sense as of now. ETA: when I say extensive, I don’t mean like has been suggested elsewhere, a year or more or such. I mean a month-long or so process, similar to the 4-5 months it took for Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/276 "2019-04-26T01:35:27Z")
That is, a month of hearings, but an overall time-frame of 4-5 months. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/277 "2019-04-26T01:36:43Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > It is a sad state of affairs that somebody so deserving of impeachment can avoid it, solely because of political considerations. I would argue strongly that obstructing justice pales in comparison to the Iran-Contra shenanigans but popular grandpa Reagan sailed through it. This has always been the state of affairs. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/278 "2019-04-26T18:01:27Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > You’ve misquoted your own cite. I mistyped 1972 vs 1974 a couple of times, but to clear up: Feburary 7, 1973 - Senate Res 60 establishes its Watergate investigation committee May 17, 1973 - Hearings begin for that committee. February 6, 1974 - US House res 803 passes, granting HJC authority to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach. May 9, 1974 - US House begins formal impeachment proceedings. July 27-30 - Impeachment articles passed. You’re correct in suggesting the Senate performed a broad investigation of its own, one that likely provided the House with information it needed. However, as far as the actual _impeachment process_, the Senate never got involved at all. The house roughly a 5-month process including 2 months of hearings in which they considered some evidence from the Senate committee, as well as developed or collected some of their own evidence. The takeaway here is that the House impeachment process isn’t just a vote. The House has broad authority to hold its own hearings and appoint its own select investigative committees (as they did on Iran-Contra). ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/279 "2019-04-26T21:40:18Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > II believe any sort of hearings McConnell might hold in the Senate–likely testimonials from “faith leaders” and other people willing to say that Trump is the most wonderful person walking the earth, etc. It’s nice that you believe that, but Article 1 Section 3 of the US Constitution says you’re wrong. When the Senate takes up articles of impeachment, it is an adversarial **trial** presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Not a one-sided softball hearing controlled by Mitch McConnell. Democrats will be represented by their impeachment managers who will be hitting very hard. Now granted… it does end up effectively being a jury trial by a partial jury. But not many Republicans are going to feel comfortable sitting there getting hammered on national TV and responding with weak softballs. > [@](#): > > I believe that sending articles of impeachment to the Senate would result in a vote of acquittal for Trump, which would be enormously helpful to Trump… We agree that acquittal is possible (though I’m not as convinced it will be a cakewalk). But the thing we really can’t predict is how the landscape will be shifted by unfiltered exposure of Trump’s shenanigans by House investigations, hearings, and the Senate trial. It will surely bring out a ton of damaging information even if he gets acquitted, but I think you may underestimate how positions can shift as this information comes out. > [@](#): > > So, if by “the impeachment process” you mean a House vote to impeach, and then a Senate vote to acquit: no don’t think that would harm Trump. But if you mean extensive, targeted hearings in the House, then, yes, I think that could harm Trump. It would be helpful if you’d talk about the actual process instead of what you imagine it is. It’s on Wikipedia. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2019, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795/280 "2019-04-26T22:21:11Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > …The takeaway here is that the House impeachment process isn’t just a vote. The House has broad authority to hold its own hearings and appoint its own select investigative committees (as they did on Iran-Contra). The entire point of this discussion is “vote to impeach NOW” versus _don’t._ No one has claimed what you state here (that the House impeachment process is “just a vote.”) But many have claimed that this vote MUST take place as soon as possible, otherwise terrible consequences will ensue. (Paraphrasing broadly, suggestions have been that the US will lose its moral standing in the world, Trump will believe he can get away with anything, Democrats will lose any right to claim they care about the Constitution, etc etc.) So what you’re arguing up there isn’t in question at all. No one is arguing the contrary. > [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > … When the Senate takes up articles of impeachment, it is an adversarial **trial** presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Not a one-sided softball hearing controlled by Mitch McConnell. … I would suggest you check out that wikipedia article, and this time actually _read_ it. You seem to be assuming that Roberts would decide what hearings would be held and when and how long and who will testify. Nope. That’s all under McConnell’s purview. Roberts will merely preside. McConnell may well decide not to hold hearings at all. That’s his decision–not Roberts’. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-proceedings-will-they-happen/832795.md?page=15)