# Impeachment Question **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 19, 2019, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-question/845070 "2019-12-19T05:33:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2019, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-question/845070/21 "2019-12-20T00:24:07Z")
That assumes the Senate majority leader has full support of his caucus. If somme members of caucus are inclined to want to call witnesses, and all of the members of the other caucus want to call witnesses, then it comes down to a vote on a motion to call witnesses. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2019, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-question/845070/22 "2019-12-20T01:08:18Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > That assumes the Senate majority leader has full support of his caucus. If somme members of caucus are inclined to want to call witnesses, and all of the members of the other caucus want to call witnesses, then it comes down to a vote on a motion to call witnesses. If there is one thing republicans are stellar at it is keeping their caucus voting in lockstep. It is very rare for a republican to break with the pack. The Tea Party primaried the hell out of republicans who dared step out of line and it worked. They are all too terrified to ever break with the leadership. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2019, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-question/845070/23 "2019-12-20T11:43:40Z")
Okay, I’ve thought of a good reason in the current case for the SotH to delay sending the articles to the Senate to a particular point in the future. And therefore might have a slight bargaining point with the SMajL. OTOH, this applies to the current situation and is political so I don’t want to derail this thread by starting a discussion about this. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2019, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-question/845070/24 "2019-12-20T14:14:06Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Is there any way that the House Speaker can be sure that the Senate leader will not repudiate whatever concessions he grants, if necessary by holding procedural votes in the Senate that require only a majority to pass, as soon as the articles are forwarded? The short answer is No. The Speaker can’t control anything about the trial. Neither can the Majority Leader - anything he or she promises can be overturned by a majority of the Senate, and there’s nothing either of them can do about it. The Senate and the House are independent of each other. If Hypothetical Speaker of the House says “I’m not sending over the articles until Hypothetical Senate Majority Leader promises to run the trial in accordance with X, Y, and Z”, and HSML promises to run the trial in accordance with X, Y, and Z, so HSotH sends over the articles. Then some Senator rises to propose “Resolved: We will run the trial in accordance with X, Y, and Z” and 49 Senators say Aye and 51 say Nay, HSotH is SOL. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Taesahnim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/taesahnim/32/84_2.png) [@Taesahnim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taesahnim)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2019, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-question/845070/25 "2019-12-20T14:41:59Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > This is a hypothetical question, not intended to refer to any real person, living or dead. I just want to know the law. > > Suppose a President of the US is impeached, but the Speaker of the House is not happy with what she has heard from the Senate Majority Leader about his plans for the conduct of the Senate trial, so she wants to delay forwarding the articles of impeachment to the Senate until she extracts some concessions from the Senate leader regarding the trial. > > Suppose further that the Senate leader is a man who is utterly without principles or honor. > > Is there any way that the House Speaker can be sure that the Senate leader will not repudiate whatever concessions he grants, if necessary by holding procedural votes in the Senate that require only a majority to pass, as soon as the articles are forwarded? There is nothing hypothetical about your question. But you have the situation reversed. Let me ask it the proper way for you. Suppose further that the Speaker of the House is a person who is utterly without principles or honor. Is it proper for the Speaker to demand that the Senate operate under the same biased rules that the House did, and to delay forwarding the articles of impeachment to the Senate unless they agree to do so? Wouldn’t that be considered an abuse of power, a quid pro quo on a massive scale? Gee, where have we heard those terms before, I wonder. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2019, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-question/845070/26 "2019-12-20T16:04:42Z")
> [@Taesahnim](#): > > There is nothing hypothetical about your question. But you have the situation reversed. Let me ask it the proper way for you. > > Suppose further that the Speaker of the House is a person who is utterly without principles or honor. > > Is it proper for the Speaker to demand that the Senate operate under the same biased rules that the House did, and to delay forwarding the articles of impeachment to the Senate unless they agree to do so? Wouldn’t that be considered an abuse of power, a quid pro quo on a massive scale? > > Gee, where have we heard those terms before, I wonder. This is me not taking the bait. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2019, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-question/845070/27 "2019-12-20T16:19:47Z")
The only thing that truly binds the Senate is the constitution, which has precious little to say about the entire procedure. It is like 4 or 5 lines, if even that. The Senate makes up its own rules after that and therefore can pretty much do whatever it wants if a majority of the Senate agrees. Constitutionally they don’t even need to wait for the articles to be passed over. The speaker of the house has only as much influence as they are given by the rules of the Senate, which the Senate can change with a simple majority. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2019, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-question/845070/28 "2019-12-20T16:20:57Z")
> [@RioRico](#): > > A hypothetical Senate majority leader can thus drive the “trial” to any desired goal, at any convenient speed, for any political purpose. Their quandary is how to not obviously hold a mock “trial” that doesn’t outrage the voting public enough to endanger the Senate majority’s livelihood. Can a hypothetical **[del]foreign asset[/del]** Senate leader do that? > [@Taesahnim](#): > > There is nothing hypothetical about your question. But you have the situation reversed. Let me ask it the proper way for you. > > Suppose further that the Speaker of the House is **a person who is utterly without principles or honor.** > > Is it proper for the Speaker to demand that the Senate operate under the same biased rules that the House did, and to delay forwarding the articles of impeachment to the Senate unless they agree to do so? Wouldn’t that be considered an abuse of power, a quid pro quo on a massive scale? > > Gee, where have we heard those terms before, I wonder. Bolding mine. **Moderator Warning** **engineer\_comp\_geek** has already instructed everyone to stick strictly to the facts of law. Stating that your comments refer to hypothetical individuals when you clearly mean them to refer to real individuals doesn’t get you off the hook, nor does using strikeout to try to sneak in a jab. This is an official warning to both of you. Further comments of this kind will be subject to a warning. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2019, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-question/845070/29 "2019-12-20T19:25:10Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2019, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-question/845070/30 "2019-12-20T22:02:10Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > Constitutionally they don’t even need to wait for the articles to be passed over. Are you sure? ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2019, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-question/845070/31 "2019-12-20T23:25:15Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Are you sure? Yes. There are Senate rules in place that require it, but those rules aren’t in the Constitution. From what I see in the constitution: 6: 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. That’s it. Everything else is up to the Senate to decide on how to handle it. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2019, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-question/845070/32 "2019-12-20T23:38:18Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. Some argue that the president is not impeached until the House sends the formal impeachment to the Senate. - [Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate: According to the Constitution, impeachment is a process, not a vote](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats) ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2019, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-question/845070/33 "2019-12-20T23:47:20Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Some argue that the president is not impeached until the House sends the formal impeachment to the Senate. > > - [Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate: According to the Constitution, impeachment is a process, not a vote](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats) I’ve heard that argument. From that article: > [@](#): > > Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. Which is hogwash, in my opinion. That, again, isn’t anywhere to be found in the constitution. The only thing the constitution says is that the house has the sole power of impeachment. That’s it. It doesn’t specify that certain hurdles need to be cleared before it is official. The House passed impeachment. The president is impeached. End of story. If ever there was a clear text interpretation of the constitution this would be it. Again, in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2019, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-question/845070/34 "2019-12-21T01:07:10Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > I’ve heard that argument. From that article: > > Which is hogwash, in my opinion. That, again, isn’t anywhere to be found in the constitution. No, but it is in the Senate rules which, [if I am reading this right](https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IN10875.pdf), require a 2/3 vote to change (or 3/5). ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2019, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-question/845070/35 "2019-12-21T07:55:57Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > No, but it is in the Senate rules which, [if I am reading this right](https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IN10875.pdf), require a 2/3 vote to change (or 3/5). Possibly. I don’t know much about the standing rules of the Senate and how they can be changed. But the rule on how the rules can be changed might be changeable by a simple majority. I’d have to dig into it. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2019, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-question/845070/36 "2019-12-21T09:57:18Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > I’ve heard that argument. From that article: > > Which is hogwash, in my opinion. That, again, isn’t anywhere to be found in the constitution. The only thing the constitution says is that the house has the sole power of impeachment. That’s it. It doesn’t specify that certain hurdles need to be cleared before it is official. The House passed impeachment. The president is impeached. End of story. If ever there was a clear text interpretation of the constitution this would be it. > > Again, in my opinion. I agree with you. Article I, Section 2, Statement 5: > [@](#): > > 5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. The House has the “sole Power of Impeachment”. If it votes affirmatively that a person is impeached, then that person is impeached. End of story. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2019, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-question/845070/37 "2019-12-21T16:39:34Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > Possibly. I don’t know much about the standing rules of the Senate and how they can be changed. But the rule on how the rules can be changed might be changeable by a simple majority. I’d have to dig into it. My link suggests it takes 2/3 (or at least 3/5) vote to change a rule. I would be shocked if it were otherwise and only required a majority vote. If it did rules would be almost meaningless since the majority of the day could just fiddle with the rules at any time to suit themselves. It’d make the Senate deeply dysfunctional. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2019, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-question/845070/38 "2019-12-21T16:47:29Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2019, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-question/845070/39 "2019-12-21T17:38:00Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > My link suggests it takes 2/3 (or at least 3/5) vote to change a rule. I would be shocked if it were otherwise and only required a majority vote. If it did rules would be almost meaningless since the majority of the day could just fiddle with the rules at any time to suit themselves. It’d make the Senate deeply dysfunctional. Check out the “nuclear option.” I believe that does allow for a majority of the Senate to make up whatever rules they want. It used to be tradition and compromise were what kept things from getting too partisan and dysfunctional. Both parties in recent times have invoked the nuclear option. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2019, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-question/845070/40 "2019-12-21T18:55:02Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > No, but it is in the Senate rules which, [if I am reading this right](https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IN10875.pdf), require a 2/3 vote to change (or 3/5). I’m not seeing that. That article says “agreeing to a rules change resolution requires only a majority vote”. But the catch is getting the rule change to a vote. Senators can delay the vote by means such as filibustering. Invoking cloture is how you stop the various debates and hold the vote. And invoking cloture requires a two thirds vote. However, that’s not really useful in this hypothetical situation. If one party wants to delay an impeachment hearing and tries to change the rules to do so and the other party tries to prevent the rules change by filibustering the proposed rules change, then the result will be the impeachment hearing will be delayed by the filibuster. Either way, the first party achieves its goal of delaying the hearing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-question/845070.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-question/845070.md?page=3)