If House impeached, will McConnell be forced to hold a vote on it?

[lostnfound]

Republicans forced to claim their place in history.
We probably have one Democratic Senator in a difficult position with that vote, but no more.

Put it in history. The shame of Lindsay and others for having voted to impeach Clinton over his personal sexual behavior but voting to keep an obstructing traitor (and cager of kids) in office. Make murkowski and Collins take a stand.

[uponit7771]

1. No, there's nothing compelling Moscow Mitch to proceed with conviction or removal

[Vidal]

2. Yes

If the House votes to impeach then the Senate must hold a trial.

[Iliyah]

4. Maybe, but McTurtle will find a way to delay and ignore.

[beachbum bob]

3. The constitution does not spell out a timeline, McConnels/GOP tact would be to "let voters decide"

in Nov 2020 elections and I say, sure. Every democrat can run on attacking their republican counterparts for sheilding a corrupt president. This will bring out way more democratic votes as we have new voters made every day compared to GOP, who's base is dying off everyday and is not being restored

[FM123]

5. The Senate can decline

The House may choose to impeach or not, and one can imagine an argument that the Senate is just as free, in the exercise of its own “sole power,” to decline to try any impeachment that the House elects to vote.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate-decline-try-impeachment-case

[lostnfound]

6. Thank you. So, I wonder, would he decline, or would he leave it hanging?

He has his own election coming up. Wonder which is more advantageous to Mitch?

[Iliyah]

7. Kentucky he would decline.

[lostnfound]

17. trump may be stupid enough to insist that senate vote to clear him?

Maybe

[Historic NY]

10. So much damage with public hearing they would look like idiots...

if they didn't take up a trial. The House should call every one of his staff members mentioned in Mueller. We all know the stable genius would always want to get the last word in....by the Senate not taking it up give him no rebuttal, in his mouthpiece McConnell

[onenote]

14. It would take a change in the Senate's rules.

Bauer's speculation is just that -- speculation.

Whether the Chief Justice, who presides over the impeachment trial, would allow a motion to dismiss before any evidence is presented, is an interesting question as is the question of whether there would be sufficient votes to pass such a motion. In the Clinton impeachment, a motion to dismiss certain articles was entertained, but only after the House Managers had presented their opening arguments followed by the defense's rebuttal arguments. After the motions to dismiss were defeated, the trial proceeded with the hearing of witness testimony (videotaped, not live) and closing arguments.

[qazplm135]

8. According to current Senate rules

Yes, the next day

I have no doubt McConnell will change those rules the moment impeachment looks probable.

[onenote]

12. It takes a 2/3 vote to change the rules.

And while there is a backdoor way of changing them with a bare majority, I doubt McConnell could muster a majority to change rules that are virtually set in stone.

[qazplm135]

15. you'd be surprised

I don't doubt McConnell could do that at all. I think any Republican that did not agree to that would be targeted in primaries.
Now, maybe we'd luck out and the most vulnerable republican senators wouldn't be up in 2020, but I think ultimately, McConnell would find a way to change the rules to slow walk this thing. Republicans would be able to get behind that so long as he didn't completely kill it.

[Miles Archer]

9. No.

McConnell can't be "forced" to hold a vote.

If the House goes down that road. McConnell WILL pay attention to what's being done, and then he'll weigh the blowback for Republicans in 2020, including his own re-election bid, and if he thinks he can get away with refusing a vote, you can take that to the frigging bank.

Privately, I can guarantee that McConnell knows Trump is amoral swine and unfit to lead.

But focus on one thing as my answer to your question.

Ryan got his tax cuts, and McConnell got his judges.

As long as McConnell thinks he can keep that train running, he won't give a damn about anything else.

The major accomplishment of the House pursuing impeachment is that it would get information into the hands of 2020 voters. It won't sway the base...Trump is already using it, before it even happens, to "energize his base." So it becomes a matter of Democratic voter turnout and the degree to which it will sway the "undecideds."

In terms of the Senate, unless something miraculous happens and McConnell feels it will jeopardize his own self-interests, there will be no Senate vote. Period.

[onenote]

11. He won't be the one in charge. The Chief Justice will be.

The Chief Justice presides over impeachment trials in the Senate. And based on past performance, I doubt Roberts will be so overtly partisan as to completely tank the process.

[standingtall]

13. I dont see how McConnell refusing to hold a vote on this would be a problem for us

Seems to me if that happens the houses impeachment would be the last standing verdict on this going into the election.

[Azathoth]

16. The Senate is constitutionally obligated to try any impeachment

I doubt even McConnell would try to block a Senate trial on some weird theory that the constitution doesn't explicitly "force" them to do it. That would almost certainly precipitate a constitutional crisis.