“It happened just over 20 years ago.”
Do you mean Bill Clinton, who was impeached on two counts by the House in Dec 1998, then tried by the Senate in January 1999 which voted 45-55 on the perjury count and 50-50 on the obstruction of justice count?
You must be referring to something else.

Try: obstruction of justice, repeated violations of the Administrative Procedures Act, violation of the Emoluments Clause, violation of civil rights under color of law, failure to perform his duty by appointing government officials. Also a variety of security breaches, which may not technically be illegal when the President is the author, but are nonetheless arguably grounds for impeachment and removal from office.

Well played.

@jimc5499:

Just some guesses here.

Several counts of vocal buffoonery with intent to offend the hypersensitive.

Ongoing offenses of appearing in public with bad hair.

Intentionally inducing derangement among political opponents and similarly marginalized groups.

If the Senate refuses to hold an Impeachment trial then the President remains in office. It happened just over 20 years ago.

While the Chief Justice presiding over a Senate impeachment trial could opine on legal sufficiency and the like it would not matter except as to the trial flow, i.e. scheduling witnesses, allowing cross-examination, keeping order.
He would not be able to direct a verdict based on the law nor direct the Senators to ignore certain testimony. There are no Jury instructions the Senate must follow. It’s “Can they get 67 votes to convict?”.

No, his article only covers review by the full SCOTUS court, even as to the legal sufficiency.

He does not discuss in any way the issue of the Chief Justice making rulings from the bench while presiding over the Senate Trial.

Whittington covers the question of legal sufficiency in his article.

Bob

Okay, so no review by the full court.

However, per the constitution, the Senate trial on impeachment is supposed to be presided over by the Chief Justice. Would the Chief justice in that role be in a position to make legal rulings about the adequacy (as a matter of constitutional law) of the bill of impeachment?

With the House majority held by party A and the Senate majority and WH held by party B, what happens if the House issues a bill of impeachment and the Senate refuses to hold a trial?