I always thought it was a three-step procedure:
- First, the Congress investigates.
- Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations.
- Third, the Senate tries the accused.
But yesterday the Senate voted on whether Trump was subject to the Senate’s impeachment jurisdiction.
If the House voted to impeach, what was the Senate vote for? What was the purpose of the House vote had the Senate voted that the second impeachment trial was unconstitutional?
Considering that the first impeachment trial was weaker, why didn't the Senate vote to not have the trial?
As I see it, the House vote is inconsequential, since there can be another vote that will override the House vote. It didn't happen here, but it could've happened.
Even this question says that a trial needs to take place:
Is the Senate obligated to hold a trial?
The Constitution clearly envisions that if the House impeaches a federal official, the next step is for the Senate to hold a trial.