Thread by @walterdellinger

1) An argument against a House vote to impeach is that McConnell would prevent the matter from even coming before the Senate (see "Garland"). I'm not sure that is his decision. The Constitution makes the Chief Justice the presiding officer in presidential impeachments.

2) Once the House votes Articles, the CJ's authority may be engaged. The House managers would submit to the CJ a proposed time schedule; the presidents lawyers would respond. Acting like a trial judge, the CJ could set the date and time certain for the Senate trial to commence.

3) I don't mean to overstate the CJ's role. Once the Senate trial is in session, the president's lawyers could move for "summary judgment" and the Senate majority might be able to vote w/o further process.
Only twice have CJ's presided: CJ Chase for Andrew Johnson and Rehnquist

4).for Clinton. Many of Chase's rulings were overturned by the Senate majority; RQ made only 1 substantive ruling which was not challenged. But it would seem that CJ Roberts would decide when the trial over which he presides would begin. Thereafter the majority could rule.