Not sure who did it, I think it was all or some of the named managers, following the authority and directions provided by the managers resolution. Hyde was a manager
Messages from the House received subsequent to sine die adjournment - Jan 6, 1999
... the Secretary of the Senate, on December 19, 1998, subsequent to the sine die adjournment of the Senate, received a message from the House of Representatives ...
-- in 1868 it apparently happened over a 2 day period. --
I read the relevant parts of Jefferson's Manual and Various House precedents (Deschler, Cannon, Hinds), and what the House is doing is truly unprecedented.
Are you under arrest if the cop says "you're under arrest," but then does not take control of your liberty? IOW, you are "under arrest" and "free to go" at the same time. It's nonsense.
One bright day in the middle of the night, two dead boys got up to fight.
Back to back they faced each other, drew their swords and shot each other.
My inclination is to not try to "out clever" the miscreant house. At least not yet.
The Senate can certainly express its sense, it can conduct hearings on the same underlying phone call and facts, call the same witnesses (into committee) the house did.
The calculus is what path plays best politically, mindful that the press is 100% arguing the DEM side of the case, all the time. Give it oxygen, or starve it?
Glad you're still up; we're heading out shortly for the Xmas break. Anyway, I wanted to share with you and others an experience I had during the lead up to the original impeachment notice back in October. We happened to be in DC (business & pleasure), and as my wife was otherwise engaged, I decided to swing by our senator's office (Feinstein) to pick up some Congressional gallery passes.
It just so happened that both Cocaine Mitch and Schumer decided to devote their opening session comments to the looming impeachment discussion. My impression before, then and still afterward is that each senator's primary objective was/is to maintain their prerogative. Most of the commentary was targeted criticism of the House, and how the Senate was not beholden to their mandate. That is, while they may talk a good game about governance, continuity, the respective legacies, etc, what they really manifest is ego.
I watched the proceedings for maybe an hour, then skipped over to the House. (If you've been, you know that you must leave the Senate wing and then re-enter the House side of Congress through an entirely security protocol.) Well, I lucked out because I wasn't seated for more than 5 minutes - in an essentially empty chamber - when Pelosi came in and gavelled the session open. For about an hour, I listened to members of her caucus go on about the imminent emergency posed by Trump and the need for impeachment. Again, my take away memory was one of ego and privilege.
So, from my layman's perspective, my guess the Senate will act not so much as to protect Trump, maintain GOP party unity, act to preserve a legacy, etc, but rather to slap down the House for their insolence. I cannot see the Senate allowing the House to determine when or how they proceed with trial without any conditions as to senatorial privilege. My guess is they will amend their respective rules to anticipate notice and/or scheduling according to Senate procedures.
I don't see the necessity of SCOTUS imposing a non-party opinion, nor would I expect either chamber to invite such interference. Like a mob battle for neighborhood control, this is strictly "family" business going down inside Congress. Whatever ends up occurring will ultimately prove to ensure the Senate is never 'insulted' again over impeachment, as if they were some teenage girl anxiously awaiting a phone call from a prospective date.