I hope it's not like you say. Unless this can be a trial under regular rules of federal rules of procedure, except the Senate being the fact-deciding body and a guilty judgment, though unlikely, resulting in nothing other than removal from Office, the entire process is a waste of time.
If we as United States citizens allow this process as you describe for the trial to exist over years, we deserve no better than to have someone like Donald Trump as President.
Impeachment is a serious undertaking and should not and must not be a political tool to destroy a political opponent. Instead it should and must be a process to protect the nation from an office holder who recklessly disregards the limits of powers he or she is entrusted with during their respective tenure. Likewise, the trial of such person for alleged crimes or misdemeanors set forth in any articles of impeachment can only proceed under established rules of trial procedure to arrive at a just result for the impeached but, more importantly, for the United States of America.
Would it not be correct to say that if Constitution mandates the Chief Justice to preside over an impeachment trial, then she or in this case he should have or must necessarily have the solemn obligation to determine what the rules of procedure for the trial are, a trial our Constitution entrusts him and expressly mandates him to preside over? Does he not have the power to hold those in criminal contempt who seek to diminish his constitutional mandate? Why else are all elected or appointed federal officials bound by oath or affirmation to support our Constitution? This requirement is not a farce.
Think about it.
And even if it has been done differently up to now, either because of ignorance or indifference toward the meaning of our Constitution, it is high time to start thinking about how to fix something which is apparently seriously wrong.
= new reply since forum marked as read