Only Five GOP Senators Vote That Trump Impeachment Trial Is Constitutional – Rand Paul Says Trial Is “Dead On Arrival”

(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Senate tabled an effort by Sen. Rand Paul to force a vote on Tuesday on the constitutionality of former President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, but the vote offered an indicator for support among Republican senators who have been sworn in as jurors for the trial.

Paul’s motion was killed on a 55-45 vote, with five Republicans joining all Democrats, meaning 45 Republicans voted for Paul’s effort.

The Senate then voted 83-17 to adopt the impeachment pretrial organizing resolution. The Senate will convene again for the trial on February 9 – two weeks from now.

67 votes needed to convict Trump, and more than 34 Republicans just voted to dismiss the trial. The trial will still occur, barely a month after the attack on the Capitol, but the outcome has been presaged.

(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)


  1. Gosh, I feel bad. Senator Paul is growing on me! He’s being real smart about all this now… I’m impressed! But my mind is already made up: #Pence_Haley_2024! I guess I’ll add: #Paul_??????_2032!

  2. OMG — I hadn’t listened to Chuckie McDuckie’s response when I wrote the comment above! Oh wowowowow! lolllolloll. He is so dumb! How on earth does the fact that the Constitution provides for “disqualification” supposed to be considered a proof that the framers meant it to apply even to a FORMER civil officer? Hello?!?! Why can’t it mean that the Senate has the ability to disqualify CURRENT civil officers from holding office in the future after removal by conviction on impeachment charges?!?! Duh!
    You know what, maybe he’s not dumb. Maybe, as Alan Dershowitz posited in an interview with Ami regarding Trump’s FIRST impeachment, he’s just lying to the American people and pretending he thinks something stupid just in order to hurt Trump… hhmmmm…. Also, anyone else read the recent Ami interview with Alan Dershowitz regarding this SECOND impeachment? Good stuff…

  3. To clarify: I’m not taking issue with Duckie’s point regarding precedent and common sense — perhaps he’s right and perhaps not. I merely am commenting on his ridiculous proof from the disqualification clause.