Watching the opening statements today, it seems there are far more than one example of former officials being tried for impeachment after leaving office, including one tried by the founding fathers themselves with unanimous consent, solidifying the notion that their intent was to allow trying former officials constitutionally even though they could not remove them since they were already out of office, but they could bar them from holding any office in the future.
When the people who wrote the constitution interpret it that way, I think that’s game over. No one knows their intent better than they did, and their actions of trying a senator, one who had already been removed from office, in an impeachment trial is unambiguous, more so when you read what they wrote about it.

We shall see if today’s senate cares more about constitutional obligations or blind loyalty to an individual. It’s a forgone conclusion that they won’t convict out of blind loyalty, but exposing the criminality they’re going to excuse still serves a purpose.

Edit: one purpose it serves is setting precedent....if this president can attempt to stop the peaceful (or not peaceful) transfer of power to the president elect by instructing a rabid armed violence prone crowd to “stop the steal” “you can’t let them certify Biden or your country is lost” “fight hard” “I’ll be there with you” without a single repercussion, so can the next one....and now the perpetrators know many of the weak points thanks to this disorganized coup attempt. Republicans should be terrified of that, enough to send a message by convicting. If they don’t, they invite every president that loses an election to attempt a January coup, precedent will protect them, so they would be obligated to try.

218-210....the motion to remove Green from her committee positions has passed along strict party lines.
Republicans unanimously voted to approve of her insanity, making them officially now the Qpublican party.
Hope it was worth it, morons.

Edit-wtf!? I watched the vote live, it was finalized at 218-210 with 1 Republican and 3 democrats not voting...today they’re reporting that 11 republicans voted to remove her and the vote was 230-199. What is happening?

As an aside, the last time this was brought up it was in the late 30's.

"Aside from President Franklin Roosevelt’s ill-fated threat in 1937 to add new Justices who sympathized with his policies to the Supreme Court, the number of Justices on the Court has remained stable.

Roosevelt was particularly upset by the Court’s 1935 decision in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. The unanimous decision invalidated a key part of the National Industrial Recovery Act, one of the projects passed during FDR's 100-day program in 1933. President Roosevelt did not mince words a week later when he talked to the press. “You see the implications of the decision. That is why I say it is one of the most important decisions ever rendered in this country,” Roosevelt told reporters on May 31, 1935. “We have been relegated to the horse-and-buggy definition of interstate commerce.”

As Roosevelt started his second term, he used one of his fireside chats in March 1937 to make his case to the American people for adding more Justices to the Supreme Court who agreed with him. “This plan of mine is not attacking of the court; it seeks to restore the court to its rightful and historic place in our system of constitutional government and to have it resume its high task of building anew on the Constitution ‘a system of living law.’ The court itself can best undo what the court has done,” Roosevelt said.

The legislation struggled to gain traction and it was opposed not only by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes but also by Justice Louis Brandeis and members of Roosevelt’s Democratic Party."

President of wallbuilders llc?
Wallbuilders llc-a right-wing advocacy and media organization that promotes alternative versions of history attempting to frame the United States as a fundamentalist Christian nation, despite the founding fathers unanimously and clearly stating it is not one.

It doesn't mention Vegan, but it does give you a link to a organization that is hardcore vegan and animal rights activists.

https://www.acsh.org/news/2002/02/14/physicians-committee-for-responsible-medicine-not-so-responsible

https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/23-physicians-committee-for-responsible-medicine/

and so on.

Not to mention that while each meal can raise your percentage by 18%, it only will raise your lifetime average chance of getting colon cancer from 5% to 6%. As we discussed in my video https://videosift.com/video/BACON-CAUSES-CANCER-MCDONALDS-IS-GIVING-FREE-CANCER .

These same activists were officially censured by the American Medical Association by a unanimous vote.

It's not time you lack, I got an A in statistics which I took after advanced placement B/C calculus, thank you.
Please stop hyper exaggerating the danger of all animal products and the benefits of veganism.

No, we're acting like +1% lifetime risk of one type of cancer, from 5%-6%, is a totally acceptable level of risk to trade for a lifetime of pleasure when taken knowingly, and is a far cry from +18% every time you eat bacon. It's probably far less than the additional risk of drinking municipal water, or breathing anywhere East of the West coast, certainly exponentially less than breathing air in any major metropolitan area, or living within 25 miles of a military base or airport.

I'm also acting like people who lie about or misrepresent the stats only prove their position is untenable and that they're untrustworthy. If 1% total increased lifetime risk is enough to make your point, why erroneously claim +18% per serving? It makes it so easy to dismiss and overlook any real point you might have had.

Nothing is unanimous, and that goes double for nutritional advice. Somewhere there's a doctor that insists you can't possibly get enough nitrates, most would say if you're healthy go ahead and have some bacon...in moderation. My doctor and numerous documentaries say the stress of worrying incessantly about every little risk factor is a much bigger risk factor than almost any other for innumerable disorders and diseases. I'll take his advice, thanks.

I don't have time to teach you statistics. Stop trying to downplay the danger.

And for the third time, even if it is 1%, that's still millions of people suffering from colon cancer in the USA alone, but y'all are pretending like 1% is 0%.

Regardless of the numbers THE RECOMMENDATION IS UNANIMOUSLY DO NOT EAT. Very clear language that leaves no room for dispute.

No. That's not the issue.
The issue is that when you are to the right of Goebbels, everything looks liberal and honest truth looks like a partisan attack. The right has not just run far right, they put on rocket shoes with wheels and warped right. What was considered a hard right position 20 years ago is now called hyper liberal by your ilk.
There is no excuse for the garbage "reporting" going on....at Fox, OAN, and Info Wars. None. It's not really reporting when you make up 90% and use each other as sources.

Kavanaugh was treated like a prince compared to Garland, a centrist judge confirmed unanimously by republicans before they lost their minds and souls to become the party of "Fuck you".
Fusion thing? You mean his crappy dietary supplements that he claims could make you the Adonis that Jones himself is? Um...yeah, that's obviously and undeniably a pack of lies concocted by Alex Jones. Duh.

Again, you choose to conflate imperfection on the left with inhumanity and consistent dishonesty and fraud from the top leadership on the right.
Obama did better stopping undocumented migrants out than Trump has without dehumanizing them or calling them murderers and rapists in obvious racist ploys to get his racist base excited, but you certainly disagree because and are certain Trump has done more because Trump calls them rapists and murderers, and implies that any middle eastern is a terrorist (but not angry white guys with guns and mail bombs, those are good people).

There may be more than enough scum to go around, but one side is nothing but lying fraudulent scumbags now, and it's not the left. Trump is a convicted fraud who defrauded poor students (and charities, and anyone he ever did business with) and is 100% incapable of being truthful even when his words are written for him, and the dishonesty seeped through the party like Ebola, leaving none uninfected. You look at 2 children, one with some mud on its face, the other slathered head to toe like a golem, and you say they're both dirty, plenty of mud on both sides. *facepalm

"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."-
Treaty of Tripoli- ratified by the United States Senate unanimously without debate on June 7, 1797, taking effect June 10, 1797, with the signature of the second U.S. President, John Adams.

Republicans have completely forgotten this basic tenet of American government and the ideals of the founders.

If society is sterilized of god, how is he talking about him. He clearly doesn't understand the words that are coming out of his own mouth.
What an ignorant, deluded fucking idiot, it's people like this moron forcing their religion into public places that force municipalities to allow other religions...like Satanism....to be displayed on public grounds as well.
The founding fathers were 100% clear, The Treaty of Tripoli signed in 1796, ... in Article 11 stating that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion", ratified unanimously by congress.
This guy needs to move to Daiesh territory, where you may only worship one way, and education is considered a bad thing. He belongs there.

"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Treaty of Trippoli-ratified unanimously and signed by then President John Adams. Clear enough for me.

The constitution is actually based on English common law, which existed there for centuries before they ever heard of that Jesus guy. If you want to worship based on the religion the constitution reinforces, burn that cross and beg Odin or a pagan tree god for forgiveness.

Funny that he doesn't offer any specific examples, huh?

'The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.' That was ratified by the United States Senate without debate unanimously in 1797."

Also, someone please tell these idiots that he flag is not clothing, and wearing it is disrespecting it and America as much if not more than burning one, which is the only acceptable method of disposal.

@enoch,

neo-conservatives
I've said in a couple other threads if I was American I'd have(very sadly mind you) voted for Hillary. Not sure, but that should really lay the neo-con thing to bed right there. Doesn't mean I won't agree with them if they notice the sky looks rather blue...

the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012
I don't base or form my morality around American law, so when and how it's deemed lawful or not for an American president to order something doesn't change my opinion one inch on whether the act is good or bad. Sure, it deducts a lot of points when a President breaks laws so that factors in, but if it's legal for a president to shoot babies we're all still gonna call it immoral anyways, right?

you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.
Between act of war, or peace time legal prosecution with proper due process.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.
and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

Sorry, but regarding Bin Laden that's a lie. The US state department held a trial and convicted Bin Laden already back in the 90s. The Taliban refused to extradite him then, and demanded they be shown evidence. They were shown the evidence and declared that they saw nothing unIslamic in his actions. Clinton spent his entire presidency back and forth with them, even getting a unanimous order from the UN security council demanding Bin Laden's extradition.

Smugly claiming that the US refused to provide any evidence to the Taliban because they were being bullies is ignoring reality. after spending several years getting jerked around by the Taliban claiming each new act of war launched from their territory wasn't their fault nor bin Laden's fault left a less patient president after 9/11...

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.
Can't say I'm very familiar with Hannity because I avoid Fox news at all costs.
Did he praise the killings afterwards and declare the shooter a hero like Anwar?
Did he council before hand in his books that killing those people was moral or just or religiously blessed like Anwar did?
Did he personally meet with and council/mentor the shooter before hand at some point as well, like Anwar did?

I have to ask just so we really are comparing apples to apples and all. If the answers are yes(and from Fox I suppose I can't completely rule that out just out of hand), then yeah, he's as guilty as Anwar.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

If he goes to Yemen we just laugh at our good fortune that he decided to kill himself for us.

To your point, if he finds a similar independent state to continue promoting and coordinating attacks as part of an effective terrorist unit killing new civilians every week then yes, bombs away.

Now if either he or Anwar remained in the US you arrest them and follow all due process. Oh, and to again shake the neo-con cloud you don't get to torture them by calling it enhanced interrogation, it's still a war crime and you should lock yourself up in a cell next door.

My whole thing is that setting up a state within a state and waging war shouldn't just be a get out of jail free card under international law. Either the 'host' state is responsible for the actions or it is not. If responsible, then like in Afghanistan it initiated the war by launching the first attacks. If not responsible, then it's declared the state within a state to be sovereign, and other states should be able to launch a war against the parasitic state, as has been happening with Obama's drones in tribal Pakistan.

Mamma grizzlies will take on, defeat, and send scurrying away full grown male grizzlies, who, by unanimous consensus fucking scare the shit out of every other animal.

"Following an appeal by the Spanish Triathlon Federation to disqualify Jonathan Brownlee for accepting assistance from Alistair Brownlee to finish the 2016 ITU World Triathlon Grand Final Cozumel, during which Jonathan struggled with heat exhaustion in the final portion of the run, the ITU competition jury unanimously ruled against disqualifying Jonathan. The ITU Competition Jury made this decision in accordance to Appendix K, Rule 7, which states that athletes can receive help from another athlete, Technical Official or Race Official."
http://wts.triathlon.org/news/article/mola_named_the_2016_world_champion