Dem
51
GOP
49
There's barely enough news here to make it worth writing an item, but the House has finally delivered the Alejandro Mayorkas articles of impeachment to the Senate. So, the clock is now ticking.
The senators spent some time bickering about how they would handle the process. It appears that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and the Democrats, along with at least one Republican, want to dismiss the articles immediately. At least some Republicans want to have a "trial" that lasts a couple of hours, so they can perform some political theater. Either way, this does not figure to last beyond today.
As a sidebar, this is a pretty good example of a story where being "fair" in covering it actually introduces bias (or, at least, inaccuracy). For example, (Z) rarely listens to NPR, but happened to hear their report on the story, and they told listeners that Mayorkas has been charged with "willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law" and "breach of public trust." While true, they neglected to mention that the charges are lacking in merit, and that he's done nothing different from any other DHS or Cabinet secretary. Certainly nothing criminally different. Just listing the serious-sounding charges gives the impression that they have some meaningful amount of merit.
Similarly, the abcnews.com article has the headline: "Historic impeachment articles against Alejandro Mayorkas sent to Senate, but will there be a full trial?" It's true that this is historic, in that a Cabinet secretary has only been impeached once before. However, "historic" carries broadly positive connotations of "significant," "substantial," and "groundbreaking." None of these things apply here; within 24 hours this story will be well on its way to being the answer to a trivia question for political junkies.
Perhaps we are being nitpicky here, but we were struck by how inaccurate the impression conveyed by these two "fair" stories is. (Z)