Joel, a lot of matters I want to raise with you, and I'm glad that you're optimistic, obviously.
The networks will be, I assume, broadcasting every minute of the Senate trial.
So we're talking about Fox, MSNBC, CNN. We're talking about, I assume, but maybe you know if this is correct or not.
Will ABC, NBC, and CBS do that as well?
I don't know.
And it's interesting to look at what they've done in the past.
They covered the impeachment hearings, but they did not cover Inspector General Michael Horowitz when he was testifying about all the abuses.
That had been done by the FBI and the Department of Justice when they went after Trump in his campaign.
So I think they're probably making those decisions right now.
It's been hard for them to set their schedules until now.
They did go live yesterday for the swearing-in and all of that.
So I imagine they will cover some of it, but they may start to cut away, especially when things...
happen that they don't like.
We've seen that with CNN a lot, for example, that even if something is newsworthy, when it comes out in these hearings, they cut to their panel discussion if it doesn't comport with their political agenda.
So I think they're making those decisions right now.
I think one thing's certain, though, that in this age of social media, what people hear secondhand through Twitter or through Facebook is going to be more important in shaping public opinion than what the networks cover live.
I raise that with you because I don't have an answer to this.
Usually, I have felt I had my hand on the pulse of America.
In this case, I don't.
Are most Americans riveted by this or not?
You know, we have some data, albeit anecdotal data, on this.
A couple days ago, I think it was the very day that The articles of impeachment were handed over on Wednesday.
There was an episode of Jeopardy.
And Jeopardy, of course, is the toughest game show, the smartest contestants.
And one of the questions on Jeopardy asked the contestants to identify a California congressman who had a senior position in the House leadership.
Among the Democrats, and they even showed his picture, and it was Adam Schiff.
Mel, I think they actually said head of the Intelligence Committee.
Right, and they showed his picture, and the contestants, the smartest people on television, could not remember who he was.
One of them said Joel Pollack.
Right.
No, all right, but I'm not sure that that tells us whether they're riveted.
I don't know what does.
When the House had its hearings, and it was gavel to gavel on at least the cable news networks, was viewership up the same?
Do we know these answers?
Because it fascinates me.
I admitted, Joel, and this may lower me in your esteem, and I'm not being cute.
If I did not have to do this Because I write a column and because I do a radio show I would not be watching the Senate trial Right So what happened was, in terms of ratings, the first day of the hearings drew quite a large audience.
But remember, the first day of those public hearings involved so much gobbledygook about foreign policy and Russia and Ukraine.
That people tuning in to figure out what this was all about, what the president had been accused of doing, decided that there was nothing of interest and tuned out the following days.
So the numbers were relatively large, but they declined over time, I believe.
And it was like watching the first episode.
of a TV series or a Netflix series.
You don't know if you want to binge watch the whole thing until you see the first 15 minutes and decide whether it's worth investing time in.
I think many people watched and just thought this is indecipherable.
Whether they like the president or not, this is just not worth investing so much time in that I'm going to take off time from work or doing whatever else it is I have to do to watch this.
There was a guy who came up to me in the gym that I go to who's not a political person, and I don't even think he has a college education, but he's a very good gym instructor.
But he came up to me after all this had been set in motion, and he said, you know, I know you know about these things.
They impeached him, but they're not going to remove him, right?
They can't remove him.
And I said, yeah, that's probably right.
And he just kind of shrugged his head, shrugged his shoulders, shook his head, and walked away.
People look at this, and they can see whether...
It's worth being worked up about.
And for most people, it just isn't.
The outcome's already cleared everybody, so why bother?
I want to get to Lev Parnas in a moment, because I know you know about him.
I just want to make clear for my listeners, the Senate needs only a majority, correct?
So he could be removed by one vote, or does it need two-thirds?
He must be removed by a vote of two-thirds of those present.
All 100 of them are present.
Why do people speculate, then, about Susan Collins and others?
It's irrelevant.
Well, there's one question about procedure where Susan Collins and the other moderate Republicans might have an impact.
And that is about whether they are going to have additional witnesses that come forward in the Senate trial.
And that is subject to a majority vote.
The Chief Justice presides, but the majority in the Senate is ultimately responsible for making procedural decisions.