WASHINGTON D.C. — House Democrats have formally initiated impeachment proceedings against a prominent cable news personality, citing "general cable news energy" as the primary offense. The unprecedented move marks the first time Congress has sought to remove an individual whose office is primarily a swivel chair in a dimly lit studio.
The five articles of impeachment, filed by a bipartisan group of legislators who claimed to "just want a little peace and quiet," included charges of "willful misinterpretation of polling data," "egregious use of hypothetical scenarios to induce panic," and "conspiracy to overproduce graphics with too many jagged lines." Article IV, titled "Systematic Unlikability and the Erosion of National Serenity," specifically cited instances of "unsubstantiated smirking" and "repeated assertions of absolute certainty regarding unknowable future events."
"We've tried everything else," stated Rep. Eleanor Vance (D-IL), chair of the newly formed Subcommittee on Broadcast Civility. "Diplomacy failed. Strongly worded letters were ignored. At some point, when a person’s very presence on a screen actively contributes to a measurable decline in the national blood pressure average, you have to use the tools at your disposal, however novel." Vance pointed to a recent congressional study, conducted exclusively via "unscientific polling on social media," which reportedly found that 78% of Americans could identify a specific cable news personality whose voice "just sets them off."
Legal scholars are divided on the constitutional implications. "While the Constitution is somewhat vague on the impeachment of non-governmental employees, specifically those whose primary function is to fill airtime between pharmaceutical commercials, we believe the spirit of the law applies," explained Dr. Quentin Fitzwilliam, a constitutional law professor at the University of Midwestern States. "If a person’s public declarations have the functional impact of, say, a treasonous official, but without the benefit of actually holding office, where does that leave us? This is a philosophical quandary wrapped in a legal one, drenched in the pungent aroma of lukewarm coffee." Fitzwilliam noted that the House Resolution also contained a provision for the impeachment of "any pundit consistently wearing a tie that is the wrong shade of red."
A spokesperson for the accused personality, Brenda "Bree" Jenkins, dismissed the articles as "a desperate attempt to regulate free speech and monopolize the market for loud opinions." Jenkins added, "Our client’s only crime is giving the people what they want, which is more of our client." The impeachment trial is expected to be televised live, further contributing to the very "general cable news energy" it aims to eradicate.
The move raises critical questions about whether the Senate can convict someone who could simply get another cable news show on a different network the following Tuesday.
