- How many members are on the senate judiciary committee? How many have stated they would vote for the 1st bill? How many have stated they would vote for the second bill?

- How often do bills that leave committee become law?

- Why, specifically, are the lawmakers sponsoring the bills uncertain if their legislation would end up on the senate floor?

- Why do the senators feel that these are bills that Trump would not veto (or do they feel they can achieve a veto overriding supermajority)?

- What, specifically, are the constitutional issues these bills face?

Very basic questions I think that all seem like they'd provide critical insight to what's going on. Most are completely ignored, or answered in the most unbelievably lazy ways possible. For instance the final paragraph actually mentions a concern that these bills could simply be vetoed by the president. The final sentence: "Other legal scholars disagreed." So is the NYTimes suggesting that legal scholars are saying Trump can't veto these bills? That's certainly what they seem to be implying. That is completely incorrect and certainly deserves vastly more than a 4 word sentence.

The rest of the article back to the theme of character building, drama, and salaciousness. I may have no clue what's going on, but did you know that some politician on the council just said 'They have concern about the president's respect for the law'? That quote is also a misleading nonsequitor. The entire point of this is that it would be completely lawful and legal for Trump to dismiss the investigator. The committee's goal seems to be to try to change the law to prevent this. I would add that quote was not only within the article itself, but also attached to an image as well. Again, character building and drama.