So Billie Eilish Doesn't Know Who Van Halen Is

By Graeme McMillan

The Takeaway: Maybe you need a TL;DR on this whole thing. That’s OK, we have you covered.

The Barron Trump Remark

What Happened: Legal scholars discussed whether or not President Trump has, in fact, committed impeachable offenses.

What Really Happened: After the release of the House Intelligence Committee report, all eyes turned to the House Judiciary Committee, which started its own impeachment hearing midweek to consider the entire matter of whether or not the president should be impeached at all.

Even before the Wednesday hearing, the subject was particularly charged, with the White House announcing on Sunday that it would be declining to participate.

As it turned out, the lack of direct White House involvement didn’t preclude the White House‘s perspective from making it into the hearing, as was obvious from the very beginning..

That last part didn’t go down well with one of the witnesses in particular.

The other witnesses, all law professors on the first day, proved to be somewhat less argumentative, if but no less fiery—even if those watching might have gotten a little distracted along the way.

Sounds like some important topics were discussed. Thankfully, the entire affair was sober and not utterly derailed by an offhand comment. Oh, wait.

Isn't this a bit overreaction? For example, there’s a report that Pamela Karlan, a Stanford law professor, "insulted” Barron Trump, but she literally only mentioned his name, saying nothing about him beyond that. Is that what counts as an insult these days?

If this was a distraction technique to attempt to make people forget about what of value was actually said at the hearing, it kind of worked. But don’t forget: The majority of legal scholars testifying said, unequivocally, the president's actions indicated abuse of power, and that it was impeachable behavior.