One of the biggest headlines to come of the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearing on Wednesday was Democrat witness and Stanford University Law professor Pamela Karlan lashing at President Trump’s 13-year old son Barron. It was a vile attack that went completely unmentioned by the impeachment seekers on CBS Evening News. Meanwhile, ABC’s World News Tonight called the attack witty and NBC Nightly News edited out the backhanded comment out of Karlan’s so-called “apology.”

As part of her “expert” testimony, Karlan bitterly declared: “So, while the president can name his son Barron, he can't make him a baron.”

While they refused to report on Karlan’s attack, CBS congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes did brag that Karlan was part of the “legal experts chosen by Democrats said the President's efforts to pressure Ukraine merit at least three articles of impeachment: abuse of power, obstruction of justice, and bribery.”

Over on ABC, senior national correspondent Terry Moran suggested that Republicans were actually upset with Karlan for calling Trump a king. “And back in that hearing room, Republicans were furious when one of those law professors argued that the Constitution does not make Trump a king. Driving the point home with a quip about the President's son,” he asserted.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of “quip” was, “a witty or funny observation.” So, it seemed as though Moran was calling the shot at the 13-year old Trump “witty” and/or “funny.” Telling.

Karlan issued a non-apology in which she first claimed she was sorry about what she said before turning around and knocking Barron’s father. Moran and anchor David Muir treated the non-apology as a serious one:

MUIR: Terry, first, the apology just in tonight from that law scholar who brought up the President’s youngest son? MORAN: That's right, Stanford Law professor Pamela Karlan, at the end of the hearing, said this: "I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the President's son. It was wrong of me to do that. I wish the President would apologize, obviously, for the things that he's done that are wrong. But I do regret having said that."

If it really was “quip” as Moran suggested, then why did she have to issue an apology?

What Moran read was what Karlan said to the committee later on in the hearing. But look at how NBC White House correspondent Peter Alexander cut out the second part of her comment, which made it the non-apology that it was:

ALEXANDER: The First Lady tweeting: “Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed.” Karlan later apologizing. KARLAN: I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the President's son. It was wrong of me to do that. ALEXANDER: All of coming as Rudy Giuliani…

On top of spinning this attack against a 13-year old from a “constitutional scholar,” the networks also ignored their donations to Democrats.

The transcripts are below, click "expand" to read:

ABC’s World News Tonight

December 4, 2019

6:31:54 p.m. Eastern DAVID MUIR: Good evening and it's great to have you with us here on a Wednesday night. And we begin tonight with the historic next step in the impeachment inquiry, and a very combative one that played out today on Capitol Hill. The heated proceedings in front of the House Judiciary Committee. The witnesses, constitutional law scholars, who were asked, was President Trump's conduct on Ukraine impeachable? Three witnesses telling the committee, yes, arguing the President abused his power for his own personal political gain. The Republican witness saying the Democrats don't have the evidence and that this is being rushed. And tonight, the unexpected moment when one of the witnesses brought up to President's youngest son to make a point. It was not well-received by many. And tonight, she's apologizing. President Trump, meanwhile, flying back to Washington tonight and lashing out. This evening, what we've learned. The President's team already looking ahead to what they want in a Senate trial. Terry Moran leads us off from the hill tonight. [Cuts to video] TERRY MORAN: It was a highly partisan and dramatic day. The first high stakes hearing in the Judiciary Committee featuring constitutional scholars. (…) MORAN: Right out of the gate, three out of the four scholars, the ones chosen by Democrats, testified that the president should be impeached. (…) MORAN: Stanford Law professor Pamela Karlan said the President's alleged actions, withholding nearly $400 million in U.S. aid approved by Congress, simply for personal political gain, has never happened before. (…) MORAN: Karlan said, over the Thanksgiving holiday, she read every witness transcript and she pointed out what she found most troubling. (…) MORAN: But law professor Jonathan Turley, called by Republicans, said he did not vote for Trump, but he is still troubled by the Democrats' impeachment inquiry, in an agitated time in our country. (…) MORAN: He said Democrats don't have the evidence they need. (…) MORAN: And back in that hearing room, Republicans were furious when one of those law professors argued that the Constitution does not make Trump a king. Driving the point home with a quip about the President's son. KARLAN: So, while the president can name his son Barron, he can't make him a baron. REP. MATT GAETZ (R-FL): When you invoke the President's son's name here, when you try to make a little joke out of referencing Barron Trump, that does not lend credibility to your argument. It makes you look mean. It makes you look like you're attacking somebody's family, the minor child of the President of the United States. (…) [Cuts back to live] MUIR: So, after that moment today, let's get right to Terry Moran tonight. He’s live on the hill. And Terry, first, the apology just in tonight from that law scholar who brought up the President’s youngest son? MORAN: That's right, Stanford Law professor Pamela Karlan, at the end of the hearing, said this: "I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the President's son. It was wrong of me to do that. I wish the President would apologize, obviously, for the things that he's done that are wrong. But I do regret having said that." (…)

CBS Evening News

December 4, 2019

6:31:50 p.m. Eastern NORAH O’DONNELL: Good evening, and thank you so much for joining us tonight. Three constitutional scholars told lawmakers today they believe there is enough evidence to impeach the President for abusing his power and risking national security for his own benefit. But another said the case is thin and that if Congress moves forward it would risk abusing its power. It was a historic day. Only the fourth time in U.S. history that an attempt to impeach a President has gotten this far in Congress. Nancy Cordes is outside the hearing room on Capitol Hill tonight, and Nancy, it felt like a crash course in the constitution. NANCY CORDES: It was, Norah, and in a sign of how quickly things are now moving, the Democrats on that committee, the House Judiciary Committee, have been asked to stay in town this weekend. They may want to draft articles of impeachment by next week. Their case bolstered today by that trio of constitutional scholars. [Cuts to video] (…) CORDES: The legal experts chosen by Democrats said the President's efforts to pressure Ukraine merit at least three articles of impeachment: abuse of power, obstruction of justice, and bribery. (…) CORDES: Republicans relied on their invited witness, CBS News legal analyst Jonathan Turley. PROF. JONATHAN TURLEY: The statement has been made this is a clear case of bribery. It's not. REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE (R-TX): So if I were to summarize your testimony, no bribery, no extortion, no obstruction of justice, no abuse of power, is that fair? TURLEY: Not on this record. (…) [Cuts back to live] CORDES: Senate leaders now so convinced that the President will be impeached by the House this month that when they released their 2020 schedule today, Norah, it was missing the month of January, because they assume that that month will be consumed by a Senate trial. O’DONNELL: Well, there you go. Nancy, thank you.