The ABC's top-rating rage generator Q&A went on a field trip to Canberra for a special Magna Carta episode, and people (and the microphones) were buzzing with excitement. Parliament! Democracy! A panel of lawyers!
But everyone came for the main event: Human Rights Commission President Gillian Triggs vs Speaker of the House Bronwyn Bishop. And they delivered.
As a bit of background, Gillian Triggs is far from the government's favourite person right now. Ever since she handed down a damning report into children in immigration detention, Triggs has been attacked by cabinet ministers and accused of bias, of being driven by political motivations, and asked to resign.
Bronwyn Bishop, who is meant to be impartial as the Speaker of the lower house, is known for kicking out Labor MPs at a far higher rate than her own party. In November last year she broke the record for the number of MPs booted out of the chamber, all 18 of them were from Labor.
Early on in the show, after Triggs expressed her concern about the government's anti-terror legislation, Bishop took her first swing and accused Triggs of speaking out of turn.
"There can be fair commentary but sometimes it can overstep the mark too," Bishop responded.
She then went on to suggest that if the AHRC president wants to express more opinions about human rights, she should become a politician instead.
"There is a time, and I think Gillian recognises it, when you're a statutory officer, you then have to decide whether you're a statutory officer fulfilling that role with security of tenure, or whether you wish to say I want to be part of the political debate and stand for office and run and become part of that political process."
Host Tony Jones didn't give Triggs a chance to respond and they moved on to a question, but not before Triggs dished back this look.
The two then clashed in a discussion about the purpose of the Magna Carta and how it applies to the modern lawmaking process.
When asked by a former detainee on Nauru about children in immigration detention, Triggs said the human rights commission would like to see the children released into the community. Bishop accused her of political bias and called for Triggs to resign.
"That report of yours was seen by many, including me, as one that was, if it was to be done, should have been done under the previous government when there were 2000 children but you chose to do it afterwards and that made it very political. It has made you a very political figure.
"Therefore, you are subject to criticism. As I said before, you have to make the decision are you a statutory officer, carrying out an obligation with the protection of that office or do you wish to be a political participant? If you do wish to be a political participant, then you have to be no longer a statutory officer and perhaps stand for office," Bishop said.
The irony of Bronwyn Bishop accusing someone else of political partisanship instead of being independent was too much for Labor politicians watching at home.
Triggs fired back at the extraordinary request from the speaker, saying that the nature of her work meant that the only grounds for her resignation should be if she was being praised by the goverment.
"I am a statutory officer. That is a position of independence which allows me to speak based on the evidence and based on the law as truthfully as I can to Government and to the Australian people. That is what I believe I have been doing," Triggs said.
"I have been meeting my statutory obligations, indeed were I to receive frequent praise and commendation from the Government, I think the Australian people would have a good reason to ask for my resignation."
The unprecedented attack on the commissioner and her calm, measured response won Triggs a few new fans on social media. And people who were already mad at Bronwyn Bishop remained that way.
And with that, Q&A drew to a close for another week.
Just like an episode of a long-running soap opera, there were lengthy monologues, dramatic accusations, innocent people who just wanted to ask a question getting caught up in the crossfire, and in the end, everything going back to the way it was before.