Jonathan Turley destroys Debbie Wasserman Schultz's dumb hearing questions

Unfortunately, she gives blonde jokes credibility

Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Duh) went head-to-head with George Washington Law professor and legal expert Jonathan Turley and showed the nation that she was completely out of her league, over her head, and in deep poo. Sadly, she gives dumb blonde jokes credibility.

Debbie Downer tried to discredit Turley in the House hearings on the weaponization of the federal government. That's like taking a rubber knife to an AK47 fight.

Debbie's questioning began with this gem: "So essentially your answers to questions yesterday were your own opinion and pure conjecture."

Professor Turley politely responded, “No, I wouldn’t say that, I try to base them on what we know from the Twitter Files—” 

Then Debbie interrupted him with the same BS premise: “But this is only just your opinion, would you say, as a Twitter account user?” 

Turley tried once more to answer the cretin's question: “No, I’ve come to give legal advice based on facts that are in the public domain and I would really refer to—” 

True to form Wasserman Schultz didn't allow Turley to complete a sentence saying that his answers were using up her time to question him [I paraphrase]. Since she couldn't discredit his answers nor compete with his intellect, the only thing she could do was to try to keep him from responding to her questions. She is an obvious idiot and a rude one to boot.

Subsequently, during a Friday morning appearance on “Fox and Friends,” Professor Turley immolated Wasserman Schultz's insistence that he was merely offering "opinion and conjecture" about Twitter working with the FBI, but that he had no “specific or unique knowledge” to speak about the issue. 

Professor Turley responded to the idiot congress-cretin:

"The congressman was asking if I’ve ever worked at Twitter as a condition for my talking about what the Twitter files. It’s like saying you have to work at the Pentagon if you want to testify about the implications of the Pentagon Papers. The point of witnesses before committees is often to give legal analysis based on what is known and what could be found in this investigation.

"The exchange she was referring to was a member who expressly asked me about the Twitter files and what this suggests about what I’ve called ‘censorship by surrogate.’ And then she went into this issue of, ‘Well, you’ve never worked at Twitter. How do you know what goes on at Twitter,’ which is completely absurd.

"The whole premise of my testimony was that Twitter has now authenticated and confirmed these facts. These facts are coming from Twitter. These are Twitter files. And the facts indicate that they had weekly meetings with the government.

"They indicate that the government would send long lists of citizens and others to be targeted, censored, to be in some cases, banned. Those are very serious allegations that raise constitutional questions, which is why I was there to discuss it."

Evidently, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is clueless about the role of an expert witness and not very bright. She is the embodiment of the Democratic Party, which has half the country fooled by their false promises about the future, and their lies about the love of the country they can't wait to change.

If the Democrats could have their way, there would be no free speech and no Constitution as we know it.

Tweet