Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) pulled no punches on Thursday in going after the credibility of one of the GOP-called witnesses before the House’s subcommittee targeting the so-called weaponization of the federal executive.

Wasserman Schultz took goal at George Washington University regulation professor and Fox Information criminal analyst Jonathan Turley, accusing him of providing nothing greater than “opinion and pure conjecture” at the hearing.

“Mr. Turley turning to you. Have you ever worked for Twitter?” Wasserman Schultz began.

“No,” Turley answered.

“Do you’ve any formal relationship with the company?” she adopted up.

“No, I just have an account,” Turley answered.

“Do you’ve got any explicit or different or distinctive data about the interior workings of Twitter?” she pushed.

“Nothing beyond the Twitter Recordsdata and what I read within the media,” Turley cited.

“So primarily, your responses to the questions right here these days had been your own opinion and pure conjecture?” she requested.

“No, I wouldn’t say that. I imply, they’re based totally. I attempt to base them on what we know from the Twitter Files,” Turley answered, referencing choose knowledge dumps that Elon Musk gave to quite a lot of unbiased journalists to brush via.

“Well, but you stated that you simply don’t have any explicit or unique data of Twitter, however you spoke as should you did. You had been requested very explicit questions about Twitter’s — the way Twitter functions and the decision-making that they make. However yet you don’t have any unique or different knowledge about Twitter and have by no means labored for them. And so this is only just your opinion, would you say, as a Twitter account person?” Wasserman Schultz demanded.

“No. I come to offer felony prognosis according to information which can be in the public area, and I was really referring to what I used to be requested about,” Turley spoke back.

“Reclaiming my time,” Wasserman Schultz interjected. “Legal diagnosis is another phrase for opinion.”

“I might, I might suppose there is some distinction. However yeah, it’s all ultimately, is an opinion. But I believe the query to me was once in accordance with what the Twitter Recordsdata show, and that was once my studying of the Twitter Files,” Turley conceded.

“Proper. And again, that’s another way of describing your opinion being offered, which used to be represented as unique and different fact, which you don’t possess. Thanks. I yield again the steadiness of my time,” Wasserman Schultz concluded.

Watch the whole clip above by means of C-SPAN.

The put up ‘Opinion and Pure Conjecture’: Democrat Savages Witness’s Credibility at GOP-Led Listening to first appeared on Mediaite.