BPR: George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley testified Thursday before the House Judiciary subcommittee on the alleged “weaponization” of the federal government, offering his expert legal analysis on Twitter working with federal agencies to censor Americans.
“The Twitter Files raise serious questions of whether the United States government is now a partner in what may be the largest censorship system in our history,” Turley would testify. “The involvement cuts across the Executive Branch, with confirmed coordination with agencies ranging from the CDC to the CIA. Even based on our limited knowledge, the size of this censorship system is breathtaking, and we only know of a fraction of its operations through the Twitter Files.”
In an attempt to discredit Turley, U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., the woman who lead the DNC when it rigged the Democratic primary in favor of Hillary Clinton, attacked the law professor’s credentials by asking him if he had ever worked at Twitter or had “any specific or special or unique knowledge about the inner workings of Twitter?” She would go on to claim that he was only offering “opinion and conjecture” on Twitter colluding with the federal government and had no “specific or unique knowledge” to qualify him to speak on the issue.
Appearing Friday morning on “Fox & Friends,” Turley pushed back at the attack, calling Wasserman Schultz’s efforts “completely absurd.”
“The congresswoman was asking if I’ve ever worked at Twitter as a condition for my talking about what the Twitter files,” he said. “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,” Turley explained. “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”. more
I remember when a magazine spent what had to be a fortune on stylists and make up artists trying to make her look good proving that putting lipstick on a pig gives you nothing more than a pig wearing lipstick.
Why isn’t that pig in the Pokie?!!
Turley should have answered with a simple “that may be your opinion”.
Would put her questions in perspective.
Wuz she myzled??
She led to the downfall of CNN by proving that not only were the questions scripted, so were the answers when she tripped over the telepromter!
DWS has no law degree nor ever worked in a law office. She is not a professor, much less a law professor. She has “no specific or unique knowledge about the inner workings of” a law office. She can only offer “opinion and conjecture on” Turley’s legal opinion and its validity. Thus, by her own criteria she is unqualified to speak on the issue.
Debbie, you’re a shtunk, and a shtik drek.
I think that Debbie was trying to “misle” him.
https://youtu.be/TJF7pMEFBZw
ALL DEMOCRATS ARE LIARS & CHEATS.
Not most, not some, but ALL.
And it’s easily proven.
Greasy-hair Debbie vs. Turley?
Pee Wee Herman vs. Chuck Norris
P.S. Thumbs up on Ramenhair.
I might borrow that.
Just looking at her makes me want to take a bath.
Bug eyed bitch with mayonnaise in her hair.
Turdley, twisted sister of the right. Expert of twisted views & not much more.
^^^you left constitutional law professor and lawyer out.
Lawyers, right there with used car salesman, ^^^^ Constitution + toilet water = Turdley.
^^^ your opinions right there with septic tank.
Septic tank + opinion = Shit for Brains.