The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of RedState.com.

Florida Democrat Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz taking on George Washington Law professor and legal scholar Jonathan Turley in a game of Checkers would be bad enough, but DSW trying to discredit Turley’s credibility during House hearings on the weaponization of the federal government? How brutal was it?

Not dissimilar to taking a Nerf gun into battle against a field unit of 155mm self-propelled howitzers.

Here’s how Wasserman-Schultz kicked off her line of questions of the legal expert:

So essentially your answers to questions yesterday were your own opinion and pure conjecture.

As is his style, Turley politely responded, “No, I wouldn’t say that, I try to base them on what we know from the Twitter Files—” before DSW interrupted with the same nonsensical premise: “But this is only just your opinion, would you say, as a Twitter account user?” Is it possible Debbie’s unaware of the role of legal expert, or any expert witness?

Turley tried again: “No, I’ve come to give legal advice based on facts that are in the public domain and I would really refer to—” but Wasserman Schultz again butted in, telling Turley he was using up her time. So, that’s how that went. Wasserman Schultz was simply in way over her head, and Turley refused to agree with her silly premise, so she continued to interrupt him.

So, during a Friday morning appearance “Fox and Friends,” Turley totally decimated Wasserman Schultz in reference to the veteran congresswoman’s insistence that he was only offering “opinion and conjecture” on Twitter working with the FBI and had no “specific or unique knowledge” to speak about the issue. In other words, the Nerf gun.

Unfortunately for DWS, Turley showed up with the field unit of howitzers:

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.

Turley drops the mic, walks off-stage, as clueless Wasserman-Shultz mumbles incoherently to herself.

I’m no legal scholar, but then again I’m not a Democrat political hack, either. I’ve watched enough trial footage to understand the role of an expert witness. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is just another product of the low-information Democrat voter base that continues to send her and other liberal “geniuses” back to D.C., term after term. And some people wonder why Washington D.C. is broken.