[ThomPete]

I think there is something else going on here.

Claiming that Cambridge Analytica had a catastrophic impact on the 2016 election. It's hard to know what to answer to such a thing.

If you get into a debate with her on whether her completely unproven claim is true or false you are guilty, if you try to avoid it you are basically saying she is right and are guilty.

This kind of questioning only works because it's not a courtroom. This would never be allowed as an actual question.

[Udik]

> Claiming that Cambridge Analytica had a catastrophic impact on the 2016 election. It's hard to know what to answer to such a thing.

"Congresswoman, half of this country thinks that your statement about the impact of Cambridge Analytica in the last election is factually false. In case you wanted to publish an ad that mentioned it, should Facebook reject it?"

[ThomPete]

That would expose him for not taking responsibility.

[Udik]

You cannot be asked to take the responsibility of an impossible task such as telling truths from lies. It's a responsibility that even the government doesn't want. What about "congresswoman, you pass a bill to institute the Ministry of Truth, and I'll scrupulously follow their indications".