What Fury wants is something that he can SEE with his own eyes.
If this is the case, then any eyewitness evidence is useless in his eyes. It would be like saying, OJ Simpson did not kill Nicole because nobody saw him do it and even if somebody said he did, he did not have a video, therefore that someone is not to be believed.
With this kind of attitude, ALL of the hundreds of sworn affidavits are to be thrown out unless they can provide video evidence. Instead of looking into and investigating their allegations, ignore them. They are all lying by default.
No, you're over-reaching with that statement.
This is a politically charged issue. Pulitzer made a claim - I'm skeptical of such claims as I work in that practice area. Seeing data such as packet captures, screen shost, etc would be helpful. It's not an unreasonable request and would be requested as part of a security assessment typically done by IT companies.
If he can provide a sworn affidavit of what was observed, that would be okay to (for me). But in the "real world" so to speak, IT security folks are going to ask for his data as well.
It's one thing to make a claim - it's another to back it up with evidence and data.