Hemingway on 'Spygate': DOJ Must Be Hiding "Really Damaging" Secret If They're Willing To Subvert Oversight

|

Mollie Hemingway said it is a stunning revelation that the previous administration had an FBI informant with the Trump 2016 U.S. presidential election. The Federalist writer told Tucker Carlson the Department of Justice must be hiding a really dangerous secret if they are willing to subvert authority and believe they are above inquiry from the executive branch under which they serve or the Congress that funds them.

"Everyone knows that there was a spy and in fact people who were involved in the spying are admitting there's a spy," Hemingway said on Thursday's Tucker Carlson Tonight. "They're saying, though, because the government term is "human intelligence informant" or something like that that therefore it's not a spy. Whereas normal Americans understand when you are gathering information on someone surreptitiously, that's the common definition of spying."

"In addition to the issue that the Department of Justice thinks they are accountable to no one -- not the president under whose branch they serve, or Congress which funds them and created them -- I think it must mean the information is really damaging, really dangerous, but they're willing to subvert any authority in order to keep that a secret. So this is something that I think they think they can keep this from getting out. I don't think they will actually do that," Hemingway said.





TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: There's still news outlets as of tonight that are pretending like there was no spying on the Trump campaign. So can you just say definitively, do we know as a factual matter that the Obama FBI spied on the Trump campaign, or don't we?

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY, FEDERALIST: Everyone knows that there was a spy and in fact people who were involved in the spying are admitting there's a spy. They're saying, though, because the government term is "human intelligence informant" or something like that that therefore it's not a spy. Whereas normal Americans understand when you are gathering information on someone surreptitiously, that's the common definition of spying. And more than that, that's just a stunning revelation that this was happening under the previous administration that there would be this kind of surveillance, not just at least one human intelligence informant but also wiretaps, national security letters which are how can you secretly get a subpoena and who knows what else is going on like widespread spying involving multiple people in the Trump campaign and we still don't really know what's going on because they're trying to fight answering...

CARLSON: There is a time, sand is passing through the hourglass here. If Democrats take the House and take majority control of these committees, then how will we find out? They have no interest in getting this information to the public.

HEMINGWAY: Right, and this is why it would be nice if everyone on both sides of the aisle would have a common understanding that spying on political opponents is not a good precedent and that's not good for having Americans having confidence in the FBI.

CARLSON: Have you heard liberals say that?

HEMINGWAY: There have been a few, I think, very exceedingly few. Mark Penn is someone who was a Clinton advisor that's been making that argument.

In addition to the issue that the Department of Justice thinks they are accountable to no one -- not the president under whose branch they serve, or Congress which funds them and created them -- I think it must mean the information is really damaging, really dangerous, but they're willing to subvert any authority in order to keep that a secret. So this is something that I think they think they can keep this from getting out. I don't think they will actually do that.

Comment
Show comments Hide Comments

Latest Political Videos

Video Archives