Former FBI assistant director Kevin Brock talks about the new questions about Trump campaign surveillance on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.'
TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: Can we expect an apology from these people soon? Or even would lose his job for pushing bogus information as fact? No. Instead, they're just going to redefine what spying means. They've already redefined what sex means -- what it means to be a man and a woman. So like, not a big deal to redefine something as simple as spying or surveillance or monitoring or whatever. Very frustrating to watch. But what happens next is the question.
Well, for that, we go to Kevin Brock, he is a former Assistant Director of Intelligence with the FBI. He predicts that Jim Comey could be in trouble for the way he handled the 2016 Trump investigation. Mr. Brock joins us tonight. Thanks very much for coming on.
KEVIN BROCK, FORMER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INTELLIGENCE OF THE FBI: My pleasure. Thanks for having me on.
CARLSON: So when you say that the former FBI Director could face consequences for this, what do you mean?
BROCK: Well, I think we get kind of hung up on this term of spying and that the FBI spy. My concern is, did the FBI break rules under James Comey and Andrew McCabe as they were leading in a counterintelligence investigation out of the seventh floor of the Director's Office of the FBI headquarters? Unprecedented. These investigations are normally carried out by veteran counterintelligence agents out in the field.
BROCK: But here, they've created a bubble or a cadre of investigators to investigate whether or not there's some collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. And they started running sources, confidential human sources against members of the campaign and we know now that they approached the FISA Court and got an electronic surveillance warrant to surveil Carter Page.
Electronic surveillance is much more powerful than using a euphemism like spying.
CARLSON: Of course.
BROCK: I refer it as the nuclear option of intelligence collection. It is highly invasive. It is more than wiretapping somebody or listening to their phone conversations. The court orders you to monitor everything about that person to plant microphones, cameras, whatever it takes to capture conversations.
CARLSON: So why wouldn't -- here is the part I've never understood and no one has ever explained. If they really worried that people connected to the campaign were colluding with Russia, why wouldn't they have told Donald Trump, the candidate about it?
BROCK: And that is a key, key question because veteran counterintelligence agents are puzzled about this as well. There's no doubt that the FBI should and could investigate Russian activities in this country targeting our citizens and targeting our government. But normally, when Russia intersects with a U.S. person or U.S. citizen, the FBI goes to that person and asks and warns them about what Russia is up to and asks for their cooperation so that we can obtain more intelligence about what the Russians are up to.
BROCK: So it's -- why they decided from the outset to make members of the Trump campaign a target of a counterintelligence investigation is still a puzzle because the predication to do so is literally not there, according to the Mueller report.
CARLSON: So just very quickly, having done this your whole life, you think that's very odd, just to be totally clear about it.
BROCK: It's extremely odd, it's unusual. It's not the normal way a counterintelligence investigation is pursued. And so that that then begs the question that I think William Barr is getting at and that is, let's go back to the beginning and find out how this all got started.