Fox News contributor Charles Hurt urged the network’s viewers on Friday to imagine, just imagine, how Democrats and their media allies would have reacted had the administration of then-President George W. Bush spied on then-Democrat presidential nominee Barack Hussein Obama in 2008.
“Can you imagine if the Bush Administration had spied on Barack Obama’s campaign during the 2008 campaign?” he said on FNC’s “Hannity.” “Everyone would be and should be outraged. Could you imagine if the Clinton administration had spied on the Bush campaign during the 2000 [election]? It didn’t happen, but if it did, I think there would be bipartisan outrage.”
Yet regarding confirmed reports that President Obama’s administration spied on nominee-turned-President Donald Trump’s in 2016, there has been silence (and excuses) from the left.
“The idea that Democrats are just turning a blind eye to the notion that we are going to weaponize the federal government, weaponize the most powerful espionage agency in our government to go after political opponents — and not just spy on them, but in some cases punish them — it’s shocking,” he said.
Listen to his full discussion with fill-in host Jason Chaffetz below:
Source: Fox News
The discussion originally began with the two speaking about Attorney General Bill Barr.
In a recent speech to the Federalist Society, the AG warned that Democrats are trying to “sabotage” and use “every tool and maneuver” they have to resist Trump’s presidency. He further argued that they’ve been doing as such since he stepped into office.
“Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called ‘The Resistance,’ and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver available to sabotage the functioning of his administration,” he said.
That’s actually false. He said that the “resistance” sprung into existence after Trump won election. But the evidence — including the FISA scandal — shows it began long before the president stepped into office.
“Now, ‘resistance’ is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power,” he continued. “It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous — indeed incendiary — notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the ‘loyal opposition,’ as opposing parties have done in the past, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government.”
Speaking to Chaffetz about these remarks, Hurt said the movement is 100 percent real.
“I think it’s very real, and I think all of the evidence that has come out along these lines of, you know, the FISA abuse, lines up right behind that and proves the point,” he said.
Except that the FISA abuse began before Trump stepped into office.
“God bless the attorney general for putting such a fine point on it,” he added. “I also think this New York Times’ report about the falsification of the FISA, that’s a very serious, hugely enormous serious issue.”
On Friday, The New York Times ran a piece claiming that Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s upcoming report will absolve the DOJ’s top brass of criminality but recommend charges for a low-level anti-Trump employee who engaged in some shady activities.
The report specifically referenced a now-removed attorney named Kevin Clinesmith.
“Mr. Horowitz referred his findings about Mr. Clinesmith to prosecutors for a potential criminal charge,” the Times reported, though it neglected to note that Clinesmith worked underneath disgraced former FBI special agent Peter Strzok.
Meet former FBI dork named Kevin Clinesmith.
One of Peter Strzok’s do boy lawyers. The proof he said he had, pertaining the validity of the FISA app, only existed in his little mind. He also got caught tampering with evidence when he changed things in his “proof” email. pic.twitter.com/i15YbUogt6
— Tehvul Garcia (@tehvul) November 22, 2019
Meanwhile, The Washington Post ran its own report claiming that Horowitz’s reported conclusions prove that the Obama administration “had a proper legal and factual basis” to spy on and investigate Trump. Not only was that false, but it was also a clear-cut attempt by the left-wing outlet to downplay U.S. Attorney John Durham’s ongoing investigation into the predicates of the Russia probe.
“The attempt to downplay it is utterly meaningless to me,” Hurt said. “At the end of the day, what we are talking about is the previous administration spying on political opponents at the height of a presidential election.”
Indeed. And while Democrats and their media allies have rule that this was OK, they are not the jury, and they are not the judge. The jury and judge will be Durham, and his investigation is only just getting started.
- Fiona Hill: ‘Open civil war’ possible if Trump elected in 2024 because Dems will see win as ‘illegitimate’ - October 24, 2021
- Pelosi refuses to confirm reelection in ’22, assures Jake Tapper ‘we’re pretty much there’ on massive spending bill - October 24, 2021
- ‘You’re a clown’: Chris Wallace dragged after calling Jen Psaki ‘one of the best press secretaries ever’ - October 24, 2021