George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said there is now confirmation that President Trump was correct when he tweeted his presidential campaign was under surveillance in the 2016 election cycle.



"I think what is being a case of willful blindness here is that we have confirmation that Trump was apparently correct when he said over a year ago that he had people in his campaign that were under surveillance and it turns out it was much broader than we thought. Even though people like [Former DNI James] Clapper and others in the Obama administration denied it, it does appear to be a surveillance program," Turley said on Monday's Tucker Carlson Tonight.



Turley also questioned the motives of those who are objecting to probing the allegations.











"For those people who are objecting, what are you objecting to?" Turley asked. "This is a serious matter. No matter who you feel about Trump, we need to find out the truth about this. If there was an investigation of an imposing political party, if there was an asset that tried to become an advisor on a campaign, those are all serious matters for all of us. And I think that Trump is right but he went about it in the wrong way. He has a legitimate objection here that we should know the truth and facts."





TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: Do Americans have a right to know if they were spied on and why?



JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: I think that they do. These are very serious allegations and they are unprecedented. We don't know what the truth is. Maybe there was a valid reason for the investigation, maybe they used valid means. But we should want to know.



I think what is being a case of willful blindness here is that we have confirmation that Trump was apparently correct when he said over a year ago that he had people in his campaign that were under surveillance and it turns out it was much broader than we thought. Even though people like [Former DNI James] Clapper and others in the Obama administration denied it, it does appear to be a surveillance program, it does appear to be an investigation and now you have an individual who reportedly offered to be an advisor in a campaign when he was an asset for the FBI or the CIA or both. I can't imagine what Justice official would sign off on that.



Now you can try to split this as you may, whether this is an investigation or surveillance but from Trump's standpoint there is a legitimate issue. You can tell a victim that this isn't a mugging, it's just a forced divestiture, but it sure feels like a mugging unless you can prove to the contrary.