“Notwithstanding the upcoming hubbub surrounding James Comey’s testimony, nominating Wray appears to be the right way to balance justice scales…”
While speculation swirls around former FBI chief James Comey ‘s testimony before Senate hearings, President Trump tweeted that Christopher Wray, a Yale Law School graduate, is his nominee to fill the vacant FBI Director post. Pending perfunctory hearings to confirm Mr. Wray as the nation’s next top law enforcer piloting the FBI, one thing is certain: Mr. Wray comes in as another lawyer, not a law enforcement officer to lead the oft-cited premiere law enforcement agency in the world.
So who is Christopher A. Wray and why does he merit FBI director nomination?
Largely touted as a legal practitioner and not a politician, Mr. Wray’s past is more-officially described by President Trump in today’s whitehouse.gov press release: ”I am proud to announce Christopher as my choice as the Director of the FBI. During his previous service at the Department of Justice, Christopher was the leader of major fraud investigations, and was a key part of the team overseeing the Justice Department’s actions in the war on terrorism following the 9/11 attacks. He is an impeccably qualified individual, and I know that he will again serve his country as a fierce guardian of the law and model of integrity once the Senate confirms him to lead the FBI.”
Those words are a fusion of confidence and certainty…and will soon be in the laps of the US Senate.
Hiccups
As the Senate grilling game goes, scrutiny is the order of business and the decorum can derail and get fiery. If any hiccups to trip-up Wray’s confirmation exist, one may primarily stem from his legal representation of NJ Governor Chris Christie and his alleged role involving “Bridgegate.” Christie, a Trump ally and supporter, was accused of giving the order to shut down lanes of the George Washington Bridge on the New Jersey side, the purpose of which was to allegedly make life difficult for Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolish who did not support Christie’s political ambitions preceding his presidential bid.
As reported in the NJ.com article, the judge presiding over the prosecution in which Wray successfully defended Gov. Christie while two of his aides were convicted, said, “This case was, and is, about the abuse of power,” further denoting a “with us or against us” political climate wafting New Jersey State Capitol halls in Trenton. The judge’s snipe is aimed at the gubernatorial culture and collusion under the tutelage of Christie.
Nevertheless, Wray was able to salvage Gov. Christie from allegations of Bridgegate complicity, and defended him in the court of public opinion stemming from the distaste left from the notion of his involvement. The trajectory of Christie’s presidential aspirations plummeted. Retrospectively, a win is a win. But will the US Senate open up that can of worms to meddle with Wray’s mettle?
Building Blocks
For his lack of experience as a law enforcement officer Mr. Wray compensates with his robust dossier pertaining to voluminous legal deeds as a federal prosecutor and noted criminal defense lawyer. “Bridgegate” pillared his legal prowess by successfully defending Governor Christie against the charges. Whether one agrees or not with the outcome, Wray performed his job and became a wunderkind within a scholarly legal context.
Serving under the George W. Bush administration, Wray filled the roles of assistant attorney general and presided over the criminal investigations division while working with the Department of Justice (DoJ). White collar crimes became a forte in the string of successful prosecutions under Wray’s domain.
Under the machinations of DoJ, Wray was assigned the infamous Enron case. Enron, an indelible stain upon the corporate collars in American history, was investigated and prosecuted by Wray as a justice department prodigy. Consider that no one but a seasoned and highly-skilled Justice attorney was assigned the magnitude and intricacies of Enron’s dirty laundry. It all came out in the wash, and Wray bleached it quite well.
As noted in a Fortune exposé in 2013, Daniel Petrocelli, a criminal defense attorney representing one of Enron’s figureheads, billed the case the “most important, most high-profile, most must-win case that [the U.S. government] has ever prosecuted.” Christopher Wray’s name is all over that particular monumental case, bringing with him vast experience and prosecutorial finesse.
As the Washington Examiner reporter Philip Wegmann wrote, “Reading through Wray’s résumé, it seems that Trump took seriously the calls from both the Left and the Right for a nonpartisan and serious FBI director. Considering the fact that Wray has batted a thousand in Senate confirmations so far, this is a smart pick.”
Forward Motion
Given democrats unanimously confirmed Mr. Wray as US assistant attorney general back in 2003, will their seeming perpetual resistance to anything related to President Trump engender disingenuous sentiments, facades, and misplaced malice in the confirmation process? Will Dems’ party loyalty impose anti-Trump conformation and blind them to righteous confirmation?
It is an understood sanctity that the FBI institution is relegated nonpartisan and apolitical in its mission to investigate criminal matters and arrest violators of our nation’s laws, subsequently furnishing its findings to the Department of Justice so as to further prosecution. However, we did not see that dynamic regarding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. To date, she walks freely. As of now, that ominous cloud we keep reading about, the blame-game she continues to perpetuate, and the musings of another presidential run are like a ghost-ship drifting in waters where it should not be.
Conceding that it appears Mr. Wray will be confirmed as the next FBI director, a festering cancer segues to one remaining question: Will Wray pick up the pieces, build an ironclad case, and bring Hillary Rodham Clinton to justice? If so, the rally of allies will surely stand beside him.
BBC News quoted from a lawyer’s guide list that Christopher Wray is known as a figure who “will give you straight answers without blowing smoke.” Sounds like a far cry from the Obama ilk, namely former AG Loretta Lynch.
This is music to my ears as I don’t smoke and I prefer the straight and narrow pertaining to my nation’s leadership and its justice mission.
Notwithstanding the upcoming hubbub surrounding James Comey’s testimony, nominating Wray appears to be the right way to balance justice scales, at least from a “fierce guardian of the law” posture.
Wray’s response to President Trump nominating him entailed pride and praise for the FBI and its agents, as follows, “I look forward to serving the American people with integrity as the leader of what I know firsthand to be an extraordinary group of men and women who have dedicated their careers to protecting this country.” I trust he won’t use his appointed position to play political chess.
