America needed Christopher Wray to be a “profile in courage,” said Anthony Coley in MSNBC.com. Instead, the FBI director took “the easy way out,” announcing last week that he’d step down before Donald Trump’s January inauguration. Yes, Wray’s days were numbered. Trump, who nominated the Republican to be the nation’s top cop in 2017, has never forgiven Wray for authorizing the 2022 raid to retrieve classified documents from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate. Trump had also already named MAGA sycophant Kash Patel to be Wray’s replacement. That left the FBI director with a choice: resign “or stay until Trump fired him.” Wray decided to do the former, saying it was “the best way to avoid dragging the bureau deeper into the fray” of politics. He has that exactly backward. FBI directors are appointed to 10-year terms precisely to insulate them from the political fray and prevent incoming presidents from installing vengeful loyalists. Had Wray stuck around and forced Trump to weather the scandal of firing him, it’s possible the Senate would have blocked Patel’s nomination and the FBI would have remained a nonpartisan law enforcement agency. Instead, Wray “did exactly what a would-be autocrat wants: He obeyed in advance.”
“Good riddance,” said Miranda Devine in the New York Post. Trump has his reasons to distrust Wray—starting with that “needlessly provocative” Mar-a-Lago raid—and so does the public. When Wray wasn’t “stonewalling” congressional probes, he was “siccing” agents on such dangerous criminals as Christians praying outside abortion clinics and concerned parents trying to speak at school board meetings. Americans want new leadership at the FBI, said Charles C.W. Cooke in National Review, and Trump campaigned on a promise to deliver it. Is the unwritten norm of the bureau’s “independence” so sacred that Trump should betray voters and preserve the FBI as a “rogue agency that answers to nobody”?
Better that than a rogue president with a private police force, said Garrett M. Graff in Politico. With his “anticipatory surrender,” Wray is effectively handing the keys of the planet’s “most powerful, best resourced, and farthest-reaching law enforcement agency” to Patel, a grotesque figure whose plans to “weaponize the FBI against Trump’s foes” are so explicit, they include a published 60-name enemies list. Trump had hoped Wray would be that kind of loyalist, said Jonathan Chait in The Atlantic. But when Wray sent agents to retrieve the boxes of classified military plans and nuclear secrets Trump was hiding—and repeatedly lied about hiding—at Mar-a- Lago, he disqualified himself from a job that in Trump’s mind has only two duties. They are (1) to let Trump break the law “with impunity and (2) to investigate anybody who interferes with (1).”
Wray’s resignation may actually be an “act of defiance,” said David French in The New York Times. Under federal law, an FBI director who voluntarily resigns can be replaced only by a senior FBI official or by someone the Senate has already confirmed to a different post. Patel meets neither of these requirements, and so can’t “walk into the job on Day 1” as Trump intended. Perhaps, said Nick Catoggio in The Dispatch, but “spineless” Senate Republicans will likely “end up rubber-stamping Patel’s nomination” before too long, and it won’t be Wray’s fault. Defiant rhetoric about saving “American norms and institutions from Trump” is all very well, but after voters just knowingly elected a law- and norm-disdaining president, the hard question presents itself: “Who are you saving them for?” |