The questions directed at Christopher Wray, the nominee for FBI director,
showed the continued reluctance of even the most Trump-averse GOP officials
to publicly oppose the President. (photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg/Getty
Images)
FBI Nominee Christopher Wray Sure Looks Dirty
By William Boardman, Reader Supported News
16 July 17
If I am given the honor of leading this agency, I will never allow the FBI's
work to be driven by anything other than the facts, the law, and the
impartial pursuit of justice. Period. Full stop. My loyalty is to the
Constitution and the rule of law. They have been my guideposts throughout my
career, and I will adhere to them no matter the test.
Attorney Christopher Wray, Congressional testimony, July 12, 2017
It's hard to get better lip service than that. In his opening statement,
Christopher Wray, nominated by President Trump to be the next director of
the FBI, pretty much said all the right things to the Senate Judiciary
Committee on July 12. It's even possible that Wray's testimony could turn
out to be true. But doubt is hard to allay in the context of his career to
date.
President Trump announced his choice in a tweet on June 7: "I will be
nominating Christopher A. Wray, a man of impeccable credentials, to be the
new Director of the FBI. Details to follow." The 8:44 a.m. tweet came
without prior notice to Congress and served as something of a distraction to
that day's Senate testimony by James Comey, the FBI director Trump had fired
on May 9.
The "impeccable credentials" are real enough in a very old line,
establishment sort of way. Christopher Wray was born in New York City in
1966. His father was a partner in the well-connected law firm of Debevoise
and Plimpton. His mother, Gilda Gates Wray, was a program officer at the
Charles Hayden Foundation (American Red Cross, Museum of Natural History).
Wray attended the Buckley School in Manhattan and Phillips Academy in
Andover, Massachusetts. In 1989, Wray graduated from Yale College cum laude
and married Helen Garrison Howell, also Yale '89. He graduated from Yale Law
School in 1992, where he was executive editor of the Yale Law Journal. After
a federal judge clerkship, Wray went into private practice in 1991 at the
Atlanta office of the King & Spalding international law firm. In 1997 he
joined the Justice Department as a U.S. attorney in the Northern District of
Georgia. In 2003, President Bush (Yale '68) appointed him the youngest-ever
Assistant Attorney General in charge of the criminal division. In 2005, he
returned to private practice at King & Spalding, where he was primarily a
criminal defense lawyer who according to the website "helps clients navigate
federal and state government investigations and litigation." With King &
Spalding, Wray had broad experience "spanning a wide variety of industries
and more than 30 different countries." As a partner at King & Spalding
(where his partner pages are deleted), Wray is paid $9.2 million a year.
Wray's political contributions of at least $35,000 over the years have gone
exclusively to Republican candidates, including John McCain in 2008 ($2300)
and Mitt Romney in 2012 ($7500). He appears to have made no political
contributions during 2016. He also volunteered for Fred Thompson's "Lawyers
for Fred" committee in 2008.
What did Wray know about US torture programs, and when did he know it?
Wray was there when Justice Dept. attorney John Yoo and others were drafting
torture memos that were subsequently acted on by the Bush administration. In
Senate testimony, Wray said with exquisite lawyerly caution: "To my
recollection, I never reviewed, much less provided comments on or input on,
and much less approved, any memo from John Yoo on this topic." He does not
say he did not see or act on memos by others. He does not say he was not
aware of his government's sanction of torture in violation of US and
international law. He does not say he registered any objection to torture
then. He did not, as head of the criminal division, bring any charges
against any of the Bush administration torturers in 2003-2005. On leaving
the department, he did receive a distinguished public service award.
He told the Senate on July 12: "I can only tell this committee that I have
no recollection whatsoever of that, and it's the kind of thing I think I'd
remember.. My view is that torture is wrong, it's unacceptable, it's
illegal, and I think it's ineffective." Reports that Wray visited the
Guantanamo prison are apparently untrue, but the senators did not ask about
it. Nor did they inquire about Wray's awareness of abuses including torture
at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, even though Wray appeared before the same
committee in 2004 and was questioned by Vermont senator Patrick Leahy then.
Wray's letter of May 6, 2004, about "Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison"
remains redacted by the Justice Department.
In 2004, Wray was involved in the prosecution of a CIA contractor, David
Passaro, whose beating of a prisoner in 2003 led to that prisoner's death
within 48 hours. Passaro is the only US civilian prosecuted for prisoner
abuse or torture. Wray is quoted in the indictment saying: "The criminal
abuse of persons detained in the global war on terrorism will not be
tolerated. The Department of Justice will move to punish those whose actions
violate the rule of law. Such abuse violates the core principles of a free
and just society." result of this prosecution was to convict one person and
allow the programs of torture and abuse to continued, perhaps more
carefully, but fundamentally unhindered. In this sense, Wray clearly seems
to be part of setting up Passaro as a scapegoat.
Wray is credited with taking a principled stand against the Bush
administration's illegal surveillance programs, albeit somewhat
diaphanously. In 2004, Comey and then FBI director Robert Mueller (now
special counsel) challenged the White House attempt to renew the National
Security Agency (NSA) program of "terrorist surveillance," a euphemism for
massive spying on just about every American citizen. According to reports,
Comey and Mueller were prepared to resign in protest over the issue and
Wray, getting wind of it, apparently asked to go with them if they went. The
Bush administration blinked and Wray never went public, except by legend.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has questioned Wray's record on
civil liberties, much to the Senate's indifference. The ACLU cites with
concern the FBI's past notorious abuse of civil liberties, up to and
including burglaries and killings. In that context, Wray's strong support
for the USA Patriot Act of 2001 and its expanded police state powers is less
than reassuring. In 2003 Wray insisted that safeguards were in place and
testified that "the Patriot Act has helped preserve and protect liberty and
freedom, not erode them." In 2004 and 2005, two separate federal courts
found parts of the Patriot Act unconstitutional. Subsequently, the inspector
general of the Justice Department found widespread abuse by the FBI of
Patriot Act powers.
What are Wray's Russian connections, other than Rosneft or Gazprom?
At King and Spalding in 2009, Wray described one American citizen client as
an "energy company president in a criminal investigation by Russian
authorities." On January 12, 2017, in the midst of the so-called Russia-gate
hurly-burly, the private attorney removed this information from his law firm
site where it was last reported on November 18.
Wray's 68-page questionnaire submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee
lists no potential conflicts of interest. Nor does the questionnaire list
Wray's previous Russian-related client or any of his firm's representation
of Russian state-run companies, or the word "Russian" in any other form or
context. King & Spalding has half a dozen attorneys practicing in its Moscow
office.
In the Senate hearing July 12, Wray had a hard time saying Donald Trump Jr.
should not have met with Trump campaigners and Russians to discuss acquiring
Russian-generated dark info on Hillary Clinton. The best Wray was willing to
do, on the fourth try, was to allow wanly that "any threat or effort to
interfere with our elections from any nation state or any non-state actor is
the kind of thing the FBI would want to know." That's still a far cry from
the obvious: Trump Jr. should have called the FBI as soon as he was
approached. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, begged
Wray to tell "every politician" that if they get into a situation with a
foreign government, "tell us all to call the FBI." But the future head of
the FBI just wouldn't take that good, clean shot, and no one pressed him on
why.
The Russian state-owned oil companies Rosneft and Gazprom are both clients
of Wray's law firm, along with Citibank, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan Chase.
Each of them represents a potential conflict of interest for the FBI
Director nominee.
Wray has at least an indirect connection to Rosneft, one of Russia's
state-controlled oil companies, whose murky relationship to Trump interests
remained to be exposed to public view. Rosneft is a King & Spalding client
(although the law firm deleted the page from its website). And Rosneft has a
pending multi-billion-dollar oil deal with Exxon, whose former CEO Rex
Tillerson is now Trump's secretary of state. So here's a pending deal from
which Trump, Tillerson, Wray, and others stand to benefit directly. The
Russian-Trump electoral collusion trail may well be littered with Russian
oil money.
Wray has the same indirect connection to Gazprom, another Russian
state-owned oil company and client of King & Spalding (page deleted from
website). Gazprom was part of the case Wray handled for the American
executive caught in a Russian investigation (that Wray later deleted from
his bio). Gazprom's relationship to Wray and Trump is murkier than
Rosneft's, but includes connections to Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Richard
Burt, a Gazprom-owned pipeline bypassing Ukraine, and possible lifting of
sanctions on Russia.
When New Jersey governor Chris Christie was accused of deliberately closing
the George Washington Bridge as an act of political revenge, he was still a
Republican presidential hopeful. To survive the scandal that came to be
known as Bridgegate, Christie needed serious help, so he hired Christopher
Wray as his personal defense attorney (at $340 an hour), costing New Jersey
taxpayers more than $2 million. Although two of Christie's aides were
convicted, Christie was not even indicted and avoided having to testify at
their trial. During Bridgegate, Christie's cell phone disappeared, despite
efforts of legislators and other investigators to examine it for evidence of
Christie's involvement. When the cell phone did turn up, Christopher Wray
had it, for unexplained reasons. When Christie's aides subpoenaed the cell
phone for their defense, a federal judge ruled that Wray did not have to
give it up. According to legal opinion, Wray's apparent withholding of
evidence is considered nothing more than zealous representation of his
client.
Wray solemnly told the Senate on July 12: "My loyalty is to the
Constitution, to the rule of law, and to the FBI. Nobody asked for any kind
of loyalty oath and I sure didn't offer one."
Given Wray's career pattern, there was no need for anyone to ask for or
offer loyalty. Wherever Wray goes, it seems, bad guys get away unscathed
while scapegoats suffer the consequences. What more could President Trump
ask from his man at the FBI?
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV,
print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont
judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation
for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination
from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
