The cast of Friday’s PBS News Hour was displeased with FBI Director Christopher Wray for resigning before Donald Trump could fire him because “he allowed Donald Trump to shatter yet another norm without imposing any cost.” Throughout the entire discussion, there was no thought given to the idea that there is something about the FBI that needs fixing.
Host Amna Nawaz was among those not happy with Wray. After playing a clip of his speech where he claimed resigning was the best thing for the bureau, Nawaz asked New York Times columnist David Brooks, “David, how does leaving early in a 10-year term to avoid the incoming president firing you, how does that keep the bureau out of the political fray?”
Brooks replied, “Beats me. Somebody said he had — Wray had no good options and he happened to choose the wrong one, the worst of all the options.”
Brooks continued, “And so people have worked hard over decades to make the FBI reasonably nonpolitical. And that's important, because the FBI is this tremendously powerful organization, which is easily abused, as we saw in the era of J. Edgar Hoover. And so that we have these 10-year terms.”
Other equivalent law enforcement and intelligence positions in the government are political appointees that come and go with the president, but Brooks never explained what makes the FBI so special that it deserves an exemption. Still, Brooks claimed Wray should have stayed, “And the idea is that an FBI director does not turn over with the president, because we are building safeguards to depoliticize the agency. And if Donald Trump wants to ruin that, then he should aggressively have to fire Wray, and we should have that fight. And to basically open the door to what Donald Trump wants to do seems to me not the right way to keep our institutions normal.”
Nawaz then turned to pinch hitter for Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus, and recalled, “Veteran reporter Jim Fallows, who writes a Substack on journalism and democracy, had this to say. He wrote, ‘Eventually, Trump would have found a way to fire Wray. OK. Wray should have made him do so rather than removing himself.’ He said, ‘Wray has done great damage with his decision and deserves to be scorned.’”
She then read part of Marcus’s column back to her, ‘“Protecting the bureau and protecting the country would be better achieved by standing up to Trump, not enabling him.’ It seems like you agree with what David is saying.”
Marcus claimed that “I 100 percent agree with David,” adding, “This is, should be, and has been an apolitical job. No one was fired, except for one person who was scorned by the Bush administration and then fired by the Clinton administration after an extensive finding of wrongdoing that might now look minor in comparison to some of the things that we have seen, until Donald Trump came along. Now he has done it twice, but he hasn't had — but Wray capitulated in advance.”
She further condemned him for having “obeyed in advance. And he allowed Donald Trump to shatter yet another norm without imposing any cost on him. And that's separate and apart from the caliber of the person that Donald Trump wants to replace him with. He could want to replace him with Bob — bring Bob Mueller back, and I think both of us would have the same attitude, which is this is not an ordinary political appointment, and it should not be transformed into one. But here we are.”
A useful addendum to this segment would have been the 11-page letter incoming Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley sent Wray endorsing Trump’s decision to remove him. That letter detailed everything from several examples of political bias, “mishandling of sexual harassment claims,” including double standards in punishing offenders, and withholding requested information from Congress.
Here is a transcript for the December 13 show:
PBS News Hour
12/13/2024
7:36 PM ET
AMNA NAWAZ: David, how does leaving early in a 10-year term to avoid the incoming president firing you, how does that keep the bureau out of the political fray?
DAVID BROOKS: Beats me. Somebody said he had — Wray had no good options and he happened to choose the wrong one, the worst of all the options.
And so people have worked hard over decades to make the FBI reasonably nonpolitical. And that's important, because the FBI is this tremendously powerful organization, which is easily abused, as we saw in the era of J. Edgar Hoover. And so that we have these 10-year terms.
And the idea is that an FBI director does not turn over with the president, because we are building safeguards to depoliticize the agency. And if Donald Trump wants to ruin that, then he should aggressively have to fire Wray, and we should have that fight.
And to basically open the door to what Donald Trump wants to do seems to me not the right way to keep our institutions normal.
NAWAZ: Ruth, as you probably saw, veteran reporter Jim Fallows, who writes a Substack on journalism and democracy, had this to say. He wrote, "Eventually, Trump would have found a way to fire Wray. OK. Wray should have made him do so rather than removing himself." He said, "Wray has done great damage with his decision and deserves to be scorned."
In your column, you wrote this: "Protecting the bureau and protecting the country would be better achieved by standing up to Trump, not enabling him."
It seems like you agree with what David is saying.
RUTH MARCUS: I 100 percent agree with David on this one. This is, should be, and has been an apolitical job. No one was fired, except for one person who was scorned by the Bush administration and then fired by the Clinton administration after an extensive finding of wrongdoing that might now look minor in comparison to some of the things that we have seen, until Donald Trump came along. Now he has done it twice, but he hasn't had — but Wray capitulated in advance.
He obeyed in advance. And he allowed Donald Trump to shatter yet another norm without imposing any cost on him. And that's separate and apart from the caliber of the person that Donald Trump wants to replace him with. He could want to replace him with Bob — bring Bob Mueller back, and I think both of us would have the same attitude, which is this is not an ordinary political appointment ,and it should not be transformed into one. But here we are.
