Last week's hearing before the House Judiciary Committee did not go smoothly for the FBI. Its director, Christopher Wray, got grilled to a crisp by House Republicans and some Democrats regarding the ongoing activities of the nation's preeminent law enforcement and domestic intelligence agency.
We learned that the FBI might be illegally acquiring Americans' location data and the private banking information of law-abiding gun owners. The Russian collusion hoax and the bureau's interference on the Hunter Biden laptop were also brought into the open. The question about January 6 tripped up the director, but this wasn't his first time being secretive about the truth.
Let's start with his most recent debacle.
FBI Director Chris Wray refuses to answer whether or not the FBI had "confidential human sources" in the crowd on January 6th. pic.twitter.com/OUJA73rk2N
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) July 12, 2023
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) asked the director if undercover FBI agents or assets were present in the crowds on January 6. The rambling answer Wray gave had some wondering if he’d perjured himself. As you all know, this is one of the most well-known theories about the January 6 riot, and the FBI threw gasoline on the fire, refusing to answer this question directly. Wray insisted that he be careful with his answer due to the numerous court filings relating to this event and investigation. Biggs appeared amazed that the director didn’t know if there was a covert FBI presence, despite giving the impression that he was aware.
BIGGS: I understand that, but I thought I heard you say you didn't know whether there were FBI agents or informants or human sources in the Capitol or in the vicinity on January 6. Did I misunderstand you? I thought that’s what you said.
WRAY: I referred very specifically to undercover agents.
BIGGS: Yeah, and so are you acknowledging then there were undercover agents?
WRAY: As I sit here right now, I do not believe there were undercover agents on scene.
[Crosstalk]
BIGGS: Were there any assets? Did you have any assets present that day in the crowd?
WRAY: When it comes to what you're calling assets or what we would call confidential human sources, that's a place where, again, I want to be careful, as I said in response to an earlier question. There are court filings that I think speak to this that I'm happy to make sure we get to you, assuming they're not under seal, and that can better answer the question than I can as I sit here right now.
Wray faces another contempt threat from House Republicans unless he corrects some aspects of his testimony that were patently false.
We'll see what comes of that since House Republicans threatened contempt hearings before, only to cave hours later. Yet, one matter that has escaped further review concerning Mr. Wray's tenure at the FBI is the reported entrapment plot against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
The bulk of the Department of Justice's case against him revolved around calls he made with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, which the FBI admitted were routine communications and not evidence that Flynn was a Kremlin agent. The FBI also had no evidence to interview Flynn at the time regarding allegations that he might have been compromised by Moscow, which is why you should always have an attorney present during these proceedings.
.@BretBaier grills FBI Director Christopher Wray about the lack of transparency from the bureau in the Flynn and FISA probe:
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) June 24, 2020
BAIER: "With the FISA, the Flynn 302s, the reports, it seems like it took forever."
WRAY: "We've bent over backwards to be transparent and cooperative." pic.twitter.com/a2ZlUdLxkK
That determination arrived one day after agents interviewed Flynn about the phone calls, adding they didn't feel the then-national security adviser had lied to them, the charge the former Trump official initially pleaded guilty to before withdrawing it and hiring a new legal team. The FBI knew it had nothing on Flynn, but a corrupt top brass at the FBI and a biased judge kept this man in legal purgatory. To recap, before the legal crusade to clear Flynn began in 2020, which devolved into a circus, the Department of Justice had filed a motion to drop its case against him. The judge refused, and it took a presidential pardon from Trump to end this tortured legal saga.
#FLYNN Court unseals heavily redacted Agent Strzok notes from January 2017 meeting, the day AFTER Flynn was interviewed. Flynn attorney @SidneyPowell1 writes “These documents were known to exist at the highest levels of the DOJ + by Special Counsel (see codes bottom right)...
— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) July 10, 2020
#FLYNN Breaking: Draft internal GOV memo 1/30/2017 unsealed by court. Timing: Written 6 days after Flynn interview Kislyak calls, “FBI recognizes the discrepancy between the statements + the actual calls, but determined that Flynn was not acting as an agent of Russia” @cbsnews pic.twitter.com/wXOVGnvz3x
— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) July 10, 2020
Where does Wray factor into this? He might be one of those top FBI officials who suppressed the exculpatory evidence against Flynn. He and then-FBI General Counsel Dana Boente, who served briefly as acting attorney general under Trump, allegedly coordinated to block the release of this information.
In October 2020, the FBI later admitted that some of the dates for its notes on Flynn were "inadvertently altered," a development that likely got buried by the Hunter Biden laptop. The FBI also suppressed exculpatory evidence and outright manufactured other portions to secure an illegal FISA spy warrant against Carter Page, a former Trump campaign official.
Wray was cagey on FBI agents in the crowd and might be behind a serious Brady violation in a highly public case involving Mr. Flynn. What else is he hiding?
