Mike Huckabee: Sharp Viewers Noticed Telling Detail from FBI Director's Interview with Fox News
“Wray, in Fox News Interview, Says Sky Is Green and Trees Are Blue”
No, that headline is not from the Babylon Bee. Rather, it’s the best way to describe the interview that FBI Director Christopher Wray gave to Fox News’ Bret Baier on Tuesday evening.
Be honest: When you heard Wray was going to be doing an interview on Fox, the first thing you thought was, “Wow, THIS is going to be a gigantic waste of time…”
The second thing was, “He’s going to lie and completely deny reality, contradicting all those ‘Twitter Files’ and whistleblower reports showing how the FBI inserts itself into politics and targets conservatives.”
The third thing you thought was, “Hmm, he must have a reason for doing this interview right now.”
And you were right on all three counts! Yes, if you watched it, it was a colossal waste of your valuable time, just like every other interview with Wray you’ve ever seen.
Sadly, the FBI has lost all credibility. On sensitive issues, Wray is definitely not there to enlighten you, and he doesn’t. Also, he did lie and completely deny reality. Here are just a few examples:
“I hear these claims of politicization, but I can tell you that the FBI is, and is gonna stay, independent,” he said. “And that means following the facts wherever they lead, no matter who likes it. … We are not on either side.” Hogswallop.
In response to Baier’s question about whistleblower claims of an internal effort to shut down the Hunter Biden laptop investigation, he said, “I have not found anything like that.” Well, OK, then!
When asked about what Matt Taibbi turned up in theTwitter Files, he said, “The FBI does not and is not in the business of functioning as the truth police. We don’t tell social media companies to censor anything. … What we do is tell social media companies about information that we have about foreign disinformation campaigns … and those companies then make decisions about what, if anything, they want to do about it.”
Baier let that stand, but we are not that easy. Wray’s answer flies in the face of much documentation and direct testimony from people at both Twitter and Facebook.
If we’d been conducting this interview, this would’ve been the time to ask him why, if the FBI was simply bringing “disinformation” to Twitter’s attention, it paid Twitter $3.5 million for the trouble of taking it down. Of course, Wray would have weaseled out of that one too, but the entertainment value would have been huge.
As for that now-infamous “classic earmarks” letter about the laptop, Wray actually said this: “I can’t speak to what former officials of the intelligence community may or may not have said. I can only speak to what we do. And unfortunately, as you would expect, if we’re gonna do this investigation in the right way, that means I can’t talk about the specifics of that investigation” and blah blah blah. Ask John Paul Mac Isaac what he thinks about that answer.
When asked about the FBI’s inconsistent treatment of Donald Trump and Joe Biden regarding classified documents, Wray said, “Our standard for approaching those investigations [involving classified documents] is the same, no matter who it is.” They start with “the least intrusive means” but, if frustrated in their efforts, might have to use “other legal tools.” That answer glosses over a tremendous number of factors. And again, Wray closes down when it’s convenient by using that “ongoing investigation” dodge.
He likewise dodged Baier’s question about the excessive use of force in the arrest of pro-life protester Mark Houck, saying, “Those decisions are made, as they should be, by the commanders on the ground, in the field office, who have the expertise about when to conduct operations safely and securely. … To my knowledge, those processes were all followed in this case.”
Baier did continue to press him on this dichotomy, mentioning other issues such as the persecution of parents who expressed anger at school board meetings, but Wray insisted, “All I can tell you is that we have one standard — one standard — which is irrespective of ideology, of politics” and that the FBI is “not in the business of policing speech.” Director Wray, that is NOT what we are seeing.
For example, here’s Miranda Devine, thanking God for the FBI whistleblowers “exposing the FBI’s blatant political bias.” Wray might want to read it, and you should, too.
And this, a report on the sentencing of FBI agent Babak Broumand, convicted of taking bribes from an organized crime figure. At his sentencing, Broumand’s attorney said, “Knowing where to draw the line and when to return to reality can become an exceedingly difficult task when your very life depends on your ability to live a lie.” That quote might explain a lot about the FBI.
The FBI is continuing to pursue Pennsylvania Rep. Scott Perry, getting a judge’s go-ahead to look through thousands of messages on the congressman’s phone. Perry committed the cardinal sin of voting to delay Biden’s electoral certification in 2021. No, the FBI isn’t political at all. This is a must-read.
And here’s a new whistleblower story — look for a more detailed analysis soon — about another of Hunter Biden’s business associates who is “ready to name names” after being detained on what he says are “politically motivated” charges.
“DOJ is trying to bury me to protect Joe, Jim and Hunter Biden,” Gal Luft said. His attorney claims Luft provided information about Hunter to the FBI in 2019. (That was when they got the laptop that we were told was a Russian fake.) This is also a must-read.
Wray repeatedly and proudly mentioned the FBI’s “long history.” As we’ve discussed here, the FBI has plenty of baggage in its long history. Some of it we know; some we never will. And they’re piling up plenty more now, as you can see by the stories we included here.
Finally, yes, of course there was a reason for Wray to do this interview at this precise time, and it likely has to do with the FBI’s conclusion on the origin of COVID-19. Wray said his agency’s determination is that the lab leak theory is almost certainly true, and that the Chinese government “has been doing its best to try to thwart and obfuscate the work here.”
“You’re talking about a potential leak from a Chinese government-controlled lab that killed millions of Americans, and that’s precisely what that capability was designed for,” he said.
Byron York said later that this was “clearly the big headline from the interview, in part because it completely cuts the legs out from under so many people who were still clinging to this animal transfer theory of COVID.” Just the previous day, the Energy Department had come out in support of the Chinese lab leak theory, too. That can’t be by accident.
“I think it has now become pretty much the position of the U.S. government,” York said, “whether they’re gonna come out and say it in that many words or not.” And that will be the big takeaway from Wray’s interview, because the rest of it was just the same-old, same-old.
York did note something quite interesting: Wray never pointed specifically to “domestic terrorism” as THE big threat facing America, as he once would have. Maybe he knows that doesn’t really fly any longer.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
