FBI Director Christopher Wray’s recent testimony before Congress raised more eyebrows than a poorly conducted magic show. Instead of providing a clear, decisive account of the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, Wray seemed to play a game of “who shot the sheriff” while casually downplaying the severity of the attack. It left many wondering if the FBI chief thought he was addressing a congressional hearing or giving a TED Talk on “What Ifs.”
During the questioning, Rep. Kevin Kiley of California tried to pin Wray down about how close the assailant’s bullet came to making Trump a martyr. Instead of confidently declaring that it was a clear and present danger, Wray threw out a half-hearted suggestion that it might be “shrapnel” that grazed the president’s ear. It’s shocking how someone with such a high-profile job could be so blissfully vague about the details of an assassination attempt on a former president. Given the gravity of the situation, the FBI chief probably should’ve brought a PowerPoint presentation instead of speculatory mumbo jumbo.
In today's hearing, Dir Wray made sure to suggest that shrapnel may have caused President Trump's injury. TWICE. Disgraceful.
"either [the bullet] or some shrapnel is what grazed his ears"
"There's some question about whether or not it's a bullet or shrapnel that hit his ear" pic.twitter.com/T1KuYircaS
— K Fitton (@KelFitton) July 25, 2024
As the committee chair, Jim Jordan probed further into the matter, inquiring about the whereabouts of the remaining bullets fired during the assassination attempt. Wray’s feeble response was even less reassuring, as it appeared he was fumbling for details that any decent detective would have on hand. When pressed about the whereabouts of eight bullets, instead of rising to the occasion, Wray seemed to shrug his shoulders–classic bureaucratic response.
One cannot help but wonder if the FBI has shifted its focus from justice to a perpetual state of confusion. In that testimony, Wray’s insistence that there was “some question” about whether Trump had been hit at all sounded less like a professional analysis and more like a justification for the agency’s glaring incompetence. Did the FBI roll the dice on retaining detail in their reports? Because if there’s any case that deserves clarity, it’s the potential assassination of a former president.
What’s even more alarmingly absurd is that almost two weeks after the incident, Wray claims to be uncertain whether the former president was hit by a bullet or merely an innocent piece of flying debris. Either way, the stakes are sky-high; it shouldn’t require a PhD in forensic science to understand that both could have resulted in dire consequences for Trump. Taxpayers are footing an $11 billion bill for the FBI, so one would hope they’d buy a little more diligence in understanding what happened in this high-stakes scenario.
This entire debacle highlights a larger issue within the federal government—a failure to protect its own. With security lapses from the Secret Service regarding the assassination attempt, the American public is left grappling with the unsettling truth: The agencies tasked with our safety seem more focused on fluffy narratives than on accountability. As citizens stress over rising grocery prices, they’re compelled to ponder how it’s possible that their government can’t keep a former president safe while happily burning through billions of taxpayer dollars. It’s time for a serious cleanup in D.C. because the swamp is only ever getting murkier.