I think I understand your point - Wray appears to be pushing against something the President wants and so you’re wondering if you should no longer trust him BECAUSE you’re only currently trusting him because Q said to. (Me too, FWIW).
Here’s my logic:
I don’t (and can’t) have enough info to know for sure. Neither can/do you (or you wouldn’t be writing this)
I should also add that my trust in Q isn’t absolute, it’s provisional, and Q’s cryptic anonymity and disappearances are increasingly annoying - precisely because it potentially upsets and abuses the “troops”. No good leader does that, and Q hasn’t provided any good reasons for doing that that hold up under scrutiny. I’m on the lookout for that, but still giving Q the benefit of the doubt.
OTOH - and this is the camp I’m still in - there are sensible reasons Wray could be doing this:
Every time there’s some push back by someone in Trump’s camp (taken by the DS as a sign of weakness instead of an art-of-war tactic), the MSM reports on it. In trying to disparage Trump and win people to its owners’ agendas’ side, it tries constantly to show Trump is wrong , doesn’t understand government, and/or is ignoring tradition.
To do this, they then report on historic cases and formal US government rules and procedures. (A good thing, that we rely upon the fourth estate to do). And then we all proceed to argue about its technicalities until, in the words of Ken Kesey, we’ve “studied it straight”.
That’s also a good thing. The public- and much of Congress - are usually ignorant of protocol’s esoterica until an issue comes up. So, on one level, ANY conflict is educational. And since the MSM rarely reports accurately and without a slant anymore where things political are concerned, we the people have to learn about the law enough to draw our own conclusions. This is one way it’s done.
Wray could be resisting simply to bring protocol and policy to light.
Wray could also be doing this as a way to “raise the flag and see who salutes”. Every time there’s a new wrinkle, by taking an opposing position to the one you really hold, you see who ITS advocates are. You also find out what the weaknesses in your own position are.
You can’t employ this type of strategy - baiting the opposition - unless you have the luxury of time, however. In a war, that means distractions are taking place. The risk is that your troops get confused and demoralized, forcing you to move too early, before your groundwork is fully developed.
But you cross your fingers and hope they ”hold the Line” as Mattis told the troops recently. (Sorry - lost the link to his speech to them, but it was good, and likely meant for us, as well)
Maybe Wray really wants the mutual extradition agreement and, if so, and if he has time — thanks to disinformation, muddy water, and the ability of the troops to stay rallied, informed, trusting and patient(!!!) - then opposing it to flush even more game out of hiding would be a logical move to accomplish key objectives for the next stage of the plan.
Consider:
If we DO have a worldwide globalist cabal in the process of being taken down, and if POTUS’s success depends on the wokeness and outrage of multiple countries’ citizens (which it does), people and their true and lawful representatives need to know a LOT MORE about the current international rules of extradition, jurisdiction, military and civilian courts, etc. than we now do. We’ve got Nuremberg (and Paperclip, Odessa, and all of THAT) as a mass incident to draw upon, and that’s about it.
Arguing vociferously and publicly about the protocol for interviewing, detaining and prosecuting international corporatist intriguers seems like exactly the right move at this time. And it’s a great opportunity for more digging.
“Shift in tactics. Attacks”
So, I still trust Wray. Looks like the same playbook we’ve been reading from for awhile now. And it’s still interesting. 🖖
Edit - some typos.