Frankly, I think Trump is basically trying to get Wray to quit so that he, Trump, won't be seen to have, in the space of one year, fired two FBI Directors, both of whom have long and highly acclaimed law enforcement, government service, legal practice and prosecutorial careers. Trump knew precisely what he was getting when he nominated Wray, for it's not as though he pulled Wray's name from a hat and nominated him FBI Director.
- Wray on his approach to FBI investigations: "My commitment is to the rule of law, to the Constitution, to follow the facts wherever they may lead. And there isn't a person on this planet whose lobbying or influence could convince to just drop or abandon a properly predicated and meritorious investigation." (Source)
- Wray on special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation: "I would consider an effort to tamper with Director Mueller’s investigation to be unacceptable and inappropriate. ... I do not consider Director Mueller to be on a witch hunt." (Source)
I think too that Trump figures that he can sooner or later find a person who'll consent to being FBI Director and who will be a puppet who'll condone using the FBI as a tool for advancing Trump's political objectives. It seems very clear now that Trump's notion of jurisprudence, if he even has any sort of remotely accurate one, derives from what he's learned/experienced via the civil law matters in which he has been involved, mostly lawsuits. Several key differences include:
- Burden of proof
- Criminal cases are about using a preponderance of evidence and arguments to show "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a defendant did indeed commit the crime(s) of which s/he's accused.
- Civil cases are about using evidence and arguments to show that it's preponderantly more likely that one party's argument is stronger/weaker than the other's.
- Investigative process -- For many criminal cases, particularly the one's in which Trump has been involved, the plaintiff and defendant are private parties, not the government. As such, what isn't obtained in discovery must be obtain via a claimant having the money to pay for investigative support. Neither party, however, has even an inkling of the nature and extent of power, leverage and ability to obtain corroborating evidence that the FBI and other governmental law enforcement bodies do when conducting criminal investigations. For instance
- a civilian defendant can't file probable cause warrants and upon having them approved, execute them and seize property they will then scour to find what they're looking for.
- a civilian claimant cannot expect the voluntary cooperation of business, governmental or non-profit entities they solicit for information.
- Impacts and consequences -- The impact of a civil offense never affect the lawful conduct of life, whereas all criminal matters pertain precisely to that. The only difference is the scale and scope of the impacts and consequences.
Trump simply doesn't "get" those things, or if he does, he don't care. He thinks, as did Renaissance era monarchs, he and the country are indivisible, that is, what is bad for him is bad for the country and what disloyal to him personally is disloyal to the country. Of course, as the U.S. is a constitutional, federal democratic republic, nothing could be farther from the truth. Unlike, say, Louis XIV, the head of state is not also the state.