Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) asked questions of key public import and interest during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with FBI Director Christopher Wray on Tuesday, including some about Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

That should be expected of a United States senator. Unfortunately, most senators have a tendency to use hearings to posture for political appeal and generate made-for-TV soundbites. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) offered an example in kind when questioning the FBI director. Did Van Hollen ask Wray about Chinese or Russian intelligence service threats? Did he ask him about the domestic terrorist threat? Did he ask him about Iranian assassination plots? Did he ask him about election security?

No. No, he did not.

Instead, he asked Wray to confirm that the FBI was not responsible for orchestrating the Jan. 6, 2021 riots at the U.S. Capitol. Wray, of course, rightly did so. It was a pointless question designed only to earn Wray’s gratitude. But then Van Hollen got to what he really wanted to ask about: the speed of the FBI’s support for planning the construction of the bureau’s new headquarters in Maryland. Van Hollen’s interest here is clear: He wants to get construction started as soon as possible. While he knows these headquarters would boost Maryland’s economy, he also knows that the selection process for the headquarters reeks of political interference by the Democratic Party. The FBI wanted the new headquarters to be located in northern Virginia where many of its employees reside. Wray gave his answers. Then it was Kennedy’s turn.

Kennedy began by hitting Van Hollen for his narrow partisan agenda, teasing Wray, “Mr. Director, welcome. I bet you just love talking about where to put the FBI building, don’t you? Probably one of your favorite topics.”

Kennedy then showed how a senator should conduct oversight, asking, “If you took the major Mexican drug cartels … and turned them upside down and shook them, President López Obrador would fall out of their pockets wouldn’t he?” Wray responded, “I don’t know that I can comment on a specific individual’s corruption other than through cases that we bring, but I understand the point that you’re making, for sure.”

Think about the final part of that response: “I understand the point that you’re making, for sure.” This isn’t exactly a glowing FBI testament to López Obrador’s incorruptibility, is it? Kennedy continued, “We’re not getting much cooperation from Mexico, are we?”

Praising “working-level” Mexican law enforcement cooperation with the U.S., an important point of praise considering the grave risks and loss of lucrative rewards that come with being an honorable Mexican law enforcement officer, Wray added, “We need a heck of a lot more [cooperation].” Kennedy then moved to possible solutions to get that improved cooperation.

“Why don’t we use leverage of what I call NAFTA 2 to try to encourage the president of Mexico to cooperate more?” Kennedy asked, referring to the 2019 U.S.-Canada-Mexico free trade agreement. That trade deal featured reduced U.S. tariffs and additional export market opportunities for Mexican businesses. Kennedy’s point is well-made: Mexico would suffer significant economic harm with the removal of these trade benefits — harm that might just be enough to see López Obrador stop stuffing his and his Morena party pockets with cartel gold and start cooperating a little more against those same cartels.

Considering the political nature of his question, Kennedy likely knew that Wray wouldn’t respond directly. Still, Wray responded in part, “We welcome every tool in the toolbox to try to improve the relationship and the cooperation [with Mexico against the cartels].” That’s a pretty clear signal of support for significant policy action to address López Obrador’s current do-as-you-please-as-long-as-you-pay-me-well policy toward the cartels.

In a three-minute period, Kennedy thus got the FBI director to strongly imply that the president of Mexico is in bed with the drug cartels and that Wray supports much bolder policy action to redress this concern. This is what effective legislative oversight looks like. Or at least it should look like this. Kennedy wasn’t done, however.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The senator then asked Wray why the FBI hadn’t brought more charges against other individuals associated with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s child sex trafficking network. Kennedy noted that the FBI is thought to be in possession of video evidence showing high-profile individuals engaged in sex acts with children. Wray wouldn’t offer specific answers but noted, “I share your disgust” as pertaining to Epstein and Maxwell. Kennedy then interrupted, “And others,” to which Wray responded, “The whole operation.” Again, it was an instructive response. By suggesting the involvement of an organized group or structure in the Epstein saga, Wray may be implying further investigative work is underway.

Kennedy deserves credit for his striking contrast with Van Hollen. Like Sen. Angus King (I-ME), who often asks probing questions of military leaders, Kennedy has reminded Americans what oversight of the executive looks like.