Referral Filed Against Former FBI Director Over Alleged Congressional Deception

Government watchdog group demands Justice Department investigation into high-ranking official’s testimony regarding controversial investigations that rocked the bureau

A prominent Washington-based government transparency organization has taken the extraordinary step of requesting federal criminal charges against a former high-ranking FBI official, alleging systematic deception of Congress and obstruction of critical investigations that have dominated headlines for years. The explosive referral represents one of the most significant challenges to federal law enforcement leadership in recent memory, potentially exposing serious misconduct at the highest levels of the nation’s premier investigative agency.

The criminal referral, filed with both the Justice Department and the FBI itself, centers on allegations that deliberately false testimony was provided to congressional investigators during multiple high-profile hearings. The accusations suggest a pattern of misleading statements designed to obscure the true scope and nature of controversial bureau activities that have sparked intense political debate and raised fundamental questions about the agency’s objectivity and priorities.

This development comes at a time when public trust in federal law enforcement agencies has already been severely tested by a series of controversies and scandals. The timing of the referral, and the serious nature of the allegations contained within it, threatens to further destabilize confidence in institutions that have traditionally commanded broad public respect and bipartisan support.

The Foundation of Serious Criminal Allegations

According to Fox News Digital, Oversight Project President Mike Howell has formally requested that federal authorities open a criminal investigation into former FBI Director Christopher Wray, focusing on what the organization characterizes as deliberately false testimony provided to Congress on multiple occasions. The referral targets two specific areas where Wray’s congressional testimony allegedly diverged significantly from the documented facts.

The first major allegation centers on Wray’s statements regarding the so-called “Richmond memo,” a controversial document that emerged from the FBI’s Virginia field office and sparked a firestorm of criticism for its apparent anti-Catholic bias. During July 2023 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Wray characterized this document as an isolated incident from a single field office, claiming he was “aghast” when he learned of it and immediately ordered its withdrawal from FBI systems.

“Well, what I can tell you is you’re referring to the Richmond product, which is a single product by a single field office, which, as soon as I found out about it, I was aghast and ordered it withdrawn and removed from FBI systems,” Wray testified under oath during the congressional hearing.

However, the Oversight Project alleges that this characterization was fundamentally misleading, if not completely false. The organization points to evidence suggesting that the Richmond memo was not an isolated incident but rather part of a broader pattern of similar documents and investigations targeting traditional Catholic communities across multiple FBI field offices.

The second major area of alleged false testimony involves Wray’s statements regarding a Chinese Communist Party scheme to distribute fraudulent driver’s licenses in the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election. The Oversight Project alleges that Wray provided misleading testimony about the FBI’s knowledge of and response to this foreign interference operation, potentially downplaying the significance of the threat for political reasons.

The Scope of Anti-Catholic Bias Allegations

The allegations regarding anti-Catholic bias within the FBI have proven to be far more extensive than initially understood when the Richmond memo first came to light. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, has been instrumental in uncovering the true scope of these activities through his ongoing oversight efforts.

During a June hearing focused on what Grassley characterized as Biden-era “cover-ups,” the veteran senator revealed that the Richmond memo was not an isolated incident as Wray had suggested. Instead, Grassley’s investigation uncovered evidence of a much broader pattern of bias and targeting.

“Based on records I released the other week, there wasn’t just one FBI document that used biased anti-Catholic sources, but over a dozen,” Grassley said during his opening remarks. “And more FBI field offices were involved than we’d been led to believe.”

The senator’s investigation revealed that the Richmond memo relied heavily on what he described as “the shoddy research of the radical Southern Poverty Law Center to accuse traditional Catholics of being violent extremists.” This reliance on partisan sources to target religious communities has raised serious constitutional concerns about religious freedom and the appropriate limits of federal law enforcement activities.

Perhaps most damaging to Wray’s credibility is the revelation that a second Richmond memo existed, similar in content to the first but intended for broader distribution throughout the FBI. This second document, which remained unreleased following the public backlash over the first memo, contained warnings that “RMVE (Racially Motivated Violent Extremism) interest in RTC (Radical Traditional Catholic) ideology is likely to increase … in the run-up to the [2024] general election cycle.”

The existence of this second memo directly contradicts Wray’s testimony that the Richmond document was a singular product from one field office. Instead, it suggests a coordinated effort to monitor and potentially target traditional Catholic communities that extended beyond any single FBI office or individual agent.

The Extent of Document Distribution and Access

The scale of the anti-Catholic bias allegations becomes even more troubling when considering the widespread distribution of these materials within the FBI. Senator Grassley’s investigation revealed that the problematic documents had been disseminated far more broadly than initially disclosed, potentially influencing the actions and priorities of hundreds or thousands of FBI personnel.

Grassley told Fox News in June that his office had uncovered 13 additional documents similar to the Richmond memo, suggesting a systematic pattern rather than isolated incidents. Even more concerning, he revealed that “at least 1,000 people had access to information that … was telling people that the Catholic Church needed to be watched because it could be considered a terrorist organization.”

This widespread distribution of biased intelligence products raises serious questions about the FBI’s internal review and approval processes. The fact that such materials could be created, approved, and distributed to such a large number of personnel without appropriate oversight suggests fundamental failures in the bureau’s quality control and constitutional compliance mechanisms.

The Oversight Project has specifically alleged that “Director Wray’s testimony was inaccurate not only because it failed to reveal the scope of the memo’s production and dissemination, but also because it failed to reveal the existence of a second, draft product on the same topic intended for external distribution to the whole FBI.”

The Chinese Election Interference Cover-Up Allegations

The second major component of the criminal referral involves allegations that Wray misled Congress about the FBI’s knowledge of Chinese Communist Party efforts to interfere in the 2020 presidential election through the distribution of fraudulent identification documents. This aspect of the case has gained renewed attention under current FBI Director Kash Patel, who has been more forthcoming about the previous administration’s handling of the investigation.

During September 2020 testimony, Wray told Senator Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat, that the FBI had “not seen historically any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether by-mail or otherwise.” While Wray acknowledged that the FBI had uncovered instances of localized voter fraud, his testimony suggested that no significant, coordinated threats existed.

However, newly released documents provided to Congress by Director Patel in June appear to contradict Wray’s characterization of the FBI’s knowledge and concerns. These documents allegedly reveal that as early as August 2020, the bureau was aware of and actively investigating a Chinese scheme to mass-produce fraudulent identification documents that could potentially be used to aid then-candidate Joe Biden’s campaign.

Patel has been particularly critical of his predecessor’s handling of this matter, stating in a June statement that “former FBI leadership withheld the facts and misled the public on China’s 2020 election interference. And they did so for political gain. This FBI is exposing all of it and giving Americans the truth they deserve.”

The current FBI director has alleged that the bureau under Wray’s leadership “buried” evidence of Chinese interference in 2020 for what he characterized as political expediency. This represents a remarkable public criticism of a predecessor by a sitting FBI director, underscoring the seriousness of the allegations and the extent to which current leadership believes previous decisions were inappropriate or potentially criminal.

Legal Framework and Potential Charges

The Oversight Project’s criminal referral specifically alleges violations of several federal statutes that govern truthfulness in congressional testimony and cooperation with legislative oversight. According to Fox News, the organization has identified potential violations including obstructing proceedings before Congress, perjury, and providing false statements to federal investigators.

Obstruction of congressional proceedings is a serious federal crime that can result in significant penalties, including substantial prison time. The statute is designed to protect Congress’s constitutional oversight function by ensuring that witnesses provide truthful and complete testimony when appearing before legislative committees.

Perjury charges would be based on allegations that Wray knowingly provided false information while under oath during his congressional testimony. This is among the most serious charges that can be brought against a public official, as it strikes at the heart of the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of government.

The false statements allegations would likely be pursued under federal statutes that criminalize providing misleading or incomplete information to Congress, even in contexts where the witness is not under oath. These charges recognize that Congress’s oversight function depends on receiving accurate and complete information from executive branch officials, regardless of the formal circumstances of their testimony.

Congressional Response and Ongoing Oversight

The allegations against Wray have not emerged in a vacuum but rather as part of extensive congressional oversight efforts that have been ongoing for several years. Representative Tom Tiffany, a Wisconsin Republican, has been particularly active in questioning FBI leadership about what he characterizes as a pattern of bias and misconduct within the bureau.

During one particularly revealing exchange, Tiffany questioned Wray about both the Richmond memo and a so-called “Trump questionnaire” that was allegedly circulated within the FBI to probe agents’ loyalty to the former president and determine whether they had participated in protests or rallies linked to the January 6 Capitol breach.

“We keep hearing about these ‘isolated examples’ whether it’s Richmond Catholics, this [questionnaire] — isn’t it a pattern?” Tiffany asked, highlighting what he saw as a broader problem of political bias within the FBI rather than isolated incidents of poor judgment.

This line of questioning reflects a growing concern among Republican lawmakers that the FBI under Wray’s leadership had become politically weaponized, targeting conservative political and religious groups while downplaying threats from other sources. The criminal referral represents an escalation of these concerns from political criticism to formal allegations of criminal conduct.

Current FBI Leadership’s Response

The current FBI director, Kash Patel, has taken a markedly different approach to these controversies than his predecessor, choosing to be more transparent about previous investigations and more critical of past leadership decisions. This shift in approach has provided much of the documentary evidence that now forms the basis of the criminal referral against Wray.

Patel has specifically thanked Senator Grassley for his assistance in bringing these issues to light, suggesting a level of cooperation between current FBI leadership and congressional oversight that was largely absent during Wray’s tenure. This collaboration has been instrumental in uncovering the full scope of the controversial activities and the extent to which they may have been misrepresented to Congress.

The current director’s willingness to criticize his predecessor’s handling of the Chinese interference investigation is particularly significant, as it provides official FBI support for allegations that evidence was inappropriately suppressed or mischaracterized for political reasons. This internal criticism adds substantial weight to the external allegations being made by congressional investigators and government watchdog groups.

Implications for Federal Law Enforcement Credibility