Judge dismisses case against 2 ex-FBI officials in Hunter Biden probe
A federal magistrate judge on Monday dismissed a criminal complaint charging two former senior FBI counterintelligence officials with lying to Congress about their roles in the bureau’s Hunter Biden investigation, saying the politically charged case lacked evidence and appeared to be timed with the midterm election.
In a scathing, hour-long oral ruling, Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui rebuked the Justice Department and the FBI for what he called a “slapdash” case that lacked any probable cause that there was evidence Nikki Floris or Bradley Benavides had committed a crime.
“Without motive, without direct evidence, I have nothing,” he said. “It’s not close. It’s nothing.”
“I am deeply troubled by what has happened in this case,” Faruqui said. “What has transpired here can’t be described as anything other than weaponization.”
Although the complaint was dismissed, the Justice Department could still appeal Faruqui’s ruling to the chief judge or seek a grand jury indictment.
CBS News has reached out to the Justice Department, the FBI and the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office for comment.
Floris was a former top intelligence analyst in charge at the bureau’s Washington Field Office, while Benavides was the former deputy assistant director at the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division. The two embraced outside the courtroom after the decision as Floris cried tears of relief.
They were flanked by numerous former senior Justice Department and FBI officials who had come to support them, including former Acting FBI Director Brian Driscoll and Steve Jensen, the former head of the FBI’s Washington Field Office.
“This case should have never been brought,” said Margaret Donovan, one of Floris’ attorneys, in a statement to reporters outside the courthouse. “This was a slapdash complaint, spaghetti at the wall, Hunter Biden conspiracy fever dream. But facts still matter in a courtroom.”
The criminal case against Floris and Benavides has been highly unusual since it first came to light earlier this month.
Prosecutors charged the pair in a criminal complaint, a charging document that is generally only used in felony cases that pose exigent public safety or national security threats. Usually, prosecutors secure a grand jury indictment before filing charges.
After midnight on the eve of the court hearing’s first day last Tuesday, prosecutors used an unsigned and unsworn superseding complaint to try to add new charges of obstructing Congress — a maneuver the magistrate judge said was improper and unheard of.
Faruqui struck the superseding complaint from the record, saying it lacked proper judicial review. But he allowed the hearing on the original complaint to proceed in a marathon evidentiary proceeding with three days of testimony that culminated in Monday’s extraordinary decision.
Throughout those three days, FBI Special Agent Bryan Witt, who was assigned to help investigate the matter, candidly acknowledged to the court that the case had not been handled like any other in his career.
He testified that it was opened at the behest of FBI Director Kash Patel just one day after President Donald Trump gave a televised speech in July where he accused intelligence officials of engaging in a coverup to hide China’s interference in the 2020 election and ordered the Justice Department to pursue prosecutions. Throughout the investigation, senior officials including the FBI’s deputy directors and Patel himself checked on the progress.
Witt also acknowledged that he feared it might be viewed as political and that others in his FBI field office in Kansas City were concerned it was a witch hunt.
Faruqui, a former federal prosecutor himself, at one point also quoted aloud from the Justice Department Manual, which stipulates that prosecutors should not take overt investigative or prosecutorial steps intended to affect or influence the outcome of an election.
“Why did this have to be charged in October 2026?” he asked out loud, noting there was no concern with the statute of limitations expiring in the near future.
“There was simply no other event on the calendar, except for the midterm elections,” he said. He added that he refused to bury his head in the sand and pretend the timing was not an issue.
“I will not lobotomize myself in this way,” he added.
The case against Floris and Benavides hinged on testimony they had provided to the House Judiciary Committee in July and September 2023.
In particular, it focused on an FBI counterintelligence operation by the Foreign Influence Task Force known as “Round River,” which prosecutors said was focused on collecting “derogatory informant reporting on, among other things, Hunter Biden, to flag the reporting as Russian disinformation.”
Floris served as the deputy assistant director of the FITF from mid-2019 through mid-2022, while Benavides served as its section chief from mid-2019 through the 2020 election, according to the complaint.
In those roles, Floris and Benavides provided defensive briefings to Sens. Charles Grassley and Ron Johnson in August 2020, and this ultimately led the House Judiciary Committee to summon the pair to testify about three years later.
During the three-day hearing on the case, problems with the strength of the evidence and the lack of adequate investigation came to light.
In order to show probable cause in a false statements case, prosecutors must demonstrate that the defendants made false statements, that they did so knowingly and willfully, and that those statements were material.
Faruqui ticked through each of the three elements of the offense on Monday, finding that the government had failed to meet each threshold.
He compared and contrasted the government’s complaint with prior false statement cases where the elements of the offense had been met, citing the cases against former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and former Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby.
“It’s clear to me the rushed investigation had a goal. It was a rush to charge — and that is a problem,” he said.
During his testimony, Witt acknowledged, for instance, that the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee had refused to allow FBI agents to interview congressional staffers who had been present for Floris and Benavides’ testimony — a crucial step needed to establish materiality in the case.
The only person he was ultimately allowed to speak with was Steve Castor, the general counsel for the House Judiciary Republicans, who acknowledged he had not witnessed Benavides’ testimony or reviewed the transcript. Witt did not speak with anyone on behalf of the committee’s Democrats.
Career prosecutors later realized the potentially fatal mistake and tried to raise it before the case was charged. In a taped conversation released to defense lawyers by the government, Carlton Davis, a political appointee who is special counsel to U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, could be heard admitting the mistake.
“I have one issue that I’m getting hammered on over here,” Faruqui quoted Davis as saying. “I realize this is our f***-up.”
Faruqui also noted there were numerous errors in the original charging document compared with the superseding version he later dismissed — and even Witt himself made misstatements on the stand — misstatements he noted were not criminal because he did not think Witt intended to lie.
He openly pondered why the government had failed to pressure test the case before proceeding to charge it, and likened the three-day hearing to the equivalent of an indictment review.
Instead of working out the problems and the mistakes privately within the Justice Department, he said, those issues got worked out “in open court for the whole world to watch.”
He also lamented the collateral consequences that the case could have, noting it was practically “marketing material” for deterring people from joining the FBI’s ranks, and would have a “chilling effect” on Congress’ ability to take people’s testimony. In the future, he said, Congress can expect that more people will plead the Fifth Amendment, and be deterred from appearing voluntarily as Floris and Benavides both did.
Above all, he predicted the case would erode confidence in the Justice Department and said he also felt sorry not just for the defendants, but also for the career prosecutors and agents who were forced to participate.
“This case is dismissed,” he said. “I am sorry you have been dragged through this process.”
