U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui dismissed the case Monday, November 2, finding that prosecutors failed to establish probable cause that former FBI officials Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides knowingly made false statements to lawmakers.
During his ruling, Faruqui sharply criticized the Justice Department’s handling of the investigation, questioning its timing, the evidence presented and the unusual procedures prosecutors used to bring the case.
The judge described the prosecution as an example of the weaponization of federal law enforcement, raising concerns about whether the investigation was driven by political considerations rather than sufficient evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
The political news that affects your wallet, your rights and your vote, broken down in plain language. Free in your inbox.
The case centered on testimony Floris and Benavides gave to the House Judiciary Committee in 2023 about their knowledge of the FBI’s handling of information related to Hunter Biden, the son of former President Joe Biden.
Both officials previously held senior positions in the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force, a unit responsible for investigating attempts by foreign governments, including Russia and China, to interfere in American elections.
Prosecutors accused the former officials of misleading congressional investigators about their involvement in efforts to examine the laptop and related intelligence. The criminal complaint alleged that they falsely denied or minimized what they knew about the bureau’s activities.
Floris and Benavides denied wrongdoing. Their attorneys argued that the prosecution was politically motivated and that the government had failed to establish that their congressional testimony was intentionally deceptive.
Faruqui found that some of the statements prosecutors identified were not false. Others could have resulted from honest mistakes of memory rather than deliberate attempts to mislead Congress. He also questioned whether prosecutors had established that the testimony actually interfered with the House investigation.
The judge’s concerns extended beyond the allegations themselves to how the investigation began.
An FBI agent assigned to investigate the former officials, Bryan Witt, testified that the inquiry began after Trump delivered a primetime speech about election security in July. Trump called for scrutiny of intelligence officials who had questioned claims about Chinese interference in the 2020 presidential election.
According to testimony described by Reuters and the Associated Press, FBI Director Kash Patel assigned the investigation to the bureau’s Kansas City field office the following day. Witt testified that senior FBI officials closely monitored the investigation through meetings, emails and video conferences.
The agent also acknowledged concerns that the investigation could be viewed as political. Defense attorneys used that testimony to challenge the government’s explanation for pursuing the former officials.
Faruqui questioned the lack of evidence establishing a motive for the alleged lies and criticized prosecutors for what he described as serious procedural mistakes.
The prosecution also drew scrutiny over its use of a criminal complaint instead of seeking an indictment through a grand jury. A criminal complaint allows prosecutors to formally accuse someone of a crime, while a grand jury indictment requires a panel of citizens to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to bring formal charges.
The judge previously criticized prosecutors for filing an amended complaint with an additional charge on the public court docket without first obtaining the required judicial review. The filing was subsequently marked as having been entered in error.
The investigation revisits a controversy that became a major issue during the 2020 presidential election. Hunter Biden’s laptop, which the Justice Department says was dropped off at a Delaware computer repair shop in 2019, became the subject of intense political debate after material from the device surfaced during the campaign.
Republican lawmakers, including Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, have argued that FBI officials improperly handled information related to the laptop and efforts to investigate the Biden family.
The former FBI officials’ prosecution was tied to those broader allegations. However, Monday’s ruling focused on whether prosecutors had sufficient evidence to establish that Floris and Benavides committed crimes by misleading Congress.
The dismissal does not necessarily end the Justice Department’s efforts to prosecute the former officials. Prosecutors could still attempt to bring the case through a grand jury indictment, although that would require obtaining approval from grand jurors.
The Justice Department said it disagreed with the judge’s decision and was evaluating its options, according to Reuters.
For now, the ruling leaves the government without an active criminal complaint against Floris and Benavides and places renewed scrutiny on how the Trump administration has used federal law enforcement to investigate individuals connected to disputes involving the 2020 election.
The Justice Department’s Next Move
The decision comes at a politically sensitive moment, with congressional control at stake in Tuesday’s midterm elections. The judge specifically questioned the timing of the prosecution, noting that the investigation moved forward shortly after Trump publicly called for scrutiny of intelligence officials involved in disputes surrounding the 2020 election.
The ruling also raises questions about the evidence prosecutors had assembled before bringing charges against the former FBI officials.
For Floris and Benavides, the dismissal removes the immediate threat of prosecution under the complaint. For the Justice Department, the next step will be deciding whether to pursue an indictment or abandon the case.
