A federal magistrate judge issued a decisive ruling on Monday, dismissing a criminal complaint against two former senior FBI counterintelligence officials. The officials, Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides, had been accused of lying to Congress regarding their involvement in the bureau’s investigation into Hunter Biden. The criminal case against Floris and Benavides has been highly unusual since it first came to light earlier this month.
In a scathing hour-long oral ruling, Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui criticized the Justice Department and the FBI for pursuing what he described as a “slapdash” case. Judge Faruqui noted the proceedings lacked any probable cause, stating plainly, “Without motive, without direct evidence, I have nothing. It’s not close. It’s nothing.” He further characterized the situation as a “weaponization” of the legal system, expressing deep concern over the nature of the prosecution. The FBI and the D.C, has reached out to the Justice Department. Saying it lacked proper judicial review, faruqui struck the superseding complaint from the record. How Alaska’s ranked choice voting system works. How the FBI Is Searching for Nancy Guthrie.
Floris, who served as a top intelligence analyst in the FBI’s Washington Field Office, and Benavides, the former deputy assistant director of the Counterintelligence Division, were observed embracing outside the courtroom following the dismissal. They were supported by several high-ranking former Justice and FBI figures, including former Acting FBI Director Brian Driscoll and former Washington Field Office head Steve Jensen. But facts still matter in a courtroom. ATF’s top lawyer, who oversaw overhaul of its firearms regulations, resigns.
Defense attorney Margaret Donovan stated outside the courthouse that the case should never have been initiated, describing the charges as a “Hunter Biden conspiracy fever dream” that lacked factual merit. The proceedings were considered highly irregular from the outset, as prosecutors utilized a criminal complaint—a tool typically reserved for immediate threats to national security—rather than seeking a traditional grand jury indictment. A charging document that is generally only used in felony cases that pose exigent public safety or national security threats, prosecutors charged the pair in a criminal complaint.
Testimony provided during a marathon three-day evidentiary hearing revealed significant internal friction. FBI Special Agent Bryan Witt, assigned to the matter, admitted the investigation was unconventional. Witt testified that the probe was launched at the direct request of FBI Director Kash Patel, following a July speech by President Donald Trump where he accused intelligence officials of covering up China’s interference in the 2020 election. 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. Judge orders DOJ to stop trying to “intimidate” California election officials.
Witt further acknowledged concerns within the FBI’s Kansas City field office that the investigation appeared to be a politically motivated “witch hunt.” Throughout the process, senior leadership, including Patel and other deputy directors, monitored the case’s progress closely.
The court also addressed a last-minute attempt by prosecutors to amend the complaint with new charges of obstructing Congress using an unsworn, unsigned document. Judge Faruqui rejected this maneuver as improper. He also referenced the Justice Department Manual, which forbids prosecutors from taking overt steps that could influence election outcomes.
Questioning the timing of the charges, which were brought in October 2026 without an impending statute of limitations deadline, Judge Faruqui stated, “There was simply no other event on the calendar, except for the midterm elections. Noting there was no concern with the statute of limitations expiring in the near future, why did this have to be charged in October 2026?” he asked out loud. Jacob Rosen contributed to this report.
He refused to overlook the potential political implications, stating, “I will not lobotomize myself in this way. While the complaint is dismissed, the Justice Department retains the option to seek a grand jury indictment or appeal the decision. He added that he refused to bury his head in the sand and pretend the timing was not an issue.
