WASHINGTON — A federal magistrate judge Tuesday tossed out a new obstruction charge against two former FBI officials accused of lying to Congress about inquiries regarding Hunter Biden, rebuking prosecutors for bypassing normal court procedures.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui rejected a superseding criminal complaint filed overnight by the Department of Justice against Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides. The updated document sought to add felony obstruction of a congressional proceeding to original charges filed last week accusing both officials of making false statements to lawmakers in 2023. However, government attorneys filed the document onto the public docket without an authorizing signature from a judge or an unsworn law enforcement officer, NBC News reported.
Judge questions DOJ procedures
During a contentious preliminary hearing in U.S. District Court in Washington, Faruqui sharply questioned the government’s approach, remarking that prosecutors had altered the standard charging process. He noted that complaints in the district typically require a probable cause finding from a judge before appearing on the public record, according to court reports.
Prosecutor John Borchert of the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Columbia acknowledged that the step had not been taken before and offered to have the complaint signed during Tuesday’s proceedings, NBC News reported. Faruqui rejected the proposal and struck the amended complaint from the record, noting that while he did not doubt prosecutors acted in good faith, the handling raised concerns that the legal system was being misused by higher-level officials.
Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for Washington, had downplayed the maneuver to reporters before the hearing, stating it was up to the judge whether to sign the document and accept the additional charge.
Defense claims case is political
Floris, a former deputy assistant director in the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, and Benavides, another former senior counterintelligence official, worked on the bureau’s Foreign Influence Task Force. Both previously faced intense criticism from allies of President Donald Trump over their work regarding the 2020 election, ABC News and NBC News reported. If convicted of the initial false-statement charges, each faces up to five years in prison, according to the New York Post.
Floris’ defense team denounced the overnight filing as an improper attempt to bolster a weak case and bypass judicial review. In a written statement, her attorneys called the submission an abuse of the charging process, adding that in decades of federal service they had never witnessed an unsigned complaint filed publicly in such a manner, ABC News reported.
During a break in Tuesday’s hearing, Floris was seen crying in a courthouse corridor, the New York Post reported.
Agent details origin of inquiry
With the obstruction charge thrown out, the court proceeded with a probable cause hearing on the original allegations. Prosecutors allege that Floris and Benavides misled the House Judiciary Committee in 2023 regarding their knowledge of matters concerning Hunter Biden’s laptop. Floris testified she had no knowledge of the laptop, while Benavides testified he first learned about it through Wikipedia, according to the New York Post.
FBI Special Agent Bryan Witt testified that internal chat records and messages contradicted Benavides’ testimony. However, Witt acknowledged during cross-examination that he lacked direct proof showing the former official made an intentionally false statement, the New York Post reported.
Witt also testified that the criminal inquiry originated after FBI Director Kash Patel sent a directive to the bureau’s Kansas City office instructng agents to investigate certain individuals, including Floris. Witt acknowledged that he had concerns the probe would be viewed as political, though he noted Patel did not personally pressure him on the case, NBC News reported.
The preliminary hearing was scheduled to resume Wednesday as the court considers whether prosecutors have established sufficient probable cause on the initial charges.
