A federal magistrate judge in Washington has thrown out criminal charges against two senior FBI officials accused of lying to Congress about the Hunter Biden laptop investigation, denouncing the prosecution as a weaponization of the Justice Department.
The decision by US Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui came after a two-day probable cause hearing for Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides, who once held top posts in the FBIs now-disbanded Foreign Influence Task Force. According to The New York Post, Faruqui concluded that the governments case against the pair built around 10 alleged false statements made during 2023 interviews with the House Judiciary Committee failed to meet the standard required to proceed, even though prosecutors needed only one viable count per defendant to move forward.
Prosecutors had claimed that Floris and Benavides downplayed their knowledge of the bureaus Hunter Biden investigations when questioned by congressional investigators. Benavides, for instance, told the committee he had learned details of the matter from Wikipedia, a statement prosecutors argued was implausible for an official in his position.
The controversy traces back to October 2020, when The Post first reported on the contents of Hunter Bidens abandoned laptop, a story that was quickly dismissed by 51 former intelligence officials as likely Russian disinformation. That narrative collapsed in 2024, when an FBI agent testified at Hunter Bidens gun trial that the laptop was in fact his, raising serious questions about the bureaus internal handling of the case and its candor with both Congress and the public.
During the hearing, Faruqui methodically dissected each of the alleged misstatements attributed to Floris and Benavides, signaling early skepticism about the strength of the prosecution. Defense attorneys, seizing on that opening, subjected the governments lone witness FBI Special Agent Bryan Witt to withering cross-examination that highlighted both procedural irregularities and potential political pressure surrounding the case.
Had the matter gone forward, it would have marked the highest-level criminal prosecution of federal officials arising from the Hunter Biden laptop saga. The stakes were evident in the courtroom atmosphere: Floris was seen weeping in the hallway during a break in Tuesdays session, and Faruqui began that same day by tossing out a superseding complaint that prosecutors had filed after midnight, an unusual move that underscored judicial frustration with the governments approach.
Wednesdays proceedings were dominated by Floris attorney, Margaret Donovan, who portrayed her client as a harried career bureaucrat overwhelmed by the sheer volume of her responsibilities. Donovan told the court that Floris supervised over 200-300 employees, and up to 600 after her promotion to acting assistant director, arguing that a few overlooked or forgotten messages about Hunter Biden were almost inevitable in such a demanding role.
Witt acknowledged that agents had combed through hundreds of thousands of Floris internal communications line by line, an exhaustive review that Donovan suggested was being used to manufacture a criminal case out of routine bureaucratic imprecision. How many hours [do you estimate she worked] in a day? Twelve, 14, 16? Donovan asked, before accusing the government of trying to cherry-pick five or six conversations out of hundreds of thousands.
You didnt factor in the demands of her position? Donovan pressed, suggesting that context and workload were critical to understanding any discrepancies in Floris testimony. I didnt see the relevance, no, Witt replied, a response that reinforced the defense narrative that investigators were more interested in scoring political points than in fairly assessing intent.
Donovan then walked through what she described as mitigating factors, including the lack of specific preparation Floris received on Hunter Biden before her Judiciary Committee appearance. She emphasized that the events in question had taken place three years earlier and even suggested that requiring Floris to answer detailed questions at 10 a.m. which she treated as effectively the crack of dawn for an overburdened executive further undermined the reliability of her recollections.
Whether it started at 10 a.m. or ended whenever is that relevant? Witt asked, pushing back on the notion that the timing of the interview excused inaccurate statements. Much of Donovans cross-examination, however, turned on semantics, particularly Floris statement to the committee that I did not when asked whether she had been involved in the Hunter Biden investigation, a phrase Donovan argued could be truthful depending on how involved and which specific investigation were defined.
Donovan stressed that Floris was a counterintelligence official, not a criminal investigator, and that merely asking questions about a criminal case run by another division did not make her involved in that matter. The reason we charged her is because we know she was involved in the Baltimore investigation, Witt countered, referring to the FBI field office that led the tax and gun-crimes probe of Hunter Biden, adding, She became involved by talking to the criminal division.
Benavides attorney, Ron Safer, advanced a similar line of defense, arguing that any inaccuracies in his clients congressional testimony amounted to misstatements rather than deliberate lies. He underscored that distinction by highlighting moments when even the governments own witness appeared to stumble over basic facts in a politically charged environment.
On redirect, prosecutors had asked Witt whether the House Judiciary Committee employed Democratic staffers, and he replied that he assumed so but had no idea. Safer then pointed out that the governments own exhibits identified Democratic staff members by title, exposing a glaring inconsistency in Witts testimony.
Basic civics tells us there are members of both parties on every committee, Safer said, using the moment to suggest that memory lapses and imprecise language are hardly unique to the defense. I shouldve said I dont know, Witt conceded, prompting Safer to pounce: But you didnt. Should we infer that you knowingly and willingly violated your oath?
Donovan closed by challenging Witt over his consultation with Steve Castor, the House Judiciary Committees Republican counsel, regarding the relevance of the alleged false statements, while failing to seek input from Castors Democratic counterpart. No one explained to me the partisanship nature of the committee, Witt said, an assertion that strained credulity in a town where partisan dynamics are impossible to ignore.
Witt also acknowledged that FBI Director Kash Patel had demanded check-ins on the case weekly, describing it as the first time in his career that top leadership had been so deeply involved in a false-statements investigation. That level of scrutiny, combined with Faruquis observation that the prosecution cannot be described as anything other than weaponization, leaves lingering concerns that the Justice Department and FBI institutions that should be above politics have allowed partisan battles over the Biden family to seep into their core functions, further eroding public trust in equal justice under the law.
Login