Judge dismisses FBI agents' false-statements case, calls it 'weaponization' timed to midterms

A federal magistrate judge dismissed criminal charges against two former FBI officials on Monday, declaring from the bench that the Justice Department had engaged in "weaponization" by rushing a flimsy case to court just days before the midterm elections — and finding that prosecutors had failed to clear even the low legal bar of probable cause.

What has transpired here cannot be described as anything other than weaponization. I will not bury my head in the sand and pretend I cannot read a calendar.— Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui, U.S. District Court, Washington D.C.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui, in an hour-long oral ruling, dismissed the criminal complaint against Nikki Floris, a former top intelligence analyst at the FBI's Washington Field Office, and Bradley Benavides, a former deputy assistant director of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division. The two had been charged last month with making false statements to the House Judiciary Committee in 2023 about their roles in investigating Hunter Biden's laptop — the abandoned computer that eventually led to criminal charges against the son of former President Joe Biden.

Faruqui said the government had presented no evidence of intent, no direct evidence of wrongdoing, and no persuasive showing that any allegedly false statements had materially affected Congress's investigation. He noted the complaint contained factual errors — including incorrectly stating the testimony was given under oath — and that some statements attributed to the former officials as lies could instead reflect honest lapses of memory.

Without motive, without direct evidence, I have nothing. It's not close. It's nothing.— Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui

The case unraveled significantly during three days of rare public preliminary hearings last week, in which FBI Special Agent Bryan Witt — assigned to investigate Floris and Benavides — acknowledged under questioning that the probe had been regarded as a "witch hunt" within his Kansas City, Missouri, field office, and that he himself had seen it as a "distraction." Witt also testified that the investigation was opened on July 17, one day after President Donald Trump gave a primetime address calling on the Justice Department to pursue "rogue bureaucrats" he accused of covering up Chinese interference in the 2020 election. FBI Director Kash Patel personally assigned the case to the Kansas City office and demanded regular updates — a level of involvement Witt described as unusual.

Faruqui also faulted Attorney General Todd Blanche, Patel, and D.C. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro for making public statements maligning Floris and Benavides despite the thin evidence. He noted that the Justice Department had bypassed the grand jury process — filing a criminal complaint instead of seeking an indictment — and said it was "self-evident" the U.S. attorney's office was avoiding grand jury scrutiny. He said it was the first time in his tenure on the bench that he had found the government failed to establish probable cause.

This case is marketing material to discourage people from joining the FBI.— Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui

The case also drew procedural criticism. After midnight on the eve of last week's first hearing, prosecutors filed an unsigned, unsworn superseding complaint on the court docket — adding a new charge of obstructing Congress — without first obtaining judicial approval. Faruqui struck it from the record, calling the maneuver improper. He said the rush to charge had produced "critical mistakes" throughout.

The charges centered on testimony Floris and Benavides gave to the House Judiciary Committee in July and September 2023, respectively. Both had served on the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force, which was created after the 2016 election to monitor foreign interference in American politics. In August 2020, the pair briefed Republican Senators Charles Grassley and Ron Johnson, warning them that claims about Hunter Biden's laptop could be a Russian disinformation operation. The laptop later proved authentic. Prosecutors argued the former officials may have had an incentive to downplay their knowledge of the laptop because Joe Biden was president when they testified.

The government's key witness on materiality — whether the alleged false statements actually affected the congressional investigation — was Steve Castor, the longtime Republican counsel on the House Judiciary Committee. But Witt acknowledged Castor was not present for Benavides's interview, had not read the transcript of it, and that his account had sparked an internal Justice Department debate about how to proceed. Faruqui was openly unpersuaded.

You had three years to think of an answer for that, Mr. Castor. But I have nothing.— Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui

Outside the courthouse, Floris wept as she embraced Benavides. They were surrounded by former senior Justice Department and FBI officials who had come to show support, including former Acting FBI Director Brian Driscoll and Steve Jensen, former head of the FBI's Washington Field Office.

This case should have never been brought. This was a slapdash complaint, spaghetti at the wall, Hunter Biden conspiracy fever dream. But facts still matter in a courtroom.— Margaret Donovan, attorney for Nikki Floris

Attorneys for Benavides called the case "political theater" and praised Faruqui for carefully weighing "woefully inadequate evidence." Floris's attorneys said the charges had been "nothing more than a politically motivated smear campaign aimed at scoring political points before the midterm elections."

The Justice Department pushed back, saying it "disagrees with the Magistrate's decision, which remarkably appears to suggest that high-ranking government officials are immune from accountability for making materially false statements to Congress," and said it was "evaluating all options." Prosecutors could appeal Faruqui's ruling to the chief judge or seek a grand jury indictment — but the latter path appears difficult given the magistrate's findings and the recent track record of D.C. grand juries in politically charged Trump-era cases.

The dismissal is the latest setback for the Justice Department's efforts to prosecute individuals Trump views as adversaries. Last week, a D.C. grand jury rejected prosecutors' attempt to indict former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson on a charge of lying to Congress about January 6. Separately, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden is weighing whether to dismiss a criminal information filed against former FBI Director James Comey — the third criminal case filed against Comey in 13 months. The Foreign Influence Task Force that Floris and Benavides led was disbanded by the Trump administration after years of Republican criticism.

Why it matters — The ruling is the latest in a string of courtroom defeats for the Trump administration's efforts to prosecute perceived political enemies, and the judge's warning that the case will deter FBI recruitment and chill congressional testimony raises broader questions about the independence of federal law enforcement heading into the midterms.

Reported by theguardian.com, thehill.com, nbcnews.com, cbsnews.com, abcnews.com, foxnews.com, pbs.org, bostonglobe.com, seattletimes.com