Judge rejects amended complaint in case against two ex-FBI officials

U.S. Magistrate Zia Faruqui rejected an amended criminal complaint against two former FBI officials on Tuesday, ruling that the Justice Department had filed the document without proper judicial approval. The complaint sought to add an obstruction charge against Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides, who face accusations of making false statements to Congress regarding their knowledge of a laptop associated with Hunter Biden. Faruqui stated he had never before seen a prosecutor submit an unsigned criminal complaint and described the move as inappropriate given the presumption of innocence.

The ruling followed a lengthy hearing where FBI agent Bryan Witt testified about the origins of the investigation. Witt acknowledged that the probe began after President Donald Trump delivered a primetime address in July focusing on election interference. Trump’s speech amplified theories about a disputed FBI intelligence report concerning Chinese influence on the 2020 election. Witt stated that FBI Director Kash Patel mandated the inquiry and assigned it to his office in Kansas City. He described the assignment as a huge distraction and said he had concerns the investigation would appear political.

Witt testified that Patel and FBI leadership maintained a keen interest in the case, instructing his team to investigate aggressively. He noted that the timing of the launch, shortly after the presidential address, made the inquiry appear political. Defense attorneys used this testimony to argue that the prosecution was driven by political motives rather than standard legal procedures. Mary Dohrmann, a lawyer for Floris, characterized the situation as evidence that the case involved political football rather than the law or facts.

The original case, announced Friday, alleges that Floris and Benavides downplayed their involvement in the FBI’s possession of the laptop during 2023 congressional interviews. The Justice Department contends this lack of transparency impeded the congressional investigation. The two former officials led the now-disbanded FBI Foreign Influence Task Force. Ron Safer, a lawyer for Benavides, challenged the government's assertion that his client lied, noting that Benavides was questioned years after leaving his position. Safer asked what evidence showed Benavides knew the correct answers in September 2023 but provided incorrect ones.

The laptop issue resurfaced in the final weeks of the 2020 campaign after the New York Post reported that Hunter Biden had left the device at a Delaware computer repair shop in 2019. The Post obtained a hard drive from Rudy Giuliani, a close Trump ally, and reported on emails showing foreign business dealings. Democrats and intelligence officials raised concerns about Russian involvement, particularly as the administration’s intelligence community assessed that Moscow sought to undermine the Democratic nominee. John Ratcliffe, then the national intelligence director, stated there were no signs of Russian involvement in the laptop's provenance.

Hunter Biden was later convicted on gun and tax charges and received a presidential pardon from his father in late 2024. The current legal battle is part of a series of high-profile actions by the Justice Department ahead of the midterm elections. Newly unsealed documents in a separate case show prosecutors are also attempting to reinstate charges against former FBI Director James Comey. Faruqui summarized the unusual nature of the Floris and Benavides case by noting that prosecutors appeared to be adding fuel to claims that the matter was anything but typical.

The judge’s decision to reject the amended complaint leaves the original charges in place while delaying the addition of the new obstruction count. The court did not immediately schedule a new hearing for the government to refile the documents correctly. Defense attorneys expressed satisfaction with the procedural win, while the Justice Department maintained its position that the two officials provided false statements to Congress. The case remains active in federal court, with further proceedings expected as the government reviews the magistrate's ruling.