A federal magistrate judge dismissed charges Monday against two former senior FBI officials accused of lying to Congress about Hunter Biden work, calling the case election-timed weaponization that lacked evidence.
Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui threw out the criminal complaint after a three-day evidentiary hearing, finding the Justice Department failed to show probable cause on every required element. Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides, once top counterintelligence figures at the bureau, walked free of the lying-to-Congress counts tied to the FBI’s Hunter Biden investigation.
CBS News reported that Faruqui delivered an hour-long oral ruling that left little doubt. He said the government had no motive proof, no direct evidence, and no close call on the law.
“Without motive, without direct evidence, I have nothing,” Faruqui said. “It’s not close. It’s nothing.”
The two defendants embraced outside the courtroom. Floris cried tears of relief. Former Acting FBI Director Brian Driscoll and former Washington Field Office head Steve Jensen stood with them in support.
Floris had served as deputy assistant director of the Foreign Influence Task Force from mid-2019 through mid-2022 and earlier as a top intelligence analyst at the Washington Field Office. Benavides had been a deputy assistant director in the Counterintelligence Division and FITF section chief from mid-2019 through the 2020 election. Prosecutors said their work included an operation known as “Round River.”
That operation, according to the complaint, collected derogatory informant reporting that touched on Hunter Biden and flagged some of it as Russian disinformation. The same long-running laptop and influence controversies have kept Hunter Biden in the public eye for years.
The criminal complaint accused Floris and Benavides of lying to Congress about their roles. Both had given defensive briefings to Sens. Charles Grassley and Ron Johnson in August 2020. Both later testified before the House Judiciary Committee in July and September 2023.
Faruqui methodically walked through the offense elements, false statements, knowing and willful conduct, and materiality, and found the government short on each one. He compared the record unfavorably to earlier false-statement cases that did meet the legal bar, including those involving Michael Flynn and Lewis “Scooter” Libby.
Prosecutors chose an unusual path. They filed a criminal complaint rather than first securing a grand jury indictment, a tool generally reserved for felony cases that pose urgent public-safety or national-security threats. Career prosecutors had already tried to flag a potentially fatal problem before the case was charged.
Then, after midnight on the eve of the hearing’s first day, prosecutors attempted to add obstructing-Congress charges through an unsigned and unsworn superseding complaint. Faruqui struck it from the record as improper and unheard of, noting it lacked proper judicial review. Numerous errors also appeared when the original charging document was stacked against the later version.
FBI Special Agent Bryan Witt, assigned from the Kansas City field office, testified across the three days. He candidly said the matter was not handled like any other case in his career. The investigation opened at the behest of FBI Director Kash Patel one day after President Donald Trump gave a televised speech in July. In that address Trump accused intelligence officials of a coverup meant to hide China’s interference in the 2020 election and directed the Justice Department to pursue prosecutions.
Witt acknowledged fear inside the bureau that the probe would be viewed as political. Colleagues voiced concern it looked like a witch hunt. House Judiciary Republicans refused to let FBI agents interview congressional staffers who had been present for the 2023 testimony. Witt ultimately spoke only with Steve Castor, general counsel for the committee Republicans, who himself had not witnessed Benavides’ testimony or reviewed the transcript. The judge noted Witt made misstatements on the stand but found no criminal intent to lie.
Earlier coverage had already detailed how two former FBI task force leaders faced charges over the same Hunter Biden laptop terrain. Faruqui now put the timing under a microscope.
“Why did this have to be charged in October 2026?” the judge asked aloud. He noted there was no near-term statute-of-limitations problem. “There was simply no other event on the calendar, except for the midterm elections.”
He refused to ignore the calendar. “I will not lobotomize myself in this way,” Faruqui added. “It’s clear to me the rushed investigation had a goal. It was a rush to charge, and that is a problem.”
Faruqui, a former federal prosecutor, did not soften his language. He quoted the Justice Department Manual’s warning that prosecutors should not take overt investigative or prosecutorial steps intended to affect an election’s outcome.
“I am deeply troubled by what has happened in this case,” Faruqui said. “What has transpired here can’t be described as anything other than weaponization.”
A taped conversation released to defense lawyers supplied another sharp moment. Carlton Davis, a political appointee serving as special counsel to U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, was recorded discussing a materiality gap.
“I have one issue that I’m getting hammered on over here,” Faruqui quoted Davis as saying. “I realize this is our f***-up.”
When the ruling landed, Faruqui addressed the defendants directly. “This case is dismissed,” he said. “I am sorry you have been dragged through this process.” He also warned of a chilling effect on FBI recruitment and on the willingness of officials to testify before Congress, plus erosion of public confidence in the Justice Department.
Margaret Donovan, one of Floris’ attorneys, spoke outside the courthouse after the decision.
"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."
A Justice Department spokesperson rejected the magistrate’s framing and stressed that high-ranking officials are not immune from accountability for false statements to Congress.
"[The Department] 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."
The same spokesperson said the department is evaluating all options but would not comment further on an ongoing criminal investigation. “The Department’s actions will continue to be guided by the facts, the evidence, and the law, not politics.” Prosecutors can still appeal Faruqui’s ruling to the chief judge or attempt to secure a grand jury indictment.
The underlying Hunter Biden controversies have generated their own trail of legal and political fights, including separate episodes in which Hunter Biden sought court protection for a large financial award. Parallel reporting has also tracked how former FBI task force chiefs confronted false-statement charges linked to the same investigative lane.
Floris and Benavides appeared voluntarily throughout. The hearing itself stretched across three full days of testimony before culminating in Monday’s dismissal. CBS News reached out to the FBI and the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office for additional comment.
The public record still contains the core dispute that made the case radioactive: how the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force treated informant reporting connected to Hunter Biden, and whether officials later described that work accurately under oath. Faruqui held that the particular complaint before him simply did not prove lying, willfulness, or materiality.
Americans can demand answers about foreign influence and unequal justice without accepting complaints that collapse under their own weight. Evidence still has to come first.
