Federal Magistrate Throws Out Case Against Former FBI Officials, Citing ‘Weaponization’
A federal judge on Monday dismissed criminal charges against two former FBI officials accused of lying to Congress, delivering a sharp rebuke to the Justice Department over the timing and handling of the prosecution. U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui threw out the government’s case against Bradley Benavides and Nikki Floris during a hearing at the Prettyman Federal Courthouse in Washington, D.C. The two former officials had been charged roughly two weeks ago in connection with their 2023 congressional testimony about bureau investigations into Hunter Biden, son of former President Joe Biden. From the bench, Faruqui condemned the government’s inquiry as a hasty effort filled with errors. “I am deeply troubled by what has happened here,” Faruqui told the packed courtroom. “What transpired here can’t be described as anything other than weaponization.”
Timing and Process Questioned
The judge spent an hour explaining the rationale behind his ruling, pointing to procedural anomalies and the proximity of the charges to Tuesday’s midterm elections. He highlighted that the alleged false statements occurred in 2023, yet the department waited three years to act, bringing charges just before an election despite internal Justice Department rules against taking actions timed to influence voting. Faruqui observed that the investigation was initiated under FBI Director Kash Patel’s direction immediately after President Trump gave a mid-July primetime address revisiting 2020 election claims and calling for FBI action. He also pointed out that prosecutors filed the charges via a criminal complaint—a tool typically reserved for urgent risks like flight, expiring statutes of limitations, or immediate danger, none of which applied here. Instead, Faruqui noted that the only impending deadline was the upcoming election, stating he refused to ignore the calendar or overlook the timing of the filing. The judge also suggested that prosecutors bypassed a grand jury because the Justice Department has recently struggled to secure indictments from grand juries in Washington, D.C., in politically sensitive matters.
DOJ Pushes Back as Defense Celebrates
The Justice Department rejected the magistrate’s conclusions. In an official statement, a department spokesperson said the agency “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 spokesperson added that the department is weighing its options while remaining guided by facts, evidence. And the law rather than politics. Following the dismissal, former senior bureau colleagues gathered outside the courtroom to support Floris and Benavides. Margaret Donovan, an attorney representing Floris, praised the ruling, asserting that the government lacked a legitimate case and that facts ultimately prevailed in court. While the current complaint stands dismissed, Faruqui noted that the Justice Department retains the legal right to seek an indictment from a grand jury or file an appeal with the district’s chief judge.