A federal magistrate judge on Tuesday scolded the Justice Department for its procedural handling of a criminal case against two former FBI officials. U.S. Magistrate Zia Faruqui rejected an amended criminal complaint filed by prosecutors against Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides, who are accused of making false statements to Congress regarding their knowledge of a laptop that the Justice Department says belonged to Hunter Biden.
The ruling followed a hearing where Faruqui found that the Justice Department had improperly submitted an amended complaint overnight without court approval. The new filing attempted to add an obstruction charge to the existing case against Floris and Benavides. Faruqui noted that such charging documents require a judge's sign-off to establish probable cause before being filed to the court docket.
During the hearing, Bryan Witt, an FBI agent who worked on the case, testified that the investigation was initiated following a July speech by President Donald Trump concerning election interference. Witt stated that FBI Director Kash Patel mandated the inquiry. Under questioning by defense attorneys, Witt said he was begrudgingly assigned to the case and expressed concerns that the investigation "would be political," describing it as a "huge distraction" from other work.
The defense team utilized the testimony to argue that the prosecution of the former officials was politically motivated. The court proceedings occur amid other Justice Department actions involving former bureau leadership, including an attempt to re-prosecute former FBI Director James Comey. Comey's legal representatives have characterized that separate effort as legally invalid.
The judge’s rejection of the amended complaint creates a procedural barrier to the government’s expanded prosecution. The testimony from Agent Witt provides a public look into internal friction between rank-and-file investigators and agency leadership regarding the origins of sensitive inquiries. These developments occur just days before the 2026 midterm elections.
The effects could influence future oversight of the FBI and the Department of Justice, particularly regarding how mandates from the FBI Director are documented and executed. The judge's decision to scold the government for "unorthodox handling" serves as a reminder that executive branch agencies remain subject to specific judicial approvals for criminal charging documents. What happens next involves the government deciding whether to refile the obstruction charge with the proper judicial sign-off or proceed solely on the original false statement counts; no specific trial date was reported following the Tuesday hearing.