Weaponization, Says the Judge: DOJ's Rushed FBI Official Case Collapses Two Weeks Before the Midterms

U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui speaking at a courthouse podium

Judge Zia Faruqui at the Prettyman Federal Courthouse in Washington, D.C. Photo: Craig Hudson/The Washington Post via Getty Images, via NPR.

By Dakota Jones
Desk: Crime, Law & Justice, Courts & Litigation

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has dismissed the Justice Department’s criminal complaint against two former senior FBI officials, delivering a sharp rebuke to a prosecution brought about two weeks before the midterm elections.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui said the government failed to establish probable cause that Nikki Floris or Bradley Benavides committed the alleged false-statements offense. The hour-long ruling was more than a procedural loss. Faruqui called the case “slapdash” and said, “What transpired here cannot be described as anything other than weaponization.”

The dismissal does not necessarily end the matter. DOJ could seek an indictment from a grand jury or appeal to the district’s chief judge. But the case now leaves behind pointed questions about how it was opened, investigated and charged, and why prosecutors moved when they did.

What happened: A complaint, a rushed inquiry, and a courtroom rebuke

Floris, a former deputy assistant director of the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force and a top intelligence analyst at the Washington Field Office, and Benavides, a former section chief of the task force and former deputy assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, were charged around two weeks ago.

The complaint accused them of lying to Congress during 2023 testimony to the House Judiciary Committee about FBI investigations involving Hunter Biden. A focus was “Round River,” a counterintelligence operation run by the Foreign Influence Task Force.

President Donald Trump addressing the nation from the White House

The investigation began after President Trump’s mid-July televised address. Photo via NPR.

The timing drew particular scrutiny. The investigation opened on FBI Director Kash Patel’s orders the day after President Trump gave a mid-July primetime address. In that speech, Trump repeated false claims about fraud in the 2020 election and urged the FBI to investigate. The alleged congressional statements, meanwhile, dated to 2023. DOJ waited three years, then charged the pair shortly before the midterms.

Faruqui asked, “Why did this have to be charged in October 2026?” He added: “There was simply no other event on the calendar, except for the midterm elections. I will not bury my head in the sand and pretend I cannot read a calendar.”

The charging method raised another question. Prosecutors used a criminal complaint, rather than first seeking a grand jury indictment. Complaints are generally used when circumstances demand urgency. Faruqui noted there was no imminent danger, flight risk or approaching statute-of-limitations deadline that explained the need to move this way.

Then came an overnight filing. After midnight on the eve of the hearing, prosecutors submitted an unsigned, unsworn superseding complaint adding obstruction-of-Congress charges. Faruqui struck it from the record, calling the maneuver improper and unheard of. The original complaint was the one before him.

Why the case fell short

A false-statements prosecution requires evidence that the statements were knowingly false, willful and material, that is, significant to the matter Congress was considering. Faruqui found the government had not established probable cause for any of the three elements.

The hearing showed why the court was unconvinced. FBI Special Agent Bryan Witt, the investigator, testified over three days. He said the case began at Patel’s behest and that senior officials, including Patel and FBI deputy directors, monitored its progress. Witt said he worried the investigation would be viewed as political; colleagues in the Kansas City field office, he testified, worried it was a witch hunt.

Investigators also did not get to interview House Judiciary staffers who had been present for the 2023 testimony. A potentially important step in establishing materiality. The committee’s Republican majority refused access. The only committee representative Witt interviewed was Steve Castor, the Republican committee’s general counsel. Castor had not witnessed Benavides’ testimony or reviewed its transcript.

A recorded conversation added an unusually blunt footnote. Carlton Davis, a political appointee serving as special counsel to U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, acknowledged the problem: “I realize this is our f-up.”* Faruqui compared the case unfavorably with the false-statements prosecutions of Michael Flynn and Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

Hunter Biden in Washington, D.C.

Hunter Biden, whose investigations were part of the subject of the former FBI officials’ congressional testimony. Photo via NPR.

The Justice Department rejected Faruqui’s characterization. A spokesperson said the decision appeared to suggest that high-ranking officials were immune from accountability for materially false statements to Congress. DOJ said it was evaluating its options and that its actions would be guided by facts, evidence and law, not politics.

That response does not answer the judge’s central question about the evidence actually presented. A serious allegation still needs a sufficiently serious investigation. The court found this one did not clear the probable-cause threshold.

Why it matters: Timing is part of public trust

DOJ policy says prosecutors should not take overt investigative or prosecutorial steps intended to affect an election. Faruqui did not treat the calendar as a footnote. He pointed to the three-year gap between the alleged testimony and the charges, the absence of an apparent emergency, and the proximity to the midterms.

That does not, by itself, establish improper motive. But when a prosecution arrives on this timeline, the department needs a persuasive explanation, and evidence that can withstand scrutiny. The judge said he saw neither in the record before him.

There is also a broader cost. Faruqui warned that a case like this could have a chilling effect on people willing to testify voluntarily before Congress. He said it could serve as “marketing material” for deterring people from joining the FBI. Those are consequences worth taking seriously: congressional oversight depends on witnesses speaking, and law enforcement depends on public confidence that cases are built on evidence rather than a desired headline.

Outside court, Floris embraced former colleagues, including former Acting FBI Director Brian Driscoll and former Washington Field Office head Steve Jensen. Floris’s attorney, Margaret Donovan, said the case “should never have been brought” and called it a “slap-dash complaint.” The judge’s own closing words were more restrained, but no less clear: “This case is dismissed. I am sorry you have been dragged through this process.”

Verdict: Dismissed, for now, and for reasons DOJ must confront

The court dismissed the complaint because prosecutors failed to establish probable cause on the required elements. That is not a trial verdict, and DOJ may still pursue an indictment or appeal. But the ruling is a pointed warning: political sensitivity does not lower the evidentiary bar, and procedural shortcuts do not make a weak case stronger.

For the Justice Department, the next step is not simply deciding whether another filing is possible. It is answering why this prosecution was brought in this form, on this schedule, and without evidence the judge found adequate. For readers following the legal process, this is a go-to example of why the quality and timing of prosecutorial decisions matter. Follow more courtroom coverage through LD3’s Courts & Litigation desk.

Sources