A federal judge in Washington on Tuesday threw out the Justice Department's new obstruction charge against former FBI officials Nicole (Nikki) Floris and Bradley Benavides, striking the superseding complaint from the court record because prosecutors had filed it in the middle of the night — unsigned, unsworn, and without the judicial approval required before a criminal charge can be publicly lodged. "I am not going to bless it as a superseding complaint," U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui said at Tuesday's hearing.
The filing reached the public docket in the early hours of Tuesday, hours before the preliminary hearing at which the government was due to defend its original charges. It added one count of obstructing a congressional proceeding, but it carried no judge's signature — Faruqui's name sat typed in the signature block, unsigned — and the FBI agent whose affidavit supported the complaint had not sworn to it or signed it either. A complaint is only supposed to be filed once a judge has found probable cause; this one had never been put before a judge at all. Prosecutor John Borchert conceded the manoeuvre had "never been done before," and asked that the agent be allowed to swear to the document in the courtroom so the charge could be heard that day. Faruqui refused.
The judge — a magistrate judge since 2020, after twelve years as a federal prosecutor — did not hide what he thought. "We have never had complaints filed that are unsigned," he said. "It is inappropriate. It harms the defendants." "I am frustrated that I got it in the middle of the night. But I am much more concerned that it is filed on the public record." He said the prosecutors had created "their own category of charging," and pressed them: "Why today on this one case have you changed the entire history of how you charge cases?" He said he did not doubt the prosecutors' good faith, but worried that "this system is being misused by people of higher levels."
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, speaking to reporters before the hearing, gave the department's position: adding the charge was within its rights, and the signature was the court's to give or withhold. "It's up to Judge Faruqui as to whether or not he wants to sign that. We have the ability today to add a charge." The ruling strikes the filing, not the allegation: Faruqui told prosecutors the proper channels remain open — bring the complaint to a judge for a probable-cause finding, or take the charge to a grand jury. Whether the department will do either has not been announced.
Floris's lawyers, who had asked the court to reject the new complaint as filed in bad faith, called it "outrageous government conduct against a decorated public servant." "In our combined decades of DOJ service, we have never seen or even heard of something like this being filed," her legal team said. Her lawyer Mary Dohrmann told the court the record showed a "political football," and the defence pointed to the new complaint's own softened language — where the original described Floris in "scores of conversations" at the "center" of the task force's Biden work, the superseding version said only that she was "involved in" it. The preliminary hearing then proceeded on the original complaint alone; the FBI agent who investigated the case, Special Agent Bryan Witt, testified that the inquiry began after FBI Director Kash Patel directed the bureau's Kansas City office to look into Floris and others, and that he had concerns it would be viewed as "political." The hearing continues on Wednesday, with no ruling yet on probable cause for the original charges.
For ordinary citizens, the whole fight turned on a signature, and that signature protects everyone. Before the government may publicly accuse a person of a crime by complaint, an independent judge — not the prosecutor's own office — must first agree there is probable cause to believe an offence was committed. The check applies in every case alike: to officials a citizen may dislike, and to the citizen himself. It is also what makes prosecutions stick: charges brought the regular way cannot be thrown out for the manner of their bringing. Floris and Benavides remain charged with lying to Congress, and those charges will now be tested in the ordinary way — in front of a judge, on evidence.
The Justice Department has added an obstruction count to its criminal case against two former senior FBI officials, accusing Nicole Floris and Bradley Benavides of corruptly obstructing the House Judiciary Committee's investigation into the FBI's Hunter Biden work. The new count, filed in a superseding criminal complaint, goes beyond the charge that the two lied to Congress: it says the lies were the obstruction — that by testifying falsely in 2023, Floris and Benavides concealed the role of the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force in the Hunter Biden matters and impeded the committee's oversight of the bureau.
The case began on Friday, when prosecutors charged each of them with one count of making false statements to Congress, under the federal law that criminalises materially false statements to lawmakers. The 27-page criminal complaint, filed in federal court in Washington, centres on testimony the two gave to the Republican-led Judiciary Committee in 2023, when the committee was examining how the FBI handled investigations touching Hunter Biden, the laptop story that broke weeks before the 2020 election, and warnings about foreign interference. Both were arrested and brought before a judge on Friday. Nothing in the complaint has been proven; a complaint is an accusation, and both officials deny wrongdoing.
Floris was the deputy assistant director of the Foreign Influence Task Force from mid-2019 to mid-2022; Benavides was a section chief on the task force through the 2020 election. The task force was created after Russia's interference in the 2016 election to watch for covert foreign efforts to sway American politics, and it was shut down under President Trump. It has long been a target of Republican criticism: senators and House investigators argued for years that the task force's handling of Biden-family allegations and of the laptop story had the effect of shielding the Bidens in the run-up to the 2020 vote, and that its officials later hid that role from Congress.
The complaint's case against Floris turns on two answers she gave the committee on July 19, 2023. Asked whether she had any involvement in the Hunter Biden investigation, she answered that she "did not". Asked about the task force, she said she had "no personal knowledge of Hunter Biden ever being the subject of any discussion at the FITF". Prosecutors say the bureau's own records contradict both answers: that Floris circulated to Benavides a Senate report referencing a possible Burisma bribe, that she approved internal task-force assessments touching the Biden matters, and that she helped coordinate the FBI's response after the New York Post published its laptop story in October 2020.
Benavides's alleged lie is narrower and stranger. He told the committee that he first learned the FBI had possession of Hunter Biden's laptop from a Wikipedia article in 2023, and insisted he had "absolutely not" known about the laptop while serving on the task force. Prosecutors say he discussed the laptop with colleagues on the very day the Post story appeared in October 2020, and that he approved internal talking points suggesting the laptop material could be Russian disinformation. The superseding complaint says those two performances, taken together, were not just false but corruptly obstructive: they sent the committee down blind alleys and kept the task force's real involvement out of the oversight record.
FBI Director Kash Patel announced the arrests himself and framed them as a question of whether senior officials answer to the same rules as everyone else. "Lying to Congress by senior FBI officials strikes at the heart of our system," he wrote. "No one is above the law." In the same statement, Patel said documentary evidence, contemporaneous communications and witness accounts contradict the 2023 testimony, and he tied the case to a wider clean-out of what he described as political weaponisation inside the bureau.
The defence answers that this is politics dressed as prosecution. Lawyers for Floris called her "a patriot" who served as an FBI intelligence officer for nearly 20 years, and said the department had accused her falsely, on the say-so of politicians rather than the facts; they noted the charges landed on the eve of an election. Benavides's lawyer told the court the conduct at issue happened years ago and that the government has had the information for years. At Friday's first appearance, the magistrate judge remarked on how old the charged conduct is, refused prosecutors' request to push the preliminary hearing back, and ordered both sides to return on Tuesday, when the government must show probable cause — or seek a grand-jury indictment instead.
The background is the longest-running oversight fight in Washington. In October 2020, weeks before the election, the Post reported on a laptop said to have been abandoned at a Delaware repair shop, containing emails about Hunter Biden's foreign business dealings, including his paid role with the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma. The task force had, that August, given senators a defensive briefing about Russian disinformation that the senators later said was used to discredit their own Biden investigation. Dozens of former intelligence officials publicly suggested the laptop bore the marks of a Russian operation. The FBI, which had the laptop itself, said little. Years later, prosecutors put the laptop into evidence at Hunter Biden's 2024 federal gun trial — the bureau's own authentication of the machine its task force officials would later tell Congress they barely knew.
For ordinary citizens, the stake in this case is not the laptop, and it is not 2020. It is whether oversight still works. Congress is the only elected check on a bureau that operates in secret; its questions are, in effect, the public's questions, asked because the public cannot see the files for itself. If senior officials can sit in front of that committee, deny involvement that their own emails record, and face no consequence, then oversight is theatre and every future witness learns the lesson. The other side of the same stake is just as real: prosecutions of officials must rest on documents and proof, tested in court — which is why the defence's charge that this case is timed politics will be argued in front of a judge, starting Tuesday. The charges, for now, are allegations only, and Floris and Benavides are entitled to the presumption of innocence like anyone else.
📣 Join ProfiloPolitics on Telegram — breaking news first
Follow @profilopoliticsnews for every update on this story.