DOJ’s case against two ex-FBI officials failed its first evidence test

U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui dismissed the original complaint against both former officials in Washington on Monday, November 2, 2026, after three days of evidentiary testimony. Each had faced one count of lying to Congress about matters connected to FBI investigations involving Hunter Biden. The government failed to establish probable cause—a much lower threshold than the proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for conviction.⁠3

That distinction makes this more than a courtroom setback over a defective document. Faruqui found deficiencies in every element he examined: whether the statements were false, whether the defendants acted knowingly and willfully, and whether the statements were material to the congressional inquiry. His ruling removed the existing complaint, though it was not a trial acquittal and does not establish that future charges are barred.⁠3

During an approximately hourlong oral ruling, Faruqui described the prosecution as “weaponization.” He questioned both the work investigators had left undone and the urgency prosecutors suddenly found roughly three years after the testimony at issue, with the November 3 midterm elections approaching. The Justice Department rejected his assessment and said its investigation remained open.⁠1

Floris and Benavides appeared voluntarily before the House Judiciary Committee in July and September 2023. Prosecutors alleged that they misled lawmakers about their involvement in, and knowledge of, investigations concerning Hunter Biden, including information associated with his laptop. One focus was Round River, a counterintelligence operation run by the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force.⁠3

The government described that operation as collecting derogatory informant reporting about Hunter Biden and others to flag it as Russian disinformation. That was the prosecution’s characterization, not something the dismissal established as a proven scheme. Floris had served as the task force’s deputy assistant director from mid-2019 through mid-2022; Benavides was its section chief from mid-2019 through the 2020 election. Their August 2020 defensive briefings to Senators Charles Grassley and Ron Johnson helped lead to the later congressional testimony.⁠3

The hearing exposed a particularly basic gap in the investigation of materiality: whether the alleged falsehoods mattered to Congress’s inquiry. FBI Special Agent Bryan Witt testified that the Republican-controlled committee would not allow agents to interview staff members who had been present for the defendants’ testimony.⁠3

The only person Witt was ultimately permitted to interview was Steve Castor, general counsel for the committee’s Republicans. Castor acknowledged that he had neither witnessed Benavides’ testimony nor reviewed its transcript. Witt interviewed nobody representing the committee’s Democrats. The prosecution was asking a court to find sufficient evidence of material falsehoods without having adequately investigated their significance to the congressional proceeding.⁠3

Career prosecutors had identified the problem before charges were filed. In a recorded conversation disclosed to the defense, Carlton Davis, a political appointee serving as special counsel to Washington U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, acknowledged the mistake. Faruqui questioned why the government had not tested its case internally rather than working through the problems “in open court for the whole world to watch.”⁠3

Intent was another central failure. Faruqui said there was “simply nothing” showing either defendant intended to make false statements about the investigations. His references to missing motive and direct evidence described the weakness of this case; they should not be mistaken for a universal rule that criminal intent can never be established through circumstantial evidence.⁠4

The judge also drew a revealing comparison within the hearing itself. Witt made misstatements while testifying, but Faruqui said he did not regard those errors as criminal because he did not believe Witt intended to lie. A mistake and a knowing falsehood are not interchangeable—a distinction the prosecution needed evidence to bridge.⁠3

The charging affidavit bears an October 20, 2026 filing stamp. That date is distinct from the subsequent charging coverage and the October 27 hearing: they were stages of the same prosecution, not separate cases against a different pair of officials.⁠20

The attempted expansion of the charges was a separate failure from Monday’s dismissal. Prosecutors submitted the replacement complaint after midnight before the October 27 hearing. Faruqui struck it because it lacked proper judicial review, calling the maneuver improper and unheard of. He then heard the evidence supporting the original charges—and found that insufficient too.⁠3

The larger timing question ran through his ruling. The alleged statements dated to 2023, yet charges arrived about two weeks before the midterms. Faruqui identified no imminent filing deadline, flight risk or danger requiring immediate action. Criminal complaints can lawfully begin prosecutions; his objection was that the government had not explained the urgency of using that route here instead of first presenting its evidence to a grand jury.⁠1

Witt testified that FBI Director Kash Patel ordered the inquiry opened the day after President Donald Trump’s televised address in mid-July, when Trump repeated false claims about the 2020 election and urged investigative action. Patel and senior FBI officials checked its progress. Witt acknowledged concern that the case could appear political and said colleagues in his Kansas City field office feared it was a witch hunt.⁠3

Faruqui quoted the Justice Department Manual’s prohibition on investigative or prosecutorial steps intended to influence an election. “There was simply no other event on the calendar, except for the midterm elections,” he said. The issue was not an absolute ban on prosecutions near voting day. It was the judge’s conclusion that this prosecution’s timing, urgency and evidentiary failures could not sensibly be considered separately.⁠3

But immunity was not what Faruqui granted. His finding concerned the evidence supporting these charges, not whether senior officials are generally answerable for false statements. Accountability requires a case that meets the applicable legal threshold; invoking accountability does not supply missing evidence.

Outside court, Floris cried and embraced former colleagues before hugging Benavides. Former senior FBI and Justice Department officials had attended in support. Margaret Donovan, one of Floris’ attorneys, said: “This case should never have been brought. The government had no case.”⁠1

Faruqui warned of consequences beyond the defendants: fewer qualified recruits willing to join the FBI, less willingness to testify voluntarily before Congress and more witnesses invoking the Fifth Amendment. Those were predictions, not measured effects. His concern was that the prosecution could make public service and cooperation with Congress look like liabilities rather than responsibilities.⁠3

Prosecutors can still seek a grand-jury indictment or appeal to the district’s chief judge. The department has not announced which route, if any, it will pursue. The existing complaint is gone; the investigation is not. Any attempt to revive the prosecution will confront the same central problem exposed in court: allegations are not a substitute for evidence.⁠1