Judge Criticizes DOJ Over New Charges Against Ex-FBI Officials

U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui, who previously offered an apology to a man accused of trying to assassinate former President Donald Trump, expressed strong disapproval on Tuesday regarding the Justice Department’s (DOJ) latest attempt to impose new obstruction charges against two former FBI agents without prior judicial consent.

The ex-FBI officials, Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides, were apprehended last week after the DOJ alleged that they misrepresented their roles in investigations tied to Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, during their testimonies to Congress.

Just hours before a scheduled preliminary hearing—where the prosecution needed to demonstrate probable cause—the DOJ submitted a superseding criminal complaint to add more charges against the two officials. This new complaint proposed felony obstruction allegations while altering some descriptions of their involvement in the Hunter Biden investigations.

Judge Faruqui took issue with the DOJ’s approach, condemning the filing of an unsigned and unsworn complaint late at night without securing the necessary judicial approval.

He remarked, “I think they should have filed nothing,” adding that such unsigned complaints were unprecedented. “They never had complaints filed on their record that are unsigned, waiting for a judge to make a probable cause finding. It harms the defendant, and I find it frustrating that I received it in the middle of the night.”

Faruqui questioned the sudden shift in how the DOJ typically handles filing charges, asking, “Why today on this one case have you changed the entire history of how you charge cases?” He suggested that it seemed as if the government was apprehensive about allowing him to assess probable cause.

John Borchert, a prosecutor from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, acknowledged this was the first instance he had filed new charges without prior judicial review.

Ultimately, Faruqui dismissed the new complaint due to the absence of required judicial authorization, allowing the preliminary hearing to continue based on the original charges asserting that Floris and Benavides misled Congress. Floris’ legal team noted that changes in the wording of the complaint raised doubts about the DOJ’s factual basis.

In contrast to earlier descriptions labeling Benavides and Floris as being central to investigations into Hunter Biden, the updated complaint merely cited their involvement. For example, Floris went from supposedly engaging in numerous discussions about Biden to being mentioned as someone who merely participated in “conversations.”

Faruqui referenced potential issues with moving forward on such complaints without probable cause findings, stating it could resemble charging someone based on information rather than a formal complaint context.

The judge insisted, “If you want a superseding complaint, like every other case in this district, we will have a judge make a probable cause finding. Not send me something in the middle of the night and expect that it gets done.”

Previously, Faruqui has faced scrutiny for his support of diversity initiatives and comments on pretrial detentions. He particularly drew criticism after voicing concerns about the treatment of Cole Allen, the accused Trump assailant, noting it was concerning for someone with no prior criminal record.

The DOJ has been under scrutiny for its recent charging methods, especially as midterm elections approached coincidentally with the timing of the arrests of the ex-officials. Floris’ legal representatives contended that both the timing and nature of the charges appeared to be an effort to generate media attention.

They stated, “What is going on at the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office? In the middle of the night, the government filed an unsigned and unsworn complaint attempting to fix the issues with their original charge, adding a new one that is just as unfounded.”

Floris’ team expressed their bewilderment at the extraordinary nature of the situation, emphasizing that public lodging of criminal charges should be authorized by a grand jury, a judge, or the defendant. “We have asked to address this outrageous government conduct against a decorated public servant at today’s court hearing,” they said.

Requests for comments from the legal teams involved, including the DOJ, went unanswered on Tuesday.