The Radical Reading Room

On October 27, 2026, federal prosecutors attempted to file new criminal charges against Nikki Cole Floris and Bradley Benavides, two former senior FBI officials involved in the Hunter Biden laptop investigation. The charges, which included obstructing a congressional proceeding, were filed as an unsigned superseding complaint after midnight on Tuesday. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the new charges, stating that the filing was inappropriate and bypassed judicial review. The judge emphasized that the complaint was not sworn and that it was filed on the public record without prior review, raising concerns about the DOJ’s motivations. The judge ordered that the new version of the charging documents be 'struck from the record,' though the Justice Department could attempt to add new charges through the proper legal process.

The original charges against Floris and Benavides, which involved lying to Congress about their involvement in the Hunter Biden laptop investigation, were reviewed by a magistrate judge and were part of the initial criminal complaint. The judge’s rejection of the new charges underscores the importance of procedural compliance in federal prosecutions, particularly in high-profile cases involving former government officials. The situation also raises questions about the DOJ’s approach to charging procedures, as the judge noted that the government’s actions in this case were unprecedented and raised concerns about the integrity of the legal process.

The case is ongoing, with the court still proceeding with a preliminary hearing to determine whether the original criminal complaint meets the probable cause standard. The judge’s comments reflect a broader concern about the DOJ’s handling of the case, with the judge suggesting that the government’s actions were making the case more difficult to resolve. The rejection of the new charges is a significant development in the case, as it highlights the procedural challenges faced by the DOJ in its attempt to expand the charges against the two former officials.

The case also underscores the importance of judicial oversight in criminal proceedings, particularly when new charges are filed without proper review. The judge’s decision to strike the new charges from the record is a clear indication that the DOJ’s approach to the case was flawed, and that the legal process must be followed to ensure the integrity of the proceedings. The case is expected to continue with the court proceeding with the preliminary hearing to determine whether the original charges are valid.

The judge’s comments also suggest that the DOJ’s actions in this case are raising concerns about the fairness of the legal process, particularly in high-profile cases involving former government officials. The situation highlights the need for procedural compliance in federal prosecutions, as the judge emphasized that the filing of an unsigned complaint was an unprecedented move that raised questions about the DOJ’s motivations.