Judge dismisses charges against FBI officials in Hunter Biden laptop case

The officials were accused of downplaying their knowledge of the bureau’s investigations into Hunter Biden during interviews with the House Judiciary Committee in 2023. Prosecutors alleged Benavides claimed he learned about the matter through Wikipedia.

The controversy began when The Post published a story about Hunter Biden’s laptop in October 2020. Initially, 51 former intelligence officials suggested the laptop’s contents were Russian disinformation, though an FBI agent later confirmed it belonged to Biden during his 2024 gun trial.

US Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui scrutinized each of the ten alleged false statements made by the defendants, noting that the Justice Department only needed to prove one lie per defendant for the case to proceed. Defense attorneys focused their arguments on FBI Special Agent Bryan Witt, the government’s sole witness.

During a break in Tuesday’s session, Floris was observed visibly upset. Her attorney, Margaret Donovan, portrayed her client as an overburdened bureaucrat managing hundreds of employees, suggesting that occasional miscommunications about Hunter Biden were inevitable given her workload. Witt testified that agents reviewed “hundreds of thousands” of Floris’ internal communications.

Donovan argued that it was unfair to isolate a few conversations from the vast number she handled and questioned the relevance of the timing of her Judiciary Committee appearance, noting it began at 10 a.m. She also emphasized that Floris, as a counterintelligence official, was not involved in the criminal investigation led by the FBI’s Baltimore field office.

Benavides’ lawyer, Ron Safer, argued that any misstatements were unintentional. He highlighted that the government’s exhibits listed Democratic committee staff, suggesting a partisan nature to the inquiry.

Witt conceded that FBI Director Kash Patel had requested weekly updates on the case, an unusual level of involvement for top officials in a false statements case. Had the case proceeded, it would have represented the highest-level prosecution of federal officials related to the Hunter Biden laptop saga.