Judge Strikes DOJ's Midnight Obstruction Charge in Hunter Biden FBI Case — After Prosecutors Admitted 'This Has Never Been Done Before'

In 60 seconds: A federal judge struck the Justice Department's overnight bid to add an obstruction charge against two former FBI officials in the Hunter Biden laptop case, calling the unsigned filing unlike anything he had seen in the history of Washington's federal court. The original false-statements case survives — but the hearing exposed how the prosecution itself began.

It was supposed to be a routine preliminary hearing. Instead, it turned into one of the most uncomfortable days the Justice Department has had in a Washington courtroom in a long time — and it happened one week before the midterm elections.

Here's the thing: the judge didn't throw out the case. He threw out the way the government tried to expand it, in the middle of the night, without a signature. That distinction matters, and it's the reason this story will keep running.

The Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building in Washington, D.C. Photo: Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0).

What happened

On Tuesday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui heard the case of Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides, two former FBI officials charged last Friday with making false statements to Congress — allegedly playing down what they knew about the FBI's handling of a laptop the Justice Department says belonged to Hunter Biden, during testimony in July and September 2023.

Then came the overnight surprise: prosecutors filed a superseding complaint adding an obstruction charge. The problem was basic — the complaint was unsigned, with no officer's signature and no judge's sign-off that probable cause exists. Criminal complaints require that approval before they land on the public docket. This one simply appeared there.

"It is not our court's practice — and I think it is appropriately not our practice — that unsigned complaints are filed on the docket," Faruqui said, according to the Associated Press. He later asked prosecutors: "Why today on this one case have you changed the entire history of how you charge cases?"

Latest verified facts

The hearing, which ran for hours, produced two moments that will define the coverage. First, assistant U.S. attorney John Borchert acknowledged the obvious when pressed on the filing method: "this has never been done before," he said, while suggesting the complaint could simply be signed during the hearing. Faruqui denied that request and struck the new complaint from the record entirely.

Second, FBI agent Bryan Witt, who worked the case, conceded under defense questioning that the investigation was launched after a July speech by President Donald Trump on election interference, and that it was mandated by FBI Director Kash Patel. Witt said he had been reluctantly assigned to it and regarded it as a "huge distraction" from other casework. "I had concerns that this would be political," he testified.

Defense lawyers seized on both points to argue the prosecution is politically motivated — a "political football," in the words of Floris's lawyer Mary Dohrmann. Faruqui said he did not doubt the prosecution acted in good faith, but added he was concerned that "this system is being misused by people of higher levels."

What the ruling does not do is end the matter. The original false-statements charges remain intact, Faruqui proceeded with Tuesday's preliminary hearing on them, and he did not rule on probable cause. Nothing prevents the department from seeking the obstruction charge again — through the front door, with a signed complaint and a judge's approval.

Why it matters

Court procedure sounds dry until a judge says a prosecution broke it. The unsigned-complaint fight matters because it goes to the most basic safeguard in a criminal case: before the government publicly accuses someone of a crime, a neutral judge is supposed to confirm there is probable cause to believe it. Skipping that step, even once, hands every future defendant a ready-made argument that the process was rigged — and hands the judge a reason to question what else was improvised.

The timing sharpens the stakes. The Associated Press noted the rebuke lands amid a run of splashy, politically charged investigative actions ahead of next week's midterm elections, including a renewed bid to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey that Comey's lawyers call legally invalid.

Impact on the USA and the world

For Americans, the case sits at the intersection of two long-running arguments: how the FBI handled the Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 election, and whether the current Justice Department is using criminal charges to settle political scores. Tuesday's hearing fed both arguments at once.

What happens next

Watch three things. First, whether prosecutors refile the obstruction charge properly — a signed complaint, a probable-cause finding, no midnight docket drop. If they do, the fight shifts back to the merits. If they don't, the obstruction theory quietly dies and the case narrows to the original false-statements charges.

Second, whether Faruqui finds probable cause on those original charges at the preliminary hearing's conclusion. That ruling decides whether the case proceeds at all in its current form.

Third, whether Witt's testimony draws a response from the FBI or the Justice Department. An agent testifying that he viewed his own assignment as a politically driven distraction is not something an agency can easily leave unanswered.

Our take: whatever you think of the underlying laptop dispute, the procedure here was indefensible on its own terms, and the judge said so in plain language. Prosecutions that cut corners on the basics risk losing the public's trust that the charge was fair in the first place.

Sources: Associated Press (via WPTF and The Washington Sun), NBC News, CNBC. Read our earlier coverage: James Comey Charged Again: What the New DOJ Case Actually Alleges; related: Navy and Marine Boards Are Voting to Keep Trans Troops — Defying the Pentagon's Own Ban.