Federal judge removes unsigned Justice Department complaint from docket

Justice Department could refile charges using standard procedures

Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia struck a Justice Department superseding complaint from the public court docket on Tuesday after saying the complaint had never been reviewed by him to determine whether probable cause existed. CBS News reported that federal prosecutors filed the complaint shortly after midnight; the document was unsigned and unsworn.

Faruqui expressed anger at the prosecutors, saying: “We have never had complaints filed that are unsigned.” He added: “It is inappropriate. It harms the defendants.” He continued: “I am frustrated that I got it in the middle of the night. But I am much more concerned that it is filed on the public record.”

The judge said filing a criminal complaint without judicial review was unprecedented and caused him to question the Justice Department’s motivations. He ordered the complaint struck from the record and said the department could try filing new charges using standard procedures. Faruqui told the prosecutors: “Everything you’re doing is making me more and more concerned.” He asked: “Why today on this one case have you changed the entire history of how you charge cases? It makes it look like the United States is afraid of me trying to find probable cause.”

The Tuesday complaint added charges of obstruction and attempted obstruction of a congressional proceeding. Those charges were separate from the original false-statement counts against Flores and Benavides. The case concerns an investigation into Hunter Biden. On Friday, Flores, 46, and Benavides, 56, surrendered on arrest warrants charging them with lying to Congress about their involvement in the Foreign Influence Task Force, which investigated the Biden family during the 2020 election cycle. Each faced one count of making a false statement.

Federal prosecutor John Borchert said it was the first time he had been aware of a criminal complaint being filed in this manner. He said prosecutors “are not afraid of a probable cause finding.”

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro announced the charges. In a statement on X, she said: “Lying to Congress by anyone strikes at the heart of our democratic system, but when senior FBI agents lie to Congress believing they are above the law, it’s time to bring the hammer of justice down on them.” Pirro added: “When senior officials entrusted with safeguarding our nation’s security choose deception over duty, they undermine the very institutions they swore to uphold.”

At a court hearing Tuesday, a lawyer for Flores expressed outrage on behalf of the defense team about the unsigned criminal count added hours before the hearing. “The evidence is mounting that this prosecution is about some political football and not the law or the facts in this case,” attorney Mary Dohrmann said in court.

The defense team said in a statement, according to CNBC: “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 against Ms. Flores and adding a new charge just as meritless as the first one.” The statement continued: “In our combined decades of DOJ service, we have never seen or even heard of something like this being filed. That’s because the public lodging of criminal charges must be authorized by the grand jury, a judge, or the defendant herself. Here, the government has taken that power for itself in a desperate attempt to delay our client’s right to challenge the charges in court and litigate this case in the media, rather than the courtroom.”

Tuesday’s ruling addressed a procedural question rather than whether Flores and Benavides lied to Congress. The order removed the added obstruction counts from the docket but did not address the original false-statement counts. Prosecutors retained the option of filing new charges under standard procedures. The judge said prosecutors had changed the history of how they charge cases, while the defense said the filing was an attempt to litigate the case in the media rather than the courtroom.