The FBI agent behind the false statements case against two former bureau officials testified this week that FBI Director Kash Patel ordered the investigation opened one day after a televised speech by President Trump, and that agents never interviewed one of the two defendants before charging her.
Special Agent Bryan Witt took the stand on Tuesday and Wednesday, October 27 and 28, at a preliminary hearing in federal court in Washington for Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides, according to a report by Sarah N. Lynch published on Yahoo News. The two former counterintelligence officials are accused of lying to the House Judiciary Committee in 2023 about their roles in the FBI's Hunter Biden investigations. Both deny wrongdoing and are presumed innocent.
The hearing opened Tuesday with Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui striking an unsigned obstruction charge the government had filed overnight, which we covered in Judge Strikes Unsigned New Charges Against Two Ex-FBI Officials. Witt's testimony came on the original complaint, which still stands.
What the agent said
Witt acknowledged that Patel told the supervisor of the FBI's Kansas City field office to open the investigation one day after Trump's televised speech about election interference, according to the report. He said he was first told to look at whether the former officials had suppressed evidence about China, and that the probe shifted to their testimony after agents reviewed the 2023 House transcripts.
He also testified that Patel and the FBI deputy director were "closely monitoring our progress," that the team routinely updated headquarters, and that Patel joined case team video calls at least twice. He said he feared the investigation might be viewed as "political," while saying he feels confident in the allegations.
On cross examination, Witt admitted that agents did not interview Floris or any congressional staff with direct knowledge of her testimony. He also acknowledged that Steve Castor, a Republican counsel on the House Judiciary Committee whom the earlier complaint described as an eyewitness, was not present for the testimony and had not reviewed the transcript. He said agents were not permitted to interview other congressional staffers and were limited to written questions, a point the defense says goes to whether the statements mattered to Congress. Asked whether agents approached Democrats on that question, Witt answered, "Absolutely not." He added: "No one explained to me the partisanship nature" of the committee.
Prosecutor Cory Jacobs objected that the case's origins have nothing to do with probable cause and can be raised later. "This has gone a little bit far astray from the limited purpose of this hearing," he said, according to the report.
Why this hearing exists at all
Floris and Benavides were charged by complaint on October 23, not indicted by a grand jury. When that happens, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1 says a magistrate judge "must conduct a preliminary hearing" unless an exception applies, such as a later indictment. The defendant "may cross-examine adverse witnesses," which is how the defense got Witt on the stand under oath. Preliminary hearings are rare in federal court because prosecutors usually indict first. For how one works in practice, see Inside the Preliminary Hearing in the Charlie Kirk Case.
Our analysis: the timeline in the testimony
Mid July 2026: Trump gives a televised speech about election interference, according to Witt's testimony as reported.
The next day: Patel tells the Kansas City field office supervisor to open the investigation, Witt testified.
Later: The focus shifts from alleged suppression of China evidence to the officials' 2023 House testimony, after agents review the transcripts.
October 23, 2026: Floris and Benavides are charged by complaint with making false statements.
October 27, 2026: Faruqui strikes the unsigned superseding complaint, and Witt begins testifying.
October 28, 2026: Witt's cross examination continues.
What the timeline shows is a case that started from the top and found its charge later. That is not by itself a legal defense, and Jacobs is right that probable cause asks only whether the evidence supports the charge. But the materiality gaps Witt conceded, no interview of Floris and no witness who heard her testimony, go straight to that question.
What happens next
Faruqui said he wants to go through the charging document line by line, testing each alleged false statement for probable cause, and that review was expected Thursday, October 29. Under Rule 5.1, if he finds no probable cause he "must dismiss the complaint and discharge the defendant," though the rule adds that a discharge "does not preclude the government from later prosecuting" the same offense, for example through a grand jury. The department has had trouble there before, as in Grand Jury Declines to Indict Cassidy Hutchinson.
Two Taps News stories summarize reporting and the analysis discussed on Two Taps and Friends. They are not legal advice. Read our standards.
