Special Agent Bryan Witt, an FBI investigator assigned to the case against former senior counterintelligence officials Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides, testified that he believed the inquiry risked appearing politically motivated. His concerns surfaced during a hearing to determine whether the charges, accusing the two of lying to Congress about Hunter Biden investigations, could move forward. Witt’s testimony aligns with defense arguments that the Trump-era Justice Department launched the case for partisan reasons, a position prosecutors dispute.
Witt stated his reservations arose from the investigation’s timing. It commenced on July 1, the day after President Donald Trump’s primetime address instructing the FBI and other agencies to review whether the U.S. intelligence community had withheld information about foreign election interference in 2020. Floris, one of the defendants, had previously challenged an FBI report suggesting China sought to sway the election in Biden’s favor. Following Trump’s remarks, FBI Director Kash Patel directed Witt’s Kansas City field office to open the probe.
Read Also: Russia accused of war crimes in Ukraine
“I had concerns this would be viewed as political,” Witt said during his testimony. The inquiry initially examined foreign election influence but later zeroed in on the 2023 statements Floris and Benavides made before the House Judiciary Committee. Both now face charges of making false declarations about their involvement in Hunter Biden investigations. Hunter Biden, who had been charged with tax and gun violations during his father’s presidency, received a pardon from Joe Biden shortly before the former president left office.
Before the 2020 election, Floris and Benavides oversaw the FBI’s foreign influence task force. The criminal complaint against them claims they misled the House panel by minimizing or denying their role in Hunter Biden-related probes, supported by internal FBI records and witness accounts. Defense teams have countered that the Trump administration’s pursuit of the case serves a political agenda.
