Why Hunter Biden's Plea Deal Was Rejected, According to Attorneys

Legal experts have spoken out after a plea deal negotiated by Hunter Biden's lawyers with the Department of Justice collapsed on Wednesday in a Delaware courtroom. Hunter Biden's attorney declared the agreement "null and void" after learning it wouldn't offer sweeping immunity for other possible offenses.

The president's son had agreed to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges as part of an agreement that would see him avoid prosecution for allegedly illegally possessing a firearm whilst a drug user, a felony offense. However, this fell apart when it became clear the Delaware U.S. Attorney's investigation into Hunter Biden is ongoing, and that the deal wouldn't cover other potential charges which could arise out of the probe.

Republicans have been focusing heavily on the Biden family's legal and financial affairs, launching a number of investigations since they took control of the House of Representatives in the November midterms. Joe Biden announced he is seeking a second White House term in April, with polling giving the president a commanding lead over the other fringe candidates who are challenging him for the Democratic Party nomination.

In a post on the blogging platform Substack, Joyce Vance, who served as attorney for the Northern District of Alabama from 2009 to 2017, explained why the hearing turned into "more of a debacle."

Referring to the plea deal's collapse, she wrote: "Hunter Biden's team seemed to believe once he pled guilty, there would be no further prosecution coming out of the Delaware U.S. Attorney's investigation.

"The government's view seemed to be that its investigation was ongoing, and it wouldn't make that commitment. That's unusual. There's little incentive for a defendant to plead to 'some' charges knowing an investigation is ongoing and others could be coming."

As a result, U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika "declined to approve the deal, until the parties could get back together and reach agreement."

However, Vance suggested Hunter Biden's legal team will probably be able to come up with a new deal with prosecutors. She said: "It seems likely they'll do that and find a way to work this out before they are due back in court."

Separately, Vance argued the judge expressed concern about the agreement linking Hunter's tax issues with the firearms charge, which would see the charges against him over the latter dismissed "as though they were never filed."

She wrote: "It was the Judge who balked here, expressing concern that the role assigned to her went beyond her constitutional role. Under the Constitution, decisions about whom to indict and on what charges are reserved to the executive branch and put into the hands of the Justice Department.

"Judges don't make those decisions. The Judge was concerned that, because the agreement gave her the authority to oversee decisions about when a breach of the agreement occurred and charges could be brought to trial, that the parties were forcing her out of her constitutional lane."

Lisa Rubin, a lawyer and MSNBC legal analyst, made a similar point on Twitter. She wrote: "Ultimately, the judge determined that the way in which the parties structured their two, interlocking agreements -- the plea agreement and the diversion agreement -- required her to play a role in the latter's enforcement without giving her a say over its approval."