MAY BE PROVIDING SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF AID. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>> A PLEA AGREEMENT BETWEEN FEDERAL PROSECUTORS AND HUNTER BIDEN FELL APART YESTERDAY AFTER A JUDGE DID NOT SIGN OFF ON THE DEAL. THIS UNEXPECTED TWIST IN THE CASE LED TO A PUBLIC DISPLAY OF TENSIONS BETWEEN PROSECUTORS AND BIDENS ATTORNEYS. CATHERINE HERRIDGE HAS MORE. CATHERINE, GOOD MORNING. >> Reporter: GOOD MORNING. I WAS SITTING ABOUT 20 FEET BEHIND THE PRESIDENTS SON IN THE COURTROOM YESTERDAY. AS THE DEAL STARTED TO FALL APART HE APPEARED INCREASINGLY UPSET. HUNTER BIDEN LEFT THE FEDERAL COURTHOUSE IN WILMINGTON AFTER HE AGREEMENT REACHED WI PROSECUTORS LAST MONTH COLLAPSED. THE PRESIDENTS SON WAS EXPECTED TO PLEAD GUILTY TO TWO MISDEMEANOR TAX CHARGES. HE WAS EXPECTED TO ENTER A DIVERSION PROGRAM TO RESOLVE A THIRD CHARGE FOR FELONY GUN POSSESSION. THE TRUMP APPOINTED JUDGE ANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT AND ULTIMATELY LED TO IT UNRAVELING. >> PLEA AGREEMENTS FALL APART EVERY DAY AND FOR. BUT DON'T FALL APART IN HIGH- PROFILE CASES LIKE THIS. >> Reporter: DAVID WEISS, A TRUMP APPOINTEE AND -- LEGAL TEAM IS WHETHER THE PLEA WOULD CLOSE THE DOOR ON FUTURE CHARGES FOR OTHER POSSIBLE CRIMES. HE HAS SAID CONSISTENTLY THE PROBE IS ONGOING. THE JUDGE SAYS SHE FELT SHE WAS BEING ASKED TO RUBBERSTAMP AN AGREEMENT. OR IF THE GUN CHARGES EVEN CONSTITUTIONAL. >> HUNTER BIDEN WAS A CITIZEN AND THIS IS A PRIVATE MATTER FOR HIM. >> Reporter: THEY STRESSED THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. REPUBLICANS HAVE CRITICIZED THE PLEA AGREEMENT, CALLING IT A SWEETHEART DEAL. >> THERE SHOULDN'T BE TWO JUSTICE SYSTEMS IN AMERICA. >> Reporter: HUNTER BIDEN LEFT THE FEDERAL COURTHOUSE BEHIND ME WITHOUT MMENTING TO REPORTERS. HE HAS ENTERED A PLEA OF NOT GUILTY FOR NOW. A PLEA DEAL IS STILL POSSIBLE. THE PARTIES HAVE 30 DAYS TO ANSWER THE JUDGE'S QUESTIONS BEFORE SHE MAKES A DECISION. >> CATHERINE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WITH MORE ON THIS I WANT TO BRING IN LEGAL ANALYST RIKKI KLIEMAN. LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT WENT DOWN. TWO THINGS HAPPENED IN THE ROOM YESTERDAY, RICKY. IT SEEMS LIKE HUNTER BIDEN'S ATTORNEYS AND PROSECUTORS DO NOT REALLY CLARIFY WHAT THIS PLEA DEAL ENTAILED. SO THERE SEEMED TO BE A DISAGREEMENT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD PROTECT HUNTER IN THE FUTURE FROM PROSECUTION FOR CERTAIN THINGS. THE X FACTOR WAS THE JUDGE. SHE RAISED SOME CONCERNS. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT? >> Reporter: THERE WAS A PRETRIAL DIVERSION AGREEMENT THAT WAS ABOUT THE GUN CHARGE. IF HUNTER BIDEN REMAINED CLEAN FOR TWO YEARS. HE DIDN'T USE DRUGS, ALCOHOL, DIDN'T GET INTO ANY FURTHER DIFFICULTY. THEN AT THE END OF THE TWO YEARS THE CASE WOULD JUST GO AWAY. PRETRIAL DIVERSION AGREEMENTS AND LESSER CRIMES ARE VERY, VERY COMMON IN THE STATE COURT SYSTEM. BUT NOT VERY COMMON IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM, USUALLY BECAUSE THERE AREN'T THOSE KINDS OF LITTLE CRIMES IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM. WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE JUDGE SAW THAT IF IN FACT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A VIOLATION DURING THOSE TWO YEARS SHE WAS GOING TO BE THE DECIDER. SHE WAS GOING TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO PROSECUTE. THAT IS NOT HER JOB. SHE IS A JUDGE. THIS IS WHAT WE CALL A SEPARATION OF POWERS PROBLEM AND SHE SAW IT. IT IS THE DECISION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE IS GOING FORWARD CORRECTLY WITH PRETRIAL DETENTION AND A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO PROSECUTE IS CLEARLY IN THE PROSECUTORS REALM. NOT IN THE REALM OF THE JUDGE. THAT IS WHAT CAUGHT HER ATTENTION. BUT WHEN SHE STARTED TO QUESTION ABOUT THAT PROCEDURAL MATTER IT BECAME ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES, THAT THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT ABOUT THE STATE OF IMMUNITY FOR CRIMES THAT HAD HAPPENED IN THE PAST. CERTAINLY THE DEFENSE BELIEVED THAT WHEN YOU CAME INTO COURT IT WAS GOING TO HAVE A SITUATION WHERE HUNTER BIDEN COULD ENTER TWO PLEAS OF GUILTY FOR MISDEMEANORS AND THAT WAS GOING TO EXALT HIM OF ANY OTHER POTENTIAL CRIMES IN THE PAST. OR ELSE WHY WOULD HE ENTER THE DEAL? THE PROSECUTION, WHO HAS SAID FROM THE BEGINNING, WE ARE STILL INVESTIGATING. THIS IS NOT OVER. WELL THEY CERTAINLY DIDN'T BELIEVE THAT THE IMMUNITY CLAUSE IN PRETRIAL DIVERSION COVERED ALL CRIMES. AND WHEN YOU READ THIS PARAGRAPH, WHICH I GOT TO DO LAST NIGHT AND THIS MORNING, WHEN IT WAS FINALLY FOUND BY POLITICO LETTING IT OUT, WE SAW THAT THE LANGUAGE IS HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS. SEE YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY EACH SIDE THOUGHT THEY WERE RIGHT. >> VERY INTERESTING. úNOW THE P BRIEF THE JUDGE AND A RULING COULD BE DELAYED. WHAT SORT OF TIMELINE CAN WE EXPECT HERE? WHEN CAN WE EXPECT A RULING? >> Reporter: THE JUDGES ARE GIVING THEM CLOSER TO A MONTH ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN. I BELIEVE THE PARTIES ARE GOING TO GET TOGETHER AND TRY TO WORK OUT A NEW DEAL. IT IS IN NOBODY'S INTEREST TO TAKE THIS CASE TO TRIAL. THE GOVERNMENT WILL DOESN'T WANT TO TRY IT BECAUSE YOU ARE DEALING WITH HUNTER BIDEN, WHO IS FROM THE BIDEN FAMILY. YOU ARE DEALING WITH A DEFENDANT WHO HAS A REAL DEFENSE. HAVING TO DO WITH HIS DRUG ADDICTION. HE WAS A HORRENDOUS DRUG ADDICT. WE KNOW AT SOME POINT HE WAS DOING CRACK COCAINE. SOMETHING LIKE EVERY 15 MINUTES. HE WAS AT A POINT WHERE HE WAS NOT REALLY ADHERING TO ANY RESPONSIBILITY AND HE MIGHT BE A SYMPATHETIC DEFENDANT. THE PROSECUTION DOESN'T WANT TO TY HIM. THE DEFENSE REALLY DOESN'T WANT TO GO TO TRIAL OR LEAVE THE ISSUE OPEN AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE MIGHT BE PROSECUTED FOR FUTURE CRIMES. WHAT WE HAVE TO REMEMBER IS THAT THERE IS AN ELECTION IN 2024. THERE MAY BE A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT, WHETHER IT'S DONALD TRUMP OR SOMEONE ELSE. IN THAT CASE YOU HAVE A NEW DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. WHAT THEY ARE AFRAID OF, THE DEFENSE IS AFRAID OF, IS IF YOU HAVE ANY PROSECUTOR AT SOME LATER POINT IN TIME THAT THEY ARE GOING TO REACH BACK AND TRY TO CHARGE HUNTER BIDEN WITH PAST CRIMES HAVING TO DO WITH FOREIGN LOBBYING. SO THE DEFENSE HAS A HUGE INTEREST IN GETTING THIS DONE. IF I WERE BEDDING, AND OF COURSE I COULD BE WRONG, BUT IF I WEREBETTING SOMETIME WITHIN THE NEXT 4 TO 6 WEEKS HE WOULD SOMEHOW WORK OUT A DEAL.
