so, we switched to verizon business internet. they have business grade internet, nationwide. (vo) make the switch. it's your business. it's your verizon. hey, everything, good to see you. i'm yasmin vossoughian in for chris jansing, live at msnbc headquarters in washington, d.c. the agreement that was supposed to spare the president's son hunter biden from jail time, it's suddenly in jeopardy. we're going to bring you the very latest from that delaware courtroom where they are trying to get back on track. a key issue here whether hunter biden could still get hit with more charges down the line. we're watching the white house briefing as well, everybody, set to begin any minute now to see if we can get any new reaction there as well. this whole thing, by the way,

over a disagreement about how to handle a more serious felony gun charge and then questions about additional potential charges down the road. the question right now is whether or not the two sides can actually work things out or whether this means hunter could actually be headed to trial later on this year. a lot to get to. let's get into it. mike memoli outside the courthouse for us in delaware, peter baker chief white house correspondent for "the new york times" joining us, also an msnbc political analyst, harry litman as well, former deputy assistant attorney general and a professor of constitutional law at ucla. i know we're getting some new reporting in now, court back in session. what do we know? >> well, yasmin, this agreement that was the result of a five-year investigation by the u.s. attorney here in delaware was supposed to be on a glide path to conclusion here, the proceedings today an opportunity for the judge to really stress test that agreement, and it appears based on how this day has proceeded there were

significant questions still outstanding is and perhaps nonalignment about what could potentially be outstanding. based on the latest information we had, it does appear after a significant breakdown about 90 minutes ago, the u.s. attorney's office here in delaware as well as hunter biden's lawyers are cobbling back together an agreement, a revised agreement that would limit the scope of what hunter biden could still face charges for in the future. remember, this was all supposed to be an agreement to two misdemeanor counts about failure to pay his taxes in 2017 and 2018 and then separately to enter into a pretrial diversion program in response to him purchasing a firearm without properly certifying that he was not engaged in drug use at the time. that of course is a potential felony charge they were willing to throw out if he went through this pretrial diversion program. the revised agreement as we understand it based on some of the most recent developments in the courtroom would be that the government agrees not to bring any additional charges from a time period from 2014 to 2019.

why is that significant? as we're learning more details about the nature of the government's case, there was also a question whether he properly paid his taxes in another year, 2016. the prosecutor saying that information came to light during their investigation. at least as it relates to tax and gun charges, now what could be still outstanding. this was where things seemed to go off the rails just a bit today was when the government was asked by the judge, mary ellen -- by the trump-appointed judge here whether there was still an ongoing investigations and the u.s. attorney's office did indicate there was. she asked why if there still might be additional charges, the prosecutorial side would not answer that question. it does appear there would be an agreement, there are still the potential for additional unrelated charges. what could those be? we know there's been significant scrutiny of his business dealings. would that involve failure to

register with the government if he was representing a foreign government's interests. that's speculation. we're at the point where there is an ongoing investigation as stated by the u.s. attorney's side. that was the nature of some of the hangup here. we're waiting to get that indication that this has been resolved, at least as it relates to the charges we began expecting the day with. >> harry litman, give me your reaction to that, right? we don't necessarily know the details of this revised agreements plea deal that memoli was just taking us through. but from what we know so far what is your reaction to how this has all played out and the agreement made between both sides? >> in terms of how it played out, it's dramatic and rare. it was an oh, my gosh moment when all of a sudden, especially as closely watched as it is, it seemed to break apart over a basic misunderstanding of what's covered and what isn't covered. the judge had a concern about the gun count, which i can

return to. but the basic misunderstanding between the parties is is he got coverage for other things, and almost certainly that does mean for a foreign agent registration act violation, recall that's what paul manafort pleaded to. it could be up to five years and the government indicated that's still on the table, at which point, hunter biden's attorney said in open court this agreement is now null and void, and i can only imagine the quiet gasp that that prompted in the courtroom. they go off then and work it out and basically biden agrees, okay, i'll continue to have some exposure for possibly this fare violation before 2016, but we've wrapped up all this tax stuff, correct, government agrees and goes back to the court with the resutured agreement, and it looks as if that is now going to fly, though the judge as i said had questions about the gun

count as well. >> how does this even happen, harry litman? you would expect if you're walking into a courtroom with this plea deal, these conversations would have already happened and this thing would have been done. >> 100%, and it doesn't happen much. it happens because parties -- as in any other contract negotiation, plea bargain's just a contract -- people take too much from informal words or things aren't well enough put down on paper and especially here where there's so much, i think, public pressure as you may know, the members of the republican senate actually have challenged the plea agreement, wrote the judge late last night. so that all combined to canine of tease things apart, and at the seam in a way that, in fact, is very rare and normally doesn't happen because both sides are sophisticated and they're writing solid paper contracts.

that is to say plea agreements. >> you bring up the judge's ruling in all of this, much has the judge's role played into break thebreak down of this plea deal? >> it initiated it for sure over another issue. biden is getting diversion, meaning he keeps his nose clean for a year and he doesn't face any consequences on what is felony gun charge. on the other hand, the charges that he lied when he said i'm not using drugs when he first got a gun, he was using drugs, but he had it for a couple of weeks, his girlfriend threw it away, and it's very rare for the doj to bring this sort of charge unless there's another crime with the gun. but that's what the judge was first questioning, what's the connection between this tax stuff and why is he essentially walking on the gun stuff, and then she brought up is there anything else that this foreclosures, the government said, no, not necessarily.

and that's when the disagreement or lack of full agreement came to light and it is a dramatic moment. >> the u.s. attorney's office had already put out that this investigation was ongoing, right? is this at all a situation in which u.s. attorney david weiss, trump appointed by the way, finds themselves in open court not wanting to say in open court, though they have said it, right, before this, that the investigation was done, that it was over, that this was all the charges that we're going to be seeing because of the political pressure they're feeling from the republican party? >> very hard to say, and the pressure is intense. weiss has agreed to testify, but the senators are already all over it, and this, even though they patch it back up together ensures more scrutiny.

but i think there is a sort of, you know, a little bit of communication breakdown. he did say that we don't know the exact inside story, but it could well be that the biden forces were a little bit too sanguine and were a little bit, you know, took too much from possibly informal assurances that aren't the law and weren't part of the four corners of the agreement. you could see how that could happen, but it's, you know, given the prominence of the case, the sophistication of the lawyers, it's very noteworthy, but i think it's a little hard to find just where the fault seam lies here, but the pressure -- the political pressure certainly was brought to bear to sort of tear the seam apart in a way that normally wouldn't happen in a pedestrian kind of case that you're just working through. >> peter baker, harry makes a good point, which is coming down to nick's messaging, right? we heard from david wees even

yesterday in that letter in which he said he would testify in front of congress when this thing was closed up, when it was done. the implication was that it would be open and shut today. >> yeah, and what's surpriing is as harry points out, we've known abohi since the day it was announced because of that pressure release where they said this was ongoing at the same time that hunter biden's attorney says, no, it's not. it's surprising that between that date and now they didn't get on the same page. walk into court without having ironed that out. they had different interpretations about it but didn't feel the need to square that away for whatever reason. it's important because first of all, it highlights once again that this deal is happening, the more attention paid to it, that's obviously beneficial to republicans politically, but it also highlights that this investigation may not be over and the disappointment among republicans that it was on relatively narrow, smaller

issues that had nothing to do with his father, nothing to do with, you know, abuse of government may, in fact, still be an open question. >> let's talk more about that, peter, because this is obviously going to be very much a part of the 2024 presidential election . you're looking at the white house, we're looking at the press briefing with press secretary karine jean-pierre any moment going to be taking questions. this is just going to throw political fuel on the fire for the white house inside of an election year who thought this thing was going to be behind them. >> yeah, the biden camp would like today to have been the last day of this. it wasn't that big of a deal in the end, hunter is paying the price for his mistakes. it has nothing to do with whether or not joe biden is fit to be president. that is no longer the case, given that the prosecution has indicate that had this investigation may still be ongoing, that will just raise questions politically as well as legally, and it will be hard for

the white house to put it behind them if, in fact, the u.s. attorney is still investigating. you'll hear questions at the briefing today. no question that the reporters will be pressing on this. >> memoli, i want to come back to you. as we're talking about the white house. obviously you follow the white house incredibly closely, know the president quite well. what have we heard on the record from the white house when it comes to how the situation is playing out? >> well, what we saw about a month ago when this plea agreement was announced was a statement from the president and the first lady in which they expressed support for their son and said they were proud of their son as he was beginning to rebuild his life. this was the hope on the part of the first family who are looking through this lens not politically necessarily but simply as a family matter knowing the trauma the family has gone through since the death of beau biden. they thought this would be the

beginning of the end, he could continue to go through that road to recovery. we know the president has held his son closely. there was a sort of reiteration of that statement a month ago by the white house again today that they still continue to support their son. as it relates to the politics and what we're hearing from the white house, it was interesting. yesterday we did really get an indication of how the white house did think this was a pivot point where they could pivot away from this matter and focus on republicans and misplaced priorities. karine jean-pierre saying while the republicans are focused on him and his family, president biden is focused on the american people, their families. that's the kind of language you hear from the white house from the biden campaign as they see an opportunity to move beyond this. obviously the degree to which there's still some uncertainty about what could still come down the road for hunter bye, that would get in the way of that. we always knew that republicans in congress were going to continue to pursue

investigations on their own. there's a fundamental disagreement on the part of republicans and the biden campaign about what this campaign would be lit fwated over. he's planning to go to maine on friday to talk about bidenomics, to talk about the economy. they think these kitchen table issues what the president was talking about yesterday, a bipartisan issue, trying to help with mental health parity in this country is what the ordinary voters who aren't necessarily obsessed with these inside the beltway issues focus on. republicans think that is the best way to potentially undermine the president at a time we know his most likely opponent former president donald trump is still under a legal cloud. that's fundamental disconnect in terms of the politics of the moment, but to the extent that this is continuing for hunter biden, that there might still be some shoes to drop here, thamd complicate that plan. >> i want you to pull on that thread for a moment, mike, knowing the white house well and

knowing how this administration works. is there a plan to kind of pivot and how to deal with this politically, right? we know the president and the first lady have wanted to keep this a personal matter, and in some ways it is a personal matter. but he is the president of the united states running for re-election. >> reporter: let me stop you because -- >> go ahead, please. >> reporter: you're going to want to hear from tom winter who's just coming out of the courthouse. >> okay the son of the president of the united states has just pleaded not guilty. not guilty is what he has pleaded to. the judge here says that she will not accept or reject the plea agreement. she wants more information, basically -- excuse me, what she's asking for is to determine whether or not it's appropriate for her to consider something in the diversion program. as part of that agreement, effectively what you have here is a provision which asks the court to weigh whether or not possibly hunter biden could be

the -- could have violated his pretrial diversion agreement as it relates to the gun charge. what would happen according to that agreement is the defense and the prosecution will have the opportunity to brink the facts to the court, and the court term if there's a breach of that. what she says is wait just a minute, i'm not somebody who normally has to consider those provisions. i normally don't see a pretrial diversion agreement and now you're putting me in the position possibly of being the gate keeper as to whether or not the justice department or the government files charges against hunter biden. that's not a situation from a separation of power and a constitutionality that we can -- that she feels immediately that she should be there, that she should make a termination on. that's what this hinges on. she also has some rule 11,

that's whether or not she can accept a guilty plea or not, and there's different versions of that where either she rubber stamps an agreement or whether she can challenge a plea agreement and determine whether she wants to accept it or not. long story short here, this morning we believed that this would be a simple guilty plea, the judge would accept it, the president's son would say that he committed tax crimes that possible gun charges would be part of a pretrial diversion agreement. there would be likely probation as a result of that, and we'd be out of here in two hours. now the judge wants both sides to provide briefs to the court and then have everybody come back here to be able to provide some sort of new language or new sort of provisions to these agreements that exclude her or something that satisfies the court, at that point then hunter biden has the opportunity if they come to an agreement to

plead guilty. but as it stands right now, the president's son hunter biden has pleaded not guilty and is, in fact, at this point it's unclear where we stand with this case and trial, it's possible they don't come to an agreement long-term, though i think that's unlikely. i need to put in my ability to hear you all. i'll let you speak for a second and then we can go from there. >> yeah, okay. so tom can't hear me because he's getting his ifb in. what we're hearing and learning now, obviously there's been a lot of twists and turns over the last few hours. we thought this was going to be an open and shut case. hunter biden would show up in court, plead guilty and everything would go forward smoothly. i think i've got tom winter back now. that is not the case, and in fact, there has been a major turn of events and the president of the united states son has, in fact, pled not guilty in court today. to be on the record with this, tom, and to be clear for folks

watching at home, there is no plea deal today. >> reporter: that's right. there is no plea deal today. let me kind of take us back. typically what happens in federal court in a proceeding involving a guilty plea -- and there's different rules that govern this. so it's different ways that the judge can accept a plea agreement between two parties. one of the ways that she does it is the possibility of just accepting it and saying, okay, you two have an agreement, essentially a contract between the federal prosecutors, the united states justice department, and a defendant. and i'm here to just make sure the defendant is of sound mind and body and believes that they've received effective counsel and to accept that plea and to notify the defendant of any sort of rights. that's the option that prosecutors were moving forward today along with hunter biden's attorneys. there's another provision of that rule, which the judge can make some inquiries of that plea agreement and determine whether

or not they accept the plea agreement. that's something i more typically see in my limited experience of covering these. normally we never go down these roads at all. the judge says i might normally accept that, but you all sent me a copy of your pretrial diversion agreement. in that you're potentially asking me one day to make a determination as to whether or not the facts add up to hunter biden vie liting that agreement, and the government can make an argument whether or not they want to pursue charges. she has current concerns about that from a constitutionality perspective and separation of power where she believes i might be in a position where i'm a gate keeper as to whether or not the government files charges. federal prosecutors say, well,

okay, fine. that's up to us, jung. we're the ones who entered into this agreement. frankly it's an agreement between us. not sure why you need to weigh in on it. the judge now has to accept a plea because we had the initial appearance in the early part of this hearing and has to accept a plea from hunter biden today. she says she's not willing to accept or reject this plea agreement, but she wants some more information before she makes a decision. as a result, she still has to take a plea today, and hunter biden and his attorneys in a discussion that lasted maybe two seconds did the thing that i think anybody in his position would do and say i'm not going to plead guilty to anything. the judge hasn't made that determination. that's where we stand on this. that's the short story, which i know sounds long. this is something that should have lasted in typical -- in my experience of this an hour, an hour and a half. truly dependent upon the enormity of any sort of criminal information, basically on what

somebody did. the more that they did, the sometimes longer it is because sometimes the judges like to read the conduct into the record. it's part of the official court proceeding, and so it's not just something that's filed in paper. and so, yes, this can take a long time depending upon what the person is charged with. in something like this where it's two misdemeanor counts. it's a short range of criminal conduct relatively speaking, it should not have lasted that long. we got our first sense this morning when she was addressing a letter from a member of congress as to whether or not she should be in any position based on how prosecutors were asking her to proceed under that rule 11 issue that i brought up, whether she's in any position to reorder an investigation, to reconsider the facts of this plea agreement, and it was over 900 pages of exhibits that congress wanted to file -- this member of congress wanted to file in this case, and both

sides said, look, your honor, that's not what we're asking you for today. she agreed. she said separation of powers in this country, a judge cannot get to the point where they're ordering federal prosecutors to redo an investigation or come up with a new panel of charges. so that was the first wrinkle. and then she started to ask some questions about this pretrail diversion agreement and whether or not it was lumped in with the plea agreement or whether it was separate and if there was some issues there whether or not hunter biden would feel covered by it. and hunter president biden said in his own words, no, your honor, he had concerns about some of the thing she was raising potentially about this plea agreement, and so at 11:00 a.m., the court broke for recess, and there was realas to whether or not we would come to some sort of agreement. at that point, i'm paraphrasing, chris clark who represents hunter biden said -- and i was 15 feet from the prosecutor's table. he went over to the prosecutor and said we'll rip this thing

up. i'm under the impression that everything is included here. this plea agreement covers my pretrial diversion for the gun charge, and i'm under the impression, i'm extrapolating what he's saying here, i'm under the impression that that's included with the various tax charges. and we understand that part of the pretrial diversion includes other tax charges. that's new information today. at that point there appears to be a serious disagreement. the judge comes back after 15 minutes and both parties agree and say look, the pretrial diversion agreement son-in-law in the plea agreement on the tax charges just because we acknowledge and have come to an agreement that you shouldn't have to consider the gun charge when you're sentencing on the misdemeanor tax charges. the judge says, okay, sounds good. now i've got a question is this an ongoing investigation. federal prosecutors say, yes, it is. she asked the defense, is it your challenge then, are we

doing this piecemeal, are you going to have to come back to at a different point to me and say okay, we have new charges or a new agreement which covers new conduct. there was a difference between what the prosecutor seemed to think that it was and what the defense to think it that it was. they appeared to be under the belief that this generally covered things. prosecutors believe look, this only covers a certain amount of conduct, the years 2014 to 2019 with respect to tax charges and in that same time period anything tied to the possession of a gun by hunter biden and drug use. that's where things stood at that point, and then prosecutors said, look, if this doesn't -- if this precludes us from filing additional charges, they said, quote, no deal. and at that point the attorney for hunter biden said, yeah, we agree no deal. and the judge moved on to scheduling this as if it was any other court proceeding. we need to have status

conferences, when do we need to have briefs. speedy trial act considerations. i left the courtroom at that point. as i'm leaving the judge says, you know what? let's take some time. let's take ten minutes and see if you all can't come to a resolution on what this actually means and where we go from there. you take longer than 10, 15 minutes, a number of conferences between hunter biden, his attorney chris clark, number of conferences amongst prosecutors, the two parties meet and talk and then they come to a resolution on how they want to proceed and effectively chris clark says, look, we agree with the government that the plea agreement today only covers the specific statement of facts in the criminal information we've filed in this case. in other words just the taxes, just the possession of a gun while uing of abusing drugs. paraphrasing, but that's effectively the agreement they've come to. the judge says sounds good on that.

but then she races concerns about the pretrial diversion agreement and says i've got this thing and federal prosecutors admit there's no precedent for this. this is not something they normally deal with. federal prosecutors come back and say, look, we are asking you to make a determination. have both parties come in and say -- say for instance as a hypothetical, hunter biden is found using drugs, breaking another federal law happens to have a gun on him. all of those things they could -- and hunter biden's team says, well, we disagree with that. you're mischaracterizing it. that's not what wanted. they wanted to bring that dispute before a judge to determine the fact of whether or not the thing that prosecutors say happened where hunter biden may be in breach of his pretrial diversion agreement, whether or not that thing happened. and the judge said i'm never a party of these pretrial diversion agreements. now you're asking me to potentially come in on it, and i

have some concerns as i mentioned to you before, whether or not i'm a gate keeper of federal charges. that's not how the constitution is written. now we're in a situation where really it's in limbo, but i think what's going to end up happening hear is there will be some sort of an agreement between the parties where they strip out some of that language, go back to the judge and say this is why we think you should run the next plea hearing, assuming we get to that agreement a certain way in accordance with rule 11. and as far as the specific details on rule 11, i'm starting to get a little bit out over my skis on how all the different parameters in some sections go. this is normally a situation where i hope you guys have bar mcquaid to break it down. >> we've got harry litman. >> who was as intrigued with tom winter's story telling as i was.

glued tom winter. take a drink, get a glass of water for a moment. take a breath, but don't go anywhere, tom, because i want to talk to harry about some of what you just laid out there. we do want to come back to you outside that courthouse. there's a lot of nitty-gritty in there, it's not how we thought this day was fg to turn out, right? as tom winter said this was going to be an hour, hour and a half, the judge was going to sign off, and we were going to be done with it. that's not what happened. the president's son has pled not guilty and, in fact, that plea deal for now as his attorney put it has been torn up. what do you make of it? >> this is about the craziest plea hearing ever. we went from routine to a little weird to over the top alice in wonderland weird. three things are going on. so hang in there. i think i can explain them pretty concisely. rule 11 that tom keeps referring

to is the bible for a plea agreement. you come in, it sets out colloquy, the judge makes sure the defendant isn't on drugs and the plea is voluntary and the like. and the judge has a limited ability to question and push back on and even reject the plea, and she was exercising that based on her question why does a drug case have this gun count in it also. so that's just how it started and how we got to the misunderstanding. the second thing that's going on is -- has to do with diversion agreements. as the judge says, these happen all the time and what they are are agreements by the government not to bring charges. so they really have in a sense nothing to do with judges. instead of saying we'll dismiss this outright or we'll exercise

our discretion not to bring it, we say we'll do it if you keep your nose clean. in theory, none of that should ever come top a court. however, they put it in, that language in the plea agreement here, and the judge is saying does that mean if hunter biden breaks the agreement between you, i'm going to have to be deciding that and in effect making a charging decision for the department of justice. now, if she were right about that, i mean, i think that will go away after they brief it because this happens every day. it doesn't involve judges. it doesn't involve this separation of powers issue, and if it did, the whole institution of diversion would be in peril. so we have first how she got it it and then second this diversion point. but now we have the big third.

this is really i think what is going to go forward, and to add to what peter baker was saying, and that is what else could be there, when the doj first raised something and biden's attorney says this is null and void, i want out. but then basically they went and talked about it, and they said okay. we are talking about the thing that dove tails most with politics because its conduct in 2014 or before with barisma with china companies, maybe ukrainian companies and it's just then that at least there are witnesses that say hunter biden was invoking his father's name. if that becomes not just fodder for gossip from republicans but possibly criminal gris for the mill that's going to inflame the exact part of the debate which republicans want to keep alive, which is whether it somehow

touches on president biden. those are the three points going on. i think it will get stitched up tolerably on where it should have been, but then the big question will be does weiss bring additional charges that will bring up the business dealings of hunter biden before all these tax misdemeanor violations occurred. >> so a couple of things that you said there that i have outstanding questions on. first and foremost, so you talk about the diversion agreement that was laid out in the plea deal, some of which may have kind of posed some of these questions on behalf of judge noreika, should that diversion agreement not have been included in the plea deal? is that what you're saying? >> it made it anomalous, and it's what gave rise to it. they just wanted to be clear that it was separate from it. the short answer is it would have been cleaner and it wouldn't have given rise to these questions had it been

freestanding. on the other hand, there's no legal reason why she should see. she'll want to be reassured some big separation of powers problem. the short answer to your question, what they're saying is it is separate and the fact they didn't is what gave rise to her concern. >> so then what happens now? the simple question here. he has pled not guilty today. that plea deal at this moment has been torn up. where do they go from here and what are we looking at when it comes to timing? >> yeah, and that's point four. if there's no agreement he has to plead not guilty. here's what happens now, i think. the agreement gets put back together, including the diversion, but they make clear, maybe they put it separate. they make clear, no, judge, we are not saying that you're going to have to make charging decisions for the u.s. attorney of te. we're sorry for any confusion we

caused. that's separate. three tax counts are part of this plea agreement and please accept the plea. we are all agreed on what it covers. but third and politically i would say most importantly we are all agreed on what it doesn't cover which is a possible fara -- the fans of that can be kept alive depending on what david weiss does but also what people in congress do, but that is also outside of your purview, your honor. they put it together more cleanly. he pleads to the misdemeanor tax counts. the diversion occurs but not in a way that involves her at all and then we see what happens with the possible fara counts and his business dealings with china before he got in this tax mess. >> harry litman to not get out of that seat. stand by for me if you will. the white house press briefing is underway, karine jean-pierre addressing what is taking place

in delaware right now with the president's son. she wasn't asked a question about it per se. she did address the situation. i want to take a listen to that and then on the other side we're going to speak to peter baker. >> as we have said, the president, the first lady, they love their son, and they support him as he continues to rebuild his life. this case was handled independently as all of you know by the justice department under the leadership of a prosecutor appointed by the former president. president trump. so for anything further, as you know and we've been very consistent from here, i'd refer you to the department of justice and to hunter's representatives, who is his legal team obviously who can address any of your questions. with that i have the admiral here, admiral john kirby who's going to take -- >> white house press secretary there addressing what is taking place in the delaware courthouse right now with hunter biden pleading not guilty, in fact, the plea deal is no longer. peter baker let's talk through some of this. you and i were speaking on the other side of this before this

news broke and talking specifically about how the president, the administration has been addressing the situation with his son and keeping it a personal matter. it seems like they're sticking to that line right now. eventually they're going to have to pivot. this is going to become very much a political matter as the president is running for re-election against someone possibly like donald trump when may be indicted for a third, possibly fourth time, who will very likely bring up the issues surrounding the president's son. yeah, of course. obviously there's the legal issues as harry and tom have filled us in. then there's the politics of it. the politics of today you're going to hear republicans say see this deal is so smelly that the judge wouldn't just accept it off of face value and wants to know more about it. it sound like what she's concern about is a process thing, rather than the substance of the deal, whether hunter biden is getting

off light or whether something was done to protect him in the investigation. that does not seem to be at issue. if this deal goes forward in the next days or weeks and they have addressed the question of the diversion program and her role in it and it goes forward more or less along the lines we thought it was going to today eventually, in the long-term it probably doesn't really mean that much that we had this wrinkle today. it just prolongs the agony with politically and personally for the president. there's a real tension within the biden circle. obviously you have a president who feels very strong i labt his son, but you have democracies around him who are concerned that the president hasn't necessarily addressed it in their view in the right away. they believe that he is acting as a father but not focused enough on the political consequences of his son's actions and, therefore has left himself vulnerable to a lot of

what aboutism. the gun charges and tax charges have nothing to do with the indictments that have gone against donald trump, who has been caused of defrauding the public, and claims of unclassified documents and potentially a third indictment involving trying to overturn an election. obviously more serious matters. it allows the republicans to say there's something going wrong in the biden administration. that's what you'll hear them talk about. >> certainly gives them the fuel and the freedom to do that. i'm just wondering if there's a plan within the white house to deal with this going fwapd. it's not going to get wrapped up in a nice bow. this is the weight you take on as the president of the united states. the public scrutiny you take on not only of yourself but of the actions of your family members. >> every president it seems like has issues with his or her -- eventually her relatives that

cause them embarrassment. it is, in fact, a traditional situation we've seen over presidencies. you're right, the plan that they had was to wash their hands of it today, wipe their hands, say we're done, we're moving on. that plan has been blown up. >> many of us obviously remember something similar playing out or issues similar i should say playing out for the clinton presidency as well who obviously dealt with a brother with some drug charges. if you would, stand by for me. i want to go to the hill. we're talking about how this is all going to play out politically, and ali vitali standing by for us on capitol hill with that. you cannot say it enough, this is really going to throw fuel on this political fire for republicans there. who are wanting to address what they see as problematic with the

president's son. >> reporter: but you're right, that fair was burning. when peter says the white house and hunter biden's strategy was that today would mark an end point and allow this to be a little bit further outside the headlines, yes, that might have been the white house plan and certainly that's out the window now given the way this deal is in limbo, but for house republicans this was always going to be central, both before this hearing and now after. it's just going to be central in a different way. i think that peter's read on this initially was right, which is that there are house republicans who are going to rook at this and say see, the reason the judge is engaging in this way is because the deal itself was soft from the beginning. again, i don't think that's the accurate take because of the things tom winter and harry litman and others have explained to us in terms of the judge's concerns here. it does seam to be more on the process and subject between the dual charges of tax and gun issues. what we've seen from house republicans even before this is

an attempt to continue to do hearings, to talk about hunter biden's wrongdoing and find ways -- and find is the operative word here -- find ways to link the president with his son's tealings. they have not been able to do that. house speaker kevin mccarthy re-tweeting members of his conference, the head of the ways and means committee, jason smith tweeting that no one is above the law, especially and even if your last name is biden. this is the same message just in a new light now because of this hearing. >> stand by for me as well if you will, i want to bring in elise jordan as well as we're kind of talking about the politics of this whole thing. as we keep saying this is a personal matter for the president of the united states. this is also a political matter considering he is the president of the united states and running for re-election as well. elise jordan, thanks for joining us on this. we're looking at the time line here, right, and it's not great for president biden. as you're looking at how this is

going to play out, they thought this was going to be done within an hour, hour and a half today, but this thing could run smack dab up into election season. how does that play not only for the president but for republicans who are hoping to use this against the president on the campaign trail? >> this is just catnip for republicans. they want to go after hunter biden as a means of attacking joe biden and also deflecting from all of the corruption of the trump family back, you know, so many years ago and throughout the entirety of donald trump's entire career. but they're using this to create equivalence, and they're going to keep beating on this and hammering away at it, and the reality is it's not a good story for joe biden. it might not be as bad as what other politicians and their families have done, but it still

is not a good story. and so he is going to have to navigate this. i really think the deflection of it's a personal matter, we don't comment, i don't know how long they're going to get away with that. i think it has been a bit of political malpractice to keep turning to that over and over and over. >> so how do you think the president should have addressed things then? >> i think that, first of all, what's even a bigger issue than all of this is the emotional issue attached to president biden's granddaughter that he doesn't acknowledge that hunter biden does not -- that he pays child support on after many legal battles, and that is -- it cuts against president biden's image as a clean cut loving grandfather, which he by all accounts is but having one child out there who isn't acknowledge ds is going to come up a lot by the trump campaign. imagine what he did during those debates, yasmin, bringing

different victims forward and bringing to the debates when he was debating hillary clinton in 2016. if they do not handle this issue with some frankly compassion, it's not a good look for joe biden. >> i think it's interesting that you bring up the word compassion. i want to get into that in a second, but former new jersey governor chris christie now running for president of the united states in the 2024 cycle sat down with my colleague andrea mitchell in the last hour. and he addressed what is happening and playing out with hunter biden and the president of the united states as well. i want to take a listen if we can to that and then have you react on the other side. >> what i found in these investigations, especially the complex political ones, is that you never know where it's going to lead, and so i think it's appropriate for u.s. attorney to say, if you want a plea deal, you got to tell me everything.

everything, hunter, and if he's got information that involves anyone connected with this that may have done something wrong up to and including his father, he's got to be clean about that. i don't know that he hasn't or hasn't, but doesn't sound like he has. >> elise, what do you make of that? >> governor christie knows far more about what goes into these prosecutions as a former attorney. i don't want to speculate about what may or may not have been done or what hunter biden has agreed to prosecutors. it looks bad that there are potential fara violations. it is, you know, something that so many lobbyists and consultants in d.c. hate to register the foreign countries they're lobbying for and many avoid it and they get away with it. but some people like paul manafort don't get away with it. it's charges like that, the tax

fraud charges, the gun charge that are what we know hunter biden is continuing with today. >> elise, stand by for me if you will. i want to swing back if we can to capitol hill, ali standing by for us. i know you've been getting those reactions in fast and furiously as folks are learning of this plea deal not happening today with hunter biden. what are you hearing? >> reporter: that's exactly right. none of it is entirely surprising. we were able to sort of pretelegraph what some of these responses might look like. we're seeing tweets from republicans saying things like in the words of congresswoman claudia tenny that the judge refused this sweetheart plea deal and it's a great first step in her words towards real accountability for the biden family. congressman james comer saying this really validates the investigatory work his committee has been doing. ha work is into hunter biden. it speaks to the point that for republicans having the power of

the gavel right now allows them to really equivocate between the idea that donald trump is under multiple investigations, multiple indictments as we wait for the third indictment this summer for the former president. they're trying to equivocate those tangible charges and nchgss with the investigations they are doing loosely on the house judiciary and weaponization front into hunter biden trying to connect them to president joe biden. all of this is an attempt to muddy the waters and just attach the word investigations to both candidates for the likely front runners in 2024, nevertheless, you're hearing from people like senator ron johnson who are saying they're happy about the way this plea deal has been derailed. congresswoman lauren boebert saying mark my words saying the biden crime family will go down as the most corrupt family in american political history. again, i think it's really important to underscore that event though republicans are

taking investigation, they have not found any tangible evidence tooling the president with his son's business dealings. nevertheless, they continue investigating until they can find that. >> i need you to wax poetic for me for a moment, ali visit tam -- vitale. we're hearing from the likes of lauren boebert. they're celebrating what has taken place today. are we looking at a 2024 in which this is becoming a tit for tat, right? as you talk about. they want to attach the word investigation there talking about an impeachment inquiry to the president of the united states. how dirty could this get? >> pretty dirty. the fact that you have speaker kevin mccarthy talking about the idea that they could open an impeachment inquiry which would allow republicans to have the apex of their invest ga toir

power. they've been exercising that on all these various committees but also a way to play defense for former president trump in the light of each turn of these investigations, be it in new york or at the federal level through doj. all of that has been really important. when you has been really important. when you start talking about the fact there are members of the house republican conference who really are beating the drum for a presidential impeachment at the same time as trump is urging people like mccarthy to expunge his two impeachments, again, that doesn't change anything. we know he was impeached twice, and that doesn't change the fact that it's still in the history books, but when you watch the idea that impeachment is no longer going to be reserved or could no longer be reserved as this highest echelon of presidential accountability from congress, i do think that it's yet another sign of the deterioration that we've seen and the hyper partisanship that you and i often talk about here heading into a presidential election year. certainly nothing is ever devoid of politics, but when you're

watching these investigations play out, it's so inextricably linked and the other thing that will be incumbent on us and i've heard from lawmaker sources up here, that what they want to do, make clear the point, when republicans are going after hunter biden's business dealings, and certainly they have the right to do that. they're watching the court system do that as well, there are open questions for many members, especially on the democratic side about what people like jared kushner who were active members of the administration doing diplomatic deals with the saudis, for example, and then coming out of white house and having business deals on the side themselves. all of those, i think, are open questions. people are allowed to do business, but politics is never far behind in this. so there are democrats who want to make clear if you want to equivocate, attach the word investigation, okay, if you're going to attach it to the biden family, you should attach it to the trump family, and knows are confess we posed to comer as well, and he cast those

comparisons aside, and remains focused on the biden of it all. that's going to be the case. make no mistake about it, going into 2024, this is going to be the central headline that republicans continue beating on as we watch trump face down yet another possible indictment this week and then of course whatever happens in fulton county, georgia. >> we're wondering what '24 is going to play out. and i want to bring peter baker into the conversation to think back to 2020 and how the debate stage played out then as the conversation surrounded ba -- barisma, hunter biden's dealings, the sound i'm about to play, this was before donald trump was indicted two times, possibly three, possibly four as we're looking at what is in the pipeline for him. let's see how that played out back in 2020, and then, peter

baker, i want you to weigh in. >> hunter got thrown out of the military. he was thrown out, dishonorably discharged. >> that's not true. he wasn't -- >> for cocaine use, and didn't have a job until you became vice president. he made a fortune in ukraine, in china, in moscow. >> that is simply not true. >> and various other places. >> my son, my son, like a lot of people, like a lot of people you know at home had a drug problem. he's overtaken it. he's fixed it. he's worked on it. and i'm proud of him. i'm proud of my son. >> and this was something, peter, that you and i kind of got into a little bit earlier, talking about how not only is this a personal issue but it's an issue that faces a lot of americans who have members of their families who have drug problems, right, and the president addressing that in a way on the debate stage, then candidate biden addressing that on the debate stage back in 2020, but i'm wondering is that what it's going to look like once again, right, if former

president donald trump is able to secure this nomination, as this is all playing out? >> yeah, i think you're right. then former vice president biden was able to frame it successfully in 2020 as a tragedy, as a son who, you know, struggling with addiction did some things that were wrong but not necessarily, you know, corrupt. i think now of course it's been a few years since then, more information has come out, more allegations have been made. many of which of course have not yet been proven or confirmed. i think that narrative is a little harder to make right now, and so for the president biden, it's not just about a wayward son, but about whether or not he himself had something to do with his wayward son's business dealings, and that's still an open question. the former president, i'm sorry, the current president said that he's never had even discussed business with his son. the white house press secretary this week changed that formulation a little bit to say he was never in business with

his son. that's a little bit different than what president biden has said in the past. and we'll see where it plays out. i think that, you know, the comparison, though, to president trump, former president trump is so stark that, you know, democrats are very frustrated. how can we talk about a son who may or may not have screwed occupy, versus a former president or would be next president who tried to overturn an election and done these other things. >> i want to reiterate what we're hearing from karine jean-pierre at the white house press briefing, this coming in a couple of minutes ago, saying, verbatim, as we have said, the president and first lady love their son and support him as he continues to rebuild his life. my thanks to the experts breaking down the news. we have much more in our second hour of "chris jansing reports," including more details about hunter biden pleading not guilty after his plea deal was put on hold. that's coming up next. we'll be right back. coming up . we'll be right back. r schwab. i love to help people understand the world through their lens

and invest accordingly. you can call us christmas eve at four o'clock in the morning. we're gonna always make sure that you have all of the financial tools and support to secure your financial future. that means a lot for my community and for every community. ♪ age is just a number, and mine's unlisted. try boost® high protein with 20 grams of protein for muscle health versus 16 grams in ensure® high protein. boost® high protein. now available in cinnabon® bakery-inspired flavor. learn more at boost.com/tv ♪ on your period, sudden gushes happen. say goodbye gush fears! thanks to always ultra thins... with rapiddry technology... that absorbs two times faster. hellooo clean and comfortable. always. fear no gush.

first, there's an idea and you do something about it for the first time with godaddy. then before you know it, (it is a life changer...) you make your first sale. small business first. never stopped coming. (we did it!) and you have a partner that always puts you first way. (no way!) start today at godaddy.com.

76% of 23andme health customers surveyed reported taking healthier actions. (no way!) because they know health isn't just a future state. health happens now. start your dna-powered health journey today with personalized insights from 23andme. (burke) a new car loses about ten percent of its value the minute you drive off the lot. or more. that's why farmers new car replacement pays to replace it with a new one of the same make and model. get a whole lot of something with farmers policy perks. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

to finally lose 80 pounds and keep it off with golo is amazing. i've been maintaining. the weight is gone and it's never coming back. with golo, i've not only kept off the weight but i'm happier, i'm healthier, and i have a new lease on life. golo is the only thing that will let you lose weight and keep it off. who loses 138 pounds in nine months? i did! golo's a lifestyle change and you make the change and it stays off. (soft music) all right. welcome back, everybody want

we're following that breaking news in the hunter biden case, the president's son pleading not guilty in his tax case after his original plea deal with prosecutors fell apart. we have team coverage of the minute-to-minute drama in the courtroom. nbc's tom winter is following this for us. also with me, msnbc legal analyst, and former assistant d.a. at the manhattan district attorney's office, catherine christian. "washington post" congressional investigations reporter, jacqueline alemany, and elise jordan, an msnbc political analyst. thanks for joining us, guys, appreciate it. tom, start us off. what happened? >> reporter: well, the quote from judge mary ellen, i can't accept or reject in plea agreement after a multi-hour hearing today. the judge essentially saying this agreement that you-all have come up with, i have some legal problems with. i'm not going to accept it. i'm not going toel