Hunter Biden’s Plea Deal Implodes

The plea deal between federal prosecutors and Hunter Biden has always looked fishy, and on Wednesday it was exposed in court. The legal fireworks make it harder to ignore fundamental questions about the integrity of the five-year investigation.

Federal Judge Maryellen Noreika didn’t reject the wrist-slap plea bargain outright, but she asked prosecutors and defense attorneys to clarify the terms of the deal on gun and tax charges. It says something that the deal collapsed under the most basic questions.

The June 20 plea never made sense except as a way to disguise and bury the political embarrassment of Hunter’s business shenanigans. The two misdemeanor tax charges and the deferred felony gun count could have been brought in the first few months of the investigation. Judge Noreika zeroed in on the diversion agreement on the gun count, which spared Mr. Biden jail time and would mean he would not be charged if he met certain conditions.

The critical point came when the judge asked if the deal meant Hunter could still be prosecuted on other charges, such as violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Prosecutor Leo Wise said he could. Defense attorney Chris Clark said that wasn’t his understanding. If the plea didn’t give his client such immunity, then there’s no deal, said Mr. Clark.

The hearing featured multiple recesses in which the prosecution and defense tried to clarify the terms of a revised deal. Judge Noreika said she felt that “you are telling me to rubber stamp the agreement.” In the end Hunter pleaded not guilty to the tax charges, and the judge gave the lawyers 30 days to provide further briefings before she reaches a decision.

Courtroom drama aside, the big issue isn’t whether any plea deal is too tough or lenient. The question hovering over the plea is whether Joe Biden was also in on his son’s sleazy influence-peddling. Is the President the “big guy” famously mentioned in an email to Hunter from one of his business partners?

The press has given the President a pass on his repeated claims that he knew nothing about Hunter’s business, and the White House continues to stonewall. Shortly after the hearing, press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre refused to clarify whether her new official line—that “the President was never in business with his son”—was a change from his many previous public claims that he never even discussed his son’s overseas business dealings with him.

No doubt the change in the official line reflects White House recognition of the growing evidence that contradicts Mr. Biden’s earlier statements. Americans may learn even more next week, when his son’s former business associate, Devon Archer, is scheduled to testify behind closed doors to the House Oversight Committee about then-Vice President Biden’s attendance at dinners and talks on speakerphone with Hunter’s foreign business associates.

Voters may not care much about the shady dealings of a dissolute son. But they will care if President Biden is shown to have lied about his knowledge of his son’s multi-million-dollar payments to Biden family members—and if Mr. Biden’s Justice Department blocked IRS and FBI investigators from learning the truth.