I mentioned Trump appointed not from bias, just fact is all. Did look at her wiki, and missed that. Yes she was supported by both .. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/21/politics/hunter-biden-judge-maryellen-noreika/index.html .. and has contributed to both. More to Republicans though not much. The contribution to Santorum suggests a libertarian bent, maybe. Possibly not real relevant. Tired. Will revisit yours tomorrow to look at the other. .
To your question how did they come up with such an unacceptable plea deal? Guess the answer would simply be both the prosecution and Biden's people didn't expect it to be seen as unacceptable as this particular judge sees it. As for the different interpretations of it it's easy to understand why Biden's lawyers want the immunity to be as big a blanket as possible.
July 26, 2023, 4:04 p.m. Michael S. Schmidt and Glenn Thrush
The judge’s concerns centered on how much immunity the deal would give Hunter Biden.
PHOTO
One of the major issues that led a federal judge to delay the approval of Hunter Biden’s plea deal was a provision intended to insulate him from future Justice Department prosecution — including if former President Donald J. Trump is re-elected or any future Republican president seeks to reopen the matter.
Most plea agreements that come after lengthy investigations — Mr. Biden has been under scrutiny since 2018 — contain language that gives the defendant and their lawyers some reassurance that the inquiry has come to an end.
The question that arose in court on Wednesday was how much reassurance would Mr. Biden get, and for what.
Judge Maryellen Noreika of Federal District Court in Wilmington, Del., questioned what crimes the language in the plea would cover and found that the two sides had vastly different interpretations.
Beyond the tax and gun charges that are at the heart of the proposed deal, Mr. Biden’s lawyer, Christopher Clark, has taken the position that the agreement he struck with the Justice Department applied to other possible offenses related to matters that prosecutors examined during the investigation. That would include any potential crimes stemming from Mr. Biden’s lucrative consulting and investment deals with companies and partners in Ukraine, China and Romania.
Insert: In light of Biden having been under investigation for some five years, and in light of the Republican congressional committee having cleared both Bidens of wrongdoing in relation to Ukraine that interpretation by Clark would seen to be reasonable.
The government had a far different understanding. One of the prosecutors, Leo Wise, said in court on Wednesday that the immunity applied only to the tax and gun charges, nothing more.
The disagreement over such a central element of the deal was remarkable, given the months of negotiations that went into reaching it.
The more expansive view taken by Mr. Biden’s legal team was that the deal would give Mr. Biden a shield if he were charged by the Justice Department in the future for any conduct that was examined in the investigation. If that were to happen, his lawyers could present the agreement to a judge to demonstrate that the department had already agreed to forgo prosecuting him — an assurance that would not necessarily provide Mr. Biden with ironclad protection, but could deter or slow any prosecution based on facts already uncovered.
Statements that Mr. Trump has made since leaving office make such a shield highly desirable.
Shortly after he was indicted in June by the special counsel Jack Smith for mishandling classified documents he took from the White House and obstructing the government’s efforts to reclaim them, Mr. Trump laid out to his supporters how he planned to use the Justice Department to seek retribution.
“I will appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family,” Mr. Trump said at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., hours after he was arraigned in Miami in the documents case.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
