One aspect of Hunty's lenient plea "deal" has vanished with no explanation

Hunty and the fraud on court, and plea deal:

A day before Hunty was to take the absurdly lenient plea deal, Jessica Bengels--a "litigation coordinator" for a law firm which previously employed Hunty's lawyer--called the clerk of the court hearing the case, and asked the clerk to remove a certain "amicus filing" by the House committee investigating Hunty, from the official record.

The clerk says she believes Bengels identified herself as working for the House committee, so she did as she was asked.  Obviously if Bengels claimed this it would normally call for sanctions against her.  But as we learn every day, these times are decidedly NOT normal.

Now Bengels has reportedly submitted an affidavit to the court swearing she never told the clerk she was with the House committee investigating Hunty, and that it was all just a "miscommunication" or misunderstanding.

This is superficially plausible--enough to let the corrupt media write stories making that the Narrative.  But the obvious question is, since Bengels obviously doesn't work for the House committee, she would have had no authority to ask the clerk to remove the amicus brief. In that case, what legitimate reason would she have for asking the clerk to do that?

She is not Hunty's attorney, although Hunty's attorney is a partner in the Latham law firm where Jessica is listed as "director of litigation services and litigation services counsel."  Latham partner Matthew Salerno has written the court that Bengels is not part of the team of lawyers on Hunter Biden's case.

So an obvious question is, did anyone ask Bengels to call the court clerk?  Since the issue is extremely serious--a possible attempt to defraud the court--the judge has every authority to haul Jessica into court and subject her to cross-examination under oath.  But of course the judge won't order that, despite having a clear rationale.  Hmmm...

Other evidence bear on whether this was indeed "miscommunication" or a misunderstanding:  If Bengels had correctly identified herself and her firm, instead of representing herself as working for the House committee (and thus plausibly as being authorized to withdraw the amicus filing), why would the clerk have removed the amicus filing based on some third party's suggestion or insistence. And Hunty's team is adamant that the clerk removed the amicus "of her own volition."  Unless the clerk is incompetent, no way.

Interestingly, this story vanished.  I haven't heard a word about any followup.

Now to the plea deal:  At the moment it appears that the sole sticking point was that Hunty's attorneys said he would only agree to plead guilty to the sweetheart deal if he was offered total immunity for uncharged crimes both past and future.  But this revelation--which makes the DOJ look even more corrupt than our initial broad understanding--caught DOJ prosecutors by surprise, and they raised a single point, that the deal didn't cover possible charges under FARA "because that was still being investigated."

Hunty's attorneys--knowing the fix was in, so they weren't risking anything--prudently declined the deal, insisting on *total* immunity for everything.

I predict that the actual plea deal will include immunity for any future charges too, but the media won't mention that, as it might irk a few honest Democrats.  The actual language will be so convoluted and camouflaged that reporters won't even ask.

Any bets?

Someone else noted that one term of the deal is that for his one year of probation Hunty is required not to use drugs.  I don't know anyone who would bet he'd be able to do that.  But like all regime perps, Hunty won't even be tested.  He could overdose on fentanyl and be revived by the cops, and no one would dare revoke his probation for violating the terms.
 
Here's the hoot, from the Dem-shill site Politico: "Biden’s political allies have said the deal is fair and perhaps even tough given the facts involved."

Hahahahaha!  The shills at Politico wrote that without a hint of sarcasm or skepticism.