NYTimes, this link.
Breitbart, this link.
Because Clark, negotiating lawyer for Hunter Biden, might later have to be a witness as to plea bargaining and promising, he resigned from the case.
Abbe Lowell is reported to currently represent Hunter Biden as lead counsel.
There appears to be disagreement over whether DoJ in negotiation and via a DoJ-signed document referencing a second separate, equal dated, plea item's attachment forestalled further DoJ investigation, or not. Politico links to the pair of plea papers.
From yesterday's NYTimes item it appears charges in the present court have been dropped with DoJ having named Weiss special prosecutor, where a final report would be filed, and with the judge who stymied the plea deal losing jurisdiction while at the hearing before her there was disagreement between the two sides of the scope intended for the plea submission.
At that hearing, a different DoJ lawyer appeared, from the one who had negotiated plea matters up to that point. Presumably the negotiating DoJ lawyer would, like Clark for Biden, be a witness about promises made.
Where thing move next, and how ultimately the situation is resolved, are both open questions as of yesterday's reporting.
Outside of the two earlier linked items, this item arguably sheds further light upon the scope of immunity question the court raised at the plea hearing. Scope of immunity considerations is what caused the judge to refuse the deal. No contract meeting of the minds, per the lawyers for each side at the hearing.
UPDATE: That last cited item, in turn, links here. Crabgrass has no way of knowing the credibility of any allegations, via only knowing things published on the web.
FURTHER: More about the hearing where plea understandings were at issue. A major question concerned Hunter Biden apparently having not duly registered as a representative of foreign interests - with how one registers and whether the DOJ has a non-waivable vs discretionary duty to prosecute non-registration. And whether ambiguous wording in plea papers did or did not include immunity in that direction.
Wikipedia re FARA. From items examined online Crabgrass has no firm understanding of whether FARA law is largely settled; or evolving, with the guess being evolving. Perhaps FARA law is sufficiently unsettled that there is no good precedent of whether wording of the plea items was sufficient to waive FARA liability as part of an immunity grant within and as part of a limited plea. That would be a legal question apart from the political overtones of the defendant being the President's son. As a fact matter, Hunter Biden's cocaine addiction and aberrant behavior might be cause for him to in fact be largely unable to firmly remember things from key times and contexts. "Not that I can remember" might be fully appropriate and true responses to questioning he may at some point face.