Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Rudy Giuliani Concedes to Making Defamatory Statements About Georgia Election Workers; Hunter Biden's Plea Agreement Hits Roadblock. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired July 26, 2023 - 13:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[13:00:00]

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Where they now have to put security on their houses, when they never had it before. They're going through training that they have never been through before, all because they're afraid of their lies -- lives.

And so that's a very real -- real-world impact from those lies.

DANA BASH, CNN HOST: All right, we're going to have to leave it there. Thank you all so much. Appreciate it. Very busy news day.

Thank you for joining INSIDE POLITICS.

"CNN NEWS CENTRAL" starts right now.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Hunter Biden's plea deal revised, a dramatic day in court. The president's son had been expected to plead guilty to two misdemeanors, but then things took a turn. So what changed? And where does this go from here?

Plus, Rudy Giuliani's election concession. The former Trump attorney concedes he did make false statements about election workers in Georgia rigging the 2020 election. So how's he going to be held accountable? We're following the latest.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: And questions about UFOs, lawmakers pushing for answers today, three military veterans testifying on the Hill about unidentified flying objects.

We are following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

SANCHEZ: A historic plea deal that nearly unraveled at the last moment.

This morning, Hunter Biden pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of failing to pay taxes. It was the first time the child of a sitting president pleaded guilty to a federal crime. Now, a hearing like this is usually just a formality, but, today, the defense threatened to walk away once Justice Department prosecutors indicated that future charges could still be on the table.

The two sides huddled and appeared to then refine the scope of the deal. On the political side, we know House Republicans are barreling ahead with their own probe of Hunter Biden based on unverified allegations that Joe Biden was tied to his son's business deals. So far, they have not proved any links.

CNN's Evan Perez has been following this for us.

Evan, this was supposed to be just a boilerplate procedure, instead, some twists and turns.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, a lot of drama, Boris.

Certainly, these hearings tend to take about 20, maybe 30 minutes max. In this case, this is still ongoing. This is a hearing that began at about 10:00 a.m., and we know that the scope of this agreement is what really certainly began unraveling, certainly when the judge began asking questions of the two sides.

And here is where we are at this moment. It appears that they have an agreement that they are now moving forward on -- moving ahead on. As part of that, Hunter Biden is agreeing -- he's talking to the judge right now, answering questions, discussing some of the sources of his income that are at issue here.

He said he worked for the Ukrainian company Burisma, which is an energy company. He talked about getting paid by the Chinese energy company CEFC. Again, those are central to this investigation. As part of this, he will plead guilty, he's agreeing to plead guilty to two misdemeanors covering the tax years of 2017 and 2018 as part of this agreement.

This agreement covers all of his tax issues, all of his drug issues, as well as any potential gun crimes that he committed from the years 2014 to 2019. And that gun charge is where things kind of went off the rails a little bit, when the judge began asking about the relationship, whether the two things were connected, whether the misdemeanor tax counts was connected to this diversion program under which Hunter Biden agrees to abide by whatever stipulations the court says as part of that.

Then this gun -- this possession of a gun charge goes away. It's a felony. So it is a serious charge. And Hunter Biden bought a firearm at a time that he was not qualified to own one, because he was addicted to drugs. So that is part of what the issue here was today.

Now, you pointed out part of the issue here now is that the government says this is still an ongoing investigation. So there are certain things that perhaps Hunter Biden could still be charged with that are not covered by this agreement, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Yes, potentially acting as an unregistered foreign agent for other governments within the United States. They're still in court, so we will see where things go from there.

Evan Perez, please keep us posted.

Let's talk about the politics of this now with CNN's Sara Murray, who's been following Capitol Hill reaction.

Sara, we know lawmakers have been keeping a close eye on this, specifically, Republicans, who have made all sorts of allegations not only about Hunter Biden, but also his father.

[13:05:02]

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right.

I mean, I think a couple of things are happening. One thing is, House Republicans want to get more answers from U.S. attorney David Weiss about how this Hunter Biden investigation played out, what exactly he looked into. And they want more answers from him about allegations they have heard from IRS whistle-blowers who are working on this case about political interference.

Now, Weiss has debunked a couple of those allegations already. But it's very clear that House Judiciary Committee, again, led by Republicans, wants more answers, and Weiss has said he would be willing to testify in September or October, but the committee is going to have to sort of figure out, is that going to be worth their time if there is this ongoing investigation going on and if there are a number of questions that Weiss is not going to be able to answer as long as this is still an ongoing probe?

I think the other thing that's going on is, we are hearing the increasing drumbeat about a potential impeachment inquiry for Joe Biden related to all of these allegations around the Biden family finances. We have heard House Speaker Kevin McCarthy make his most pointed comments yet that some of these allegations may rise to the level of a potential impeachment inquiry.

Again, Republicans have not been able to prove that Joe Biden benefited from his son's overseas business dealings. But this is a point of inquiry that Republicans have ongoing. And they seem to believe, or at least some of them, that launching an impeachment inquiry may be a way to get more answers to some of those questions, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Sara Murray, thanks so much for the update -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: All right, so what's it all mean?

We're joined now by CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams and "USA Today," Washington bureau chief Susan page.

Elliot, if I could begin with you, given your legal background, have you seen an expected plea deal like this blow up in court in the final moment before a judge? Have you seen this kind of thing? I mean, should both sides have been prepared for this?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It happens.

Look, I personally never had a plea deal blow up. But it's perfectly uncommon -- perfectly common, Jim, for two parties to go into court with their notions of what was about to play out in the courtroom differ. They will sit down in front of a judge and the judge says, wait a second, what did you guys agree to?

And both sides, both attorneys, the defense and the prosecution, will clearly have a different story. I think the problem here is that, number one, this follows weeks, if not months of discussions between the two parties, and, number two, in an investigation that stretched back five years.

So it is egg on the faces of all the parties that they walked into court and clearly didn't have an agreement over something pretty basic, which is, what did you agree to and what rights are you taking away from the defendant, what future sentence?

SCIUTTO: Yes.

WILLIAMS: So it just doesn't sit right, I think.

SCIUTTO: Yes, and, by the way, a deal, that whole discussion playing out very much in the public eye, right?

WILLIAMS: Right.

SCIUTTO: One aspect of this, Susan, is that this plea deal does not, in effect, inoculate Hunter Biden against any future charges.

But correct me if I'm wrong. We knew that to some extent prior. We knew that this was not sort of an all-encompassing plea deal, or was that new?

SUSAN PAGE, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, "USA TODAY": Well, when they announced the plea deal, there was some disagreement about that, because the prosecutor said there was an -- the investigation continued.

But the Hunter Biden people said that this sewed it up. And there was every expectation by the part of team Biden that this means, while it's not great to have your son be the first son in U.S. history, the first son of a president to plead guilty in court, that it would enable them to say that this long five-year investigation led to two tax misdemeanors and the diverted gun charge, and it's over and done with.

They cannot say that anymore.

SCIUTTO: Understood.

Elliot, the Republican charge is that this is a sweetheart deal. Based on your experience for the alleged crimes, the crimes involved here, is it? Do the sentences, do the penalties match what we know about the crimes that were proven in court?

WILLIAMS: Well, that's the important clause, what we know about the crimes that were proven in court.

For these offenses, the firearms and the tax charge, this -- the sentences here or the potential sentences here aren't out of line with what would have happened in any other plea deal, which -- and, to be clear, Jim, I think 96, 97, 98 percent of federal cases get resolved in pleas. So the idea that it's a plea isn't that remarkable.

When I think members of Congress or politicians speak about sweetheart deal, they're talking about all of the other matters for which they are alleging that Hunter Biden in misconduct, so, as we have been talking about today, foreign agent registration or any other questions around enriching the president.

SCIUTTO: Right.

WILLIAMS: To the extent there's a problem there, that's for Congress to figure out.

They're having David Weiss, the U.S. attorney, to come testify about those questions. They can ask him all about it. But on these specific charges, the sentence is pretty much in line.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

WILLIAMS: Susan, you know have, as Sara Murray was describing, McCarthy at least talking about an impeachment inquiry of President Biden,

I did see a Republican Congressman Don Bacon say, in his view, that they haven't made the case yet. That's a Republican. Does McCarthy have the votes to pursue or likely to get the votes to pursue an impeachment inquiry?

[13:10:00]

PAGE: I don't think we know.

I mean, let's ask the 18 member -- Republican members of Congress who represent districts that Joe Biden carried and ask if they're eager to vote in favor of an impeachment inquiry.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

PAGE: On the other hand, impeachment has become -- once such a profound political act, has become just another political tactic that gets threatened as a matter of routine.

That's been one of the big changes, I think, in our politics.

SCIUTTO: Sure.

Yes, and not just targeting the president. Of course, you have had discussion of Mayorkas and Merrick Garland. Everybody -- everybody is on the list, at least the wish list, for some Republicans.

Elliot, before we go, if you are Hunter Biden's defense lawyers, right now, given that the door is open at least to the possibility of charges -- of course, prosecutors would have to provide evidence and then prove those. What is your recommendations? What would you be doing right now?

WILLIAMS: Well, I think they did exactly what they should have been doing, which is holding the government accountable and pushing the government on any potential opening or mistake.

Defense attorneys, I found, were quite skilled at that. I would still be alarmed. The Justice Department said before that the -- an investigation is ongoing, and it appears that they might have smoke to the fire as to other charges that they could potentially bring against him. So I don't think they have a reason to completely go home and sort of see this as completed.

I think they ought to at least be concerned that a bit more could be coming.

SCIUTTO: Understood. Be prepared.

Elliot Williams, Susan Page, thanks so much -- Boris.

SANCHEZ: One of the former President Trump's top allies and a vocal promoter of baseless 2020 election fraud conspiracies, is now conceding that he made false claims.

In a late-night court filing, former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani says that he does not dispute he made defamatory statements about two Georgia election workers after the 2020 election. Giuliani is trying to resolve a civil lawsuit brought by Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss.

He repeatedly falsely accused these two women of being part of a vote manipulation scheme in Georgia. Here is a reminder of some of the things the former mayor of New York said. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Ruby Freeman and Shaye Freeman Moss and one other gentlemen quite obviously surreptitiously passing around USB ports as if they're vials of heroin or cocaine.

I mean, it's obvious to anyone who's a criminal investigator or prosecutor they were engaged in surreptitious illegal activity again that day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Not so obvious now.

Senior legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid joins us.

And, Paula there's a lot to parse through in this legal filing. But, notably, while Rudy Giuliani is conceding to making defamatory statements, he doesn't acknowledge that he caused these two women any actual harm.

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Boris, it's complicated.

Here, he's trying to contain the fallout from his actions following the 2020 election. Now, this is his effort to resolve a lawsuit and also satisfy a judge who's threatened to sanction him. Now, essentially, what he's saying here is that, yes, he smeared these two election workers, but his claims of election fraud, he argues, are protected under the First Amendment.

He also insists that these two women did not suffer any damages, but they see it quite differently. Let's take a listen to what they have said in their own words.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUBY FREEMAN, FORMER GEORGIA ELECTION WORKER: I have lost my name and I have lost my reputation. I have lost my sense of security, all because a group of people starting with number 45 and his ally Rudy Giuliani decided to scapegoat me and my daughter Shaye.

WANDREA "SHAYE" MOSS, FORMER GEORGIA ELECTION WORKER: I don't want to go anywhere. I second-guess everything that I do. It's affected my life in a major way, in every way, all because of lies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: An important reminder of how these actions impacted real people, Boris.

Now, in a statement today, their lawyer said that this is -- quote -- "a milestone." But this is all subject to review by a judge. But, notably, even after all of this, Giuliani's spokesman came out and tried to sort of parse these concessions even further, saying: "Mayor Rudy Giuliani did not acknowledge that the statements were false, but did not contest it, in order to move on to the portion of the case that will permit a motion to dismiss."

But this idea of harassing election workers, making false claims about them, this has also been something that the special counsel has been focused on in its investigation into January 6.

SANCHEZ: And it seems like Giuliani is trying to thread a very thin needle there.

And he's also trying to make it so that this only applies, these concessions only apply to this lawsuit. But, as you said, this is being investigated not only by the special counsel, but also the DA in Fulton County, Georgia, Fani Willis.

[13:15:04]

So, how could this wind up impacting those cases?

REID: So, here's what we know about Rudy Giuliani's -- and the special counsel.

We know that he sat down with investigators over the course of two days. They went up to New York to talk to him. We're told that he was cooperative, small C. Not saying he's flipped, just saying he answered questions.

And his lawyer says they do not expect him to be charged, but it is unclear how something like this, how his conduct, this specific aspect of his conduct separate from the legal challenges that he was filing on behalf of the former president, other statements that he made. It is unclear how this will factor into the special counsel's investigation.

At this point, his lawyer insists on the record that he does not expect Rudy Giuliani to be charged.

SANCHEZ: Paula Reid, thanks so much for walking us through that -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: Well, the Fed Chair Jerome Powell's pause on interest rate hikes could be over really soon. How a key decision just minutes from now might impact your bank account.

Plus, we are following the latest on the condition of LeBron James' son Bronny, who remains in hospital recovering after suffering cardiac arrest during a USC basketball practice.

And, later, the U.S. Department of Education just launched an investigation into Harvard University's policies on legacy and donor admissions. We're going to explain why.

You're watching CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: This just into CNN, breaking news: the judge in the Hunter Biden case making a surprise decision after a whirlwind morning in court.

Let's get to CNN's Kara Scannell, who's outside the courthouse in Wilmington, Delaware.

Kara, bring us up to speed. What is the latest?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Boris. So the judge said that she could not accept the plea agreement as it was structured.

Remember, there was a plea agreement where Hunter Biden would plea guilty to two tax misdemeanors, and then a diversion a felony gun charge. Well, the judge taking issue with both of them, saying that on the plea agreement related to the tax charges, she was saying that she -- this agreement as structured just had her as what she said a rubber stamp.

It did not allow her to weigh in on whether she thought that the plea was acceptable. She had questions about that and wants both sides to brief on that. Also, on the gun diversion, she had questions about how that deal was structured, because it inserted her in the process if Hunter Biden breached the terms of this agreement, and the government had an issue that they wanted the judge to act as a neutral arbiter, because they cited the political nature of this investigation and of who Hunter Biden is.

So the judge saying she wasn't sure it was constitutional for her to have a role that could interfere with the Department of Justice, the executive branch's decision to bring a criminal case. So she said she wanted additional briefing on this.

She told Hunter Biden: "I'm sorry." She said she knew he wanted to resolve this, but she said she wanted to make sure he got what he understood he was getting in terms of immunity under that plea agreement, and that the diversion agreement was constitutional.

So both sides will be briefing on this issue. And the judge will then have them back in court again to resolve this matter. But, as it stands right now, Hunter Biden entered a plea of not guilty, because he said he would only plead guilty if this plea agreement was intact -- Boris.

SANCHEZ: Kara, please stand by.

We also have Evan Perez with us.

Evan, just a moment ago, we were talking about the back-and-forth, this ordeal where prosecutors walked in with Hunter Biden's defense team. They had something laid out, an agreement on these two federal charges for tax evasion and the gun charge. And then, essentially, there was a dispute over the agreement.

They then went into recess, came up with a new agreement, but the judge ultimately decided it was invalid. It wasn't up to her standard.

[13:20:01]

PEREZ: Right.

And I think at issue here for the judge is, she's trying to protect Hunter Biden's rights. She's trying to make sure that whatever he thinks he is agreeing to is indeed what the government is agreeing to do. And the reason why that is in question is because the judge -- as a result of the judges questions, the prosecution admitted that there were some aspects of this that are not covered, that there are some aspects of this investigation.

Remember, Boris, this is a five-year investigation, an investigation that has spanned three U.S. attorneys general all the way back to 2018. We have a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney who has been held over by Joe Biden's administration to continue this investigation.

It has looked at everything, from money laundering, from this potential violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. It's looked at his -- obviously, his drug issues and, of course, these tax issues. And what the Justice Department was saying at this court hearing was that there is some aspect of this that is still ongoing, that is still being investigated and that, really, Hunter Biden still has some legal jeopardy over.

And so that's the reason why she has this -- these concerns, because she wants to make sure that anybody who's agreeing to plead guilty that they understand what they're pleading guilty to, because, in the end, obviously, if that is not really buttoned up, it raises constitutional questions, obviously, for the defendant.

So what it appears now is going to happen is that the two sides are going to go back to the table and try to work out what it is that they can agree to, and then they can come back to the judge. But it appears the judge is going to ask them to put this all in court filings, and then she will bring them back to make sure that there's an agreement that can be that can be -- that can be -- she can consider to be constitutional -- Boris.

SANCHEZ: Evan Perez, please stand by.

Jim, obviously, this is a case with immense scrutiny. It appears the judge wants every detail analyzed very, very closely.

SCIUTTO: No question, and perhaps in the interest of both parties.

We're joined by it now, in fact, bringing back just a few minutes later Elliot Williams, a former prosecutor himself.

So, looking at this now, you heard Evan Perez's description there as the judge, in effect, looking out for Hunter Biden's interests here, that he knows exactly what he's getting out of this deal and what he's not. Do you share that reading of this?

WILLIAMS: Yes and no, because I think the judge doesn't live in a vacuum and knows that there's a tremendous congressional and media scrutiny around it. So it's not just about the defendant's rights.

Now, in terms of this whole rights question and the Constitution, it's important to know what a plea deal or sort of a plea hearing is, Jim. And it's, the defendant is not just saying, I'm guilty of the crime. The defendant is, number one, waiving a number of rights he has. He has the right to a trial in front of his peers.

He has the right -- you are waiving or at least acknowledging that you may not be allowed to vote after being convicted or that you may not be allowed to possess a firearm, ironically, after being convicted of a crime. All of these things are rights that a defendant waives.

And a judge needs to ensure and the parties, frankly, need to ensure that the defendant is aware of those things before he says, I'm guilty, because all of those things could jeopardize the integrity of the plea down the road and give the defendant a right to reopen it or appeal it at some point.

So she is on to something. You really need to be clear the defendant knows what under the Constitution he is getting rid of by agreeing to plead guilty.

SCIUTTO: Understood.

OK, so I asked you last time we spoke just moments ago, when we thought we had a deal, whether you thought the penalties Hunter Biden is facing are in line with how these crimes are generally charged. You said yes. When you look at the judge's involvement in this plea deal, of course,

there's an enormous amount of attention, which you cite here on this, so probably taking a little bit of extra care. But do you see the judge doing anything kind of out of line as they discuss this? Or is it -- does it seem on the up and up and as one would expect?

WILLIAMS: Right now, it does seem to be up and up.

When we talk about out of line, the problem is that there isn't really -- there's a template for firearms and tax cases.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

WILLIAMS: Those are -- there isn't really a template for the former -- the son of the current president being charged and pleading guilty to a crime.

SCIUTTO: Right.

WILLIAMS: And I do think that every party involved with this, including the court, is being extra careful or ought to be extra careful to -- recognizing the maelstrom that will certainly follow if something gets wrong in how this matter is resolved.

SCIUTTO: Though, ideally, you want it to be everyone equal under the law as well.

WILLIAMS: Yes, absolutely.

SCIUTTO: But we know the scrutiny that we're living in right now.

Elliot Williams, thanks so much.

WILLIAMS: Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Boris, I understand Kara got some more news.

SANCHEZ: Yes, we have got some reporting out from Kara Scannell, who is standing outside the federal courthouse for us in Delaware.

Kara, obviously, the judge in this case coming out and saying that parts of this deal contain nonstandard terms. She described it as unusual. Walk us through what that was like in court and what specifically she was scrutinizing that she found unusual.

[13:25:10]

SCANNELL: Right. So she was focusing when she made that comment on the gun diversion agreement, saying that, in other instances where she's had cases where someone was on drugs and they had purchased a firearm, that that was usually brought as a false statement case.

That is something that we know that prosecutors, according to our sources, were looking at in this case. As part of their plea negotiations, they had worked it down into this diversion for a possession charge, which is a serious felony. But this was an issue. She had questions about whether it was

constitutional, because there was a ruling in the Third Circuit on another case and a question of whether this law that he's pleading to is constitutional.

So she was saying, what if this is eventually decided that this law is unconstitutional? What happens here? Maybe you should have brought this as a false statement, but both sides saying that this was what they had agreed to. And then the judge was just pushing on this point. They said that they would accept it that this was a contract between the parties that they both agreed to the terms of it.

Biden's lawyer said that, even if the law that this agreement was under was found unconstitutional, it wouldn't matter. They would still abide by the terms of this, but this judge obviously having a lot of concerns about the constitutionality of the structure of these agreements, as well as the substance.

She was saying that it looked like they were trying to do form over substance today because of the eagerness to get this done. But she said she wanted to make sure that this was done appropriately. And, as Evan said, she is looking here to protect the interests in many ways of Hunter Biden, to make sure he knows exactly what he is pleading guilty to, and exactly what the terms are of this deal, what the prosecution could do or not, because, of course, there could be changes in the administration.

And it's not necessarily clear there's -- were anyone else would look at this. This investigation was under both the Trump administration and the Biden administration. It's been many years in the works, but there is a lot of politicization around it. So she's wanting to make sure that everything lines up legally, and that Hunter Biden knows exactly what he's pleading guilty to.

SANCHEZ: Kara, I'm also curious. There was speculation over whether we were going to hear directly from Hunter Biden early in the day, when we thought that this was just going to be kind of a -- as we said, a boilerplate agreement, they were going to essentially put a stamp on it and move forward.

We were supposed to hear from Hunter. It doesn't seem like we're going to now. What was his disposition like in court? What expression did he have on his face as all of this was happening?

SCANNELL: I mean, he kept very composed while it was under way.

I mean, initially, it began with the very perfunctory -- the judge was asking questions. He was responding, "Yes, Your Honor, yes, Your Honor," that he understood what she was saying.

But then, when it looked like that plea talks, the plea agreement was back on track, and the judge was going through literally line by line the statement of facts in this case, asking him to explain what tax deduction was this, what was that, he was walking through it.

And she asked him. We did hear a little bit about -- from him about this -- part of these charges that he's pleading to is when he had told the judge he was already sober. And she said to him: "You were sober, so why didn't you pay your taxes?":

And he essentially said, he just become sober. His life was an enormous mess. He was trying to pick up the pieces and put it together, and that essentially fell through the cracks. That was the most that we heard him speak today. Otherwise, he was just answering her questions.

But he was very firm that he was not going to plead guilty to anything today without a plea agreement. And we did expect that we might hear from him after court if things had gone as planned. And, as of right now, it doesn't seem like that's going to happen.

It seems like they still have a lot of work to do between both sides, both the prosecution and Biden's team, to work out an agreement on this diversion, the issues the judge had about whether it was constitutional, whether she should have a role in it, but also the form of the tax-related agreement, and exactly what is included in that and what the judge's role in that agreement should be -- Boris, Jim.

SANCHEZ: Yes, it seems like the plan that we went into today with has been thrown out the window, Kara.

Have we gotten a sense of timetable from the judge when we can expect this to move forward?

SCANNELL: Well, the prosecution said they needed a couple of weeks to put together a briefing for that.

I had run out of court before the judge had slammed the gavel. So I don't know if she set a precise date of when the -- she would have the briefings done. But they said -- the prosecution said they would need some time to read through the transcript the, make sure they're addressing all of the issues that the judge had, and to deal with any of the legal, constitutional issues at hand.

So, it sounds like it will be a couple of weeks, at least, before anything will be back before the judge.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

Let's take a step back, Kara, and walk through the issues that the judge had earlier in the day with the plea deal, because she brought up a question to prosecutors and the defense team as to whether there was agreement about the scope of potential future

[13:30:00]