"U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika... asked if there were more serious charges that could still be brought and the prosecutors and Hunter Biden’s lawyer both said there were not."

"Noreika later asked if the investigation was ongoing, to which [U.S. Attorney David] Weiss responded that it was, but said he could not share any further details.... "

From "Hunter Biden guilty plea in jeopardy after disagreement over gun charge/Prosecutors told the judge no more charges are expected against the president's son" (NBC News).

ADDED: Here's how the NYT puts it:

[T]he judge...  questioned whether [the proposed deal] meant that Mr. Biden would be immune from prosecution for other possible crimes — including violations related to representing foreign governments — in perpetuity. When a top prosecutor in the case said it would not, Chris Clark, Mr. Biden’s lead lawyer, responded by saying the agreement was “null and void.” 

Mr. Clark then asked for a recess to try to hash out a compromise to salvage the deal, and the parties began furiously negotiating....

AND: The NYT and NBC don't seem to be saying this same thing!

PLUS: Here's what The Washington Post put up 3 minutes ago:

The plea deal for Hunter Biden was on the brink of falling apart Wednesday, when the two sides could not agree on whether admitting to two tax crimes would immunize the president’s son from possible additional charges.

U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika pressed federal prosecutors and Biden’s lawyers to come to some “meeting of the minds.” But that appeared unlikely, as the two sides said they did not see eye to eye about the precise terms of their own plea agreement.

At one point in the hearing, Biden’s lawyer declared there was no deal — meaning that a long-running criminal investigation that Republicans have used to accuse both the president and his son of corruption might lead to a trial after all.

“As far as I’m concerned, the plea agreement is null and void,” Biden lawyer Chris Clark said.

MORE: I'm impressed with way the judge homed in on the problem. I hadn't seen anyone put it like that in the commentary before the hearing, but it seems perfectly clear now. 

Here's how The Washington Post put it, in a new article:

A federal judge on Wednesday delayed accepting a plea deal for President Biden’s son Hunter, saying the terms as written by prosecutors and defense lawyers may not be constitutional, but also signaling the agreement could be approved in the future.

The deal that had been struck in June began to unravel near the start of the three-hour hearing. U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika asked a series of questions that revealed a disagreement between federal prosecutors and Biden’s lawyers over whether the agreement — in which he would plead guilty to two tax misdemeanors and likely avoid jail time — would protect him from the possibility of additional criminal charges....

The sides had proposed that Biden would plead guilty to the tax charges in a fairly standard agreement that requires the judge’s approval. Separately, they crafted a “diversion agreement” with Biden’s attorneys in which the president’s son would admit to wrongdoing in the gun case and agree to certain conditions, including not purchasing a firearm and not using drugs, to avoid actually being charged with unlawful possession of a firearm.

That type of agreement is not typically approved by a judge. But this particular diversion agreement referenced the proposed plea deal and prosecutors submitted it to the judge, creating a bifurcated deal in which the assurances Biden wanted — that he will not be pursued for other tax or foreign lobbying charges — were not part of the tax case, but part of the gun diversion agreement, lawyers said in court.

A provision of the gun diversion agreement said that if Biden failed to remain drug free and meet other conditions for the next two years, the judge would determine whether he had broken the terms of the deal and tell prosecutors they could revive the gun charge against him.

But Noreika questioned whether she could lawfully do that, given that she is not a party to the diversion agreement and judges generally are not responsible for pursuing criminal charges....

At the start of Wednesday’s hearing, Biden said he was prepared to enter the plea. But then Noreika asked whether he would still do so if it was possible additional charges might be filed against him in the future.

When Biden answered no, the two sides were suddenly at odds.

“As far as I’m concerned, the plea agreement is null and void,” Biden lawyer Chris Clark told the judge at one point.

A side discussion between the prosecutors and defense lawyers revealed the extent of the disagreement.

“I don’t know what you’re trying to accomplish by blowing this up,” Clark told prosecutors. One of those prosecutors, Leo Wise, pointed to papers related to the case and said he was bound by the terms in them.

Clark shot back: “Then we misunderstood, we’re ripping it up.”

Here's how the NYT summed up what happened today: 

During a three-hour hearing in Federal District Court in Wilmington, Del., Judge Noreika asked the two sides to make changes to the deal that would clarify her role and insert language that limits the scope of immunity from prosecution it would grant to Mr. Biden for past business dealings that came under scrutiny by investigators....

The hearing appeared to be going smoothly before Judge Noreika questioned whether the agreement meant that Mr. Biden would be immune from prosecution for other possible crimes — including violations related to representing foreign governments — in perpetuity. When a top prosecutor in the case said it would not, Chris Clark, Mr. Biden’s lead lawyer, initially hesitated and then said the government’s position would make the agreement “null and void.”

Mr. Clark then asked for a recess to try to hash out a compromise to salvage the deal, and the parties began furiously negotiating. After a brief halt to the proceedings, Judge Noreika said she would delay her ruling....

Was the unclarity deliberate?