The White House plans to send a letter to top US news executives on Wednesday, urging them to intensify their scrutiny of House Republicans after Speaker Kevin McCarthy launched an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, despite having found no evidence of a crime.

Donald Trump’s latest federal indictment is not the lengthiest of the charging documents that has come his way so far, but it may well be the most profound. That was the reaction of legal analysts and journalists this week after Jack Smith delivered the Department of Justice’s initial charges against Mr Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, with much of his conduct in the weeks leading up to and during the January 6 attack going unaddressed in the indictment. All in all, the twice-impeached ex-president is charged with four crimes related to the election-meddling efforts, including conspiracy to deprive Americans of their rights — a law passed as part of anti-Ku Klux Klan legislation. What was absent from the document was a charge that many expected to see after the conclusion of the House of Representatives’ select committee investigation into the attack: A count of giving aid or comfort to an insurrection. There was no mention of that charge, or the related accusation of seditious conspiracy, which has been leveled against members of the Oathkeepers and Proud Boys. There was also no mention of charges for Mr Trump’s long list of allies, some of whom spread conspiracy theories about the election, and other enablers who either knowingly or unknowingly pushed complete and utter falsehoods on a wide range of issues for months after their boss lost the presidential election. Notably, a number (like ex-legal counsel Rudy Giuliani) are referred to as co-conspirators, and specifically not described as “unindicted”. But the initial document charged Mr Trump and Mr Trump alone, with the entirety of its focus being on the actions of the man at the head of the table. A former deputy assistant attorney general and federal prosecutor who analysed the indictment in an interview with The Independent said that decision was likely deliberate, to ensure that the focus of the case remained on Mr Trump’s efforts and potentially to streamline the path to trial. “Each new defendant brings a possible doubling, if not more, of potential causes for delays,” Harry Litman explained. “It's a very considered, strategic decision to bring an indictment only against Trump. And you and I know, those people are by no means out of the woods.” Bringing an indictment against the former president, he added, was the DoJ’s way of cutting as much of the potential delays away as possible in the hopes of getting the ex-president to trial before the 2024 election has concluded. “It maximises the possibility of it happening quickly,” said Mr Litman. “Whereas before yesterday, it seemed doubtful, at least very tenuous, that there would be a federal trial before the election. But I think it now seems likely.” The exclusion of (arguably) more serious charges like seditious conspiracy and giving comfort to a rebellion, he posited , was a decision made for a similar reason. By focusing on Mr Trump’s efforts to change the results and not his words themselves, Mr Litman explained, Mr Smith’s team was “attack[ing] around” any First Amendment-related defences the former president’s legal team would raise against those charges. Mr Trump has denied guilt in all the instances where he is accused of taking illegal measures to remain in the White House, and continues to insist to this day that he is the rightful winner of the 2020 election. Vast swaths of his loyal fanbase believe the same. The former president continues to await a decision by prosecutors in Georgia related to his efforts to change the election results in that state as well; Fulton County officials have said that a decision on that matter is coming later this month. Read More Trump lawyer hints at a First Amendment defense in the Jan. 6 case. Some legal experts are dubious When is Donald Trump’s arraignment? Watch view of Capitol Hill after police say no active shooter found at Senate office after lockdown GOP senators who condemned Trump on Jan 6 but voted against impeachment remain silent on indictment Prosecutors may be aiming for quick Trump trial by not naming alleged conspirators, experts say Rudy Giuliani’s accuser reveals tapes detailing alleged sexually vulgar remarks

Typhoon Saola has strengthened overnight as it continues its path across the Pacific and heads for China’s southern coast

Seychelles company linked to Putin’s inner circle exploited UK loophole for hundreds of firms, BBC finds.

Israel’s central bank revised down its economic projections as the war with Hamas becomes a big drag on

The US will freeze economic and security assistance to Niger if the country fails to restore its president

Instacart’s shares are surging in the grocery delivery company’s stock market debut

Binance Holdings Ltd. had such lax controls over cryptocurrency transactions on its exchange that terrorists, hackers and sanctions

'RHONJ' star Luis Ruelas took to his social media to share a video of Nicholas enjoying an 'awesome day' at the mall

Naomi Campbell has welcomed baby No. 2

Andrew Tate's manager, who goes by the alias The Sartorial Shooter, called Adin Ross a 'nothing person' and chastised him for his alleged involvement in drug usage and gambling

The unraveling of Hunter Biden's plea agreement has thrust his criminal case into uncertain waters and given new fodder to Republican critics in Congress as they push ahead with investigations into the president's youngest son. Biden was supposed to plead guilty Wednesday to misdemeanor charges for failing to pay taxes. But U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika in Delaware put the brakes on the guilty plea after raising concerns during an hourslong hearing about the structure and terms of the agreement and another deal that would allow him to avoid prosecution on a gun charge if he meets certain conditions. Plea deals are carefully negotiated between defense lawyers and prosecutors over the course of weeks or months and it's unusual — especially in high-profile cases — for judges to not sign off on them. But Wednesday's hearing revealed that the two sides apparently did not see eye to eye on the scope of the agreement around a non-prosecution clause for crimes outside of the gun charge. A look at what happens now in the criminal case and what's next for the Biden investigations in Congress: WHAT HAPPENS NOW IN COURT? Noreika — an appointee of former President Donald Trump — told both sides to file written briefs addressing her concerns within 30 days. Among other things, Noreika took issue with a provision in the agreement on the gun charge that she said would have created a role for her where she would determine if he violated the terms. The lawyers said they wanted her to serve as a neutral fact finder in determining if a violation happened, but Noreika said that is the Justice Department's job — not the judge's. Hunter Biden's lawyers and the Justice Department also disagreed on the extent to which the agreement gave him immunity from future prosecution. A prosecutor said Wednesday their investigation was ongoing, and that the agreement protecting him from other potential charges was limited only to certain offenses over a certain time frame. Biden's lawyers said it was broader than that. After intense courtroom negotiations, the two sides appeared to agree to a more narrow non-prosecution clause. Biden's lawyers and prosecutors will now continue negotiations to see if they can salvage the agreement in a way that satisfies the judge. "They are going to have to go back and figure out how they can come to an agreement terms of the plea and they have to come to a meeting of the minds, which is clear they don't have here," said Jessica Tillipman, associate dean for government procurement law studies at George Washington University Law School. "So I think what you'll see is a renewed effort — or it's just going to collapse." The judge may ultimately accept the deal that was proposed or reject it. If the deal totally falls apart, Biden could eventually face a trial. WILL HE AVOID JAIL TIME? Even if the judge ultimately accepts the plea agreement, she will have the final say on whether he serves any time behind bars. Prosecutors have said that they will recommend probation, but the judge can decide not to follow that. The two tax charges carry up to a year in prison. And the judge suggested on Wednesday that it was too soon to say whether she's willing to sign off on probation. “I can’t predict for you today whether that is an appropriate sentence or not,” Noreika said. “I can’t say that I will accept the sentence recommendation or whether a different sentence would be more appropriate.” WHAT'S GOING ON IN CONGRESS? The collapse of the younger Biden’s plea deal Wednesday came as joyful news to House Republicans vying to connect him and his questionable business dealings to his father. Republicans had already slammed the agreement as a “sweetheart deal." “The judge did the obvious thing, they put a pause on the plea deal, so I think that was progress,” Rep. James Comer, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said Wednesday. “I think it adds credibility to what we’re doing.” He added that this will only propel their investigation to get answers “as to what the family did, and what level of involvement the president had.” Comer has been investigating Hunter Biden’s financial ties and transactions since gaining the gavel in January. The Kentucky lawmaker has obtained thousands of pages of financial records from various members of the Biden family through subpoenas to the Treasury Department and various financial institutions. Last month, shortly after Hunter Biden reached an agreement with the government, Comer joined forces with two chairmen of powerful committees to launch a larger investigation into claims by two IRS agents who claimed the Justice Department improperly interfered in the yearslong case. IRS supervisory special agent Greg Shapley and a second agent, Joe Ziegler, testified before Congress last week that there was a pattern of “slow-walking investigative steps” into Hunter Biden, including during the Trump administration in the months before the 2020 election that Joe Biden won. One of the most detailed claims was that U.S. Attorney David Weiss in Delaware, the federal prosecutor who led the investigation, asked for special counsel status in order to bring the tax cases against Hunter Biden in jurisdictions outside Delaware, including the District of Columbia and California, but was denied. Weiss and the Justice Department have denied that, saying he had “full authority” and never sought to bring charges in other states. Despite the denials, Republicans are moving forward with their probes, asking Weiss to come in and testify about the case directly. The Justice Department has offered to have the prosecutor come before lawmakers after the August recess. ____ Richer reported from Boston. Read More Ukraine war’s heaviest fight rages in east - follow live Charity boss speaks out over ‘traumatic’ encounter with royal aide White House attacks McCarthy’s impeachment gambit as ‘ridiculous, baseless stunt’ Hunter Biden pleads not guilty to two tax charges after chaos around deal Hunter Biden’s plea deal appears at risk of falling apart. What happens next?