The Epoch Times has reported that Special Counsel David Weiss is hoping to indict Hunter Biden by the end of the month.
According to the paper, Weiss's team laid out that plan in a court filing on Wednesday, stating, "The Speedy Trial Act requires that the Government obtain the return of an indictment by a grand jury by Friday, September 29, 2023, at the earliest."
"The Government intends to seek the return of an indictment in this case before that date," the filing went on to explain.
As Fox News explained, the president's son purchased a handgun at a Delaware gun shop in 2018 despite being addicted to crack cocaine and other drugs. Federal law prohibits drug users from purchasing or possessing firearms.
That purchase alarmed the former wife of Hunter Biden's late brother, Beau Biden, with whom he was then in a romantic relationship with.
She took the gun from Hunter and put it in a supermarket dumpster located across from a school. It was ultimately discovered and turned over to police.
Weiss' announcement comes roughly a month and a half after a federal judge rejected what critics have called a sweetheart plea agreement for Biden.
CNN reported that at one point during a hearing in late July, U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika asked for clarification regarding the deal.
Specifically, she wanted to know whether Biden's guilty plea to his gun charge would provide immunity for other criminal offenses he has been suspected of committing.
While the defense maintained that it did provide immunity, federal prosecutors said otherwise and added that a criminal investigation is still ongoing.
Noreika declared that she could not "accept the plea agreement today" as there was no "meeting of the minds." What's more, she noted that the gun charge agreement was "not straightforward" and contained "atypical provisions."
Following the collapse of Biden's deal, Former Assistant United States Attorney Andrew McCarthy and Florida Republican Rep. Greg Steube both appeared on Fox Business and discussed its implications.
"The reason there is no indictment is the same reason that the parties couldn't answer the question today when they were asked what was being agreed to," McCarthy explained.
"And in this instance, what they would have to lay out is not only the tax charges for those five tax years, some of which they already let the statute of limitations lapse on, but anything that arises out of that," McCarthy pointed out.
He stressed that this would include "money laundering, foreign agent registration Foreign Agents Registration Act, bribery, conspiracy," a fact which would "have been outrageous to the public."