Vice President Kamala Harris has accepted the rules for the Sept. 10 debate with former President Donald Trump on ABC, and Hunter Biden offers to change his not guilty plea in his federal tax case.

Harris accepts rules for Sept. 10 debate with Trump on ABC, including microphone muting

Vice President Kamala Harris has accepted the rules set forth for next week's debate with former President Donald Trump, although the Democratic nominee says the decision not to keep both candidates' microphones live throughout the matchup will be to her disadvantage.

The development, which came Wednesday by way of a letter from Harris' campaign to host network ABC News, seemed to mark a conclusion to the debate over microphone muting, which had for a time threatened to derail the Sept. 10 presidential debate at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.

President Joe Biden's campaign had made the muting of microphones, except for the candidate whose turn it is to speak, a condition of his decision to accept any debates this year. Some aides have said they now regret that decision, saying voters were shielded from hearing Trump's outbursts during the June debate. A disastrous performance for the incumbent Democrat fueled his exit from the campaign.

Once Harris rose in Biden's stead and became their party's pick for president, her campaign had advocated for live microphones for the whole debate, saying previously that the practice would "fully allow for substantive exchanges between the candidates."

But on Wednesday, in a letter obtained by The Associated Press, Harris' advisers wrote that the former prosecutor will be "fundamentally disadvantaged by this format, which will serve to shield Donald Trump from direct exchanges with the Vice President."

"We suspect this is the primary reason for his campaign's insistence on muted microphones," her campaign added.

Despite those concerns, Harris' campaign wrote, "we understand that Donald Trump is a risk to skip the debate altogether, as he has threatened to do previously, if we do not accede to his preferred format." So as not to "jeopardize the debate," Harris' campaign wrote, "we accepted the full set of rules proposed by ABC, including muted microphones."

According to an official with Harris' campaign, a pool of journalists will be on hand to hear what the muted candidate may be trying to say when his or her microphone is turned off. That detail was not in the full debate rules, also released Wednesday by ABC, which are essentially the same as they were for the June debate between Trump and Biden.

Hunter Biden enters surprise guilty plea to avoid tax trial months after his gun conviction

President Joe Biden's son, Hunter, pleaded guilty Thursday to federal tax charges, a surprise move he said was meant to spare his family another painful and embarrassing criminal trial after his gun case conviction just months ago.

Hunter Biden’s decision to plead guilty to misdemeanor and felony charges without the benefits of a deal with prosecutors came hours after jury selection was supposed to begin in the case accusing him of failing to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes.

The president’s son was already facing potential prison time after his June conviction on felony gun charges in a trial that aired unflattering and salacious details about his struggles with a crack cocaine addiction. The tax trial was expected to showcase more potentially lurid evidence as well as details about Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings, which Republicans have seized on to try to paint the Biden family as corrupt.

“I will not subject my family to more pain, more invasions of privacy and needless embarrassment,” Hunter Biden said in an emailed statement after he entered his plea. “For all I have put them through over the years, I can spare them this, and so I have decided to plead guilty.”

Although President Joe Biden’s decision to drop out of the 2024 presidential election muted the potential political implications of the tax case, the trial was expected to carry a heavy emotional toll for the president in the final months of his five-decade political career.

“Hunter put his family first today, and it was a brave and loving thing for him to do," defense attorney Abbe Lowell told reporters outside the federal courthouse in Los Angeles.

Hunter Biden, 54, quickly responded “guilty” as the judge read out each of the nine counts. The charges carry up to 17 years behind bars, but federal sentencing guidelines are likely to call for a much shorter sentence. He faces up to $1.35 million in fines.

Sentencing is set for Dec. 16 in front of U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi, who was nominated to the bench by former President Donald Trump.

He faces sentencing in the Delaware case on Nov. 13 — the week after the general election. Those charges are punishable by up to 25 years in prison, though he is likely to get far less time or avoid prison entirely.

Hunter Biden showed no emotion as he walked out the courthouse holding his wife's hand. He ignored questions shouted at him by reporters before climbing into an SUV and driving off.

It’s the latest twist in a long-running saga over Hunter Biden's legal woes, which have cast a shadow over his father's political career.

More than 100 potential jurors had been brought to the courthouse Thursday to begin the process of picking the panel to hear the case alleging a four-year scheme to avoid paying taxes while spending wildly on things like strippers, luxury hotels and exotic cars.

Prosecutors were caught off guard when Hunter Biden’s lawyer told the judge Thursday morning that Hunter wanted to enter what’s known as an Alford plea, under which a defendant maintains their innocence but acknowledges prosecutors have enough evidence to secure a conviction.

Courtroom clash in Trump's election interference case as the judge ponders path ahead

In the first court hearing in nearly a year, a lawyer for Donald Trump clashed on Thursday with the judge in the federal election interference prosecution of the former president after suggesting the government was rushing forward with an "illegitimate" indictment at the height of the White House campaign.

Prosecutors and defense lawyers are bitterly at odds over the next steps in the case after the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the prosecution by ruling that former presidents are entitled to broad immunity from criminal charges for official acts. The dueling proposals and testy courtroom exchanges reflected the extent to which the justices' July opinion had upended the path of the case that charges Trump with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the run-up to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

"We may be dealing with an illegitimate indictment from the get-go," Trump attorney John Lauro said, adding: "We want an orderly process that does justice to the Supreme Court opinion."

Special counsel Jack Smith's team filed a revised indictment last week to strip out certain allegations against Trump for which the Supreme Court said Trump, the Republican nominee for president, enjoyed immunity. Defense lawyers, however, believe that that indictment did not fully comply with the justices' ruling.

Lauro told U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan that the Supreme Court's opinion required the outright dismissal of the case, a position the judge made clear she did not accept. He complained that prosecutors were showing a "rush to judgment" with their plans to soon file court papers explaining why the remaining allegations should remain intact.

Chutkan was unmoved on that point as well.

"This case has been pending for over a year," Chutkan said, referencing the fact that the matter has been frozen since last December while Trump pursued his immunity appeal. "We're hardly sprinting to the finish here."

She said it was clear that whatever her ruling, it would be subject to a further appeal.

She also bristled at Lauro's reference to the November election, such as when he said: "This process is inherently unfair, particularly during this sensitive time."

"I understand that there is an election," the judge replied. "I've said before … that the electoral process and the timing of the election … is not relevant here. The court is not concerned with the electoral schedule."

Lauro argued that the case concerned momentous issues.

"We are talking about the presidency of the United States," he said.

Om response, Chutkan shot back: "I'm not talking about the presidency of the United States. I'm talking about a four-count indictment."

She told Lauro that it appeared the defense was trying to delay the case because of the election.

"That's not going to be a factor I consider at all," Chutkan said.

Pushing back on the defense's claims that the special counsel wants to move too quickly, a member of Smith's prosecution team noted that Trump's lawyers filed a lengthy brief seeking to overturn his New York hush money conviction and dismiss the case less than two weeks after the Supreme Court's ruling in July.

"The defense can move comprehensively, quickly and well," Thomas Windom said. "So can we."

The tense exchanges between Lauro and Chutkan defined the early hearings in the case. But there was a lighter start of Thursday's session.

At the opening, Chutkan noted that it has been almost a year since she saw the lawyers in her courtroom. Lauro joked to the judge that "life was almost meaningless without seeing you."

"Enjoy it while it lasts," Chutkan said.

The hearing ended without the judge issuing an order about future dates in the case.