Hunter Biden could face trial, newly named US special counsel says

Than your erroneous reading interpretations? You had claimed that there is "evidence" against Biden:

dixon76710 said: ↑
Noticed how these things that "could be easily & innocently explained", have not been? And with the abundance of previously hidden evidence, and the passing of the Statute of limitations for any criminal prosecution, Biden is not entitled to a view of innocent until proven guilty.


So, I had used the word "certified" to distinguish real "evidence," from the capricious speculations of Republicans, like James Comer-- not to mean, that there was no evidence which I, personally, had certified. I'd thought you would be able to follow that.

I am now curious to see how badly, you are going to misunderstand the explanation, above.

 

What interpretations would that be.?

None of the evidence I cited was from Comer.

 

LOL-- I re-posted your claim. There was no specific "citing" of evidence. In my very post, to which this is your response, I show your words to have been:

dixon76710 said: ↑
Noticed how these things that "could be easily & innocently explained", have not been? And with the abundance of previously hidden evidence, and the passing of the Statute of limitations for any criminal prosecution, Biden is not entitled to a view of innocent until proven guilty.
<End Quote>

What evidence, do you see "cited," there?
Do you know what "cited," means?

 

That's nonsense, I'm a registered "Dem" and I care what happens. I'm glad they've appointed a Special Counsel, hopefully it will bring closure for Hunter and Americans. IF he's committed a crime he should pay appropriately for it. IF he hasn't then he should be exonerated; the only way for that to happen at this point, to the satisfaction of all Americans, is by trail. But this is being drawn out and blown out of all proportions; time to finish the full process and be done with it.

Same goes for TRAITOR tRump, his indictmentS and coming trialS are his opportunity to prove his innocence, time to move forward.

 

Previously cited evidence einstein.

 

Special Counsels are appointed when using regular DOJ attorneys would create a conflict of interest. Weiss is the source of the conflict. Calling him a special Counsel does nothing to eliminate the conflict. It cements the conflict in place.

 

IYHO

 

When you begin debating against a new opponent, you may need to re-present evidence, you have cited, at some point in the past, debating someone else. If you had done so, recently, in this thread, you should have offered me a link to your previous post... Einstein's dog.

 

28 CFR § 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

• CFR

§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and—

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances;

 

So?