Former U.S. Attorney General William Barr recently spoke out about his decision not to appoint a special counsel in the criminal investigation into Hunter Biden. In a Sunday CBS News interview with Major Garrett on “Face The Nation,” Barr explained his rationale behind this controversial move. He stated that appointing a special counsel would have provided the Biden administration with grounds to cancel the probe once Biden assumed the presidency.

When asked if he regretted not appointing a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden, Barr firmly responded with a resounding “no.” According to him, the appointment of a special counsel requires a conflict of interest, which he did not have in investigating Hunter Biden. Barr explained that any potential conflict would have fallen on Attorney General Merrick Garland, who had to decide whether the investigation could be fairly handled within the Department of Justice or if a special counsel was necessary.

Barr expressed concern that if he had preemptively appointed a special counsel, it would have provided the Biden administration with an opportunity to terminate the investigation. He believed that Garland, upon assuming office, should have the responsibility of determining whether a thorough and fair investigation was being conducted. Barr’s intention was to maintain continuity by keeping the U.S. Attorney in place until Garland’s decision was made.

Barr acknowledged that he agreed with House Republicans who believed that a special counsel should have been appointed under Attorney General Merrick Garland. The decision to appoint a special counsel in high-profile cases is not taken lightly. Special counsels are independent investigators who are tasked with conducting impartial and objective investigations into matters of public interest. Their appointment ensures a level of transparency and accountability that is essential in cases involving individuals with political connections or influence.

Barr’s explanation has drawn both support and criticism. Supporters argue that his decision was strategic, allowing for a fair evaluation of the investigation. They believe that the ultimate goal should be to uncover the truth, regardless of political affiliations. Critics, on the other hand, argue that Barr’s decision was politically motivated and designed to protect the Biden administration.

With the statute of limitations potentially impeding the appointment of a special counsel, the future of the Hunter Biden investigation remains uncertain. It is now the responsibility of Attorney General Merrick Garland to determine the course of action. As the current administration seeks to restore faith in the Department of Justice, the handling of this investigation will be closely watched.