The link wasn't to the Democrat's report. It was to the Republican report. The author's were Trump's appointees to the Commission. The Trump appointees stated that their vote against continued investigation was based on prosecutorial discretion - and did not say that it was based on a conclusion that there wasn't a violation.

Which has nothing to do with my point. Why would I believe the word of some Biden appointee?
Prosecutorial discretion...where have I heard that before...oh, right: "No reasonable prosecutor" would try a certain Presidential candidate for several thousand instances of keeping and transmitting classified material outside of a SCIF.

There's a reason I keep pushing back on your Gates of Hell bit. We go after politicians all the time when they have committed crimes. We don't refrain from going after the opposition political party just because they are the opposition political party - we just don't go after people when they haven't committed crimes, and most politicians don't engage in provable violations of the law.

It's not a Bit, and then minute some Texas Ranger arrests a sitting democrat office holder you'll have a different opinion, believe that.
This isn't even the first time some local democrat DA decided to make a political point. Do you remember Gov. Rick Perry?

Why not? I don't think people should avoid prosecution just because they're politically powerful. And I don't think that the DOJ is going to start indicting people that haven't done anything wrong just because "power changes hands" in DC, any more than they did during the Trump years or the first two and a half years here under the Biden administration.

Okay. Let's test this.

Huter Biden. He's committed several felonies, the easiest of which is falsifying his federal gun permit paperwork.

When's his trial start?