A recently leaked phone call between then-Vice President Joe Biden and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko directly after the 2016 presidential election shows that Biden sought to sabotage the incoming Trump administration before Donald Trump even took office, and much worse.
During the course of the call, Biden badmouthed the incoming administration, saying, “The truth of the matter is that the incoming administration doesn’t know a great deal about [Ukraine]” and that they were unprepared for the transition. This in itself is inappropriate, but it was meant to set the stage for Biden’s next statement and future plans.
Biden then told Poroshenko, “I don’t plan on going away. As a private citizen, I plan on staying deeply engaged in the endeavor that you have begun and we have begun.” In a matter of moments, Biden undermined the incoming administration, branded them as not knowing anything about Ukraine, and attempted to set up a foreign policy backchannel for himself after he left office as a private citizen, which could violate the Logan Act.
The Logan Act bars private citizens from engaging in U.S. foreign policy, although its constitutionality remains questionable and no person has ever been convicted of violating it since it was signed into law in 1799. Ironically, this is the same act that, at Joe Biden’s suggestion, the FBI accused National Security Advisor Michael Flynn of violating as a result of a discussion Flynn had with the Russian ambassador to the United States around nearly the same time as Biden’s call with Poroshenko.
To fortify his position and to make Poroshenko more confident that he should continue to deal with Biden once he left office, in the call Biden also intimated that there is a problem with the incoming administration: “The reason I bother to tell you that is I have been somewhat limited on what I am able to tell their team about Ukraine.”
While Biden blamed this on a late start to the transition process, we now know he said this at the same time the FBI and other U.S. intelligence agencies were conducting a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia, known as “Crossfire Hurricane,” of which Ukraine was a part.
read more here: https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/17/leaked-2016-call-reveals-joe-biden-risked-national-security-to-sabotage-trump/
Replies
No one should be above the law. Many are, however.
The law does NOT demand equal justice for all those accountable to it. Never did. Never will. Influence and money determine what degree of justice is meted out, and often none at all results.
You very first sentence is a contradiction. "Convictions...don't occur without SUCCESSFUL prosecutions...to convict one must indict and then prosecute Period." Yes, but the prosecution must be SUCCESSFUL in order to convict. And to be SUCCESSFUL it must be founded on NEARLY (as I said) airtight a case as possible.
Why are you so defensive? You surely know that the interpretation of the law is not equal to all. That is a myth, and everyone knows it. Or should.
It is not the function of the law that created unequal justice... it is the corruption of the law by men that makes for unequal justice.
Should we accept the premise that men are unjust and flawed to be an excuse... for the unjust administration of the law? I think not. Although the ideal may not be achievable in every case, it must remain the ideal and achievable in most cases. When the law becomes so corrupted that it no longer functions for the majority, it becomes the whip of tyrants, and the people must rise-up to demand it reform or live under the rule of tyranny. Such unjust adjudication and application of the law lead to revolution.
One can not be certain of any conviction... until the prosecution rests and a Jury or Judge renders a verdict. Therefore, we must first indict then prosecute, to know whether the indictment was correct.... or overturned by a corrupt system.
I am adamant about justice as the rule of law is the single most important aspect of governing... without the fair administration of our laws we become the victims of arbitrary and pernicious justice. Society becomes a prisoner of privileged power, as it is today. We must break the bondage of unjust enforcement of our laws. The Tyrant must not be permitted to escape justice.
I don't accept the premise that society must endure the unjust application of the rule of law... governments that permit the arbitrary and pernicious use of the law are despotic by nature and unacceptable. Good governments use an equal scale and just measure when administering the law. We must always strive for perfection in the law; knowing, as men, we will fall short. While TRUSTING IN GOD that those shortcomings may not be DEBILITATING or widespread.
I do not accept that premise either. But it is what it is. And of course the law is corrupted by men. Who else?
If we know, as men, that we will fall short, then what is the big deal if Barr does? Is he not a man too?
The problem is not that men are capable of error... it is accepting error as inevitable. It is acquiescing to criminal conduct that compounds its effect, destroying humanity and civil order from within.
The righteous refuse to surrender to the human condition... Instead, they overcome by purging from society those who have a penchant for lawlessness. They keep faith with the greater good, maintaining self-control thru the application of law and order.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next