The Glenn Beck Program - Ep 55 | Whistleblowing AGAINST the DNC | Andrii Telizhenko | The Glenn Beck Podcast

Episode Date: October 19, 2019

Andrii Telizhenko is calling out the DNC for corruption in Ukraine, but the mainstream media will not listen! As a former adviser to both Ukraine’s prosecutor general Victor Shokin and the Ukrainian embassy in Washington, he refused to work with the DNC to dig up dirt on Trump. He describes how Alexandra Chalupa introduced herself as a DNC worker, how conservatives were blocked from communicating, and how it’s no secret in Ukraine why Biden demanded Shokin be fired. According to Telizhenko, this meddling was one of the main reasons the Ukrainian people voted a COMEDIAN into office instead of another politician. He has seen firsthand the how the mainstream media is rewriting this story, but the facts WILL be set straight! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hello, America. Today we have a fascinating podcast. This is a guy who has been speaking out on what's going on in Ukraine for about three years now. His name is Andrei Telshenko. He is a former advisor to the prosecutor general in Ukraine, the guy that Joe Biden fired. And if you think he's going to be an apologist for him, I think he'll be shocked to hear. He didn't last long with that prosecutor general. Why? And why is he sticking up for him today? see. He's also a former advisor of the first deputy prime minister of Ukraine. He has a lot of credentials. He also has seen a lot. He went to work for the Ukrainian embassy in Washington, D.C., and he actually was the guy who set up the meetings between their anti-corruption bureau in Ukraine and the DOJ and the Obama administration meeting at the White House. He said red flags were everywhere, and he brought it up to the ambassador, and he has been talking about this for years. Nobody really wanted to listen.

Now he's trying to let his voice be heard, but media companies say, well, your story doesn't match with the story that we're telling. It doesn't match with what we're hearing from the ambassador. Well, you know who it does match with? Our chalkboard. While we have a few things wrong, perhaps, in the chalkboard, he sets us straight on those things. Do you believe him? You're going to have to decide. Listen to him, or if you're viewing this, look him in the eye and tell me if you think he's just playing a game and just trying to do the bidding of Rudy Giuliani, or if he's telling the truth. Today, a one-on-one with Andre Telashenko from the Ukraine. I don't know if you watch much television or see much of what's going on here, but we don't know who to believe. We're

getting two separate stories and the investigations that we have done, we have found a completely different story than what we're getting in the media. Have you seen any of our reporting? Yeah, I just actually, a couple of days ago, my friend sent me a link to your program when you describe the whole narrative of what happened from the beginning. So basically today, on the collusion of the DNC, on the Biden story, on everything. So basically, I watched it, and then I got a call from your show to go on air. So that was interesting. And you talked about it perfectly almost time to time.

Nate was involved. So it was a good picture. I actually gave an example in your program to other people to understand what is happening in this story. Because a lot of people don't know. they think, well, in some today of Giuliani, starts with this investigation. You don't understand what happened in the years before this, and it's a bigger picture that is in the last media today.

Right. And I want to get into what has happened with Giuliani, et cetera, et cetera. But I really want to start at the beginning, because I think there are two stories. Did Trump do something wrong? Did Giuliani do something wrong? And that is separate from what were the Democrats doing. If they were both doing something wrong, we should know that.

if one side was doing it, we should know that as well. I just want to find out the facts on corruption because your country has enough problems. You don't need Americans coming over and making things worse. Let's start here. You were the former advisor to the prosecutor general of Ukraine. That was Shoken, was it not? It was Gerama and it was Shoken afterwards also. I worked with him for three, four months, and then I resigned and went to work.

preamble see in Washington. Okay. And where the other guns happened. So can you help us get a handle on Shokin? Shokin was, is now said to be totally corrupt, but we don't know what the corruption was. He was fired because he was corrupt, didn't have anything they say to do with Burisma. First of all, can you tell us about Shokin and the charges that he was corrupt? Has he ever been charged with corruption?

what is the story on him? Victor Shokin, the former prosecutor jail in Ukraine, was never charged with any corruption deals. And for everybody to know, even though I worked for him, I resigned because I didn't support some of his ideas that he was working on at that time. It was not only Bruce, but there's a billion things working on it to work on in Ukraine,

and I didn't support someone. So that's why I resigned. And so I don't want to protect anybody here. And I just want to say, What really happened is a whole project of pro-liberal media NGOs were barricading the prosecutor's office, Shokkin's office, my former other boss in Padilla Irma office at that time and protesting against corruption, even though we just started working. Shokin, as he became the prosecutor, second day they started to protest those NGOs, the pro-Soros, pro-open World Foundation NGOs who were intact, involved. in this also and they just say oh you're corrupt from they do and that was they had no narrative behind it they had no evidence certain was never prosecuted for corruption and there was no court

rule and there was no investigation so on the only corruption case there is is Biden talking or anybody else from the open world society foundation or Maurice by talking that he was corrupt another hand we have no evidence maybe he was maybe he wasn't that's for the court for the prosecutors, the prosecutor's, okay, that, that clears up an awful lot. So,

um, let me, let me ask you this or restate this to make sure I'm on the right track. You worked for Shokin, but you, uh, left his employee. You quit about four months in,

not because of corruption, but because you didn't necessarily agree with the things that he was prioritizing. Is that correct? Yes. I didn't agree with some of the priorities. he was taking and my advice was not listened to. So I said, look, I'm just going to resign and move forward.

You do your work and we'll continue to be in contact with needed. That's it. That's how I laugh. So you have good contact with the prosecutor's office after that and still agree today. Right. But so you have, you're not carrying water for him because you don't necessarily agree with his policies. You just don't, he wasn't corrupt.

And it was, I want to make sure I understand. this, because this is something that the American media will never cover and that is, you say that it was from day one the George Soros organization that wanted him out. Why would they want him out?

Why would they want him out? That was the question we were asking them. We came out to the protesters. I was the one who actually coordinated communication with the protesters on his behalf, on the project of general's behalf, asking, look, guys, what happened? What is the story behind your protest?

We were ready to cooperate. Let's go in. We'll show you what's needed. Let's get involved together. You are the NGOs, your mega organizations. Let's cooperate together and fight corruption. We invited them to the prosecutor's office, and they still, after that,

even got worse in protesting all over Facebook, all over physical protests every day by the prosecutor's office. And nobody knew at the time, what were they doing? What was their agenda? But their agenda was at the end, as we see today, is the Burisma investigation against the Burisma money laundering money and behind for Biden being involved. That's the main thing we see today as their narrative because at that time, we didn't understand what their narrative was. All right. So let me go back to the United States and let's start taking this timeline a little bit.

How hands-on was the Obama administration in Ukraine? I was fully after my Don, and I was also active participant of my Don. I was one of the leaders of the out of my Don and coordinated all the international work with the State Department and other embassies in Ukraine. It turned out there after my dawn, after the revolution. It was a hard-on coordination from Washington from the White House, from Biden exactly, coming to Ukraine every time and telling everybody what to do in a matter which was inappropriate for a foreign country to intervene. into internal politics or another foreign sovereign country. And when you say he was telling people what to do, what do you mean he was telling people what to do?

Oh, you should guys put this guy to prison. You should not touch that guy. You should do whatever we tell you because we know what to do better. You guys are corrupt. We will handle it from here now. We will give you money. If you don't do this, we will not give you money. So this example of fire and choking was not the only example.

His involvement in Ukraine was on withholding funds for Ukraine. I was in those meetings when we asked for U.S. assistance, military assistance, or military aid, the Ukraine when the war in the East started, and Crimea got addicts, and we were told, no, prove it's the Russians, and we won't help you, but we will only give you blankets or medical aid kits.

So when Biden's telling we will help Ukraine or we're going to help Ukraine, he's doing basically the opposite of what he told us at that time, and he was telling us the opposite at that time before he's told us. that you're in the selection process. Okay, so let me play devil's advocate here. And I don't mean to insult you or your country by any stretch here.

I just, okay. If I had $2 trillion, $2 billion, $2 billion, $500, and I'm going to give it to somebody, but I think they have a history of being corrupt, I would be saying, look, you got to change your lifestyle. you got to get these corrupt people out. Is it unreasonable for us if we're giving you money to say, hey, we just want to make sure this money is being watched over.

It's not being abused. It's not involved in more corruption. That's a reasonable advice, a regional approach. But we were telling them, look, let's work together to reform our anti-corruption bodies, the prosecutor's office, the secret service, the police. Let's not form something new, but they wanted to form something new, which was 100% reliable and only to the U.S. government or to the FBI or the DOJ. That was the problem. Ukraine in 1994 gave way the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world for in return nothing. And we were guaranteed a sovereignty and military support or military aid protection, which we never received when the war started with Russia.

And when they intervene in our political processes, and we have examples like Egypt, we're getting $2 billion for 20 years without nobody's asking why is Egypt corrupt or uncorrupt. Right. So there's an issue there today. But Ukraine, on the other hand, was a project which everybody wanted to come in and tell us what to do. That is the problem. And you cannot do that. If we don't want any aid, if you tell us, we want to give you the United States. Don't go on your own and we will work on you.

We will reform a country on our own, but we want to work together with the United States as an ally, not our father or a godfather to us and tell us what to do. Unfortunately, by President Biden, when he would come in with his all staff and the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, would in a very inappropriate manner tell the Ukrainian government of the prosecutor general what to do, how to do it. And basically, there was an intervention into this whole interior Ukrainian process, which was unacceptable from what I saw. Even though I grew up in the States, I like American values, but every country is sovereign. I cannot come to the United States and tell who the vote for, who to support. I can only give my example as an option. That's for you guys to choose what to do next. And this is the same thing you want here.

All right. So let me skip ahead a little bit. the United States insisted that we start a national anti-corruption bureau and that it was our design and we would put it together with you and we would become partners on this. My feeling is, and I have nothing to back this up other than looking at the storyline, and I'd love your opinion on this, My feeling is this is the United States government's way of controlling it even more and making sure that corruption is all funneled through our people and the people that we have helped select as evidenced by, you know, the guilty verdict on the guy who is the head of that organization.

is this is this the right way to look at it or why was that formed in your opinion it was formed as something that the u.s. government thought it would work but in the ukraine realities it didn't and we were telling them it's not going to work if you're going to just do it copy the u.s. idea or example and just implement it in ukraine we have a different value system we have a different ethics system and different cultural system, which you also have to put in tact. But they only listen to the Open World and Antac Foundation, which was funded by them because they would not, those guys would not tell them, oh, this is bad because they would want to still receive money from that.

As soon as they would tell them, this is not going to work, the funding's going to get out, get cut up from them. But when we told them it's not going to work, they started telling, oh, you guys are corrupt prosecuted or you should be prosecuted, you should, you should, you're, you We should not listen to you. It's not, and this is the problem. They only listened to the people who didn't tell them, didn't act as the devil's advocate.

They were just telling them what they want to hear. And they implemented the system, the NABU, the preying anti-corruption body, which is working for a couple of years already. And people are getting good salaries there, over $5,000, which is pretty good free-pring when everybody else is an average of maximum up to $1,000. Wow.

their salary and these guys are investigators getting more than $5,000 every month and the head is getting up to $15,000. Zero cases. Zero cases were prosecuted for even an outcome to the court within the last couple of years. And the problem is that it was all coordinated with the US semi-sympir and nobody else listened to anybody in the Ukrainian who would try to intervene into the system. That was the problem. And it was not only really. Ambassador Ivanovich was taken out of her post, but it was also a fellow name in George Kent, who was at DCM at that time, and he was the godfather of the Nabu. He was before the director of IML.

It was a division within the State Department who oversaw all the anti-corruption bodies over the world or police forces and prosecutor forces. And he was the one who implemented this idea. But unfortunately, he only listened to his intact fellows, which didn't tell them anything, And that is the... And that's the Soros group. They were listening to the Soros group. Yeah.

I'm taking the Storos organization. A U.S. fund organization, which money owners running within their own system and then just makes money money millions of dollars from the U.S. government and from your taxes and from people from SARS. That's their, how they work. And everybody's posing their eyes on their corruption. But when they want to focus on corruption, they try to get shot. Shokin or anybody else.

I'll say these guys are corrupt. So, Andre, let's go now to Burisma and Hunter Biden's role there at Burisma. There's a couple of things that bother me beyond money, but let's start with the money. Joe Biden comes in and as he is talking to your government about anti-corruption, we're also talking about investing billions of dollars. into the natural gas and oil industry. The natural gas and oil industry is, if I understand the workings of Ukraine enough,

that is where big money is and a lot of corruption flows through the oil and gas industry, correct? So when the vice president says, I'm going to play point man and I'm going to direct this money, and he says Burisma. You know that the guy who's running Burisma also is running, how do you say it, Privat Bank, the big bank there? No, that was another Uyogar.

That was Volmoiski. He didn't have any connection with Burisma. It was Mr. Lachapski, a former minister of ecology under President of Kovic. And Prima Bank was owned by Mr. Colomois. It's another old guard, not connected to Burisma at all. Oh, I thought he was. He invests in gas, a lot. He has a lot of gas investments, but they're not connected to Burisma.

They do work together in some projects, but they're not. Okay. Thought they were a good, good correction on that. We might come back to that, just so I understand it. All right. So Burisma is known as what kind of company? Clean company, good company in Ukraine at the time. At that time, a lot of people did not know what Burista was,

and it was brought out to the public by the government in Ukraine. When the first one of the first prosecutors after my dog was going to get around, open the investigation into their process and had a court in London, which unfortunately Crane lost due to, the lack of professionalism, some bodies within the prosecutor's office who were also affiliated with Soros people. But that's later on, we can talk about that. Okay. There was Burisma in Ukraine is also known as a company which is connected to Mr. Zolchewski, a guy who was working Andrea Likovic, the Minister of Ecology of Ukraine, and made a lot of money, millions and millions of

dollars through abrupt schemes and government laundering money back and forth. And that's where he invested this money into this company called Burisma and tried to make it clean by giving U.S. citizens, top citizens as we saw and top of them influential people under the board of directors of this company and basically put it on the market as well the top largest developing gas and oil companies in Ukraine. Why was Barysma selected by Joe Biden and the United States to be the recipient of the money? Once again, recipient of which one, the billions of dollars? Yes.

That I cannot answer. That is, but maybe because Hunter Biden wasn't on the board, but I cannot answer in detail. Okay. I want to get you. Okay. So it was not a. It was like a no-bid contract. I mean, there was not bids that were coming in from all the different oil companies or gas companies.

We just selected this company. In Ukraine, if there's a bids, the Ukraine, the Ukraine, they already knows how to fix those bids. And basically, they put up pretend all the contestants there on the bids who cannot, who can do something and who will win. And you will know who's going to be the winner from the beginning. And they just make it on paper to look nice. and file it as a report. But the real stuff, there's no business.

It's just one company who comes in. The other winners are incompetent at all. And the company that comes in, like, Burisma or anything else can just run right away without going through the whole process and just put some paper the process of what did go through. And basically, it's already corruption. So the corruption that Shokin was looking at. And I don't know if we're going to be able to get to this whole answer here before the break. but the corruption that Shokin was looking at, did it revolve around Joe Biden's son?

And did Joe Biden clearly know they were looking into that corruption when he asked for Shokin to be fired? First of all, yes. That was the case that Shokin was looking into the case of that money and Hunter Biden involvement and the money, how the laundered money out of Ukraine, because that was also a case. and with the Ukraine National Bank and all the Baltic banks that were involved in the Cyprus Bank and that was the case that was Shopen. I was looking after the London place was lost

prior to this couple months. And then when Biden came and Biden knew what Borisna was. And I can tell you that and he was involved, he knew what his son was involved in and he knew what he was doing there. He was not doing anything there because he's not a professional So, nutrition, economic expert, and he got sex.

He was there to his father. And that was the main idea why Biden helped Hunter Biden to be in this property. So you, you say Joe Biden did know that his son was on the board. He knew what was going on. And he knew that Chokin was investigating. That goes against everything. that the media and Joe Biden is saying today.

You have to understand some of the logical points without my evidence or anybody else's evidence is you're the vice president of the United States. Your son goes on the board of directors of a foreign company. You have the authority to find out what the company is from different sources. Start from intelligence, the United States, I mean with other audits, etc., etc. So you know what your son is involved in, and you actually follow the steps. That was what Mr. Biden was doing, being really hardcore involved in Ukraine. When he used to come to Ukraine, he was thought as, he was named Uncle Joe.

Everybody who knew was in contact with him, they could solve their problems, paying power, even though if they were corrupt. If you liked them, if they spoke good English and they have liberal values, reviews, you keep them in power. Even though they were corrupt or had zero percent ratings as one of our former prime ministers, Mr. Yers Teneu, who's a good friend of Mr. Biden, and he kept him for a long time to be in power, even though the people were not supportive. His party in the government had zero rating.

They didn't even ballot themselves on the last election. This is an example of what Mr. Biden was doing in Ukraine. what was the reaction of the Ukrainians when Biden gave this ultimatum you're not getting a dime unless you fire him before I get on the plane what what was the reaction by the government and the people first of all it wasn't public at that time that his reaction was that as it was he talked about when he became public that video from the conference when he talked about fired Mr. Shokin and calling him a bad word.

I want to posit on the media and the media. And that was a few restrictions from a lot of them, everybody else. Basically, corrupt or uncorrupt, you're talking about a former government official or a foreign country. And you're being a former vice president. I'm going to come out on your show and start talking about the former president of the United States or anybody else from the former government. It won't be unacceptable to anybody. So basically, when this happened, there were a lot of people in the government knew what that was going on when he fired, choking, because everybody knew that it was under the order with the vice president Biden, because it was all coming to this stage with all these protests, with all this pressure from every NGO, from all the other affiliated organizations with the U.S. Embassy and who were involved in fighting corruption as they call it in Ukraine. It was coming to this point that somebody would, get fired. And it was

a minute before this was going to Mr. Shokin. But we didn't think. The Ukrainians did not think that it will go to this end, that the vice president would put an ultimatum on firing a governor official. So what was the thing to talk about it? You should fire this. You should fire this. It was not put in an intermediate form. I'll give me a couple of hours and you should do this. Because after what

after they fired Shokin, when they had Mr. So Tzanko hired as a prosecutor general, the voter him as a prosecutor general, they had to change the law for him to become the prosecutor general of Ukraine. He was basically, he doesn't have a law degree until today. He had to become the prosecutor general by the changing of the law, which is a whole different procedure within our system. So basically, they just spit on everybody and did what they wanted to do. And they put somebody who was affiliated to Poroshenko and who Porchenko could control as the prosecutor instead of putting some professional who could really do things into the prosecutor. All right. So hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on. There's a lot to unpack here.

There's a lot to unpack here. So let me go back. So the people, they knew that, I mean, the Eastern bloc countries, the former Soviet bloc countries, they're very clear on who, is. Some countries have banned him from involving himself at all or any of his NGOs. So they're very clear on who he is where here in America we deny any nefarious intent from George Soros. So the people knew that these protests on the street were coming from these Soros NGOs. And they, did they view Shokin as a good guy standing up against this NGIOs? or not?

You have to understand. People didn't understand what's going on. Some did view him as an okay prosecutor. Some did not because you understand it depends how the media spends it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And half the media spend it one way as pro-left, the pro-saurus, the organizations wanted it. And half the media spend it as a neutral way as it really was from the beginning.

Basically, the society wasn't divided it. And when Shokin got fired, the society was divided also. So, but when they found out that it was the, the United States government and Joe Biden, there had been no prosecution, no investigation of Shokin. And so the people must have been more than a little shocked that this came so strongly from Joe Biden. Of course, because the reaction of the people was the election process. in Ukraine where they voted 74% for a candidate was not even politics prior to this. So wait, wait, wait. So are you...

24% voted for the president. So you're saying that the Joe Biden firing played a huge role in the next election, that it was, that that was the one of the things that lit that fire? Of course, it was one thing that was lit that fire. And one of the things that people were fit up with where Ukraine, unfortunately, was bending for our allies, not cooperating with them as partners, but just working as some schoolboy. And when I'm afraid of friend with him as a school board. Let me go to January 2016. You're working at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington, D.C. at the Washington, D.C. at the time, right?

Yes, that's great. And a woman named Alexandra Chalupa told an event. official at the DNC that she felt that she was sure there was a Russia connection between Donald Trump and Russia. And that same month, there was a meeting between Obama administration officials and Ukrainian prosecutors. And the idea was they're going to bring in the National Anti-Corruption Bureau. And you're going to meet with the FBI. And we're going to teach you how not to be corrupt. And were you present or involved in that meeting being set up and were you there when it happened?

Yes, I was. I was asked to help organize that meeting also because it was part of my duties of the embassy. And it was being involved in the prosecutor's office in Ukraine before the ambassador are asking to be involved in that meeting. But the interesting thing is, I was involved in two meetings out of a week long of meeting the Nabood of the Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and the corruption Bureau of Ukraine.

And then I was blocked from attending in the other meeting, which was basically a shop for the embassy. And this never happened before. Okay, wait, wait, wait. I didn't understand. I didn't hear what you said. was a shock. You were also involved in what? I was in that meeting.

I was helped to organize that meeting, but then, after, because they were not only this meeting in the White House, they had members of meetings within the FBI and the OJ. Right. They're talking about corruption as they stopped in Ukraine. But I was blocked that Ukraine embassy in Washington was blocked from attending any of those other meetings after the first meeting with the White House. And why do you suppose that was? When I said it was really shocking, because usually when a foreign obligation comes, the embassy of the country, which is the representatives of the country, comes with them on every meeting and assist them on every meeting.

And they cannot get blocked from attending anything else if it's not only by the will of those attendees. But because the government officials, we have to be with them all the time. Right. And the U.S. government just told us in the DOJMFBI, you're not allowed to attend those meetings. sorry. That's it. I only attended the White House meeting, which happened in January, another than meeting at the FBI headquarters in your anything else, the Ukraine embassy and he has an official was blocked from the tenant. What was the conversation in the embassy on why they would do that?

It had never been done before. It seems like a slap in the face to the embassy. What was the speculation? The ambassador made phone calls. They just said, You're not allowed to attempt. That's it. Nor me, nor the ambassador, nobody else. So for us, it was we just wrote a letter of protest to the State Department right afterwards, and that's it. Okay.

So was the director of, I think you call it Nobu, Nabu, was that Sitnik, right? Yes, I'm talking Sitnik. Okay. And was he there at those meetings? It was Artham Sitnik. the director of Nabu. It was special obstruction prosecutor

Nazarv Mitzki and it was a deputy assistant prosecutor of Ukraine the Litsa Kvalidze who were attending those meetings in Washington and that meeting

at the White House in January 2016. And what was the subject matter on the ones that you did attend? Basically, it was National Security Council of the White House, who were the other side of the representatives from the United States.

And it was the Ukrainian side. And also, there was the attendees from the Department of Justice. It was Mr. Jeff Pohl, who was a representative of Justice, and the woman from FBI, who were in those meetings. And they did all the talking. They didn't let nor Mr. Sittnick, nor Mr. Kovinsky, no Mr. Seclarablitz talk at all. They basically reported for them to the National Security Council. And when the National Security Council, people asked for any input or any other investigations to be done,

also the Department of Justice were basically doing the talk. And didn't know the Ukraine side talk at all, which was basically extraordinary. And that's when I heard from the National Security Council request to investigate the party of groups. And so it was a party where Paul Manafort used to be involved with, used to consult them. and they asked to investigate any connections of part of your regions, former Yanukovych president, with U.S. citizens. They didn't say Manafort. They didn't say it. It didn't mention their name, but a couple weeks afterwards, Holdensky told me that they actually gave them the black cledger to investigate.

That was basically their Washington visit was to talk about the black ledger. And they were there. They did not know that was the black ledger at the time. So it was basically a shop when it came afterwards with all this basically crane involvement in this process. There's one thing that has bothered me and I'd love to see if you have any information or an opinion on this. The day that Paul Manafort was charged and it was announced that he was in the Black

Ledger, Tony Podesta's, Tony Podesta has had a huge firm here in America, lobbyist group. He spent a lot of time over with the Podesta group. The day that Manafort was arrested, or they said they were coming out, here's the Black Ledger, the Podesta group closed its doors without any explanation. and it's been my feeling that Podesta was doing the same thing and he's just kind of been erased because

it's very, very odd that somebody with that much power, that much clout, that much money, and that kind of record just closes in emergency way. It doesn't say, hey, we're going to retire, we're winding things down, just locks the door. Is there anything on Podesta that you've ever heard, the Podesta group? Well, there's a lot of the U.S. involvement in Ukraine

over the last couple years, and Podesta was one of them. I don't know their retail operations, but there was also the involvement of a person named Craig Craig, who was Greg Craig. Greg Craig. He was the president's attorney. He was the president's personal attorney, President Obama.

Yeah, he was involved in Ukraine. name was coming up in meetings right after the revolution, right up for my daughter revolution. And people were talking about him and nobody knew what he was doing exactly, but he was involved in Ukrainian politics one way or another. And when the black lector came up, his name was also in the air and being talked about that he was also being a payroll. But eventually, his name was never mentioned enough in the media to get a look at the airport. into this profile. And from what I heard, the court made a decision that there was nothing illegal from his actions

in the United States. That's the latest I heard, which was strange, even though what he was doing here, nobody can answer directly was involved with the State Department of the U.S. embassy as he was from what we know, from the Ukraine government. And what exactly was his actions here is for the U.S. and Ukraine authorities also to tell the public, I think. So did the Anti-Corruption Bureau, is it your theory or your witness that the Obama administration requested in some way or another this Black Ledger information to investigate what was going on with Powell Manafort to confirm a connection of some sort with Donald Trump and Russia? Yes, that was the first stage of, from what I understood with the connection, and tried to try to go after Paul Manafort was from this January meeting.

And after we talked with Mr. Hololidzky, they said there was a lot of pressure from the U.S. obviously in Kiev for them to do this. And Mr. Siknik, I was in contact with him prior for a couple of years. And he used to just brag about how he goes to the U.S. Amisian Kiev and reports to them twice a week. what was going on and takes words from them. And he talks about the public, and I think there's also reporting there are now online, but he used to do this to everybody,

just brag about how he's in bed with basically the U.S. Ambissian kid, and they're telling him what to do. So that's a novel secret here in Ukraine, but nobody's reporting about this in the U.S., unfortunately. So Alexandra Chalupa. Most people have never heard of her. She is described now by the U.S. media, just as a soccer mom.

But she was working with the American embassy in D.C. when you were there. Can you tell me... Go ahead. Can you... Yes, the Ukrainian embassy. Yes, Ukrainian embassy in the United States. Can you tell me, was she working with the embassy?

What was her involvement with the embassy? When I first met her was it was end of March 2016. And I didn't hear about her beforehand. I had known that there were Ukrainian Americans coming to the embassy often and talking to the ambassador, working in different issues. But when I met her was the first time in the end of March 2016. And I was introduced to her by the DCM at that time, Fuliar, in a cafe outside the embassy. And she said, you have to talk to this woman. And Chaloup introduced herself as a DNC operator,

DNC worker. She's collecting dirt on Manafort and Trump. They're going after her, but she's almost going to get killed if she does this, but she's still willing to pursue this idea that Russia was involved or Russia's behind Donald Trump. And if I can use my contacts as a high former government official in Ukraine to help her in this investigation and help the DNC

and take Trump off the elections through, congressional committee hearing aired by Marcy Kaptur in September 16 and then basically a month right before the election. And afterwards, after this meeting with Chalupa, I started asking questions. I started asking

the ambassador. Do you know this woman? He says yes, Charlie, the Ukraine ambassador in Washington says, I know Chalupa you have to work with her. She's a friend of the embassy and she's doing the work that is going to bring some positive aspects to Ukraine after the election. And that's when

my relationship at the embassy started to break with the ambassador. And a couple of months later, I resigned and left back to Ukraine. Okay, so your testimony here is that the ambassador not only knew who she was, but knew that she worked with a DNC, and there was some sort of an exchange of she would help Ukraine afterwards if you would just help her now. Well, it was not, she's going to help. It's going to, the whole process of we're going to help her.

Okay. And it'd be helpful for you brain after the election. Okay. And she was meeting the ambassador quite often during official events at the embassy. They would come up to his office and talk. And they talked about out or no, but that's what I started to mention, who was Mrs. Alexander should. And so, um, you, you believe that the ambassador did know she was on the

payroll she was representing herself as working for the DNC. Of course. That's how she represented herself to me right way. And we had only one meeting. She told me recently the whole story what she was doing and what she was doing. And she doesn't hide it. Look at her

social media. She she says she says now that she was just doing this on her own accord. She wasn't working for the DNC. This is something that she was pursuing just as a concerned citizen. Maybe she was, but she introduced to me as a DNC worker. I was introduced to her.

I didn't bump into her industry. I was introduced to her by the VCM at the embassy. Then I have to talk to this woman and give her help. And basically, she came to an official meeting with me asking for help to find dirt on presidential candidate at that time, Donald Trump and his team, Paul Manafort and everybody else. Did the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine know about this? I'm sorry, I'd let me. It's the last part of that. I don't know what she told anybody else, how she introduced herself, but when I reported to Charlie that who I met and what the request was,

and I explained her, this was Oxanac Chalup, but he said, you have to work with her. I know who she is. If Oksana, the DCM, tells you to work with this woman, you have to work with this woman. That was the answer. Did the U.S. embassy in Ukraine know about this relationship? That, I don't know. I know that after, right now, before the elections and right after the elections, I heard things from Washington, that people knew that the Ukraine embassy was doing this,

not only with Chaloo, but there were other segments, which were I was not involved in, that there was cooperation on, with basically taking one side and the campaign referred to another. Okay. And you voiced this concern to your ambassador in Washington, D.C. And, um, pardon me? Yeah, right after the meeting. Right. His office and said, but this is disturbing.

And, um, what was his reaction to you? You said your, that's when your relationship started to kind of fall apart. what was his reaction to your not willing to, or at least your willingness to say, I don't think this is right. His reaction was, I'm giving you an order to cooperate with her. You have to cooperate with her.

And then when I started to back off, I said, I'm not going to get involved with it. This is, first of all, unethical and illegal, maybe. And we cannot do this. And I wanted to report back to EVEY didn't let me, even though I think official Kiev and the Ukraine president knew what was going on because Charlie has direct phone access with the president twice a week, President Ukraine twice a week

on his schedule. So the president wasn't, Ukraine didn't know what was going on. He was basically taking orders also from Kiev. So he was doing also a job and he was telling to do something. That was this whole idea. And what I told him, let's work with the Trump campaign also because I was overseeing the election process of the embassy reporting back on how the priorities were going. That was my job to work with the campaigns. And I said, look, we talked to every campaign, Cajage, Bruce, some people from like, Osama Shilar, she had a good relationship with the Hillary team. She spoke with Hillary. But let's talk to the Trump campaign and let's coordinate some work with them, like Ukraine, the civilian area, other embassy does. And he said, don't talk to the Trump campaign. If you do, you're going to get fired. And that's when things got. really bad and I understood that he's not going to, he's basically started blocking me on every

other meetings and blocking me from attending any other official meetings at embassy or outside the embassy. Did you tell anybody else at the time that can verify that this was happening? Did you tell anybody else, any friends, any communications with anyone? No, there are some people that I did I was in contact and I did tell them what was the process and there were some of friends who used to work with before the Ukrainian government by former boss. And that's when I heard. But then I kept quiet and I just understood, look, it's not going to work out. It's not the dream job. I just wanted to.

I'm just going to leave. I don't have to be involved in this if I don't want to. And I resigned on my own. I came back for another month of the ministry of foreign affairs. and start after I resign and started doing political consulting. And that's when I started talking about this off-record and to the presidential administration here in Kiev, my former boss, the prosecutor general, Yerama,

to deliver this message to the president of Ukraine. But this thing happened. It's going to cause some problems in the future. You have to do something about it, a chance ambassador, maybe do some management there in the embassy, but the president has to get involved and do this before. or they'll actually cost of sounds. But I was not heard when I talked about it privately, basically.

Okay. But that's when I decided to do the interview with Politico when I was reached out. And Ken Loco and David's turn, we were forgetting that they did the job investigating this. Right. Ken Gogo was one of also our federalists today. And he did the investigation on this on Chalupa herself told that she was involved in there. in that article in political January 17 article

I had a couple of lines there talking about my work but she spoke most of the other article talking about what she was involved in and she confirmed most of it I don't know why she did it but she confirmed the story herself from her side let me go back to the black

ledger here it was released in August of 2016 you've said that it was it was done you know, on the instructions of the Obama administration that they gave Nabu back in January, there was a director, Sidnick, and a member of parliament, Les Shanko, I believe. And they are on tape, and you've said that they said many times that they influenced the election. They were working for the DNC to try to throw it to Hillary.

there is a tape that you mentioned and we have played. This was taken to court in Ukraine, and it was, they were both found guilty, but then there was an appeal. And the American press is reporting that it was thrown out on appeal, which to them translates to there wasn't a crime, they didn't commit it, but actually it's a technicality.

Can you explain the technicality? that they got this thing thrown out on? Do you know it? I don't know the details of this process on the appeal, but we have the first case, the first

state court, basically the when they got the verdict and the court, he got a verdict. Got originally a verdict in the court of law in Ukraine. The appeal itself is in the process of where you have to appeal the first verdict. basically, they already got a word at the first stage, and the court decided that they were guilty.

But the problem is in Ukraine, you cannot, there's no punishment for it. Maybe there's like a fine you're going to pay or they already paid or they're appealing this fine. But basically, they cannot be taken to prison or jail on this account. And this is the main thing. And there's a lot of also political influence not to push this narrative forward with the former government. former President Porchenko, where this appeal was in process, and he still has a lot of power in the government, and he can influence the court. Because we don't have a jury that sits and decides we have a court, a judge, one of the three judges which decide the fate of this over the appeal, and that's it. And they can get a phone call from the top and telling them what to do and what to make a verdict.

unfortunately this is the country we live in today. All right. So the U.S. ambassador, let's switch to her. Yovanovitch. She was named the new U.S. ambassador of Ukraine in 2016. And I just heard reports this week. She has been testifying here in secret hearings in Washington, D.C., that are never kept oh so secret. and she is painted as a warrior for justice by our media.

She said that she was removed from her position because she was trying to stop the corruption in Ukraine that Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani were a part of. and she dismisses any of the charges that she was not allowing prosecutors visas to come in, that she drew up a do not prosecute list. Tell me who she is and how you know anything about her if you do. It was when she became the ambassador, and as I said, it was not only her, but Mr. George Kent, you know, to take him to the consideration.

He's now, why are we talking about him? Because now he's a system deputy secretary of state within the state department. And he oversees the Ukraine today. And he reports to Pompeo today. And he was the puppet, the puppeteer who he used to control the embassy. Ivanovich was there, but he was the main man. He used to tell Ivanovich what and who we should listen to. And the U.S. Embassy in Kiev under Ivanovich was basically anybody who would have conservative views,

not only just views do not support, but inconsiderate views, they would block from communication. I used to work with Ambassador Pai, who was previously before Ivanovich, Ambassador Taff. And we used to coordinate a lot of work together, fighting with the corruption under Yer McEvich and doing all of the other work. But when Ivanovich came to the ambassador of George Kent, all the cooperation was not only me, but other people who had conservative views stopped because we were conservative. They only listened to intact people, source people like Leschenko, like Sidney, who would basically just come to their underneath and listen what the U.S. Embassy would say. Anybody who would reject to a decision of the U.S. Embassy on any behalf, they would get blocked and not listen to or get toxicified. Like they tried to do with me. But what they did is they did tell that it was not only Andrevarez, but on the previous semester also who to investigate, who to prosecute, they would basically tell them in an orderly fashion.

Well, in an order fashion, they would just tell, well, you should do this, you should not do this. It was a norm for the U.S. Embassy. Unfortunately, the Ivanovich could call the president and tell him, you should not touch this government official. You should look into this government official. And the president of Ukraine would have to take her call and do what she would say. Unfortunately, this is the reality which also, the mass media doesn't understand what happened in Ukraine. They don't dig in.

When I talk to, I'm giving 12 people to use it a day to every India. I'm talking to you. I'm talking to the mass media. media expo to CNN and NBC. NBC didn't even air my interview because they told me your narrative is the most, is the opposite from everybody you talk to. I said, but who do you talk to? He said, oh, we talk to, I'm tech people. We talk to nations. I said, of course, you're going to hear only from them. They're going to protect themselves. You're going to hear from me another part of the story. Isn't this journalism? But nobody's doing their job today. That's the problem.

That's where we're trying to dig to the truth through your program, through other media sources, and find out what really happened here in Ukraine. I was taking to my story for two years, or for three years now, after the political article came out about Shulup, about the DNC involvement, and other things came out with other reporters, like with John Solomon from January meeting. So there's a big story here in Ukraine,

which we have to all investigate. That's why President Trump is asking, please investigate, find out what happened in Ukraine. Was the U.S. Embassy involved? Was Biden involved? we want the investigators from Ukraine and together with the DOJ and FBI to find out what do they happen. And that's what Mr. Giuliani is doing. They're trying to get the pieces together to give it to the investigators do their job.

But the media and everybody else is trying to destroy this and destroy anybody who goes against this narrative. That's the problem here. So part of the problem is that we don't know who the good guys and bad guys are. For instance, General Lusanko. he was the guy that replaced Shokin. Shokin, we're told, is a bad guy. You're saying that, you know, yes and no, but he wasn't fired for corruption.

He was fired because he was looking into the wrong things. Lushenko then comes in, and he's a guy that apparently the Obama administration likes, but now they're throwing him under the bus because he's now. saying, for instance, the American ambassador tried to strong arm him, tell him who to prosecute, who not to prosecute. Do we, that aligns with your story, but it sounded to me like you don't really like Lusenko.

Is he a good guy, bad guy, or just a little of both? Lutentico, when he came to Mr. Giuliani this year with information, and he talked about the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine about the list of who prosecute, about the Biden, Hunter, Biden, Burisma, and everybody else, which was mentioned later on in the media, he came with an area of disdating power. That's where he tried to do. But he brought real evidence. He brought real documents to Mr. Giuliani to confirm his story. And Mr. Giuliani did talk to him for three days. He basically interrogated him in questioning about what was his story, his background, with all this information. And that's when only Mr. Giuliani took back that we can believe this guy. But today we have to understand that Lutenko backed out of his words. And this is what the media is trying to use against Giuliani and against me and against anybody else.

Oh, look, Lutonka backed out of his statements. Nobody didn't. He backed out because that's partially he backed. and he said, oh, the Hunter maybe was not involved, maybe he is involved. And he basically, that's his story today. That's what he's trying to push. But he brought new documents. He brought new evidence saying that it was true.

And that's where this process. This is really confusing because the only thing that we have been able to find, because everybody is, everybody's in a circle. The New York Times is quoting the Post and the Post is quoting the Wall Street Journal. And the Wall Street Journal is quoting the Washington. post. We can't find where he actually took back the statements. What we did find is him in an interview saying the reporter said, so wait a minute. So the ambassador comes in and she gives you this list. And he said, no, she didn't give me a list. I wrote down the names that she gave me. And that's where

the media is saying he reversed himself, at least on the list. We haven't found anything else that he has reversed himself on. So what is, what are you saying that he reversed himself on? Here in Ukraine media, he tried to back out of the story that he, on Hunter Biden. But as I said, he has a sworn statement to Mr. Giuliani that he, his evidence is true. Why, he's a politician. Maybe he's a good guy, maybe he's not. He's a politician.

He tried to use this to same power, but his words are true. And as I said, this is, I'm saying, I don't want people to think I'm sucking up to somebody or not. I don't like him. I know that he, we have to recheck who he is and what he is, but his words, when he came to Mr. Dundon, about Borisov, about Biden and about what the embassy, the U.S. embassy in Ukraine was telling him not to prosecute or who to prosecute. It's true. It is true. And this is what we also have to say to the consideration,

but we also have to be careful when he's, when the mass media is trying to say, oh, he's backing out of his words. He's backing out of his statements. This is what I'm most trying to say. Okay. Even though if he would ever try to back out of his statements, there's a sworn statement to Mr. Giuliani,

that he has clear evidence that what he said is true. Okay. So you're, if I understand this right, you're not arguing with me on the, you know, the who to prosecute and who not to prosecute. You're saying that he backed out of the statement of Joe Biden's son, Hunter, that he had done something wrong. Is that right? Yeah, that's what he backed out of the statement. Okay.

Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. Do you have... He's a politician. Unfortunately, he's a politician. Right.

And he tried to stay in power. And I'm just a group old to understand. But if the Trump administration was corrupt enough, they would keep him in power. They would tell Zelensky, don't touch Yulzanko. He's a guy that we have to keep him in power. Let him investigate the Bidens. Let him investigate because he came to us. But they didn't do that.

Biden wouldn't do that. Biden would keep him in the power. He would say, oh, let's keep him because I like him. He's protecting me. But Trump didn't do that. He just mentioned his name. the Flucentico's a good diet during the conversation. He never asked Zelanke, keep him in power or keep him as the prosecutor.

Right. He said as a party. They never did this. And this is what, as an example to the public, why somebody's maybe this side is saying the truth here, because they're not trying to help, probably print their own what to do. Correct. Requesting and asking for help. So the evidence that Lusenko claimed to have.

have around Joe Biden, Shoken, Hunter Biden. He said he had a whole bunch of stuff, and he wanted to get it to the DOJ. And it actually went to, he finally got it through once we had a change in administrations. And that evidence went to America. And it went to the Southern District of New York. And they passed on the information. Do we have, where is that information now? Where is that evidence?

Do we know? No? I don't know about that. The new president, Zelensky, is, I mean, he ran, to say it was an unconventional campaign would be like describing Donald Trump as George Washington. Zolensky is it's my understanding he didn't really even debate anyone he didn't really talk about policies

nobody knew what he was going to do and he comes in is he is he going to be strong enough and is he the kind of guy that you think can help clean this up is he going to play it straight

or what's your impression of him? There is some internal fighting going on within Ukraine politics right now. And when the story of Biden rose up in the world in mass media, it was a fact when they were starting to get changes within the internal politics in Ukraine. And that's when people, so much people like Pinchuk Oligar, who was a bid donor to the Hilary Foundation, more than $10 million, officially, unofficially more than 100.

gave and he started to basically move aside people like Kolomoisky and other oligards who had some influence over Zelensky and start to put his people in by the order of the Democratic Party or liberal start to put his people in their seats and when Zelensky appointed the prosecutor general who was acting today he thought it was his guy when that's what he told president trump in the july phone call but today we see that mr. prosecutor general of Ukraine Mr. Abashapka is a totally pro-Soros person because he's appointing former Soros people who were affiliated with the Open World Foundation and getting grant money from USAD and the Open World Foundation Renaissance, which is part of the Soros Group. And he's appointing them as deputies in the

prosecutor's office. So this is with now Zelensky who had power over the government is going to fight back. And we're going to see in the next couple months. hopefully there's going to change this in the prosecutor's office. He wants to investigate this. Zelensky said, I want our system to investigate this and to turn this page over, and we want to forget about this story. We don't want to be mentioned in the media in this way ever again. That's why I want the prosecutor to take over this investigation.

But unfortunately, the prosecutor today cannot be trusted, and Zelensky will have to change him in the next couple of months. So is this who the president was referring to, and he said, we think you still have the same kind of people around you in that phone call? Not only this, but there was also people like Chute,

Lechchenko, and people who were like Lébashavka, also the prosecutor general, but the main guy was probably when Chuky was talking about. That's the Ovalbard who was involved with Hillary and helped give him for money to the Open World Foundation.

What was the talk? What was the talk about, about when the president started talking about the servers, the DNC servers and the, what was it, crossroads, I think it was? CrowdStrike. What was that all about? Do you know? I think that's what they wanted to find out are these servers in Ukraine, which the DNC could have. The problem with the issue is here.

Because people have to understand. Ukraine is maybe some foreign country to most Americans. But for the Democratic Party and for Soros, it's a big hub, which they use for more than 20 years, invests in millions and millions of dollars into this country, into their operatives who work on the ground here and giving them grant money. We're basically loyal to them. And basically they don't trust Ukraine. It's kind of like a black.

It's kind of like a black ops for the DM. N.C. And Soros. Yeah. Okay. Basically, with the Democratic Party and the liberals, I go against Trump, with Russia, they did the same thing in Ukraine. So now using this narrative, it's Trump, and that's it. Right. Okay. So now let me, let me go to Rudy Giuliani, who you have spoken to several times. Rudy Giuliani is now, they're now saying that there are these two. operatives, actually three of them, two of them been arrested.

And they wanted in on some corrupt oil business that they weren't supposed to be running. And they needed to get some people out of the way. One of them was the ambassador and one of them was, I think, I can't remember, one of the other prosecutors. And so they needed to get these people fired. They paid him and Rudy Giuliani has admitted to taking $500,000 from him. They made an elite campaign contribution. But the narrative is that Rudy Giuliani is only doing these things and only fired these ambassadors because he was trying to help them make money and basically do what the

Democrats are accusing Hunter Biden or what the Republicans are accusing Hunter Biden of doing, that this is just all about corruption and money for Rudy Giuliani. From what I know I'm talking to Mr. Giuliani, and I still talk to him. today or the phone and we call each other once a week and when I come to do, yes, I see him every time. So basically what we're talking about here is a possibility of corruption from what the media amassed media is trying to implement. But when I talked to Mr. Giuliani, he was confidential politically involved and he told me, look, I'm doing this for the President of the United States. I cannot law me because I know the

I'm just doing this work as his attorney and I cannot do any other business other than this. That's why I trusted them. So any, all these stories that are in the media today, they have to be investigated and proven in court. I cannot comment on them. I know that partners, Ruma, and all these other guys, they were running around. They were doing some job, but what they were doing and how they were doing. I don't know because I did not contact them.

I was caught in contact with Giuliani directly. Okay. But your view of Rudy Giuliani at this point is that he is, you know, for lack of a better term, a Boy Scout just trying to do right by Ukraine and the president and get to the bottom of how this corruption was working. Yes. What we mean, he has this whole huge couple of books, which he writes out everything, His staff even, no less.

He knows more about Ukraine than a lot of Ukrainians probably. He tells him a name. He knows who is the guys connected to who, which is his connection circle, where he gets the money from money. He has that from evidence documents that people give to him. Why people go to Mr. Giuliani, we have to understand it today. It's because the official channels, like Masul Tsenko talked about, giving this information to the DLJ,

these documents, somebody knows where they are right now. And nobody was blocked beforehand. And when people found out Julianne and Mr. Julianne was doing this work, everybody came to him. That's why he came to him. I want to tell him like this is what I have. I want to give this, provide this to the U.S. authorities. I want to give this to you, for you to also know. He wrote it down.

He took into the fact. And this is why everybody came to Giuliani and just basically know with this prank. It wasn't some coup or it wasn't some conspiracy. It was just the fact that people found out that there was a channel to go. So people just wanted this channel. How does his story end? I mean, you have two Titanic forces. I mean, they're just, and they're both intent on sinking the other.

They each think they're the iceberg, not the Titanic. Both sides are coming at each other. The media has almost total control of this story. Thank God that there are a few people speaking out. but when you're looking at, you know, shows like mine as an investigative arm, that's pretty frightening to think that that is the state of the media right now. I don't see the media waking up to your version or my version of the story. How does this end?

I hope it's going to be a good finish, not an end, but a good finish. And we have to investigate. that's this is the only outcome. If we don't, there's going to be a problem which this issue is going to be up in the air from years, months and years to come. This election, then the Hunter Biden will want to go for election. This is going to come up or something like this. It's going to always be in the media.

And we have to find out what is going on. What is the truth? Who saw the truth? If the media, is the Democratic Party, is the Republican Party, Trump, Zelensky, Biden. This is for not, for us. to decide, we're just experts here, you're a journalist, I'm an expert, I, and a witness in all this situation. I want to give this to somebody who's going to investigate a proper professional and give it to court and then we can decide. This is what the rule of law, this is

what democracy is about. Not for us to sit and bowing fingers and say this is guys in this and this guy is guilty. This is how it's going to finish only with the proper investigation and without I'll find this investigation from Ukraine and from the United States parallel and when it has to be public when the one of the end this investigation has to be public

and for people to decide for themselves who is right who is wrong in this and if needed somebody will have to go to jail Andre Telashenko I have a feeling we'll talk again thank you so much thank you very much just a reminder

I'd love you to rate and subscribe to the podcast and pass this on to a friend so it can be discovered by other people.