Andrii Telizhenko alleges the Obama administration and Joe Biden orchestrated Ukraine corruption investigations to benefit the DNC, claiming Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch pressured him to investigate Hunter Biden's Burisma ties while suppressing conservative voices. He details how U.S. officials allegedly manipulated the anti-corruption system under George Soros's influence, blocking independent probes into Paul Manafort and directing prosecutions toward political targets rather than genuine graft. Telizhenko asserts that NABU has prosecuted zero cases despite high salaries, arguing that true justice requires an impartial investigation into the Bidens, Zelensky, and Giuliani beyond partisan media narratives. [Automatically generated summary]
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 Telashenko.
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 you'll be shocked to hear he didn't last long with that prosecutor general.
Why?
And why is he sticking up for him today?
You'll 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 Andrei Teleshenko 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 described the whole narrative, 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.
David Nate was involved.
So it was a good picture and actually give 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, it's only today that Giuliani started this investigation.
They didn't understand what happened years before this.
And it's a bigger picture than it is in the mass 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.
You were, let's start here.
You were the former advisor to the prosecutor general of Ukraine.
That was Shokin, was it not?
It was Yerema, and it was Shokin afterwards also.
I worked with him for three, four months, and then I resigned and went to work at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington, where the other events happened.
So can you help us get a handle on Shokin?
Shokin 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?
Viktor Shokin, the former prosecutor general of 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 Burisma.
There's a billion things working on to work on in Ukraine, and I did support some of it.
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, Shokin's office, my former other boss, Yika Yerma 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 adaged involved in this also.
And they just said, oh, you're corrupt from day two.
And that was, they had no narrative behind it.
They had no evidence.
Shokin was never prosecuted for corruption.
There was no court rule in.
There was no investigation.
So the only corruption case there is is Biden talking or anybody else from the Open World Society Foundation or Burisma talking that he was corrupt.
On the other hand, we have no evidence.
Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't.
That's for the court, for the prosecutors, investigators to prove.
Okay, that clears up an awful lot.
So let me ask you this or restate this to make sure I'm on the right track.
You worked for Shokin, but you 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 left it.
So you still had 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 was 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 up to the protesters.
I was the one who actually coordinated the communication with the protesters on his behalf, on the prosecutor general's behalf, asking, look, guys, what happened?
What is the story behind your protest?
We're ready to cooperate.
Let's go in.
We'll show you what's needed.
Let's get involved together.
You are the NGOs.
You're not organizations.
Let's cooperate together and fight corruption.
We invited them to the prosecutor's office.
And then still, after that, even got worse and protesting all over Facebook, all over physical protests every day by the prosecutor's office.
And nobody knew at the time what they're doing.
What was their agenda?
But their agenda was at the end, as we see today, is the Barissman investigation against Barisma, money laundering money, and behind for Biden being involved in it.
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?
That was fully after my DAN, and I was also an active participant of my DAN.
One of the leaders of the Automa Don and coordinated all the international work with the State Department and other embassies in Ukraine during that period.
After Maidan, after the revolution, there was this 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 the internal politics of 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, 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, and 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 shopping was not the only example.
His involvement in Ukraine was on withholding funds for Ukraine.
That was in those meetings when we asked for U.S. assistance, military assistance, or military aid to Ukraine when the war in the East started, and Crimea got annexed.
And we were told no.
Prove it, 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, what he's telling us today, the U.S. public during 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.
Um, if I had two trillion dollars, two billion dollars, five hundred dollars, and uh, 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 reasonable approach.
But we were telling them, Look, let's work together to reform our corrupt, 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 owned to the U.S. government or to the FBI or to the DOJ.
That was the problem.
Ukraine in 1994 gave away 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 intervened in our political processes, and we have examples like Egypt, we're getting $2 billion for 20 years without nobody asking why is Egypt corrupt or uncorrupt.
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 was the problem.
And you cannot do that.
If we don't want any aid, if you tell us, we want to give you just aid.
Go on your own and we will work on your own.
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 godfather to us who tell us what to do.
Unfortunately, my president Biden, when he would come in with his whole staff and the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, would in a very inappropriate manner tell the Ukrainian government, tell the prosecutor general what to do, how to do it.
And basically, there was an intervention into this whole inter-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 to 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 we 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, 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 the guilty verdict on the guy who was the head of that organization.
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 ethic system and different cultural system, which you also have to have to put intact.
But they only listened to the Open World and Antac Foundation, which was funded by them, because then they would not, those guys would not tell them, oh, this is bad, because they would want to still receive money from them.
As soon as they would tell them this is not going to work, the funding is going to get cut off from them.
But when we told them it's not going to work, they started telling me, oh, you guys are corrupt, prosecuted, or you should be prosecuted.
We should not listen to you.
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 wanted to hear.
And they implemented the system.
The NABUL, the Ukrainian 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 for Ukraine when everybody else has an average of maximum up to $1,000 in salary.
Burisma Money Laundering00:12:53
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 or even an outcome to the court within the last couple of years.
And the problem is, is that it was all coordinated with the U.S. Embassy here.
And nobody else listened to anybody, any Ukrainian, who tried to intervene into the system.
That was the problem.
And it was not only Ambassador Ivanovich who was taken out of her post, but it was also a fellow named George Kent, who was at DCM at that time.
And he was the godfather of the Nabu.
He was before the director of INL.
It was the regional within the State Department who oversaw all the anti-corruption bodies all 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 NTAC fellows, which didn't tell them anything that didn't act as a devil.
And that's the Soros group.
They were listening to the Soros.
Yeah, the Antac is authorized on their organization, a U.S. funded organization, which money launders money within their own system and then just makes money millions and millions of dollars from the U.S. government and from your taxes and from people from Soros.
That's how they work.
And everybody's posing an eyes on their corruption.
But when they want to focus on corruption, they try to get Shokin or anybody else.
Oh, 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, you'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?
Yes, that's 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 Bolgard.
That was Kolomoyski.
He doesn't have any connection with Burisma.
It was Mr. Zolchewski, a former minister of ecology under President Yanukovych.
And Privat Bank was owned by Mr. Kolomoiski.
It's another old guard not connected to Burisma at all.
Oh, I thought he was.
He invested in the Western gas a lot.
He has a lot of gas investments, but they're not connected to Burisma.
They do work together with some projects, but they're not affiliated with the US.
Okay.
Thought they were.
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 Burisma was, and it was brought up to the public by the government of Ukraine when one of the first prosecutors after my government, Latabi Yarama,
opened an investigation into their process and had a court in London, which unfortunately Ukraine lost due to the lack of professionalism, some bodies within the prosecutor's office who are also affiliated with Soros people.
But that's later on.
We can talk about that.
There was Burisma in Ukraine is also known as a company which is connected to Mr. Zolachevsky, a guy who was working under Yanukovych, the Minister of Ecology of Ukraine, and made a lot of money, millions and millions of dollars through corrupt 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 getting U.S. citizens, top citizens, as we saw, and top influential people onto the board of directors of this company and basically put it on the market as one of the top largest developing gas and oil companies in Ukraine.
Why was Burisma selected by Joe Biden and the United States to be the recipient of the money?
Once again, recipient of which the billions of dollars?
Yes.
That I cannot answer.
Maybe because Hunter Biden wasn't on the board, but I cannot answer in detail.
Okay.
Okay, so it was not 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 bid, the Ukrainian government knows how to fix those bids, and basically they put up pretty all the contestants there on the beds 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 bids.
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 win right away without going through the whole process and just puts on paper that the process did go through.
And basically, it's already corruption.
So the corruption that Chokin 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 Chokin 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 Chokin was.
The prosecutor's office under Chokin was looking into the case of that money and Hunter Biden involvement and the money, how they laundered money out of Ukraine, because that was also a case with the Ukrainian National Bank and all the Baltic banks that were involved in the Cyprus bank.
And that was the case that Chokina was looking after the London case was lost prior to this couple of months.
And then when Biden came in, Biden knew what Burisma was.
And I can tell you that.
And he was involved.
He knew what his son was involved in.
And he knew what Ulsein was doing there.
He was not doing anything there because he's not a professional politician, economic expert, or any gas expert.
He was there to rescue his father.
And that was the main idea why Biden helped Hunter Biden to be in this company.
So 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.
But you have to understand some ecological 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.
Starting from intelligence, United States, I mean with other audits, etc., etc.
So you know what you're doing, what your son is involved in, and you actually follow his steps.
That was what Mr. Biden was doing, being really hardcore involved in Ukraine.
Basically, when he used to come to Ukraine, he was thought as he was named Uncle Joe.
Everybody who knew him was in contact with him.
They could solve their problems, stay in power, even though they were corrupt.
But if you like them, if they spoke good English and they had liberal values or views, he'll keep them in power, even though they were corrupt or had 0% ratings.
As one of our former prime ministers, Mr. Yetsenyuk, who's a good friend of Mr. Biden, and he kept him for a long amount of time to be in power, even though the people could not support him.
His party and the government had zero rating.
They didn't even ballot themselves on the last election.
Those are examples 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 was the reaction by the government and the people?
First of all, it wasn't public at the time that his reaction was as it was.
He talked about when it became public that video from the conference when he talked about firing Mr. Shokin and calling him a bad word.
I want to talk about it here in the media.
And that was a furious reaction from a lot of everybody else.
Basically, corrupt or uncorrupt, you're talking about a former government official of a foreign country, and you're being the 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, a lot of people in the government knew what the heck was going on when he fired Shokin because, and everybody knew that it was under the order of 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, call them in Ukraine.
It was coming to this point that somebody would get fired.
And it was they already knew a month before this is going to be 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 we have more things to talk about it.
You should fire this.
You should fire this.
It was not put in an ultimatum form.
I'll give you a couple of hours and you should do this.
Because after what, after they fired Shokin, when they had Mr. Lutsenko hired as the prosecutor general, a voter 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 split on everybody and did what they wanted to do.
And they put somebody who was affiliated to Poroshenko and who Poroshenko could control as the prosecutor instead of putting some professional who could really do things in the prosecutor office.
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 Soros 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 NGO or not?
You have to understand.
People didn't understand what was going on.
Some did view him as an okay prosecutor.
Some did not because you understand if you it depends how the media spends it.
Blocked Meeting Attendees00:06:06
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And perhaps half the media spend it one way as the pro-left, the pro-Soros organizations wanted it, and half the media spend it as a neutral way, as it really was from the beginning.
Basically, the society was divided.
And when Shokin got fired, the society was divided also.
So, but when they found out that it was 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 and the reaction of the people was the election process in Ukraine, where they voted 74% for a candidate without even politics prior to this.
So wait, wait, wait.
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 of the things that was lit that fire.
And one of the things that people were fed up with where Ukraine, unfortunately, was bending for our allies, not cooperating with them as partners, but just working as some schoolboy.
Let me go to January 2016.
You're working at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington, D.C. at the time, right?
Yes, that's right.
And a woman named Alexandra Chalupa told an 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 duty to the embassy.
And it was me being involved in the prosecutor's office in Ukraine before the ambassador asked me to be involved in that meeting.
But the interesting thing is I was involved in two meetings out of a week-long of meetings with the Nabud of the Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and Friday the Corruption Bureau of Ukraine.
And then I was blocked from attending any other meeting, which was basically a shock for the embassy.
And this never happened before.
I didn't understand.
I didn't hear what you said.
It 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 in this meeting in the White House, they had members of meetings within the FBI and the OJ talking about corruption as they club in Ukraine.
I was blocked, the Ukrainian 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?
For us, it was really shocking at that point because usually when a foreign delegation comes, the embassy of the country, which is the representatives of the country, comes with them in every meeting and assists them at every meeting.
And they cannot get blocked from attending anything else if it's not only by the will of those attendees.
Because they're government officials, we have to be with them all the time.
Right, and the U.s government just told us and the DOJM FBI just told us, you're not allowed to attend those meetings.
Sorry, that's it.
I only attended the White House meeting, which happened in january, and another meeting at the FBI headquarters and everything else.
The Ukrainian embassy, and me as an official, was blocked from attending.
What was the conversation in the UH 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 told me, you're not allowed to attend.
That's it.
Nor me, nor the ambassador, nobody else.
So for us it was.
We just wrote a letter of UH protest to the State Department right afterwards and that's it okay.
So um was the director of I think you call it NOBU uh NABU, uh.
Was that Sitnik, right?
Yes, am Sitnik okay, and was he there at those meetings?
It was Aitnik, the director of NABU.
It was special uh procruption prosecutor, Nazar Kolnitsky, and it was a deputy assistant prosecutor of Ukraine, the Litsek Vladaritz, 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 this national Security.
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 it was the attendees from the Department OF Justice.
It was uh, mr Jeff Pole, who was uh representing Department OF Justice, and a woman from FBI who was who were in those meetings and they did all the talking.
Black Ledger Connections00:15:34
They didn't let nor mr Sitnik, nor mr Kovninski, nor mr Sekoravlice 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 Department OF Justice were basically doing the talking.
They didn't let the Ukrainian 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 Regions.
It was a party where Paul Manafort used to be involved with, used to consult them, and they asked to investigate any connections of party regents, former Yanukovich, uh president with U.s citizens.
They didn't say Manafort, they didn't say anything, mention their name.
But a couple weeks afterwards Kholvinsky told me that they actually gave him the black ledger to investigate.
That was basically their Washington visit was to talk about the black ledger and they were there.
They did not know that it was the black ledger at the time so it was basically a shock 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 uh or an opinion on this.
The day that Paul Manafort was uh, was charged and and was, it was announced that he was in the black ledger um uh, Tony Podestas, um he, Tony Podesta, has had a, a uh, a huge firm here in America lobbyist group.
He spent a lot of time uh over with the Podesta Group.
The day that Manafort uh was uh, was arrested or they said they're 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 uh, and that kind of record, just closes in emergency way, says 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.
There's a lot of U.S. Involvement in Ukraine over the last couple of 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 Gray, who was Greg Craig.
Greg Craig, the president's attorney.
He was the president's personal attorney, President Obama.
Yeah, and he was involved in Ukraine.
His name was coming up in meetings right after the right after My God in the 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 Ledger came up, his name was also in the air and being talked about that he was also being in a payroll.
But eventually, his name was never mentioned enough in the media to get a look 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 he involved with the State Department and the U.S. Embassy?
Yes, he was, from what we know, as 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 Paul 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 they tried to go after Paul Manafort was from this January meeting and after we talked with Mr. Kholovnitsky they they said there was there was a lot of pressure from the U.S. Embassy in Kiev for them to do this.
And Mr. Sitnik 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. U.S. Embassy in Kiev and reports to them twice a week on what was going on and takes words from Them.
And he talks about it publicly.
And I think there's also reportings right now online, but he used to do this to everybody, just brag about how he's in the bed with basically the U.S. Embassy in Kiev.
And they're telling him what to do.
So that's a male 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 DC when you were there.
Can you tell me?
Go ahead.
Can you?
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, it was end of March 2016.
And I didn't hear about her beforehand.
I know that there were Ukrainian Americans coming to the embassy often and talking to the ambassador, working in different issues.
But when I met her, it was the first time in the end of March 2016.
And I was introduced to her by the DCM at the time, Trudar, in a cafe outside the embassy.
And she said, you have to talk to this woman.
And Chalupa introduced herself as a DNC operator, DNC worker.
She's collecting dirt on Manipur and Trump.
They're going after her, that 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 a congressional committee hearing aired by Marcy Captur in September 16 and then basically a month right before the election.
And afterwards, after this meeting with Chalupupa, I started asking questions.
I started asking the ambassador, do you know this woman?
He says, yes, Charlie, 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 the DNC.
And there was some sort of an exchange of, she would help Ukraine afterwards if we would just, if you would just help her now.
It was not she's gonna help, it's gonna the whole process of we're gonna help her okay, be helpful for Ukraine 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 talked about I don't know, but right, that's when I started to mention who was Mrs. Alexandra Chaluka, 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 away.
And we had only one meeting and she told me basically 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 well, 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 operate.
She had a DNC worker and I was introduced to her.
I didn't bump her into her industry.
I was introduced to her by the DCM at the embassy and 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 Maniford and everybody else.
Did the U.s embassy in Ukraine know about this?
I'm sorry I let me miss the last part of that.
I don't know what she told everybody, anybody else, how she introduced herself, but when I reported to Charlie that who I met and what the request was and I explained to her this was Alexandra Chaluk, but he said, you have to work with her.
I know who she is.
If Oksanna the DCM tells you to work with this woman, you have to work with this woman.
That's, that was the answer.
Um, did the?
Did the U.s embassy in Ukraine know about this relationship?
That I don't know.
I know that the 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 Chaluk, but there were other segments which I was not involved in.
Okay, that there was cooperation on with at least taking one side in in the campaign referred to another.
Okay, um did, and you voiced this concern to your ambassador, um in Washington Dc.
And um pardon me Yeah, right after the meeting, I came to his office and said, look, this is disturbing.
And what was his reaction to you?
You said that's when your relationship started to kind of fall apart.
What was his reaction to your not willing to or your least your willingness to say, I don't think this is right?
His reaction was to be 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 because this is first of all unethical and illegal, maybe.
And we cannot do this.
And I wanted to report back to Evie didn't let me, even though I think official Kiev and the Ukrainian president knew what was going on because Charlie has direct phone access with the president twice a week, president of 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 me 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 at the embassy, reporting back on how the primaries were going.
It was my job to work with the campaigns.
And I said, look, we talked to every campaign, Faceic, Bruce, some people from like Oksana 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, because whatever 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 the 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 work, I wasn't contacted and I did tell them what was the process.
And there are some friends who I used to work with before the Ukraine government, my former boss.
And that's when I, but then I kept quiet.
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, came back, worked for another month with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and started after resigning and started doing political consulting.
And that's when I started talking about this off-record and to the presidential administration here in Kiev through my former boss, the Prosecutor General Yerema, to deliver this message to the president of Ukraine.
Look, this thing happened.
It's going to cause some problems in the future.
You have to do something about it.
Change ambassador, maybe do some management there in the embassy, but the president has to get involved and do this before the election process ends.
But I was not heard when I talked about it privately, basically.
But that's when I decided to do the interview with Politico when I was reached out.
And Ken Voga on David's turn, we're forgetting that they did a job investigating this.
Ken Bogo was one of also our second journals today, and he did an investigation on this.
And Chalupa herself told that she was involved in this.
I implemented that article, in Political January 17 article, I had talked 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 man ledger here.
It was released in August of 2016.
You've said that it was done on the instructions of the Obama administration that they gave Naboo back in January.
There was a director, Sitnik, and a member of parliament, Leschenko, 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.
Prosecution Appeals Denied00:15:07
This was taken to court in Ukraine, and 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?
Look, you have to also understand.
I don't know the details of this process on the appeal, but you have the first case, the first stage of court, basically when they got the verdict and the court got a verdict.
It's not 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.
So basically, they already got a verdict 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 they're going to pay, or they already paid, or they're appealing this fine.
But basically, there's no, they cannot be taken to prison or jail on this account.
And this is the main thing.
And what's there's a lot of also political influence not to push this narrative forward with the former government, former president Poroshenko, 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 three judges which decide the faith of this appeal, and that's it.
And they can get a phone call from the top and tell them what to do and how 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.
Jovanovich.
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 have to take him into consideration.
He's now, why are we talking about him?
Because now he's assistant deputy secretary of state within the State Department.
And he oversees Ukraine today.
And he reports to Pompeo today.
And he was the puppet, the puppeteer who 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 put conservative views, not only just views they don't support, but any conservative views, they would block from communication.
I used to work with Ambassador Paid, who was before Ivanovich, Ambassador Taft, and we used to coordinate a lot of work together, fighting the corruption, Andrey Yanukovych and doing a lot of other work.
But when Ivanovich came to him as Ambassador George Kent, all the corporations with not only me, but other people who had conservative views, stopped because we were conservative.
They only listened to antech people, Soros people like Gleshenko, like Sitnek, who would basically just come to their, on their knees and listen what the U.S. Embassy would say.
Anybody who would object to a decision of the U.S. Embassy on any behalf, they would get blocked and not listened to or get toxified, like they tried to do with me.
But what they did is they did tell, and it was not only Andrey Ivanovich, but on the previous ambassador also, who to investigate, who to prosecute.
They would basically tell that in an orderly fashion, or like in an order fashion, they would just tell, oh, you should do this, you should not do this.
And it was a norm for the U.S. Embassy, unfortunately.
Ivanovich could call the president and tell him, you should not touch this government official, or 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 interviews a day to every media.
I'm talking to you.
I'm talking to the mass media expert, the 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?
They said, well, we talk to untapp people, you talk to nation.
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 to find out what really happened here in Ukraine.
I was sticking to my story for two years, or for three years now, after the political article came out about Chalupa, about the DNC involvement, and other things came out with other reporters, like with John Solomon, about the January meeting.
So there's a big story here in Ukraine, which we have to all investigate.
That's what 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 really happened.
And that's what Mr. Giuliani is doing.
He's trying to get the pieces together and give it to the investigators to do their job.
But then the media and everybody else is trying to destroy this and to destroy anybody who goes against this narrative.
That's the problem here.
So part of the problem is, is that we don't know who the good guys and bad guys are.
For instance, General Lusenko, 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?
Luxenko came to Mr. Giuliani this year with information and he talked about the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, about the list who prosecuted about to prosecute about Biden, Hunter, Biden, Barisma, and everybody else, which was mentioned later on in the media.
He came with an error to stay in power.
That's what 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 and put him 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 Luxenko 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, Luccenko backed out of his statements.
No, but he didn't.
He backed out because that's partially he backed in.
He said, oh, but Hunter maybe was not involved and 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.
But what this process is really confusing because the only thing that we have been able to find, because 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's quoting the Washington Post.
We can't find where he actually took back these 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 are you saying that he reversed himself on?
Here in Ukraine media, he tried to back out of the story on Hunter Biden.
But as I said, he has a sworn statement to Mr. Giuliani that his evidence is true.
Why he's a politician.
Maybe he's a good guy.
Maybe he's not, but he's a politician.
He tried to use this to stay in 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 we have to recheck who he is and what he is, but his words when he came to Mr. Giuliani about Barisma, about Biden, and about what the embassy, the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, was telling him not to prosecute or who to prosecute is true.
It is true.
And this is what we also have to say to the consideration, but we also have to be careful 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 was trying to say.
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 a couple of months a couple months or weeks ago.
All right.
Do you have he's a he's a politician?
Unfortunately, he's a politician and he tried to stay in power.
And I'm just going to understand, but if the Trump administration was corrupt enough, they would keep him in power.
They would tell Zelensky, don't touch Lusenko.
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 would do that.
Biden would keep him in 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, that Funsenko is a good guy during the conversation to Zelensky, but he never asked Zelensky to keep him in power or keep him as the prosecutor or let him say as a head of a political 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 tell the Ukraine government what to do.
They're requesting and asking for help.
So the evidence that Lusenko claimed to have around Joe Biden, Shokin, 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 the new president, Zelensky, is I mean, he he ran to say it was an unconventional campaign would be like describing Donald Trump as George Washington.
Zelensky 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 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 it?
There is some internal fighting going on within Ukrainian politics right now.
And when the story with Biden rose up in the world and mass media, it was a fact when there was starting to get changes within the internal politics in Ukraine.
And that's when people, Soros people like Pinchuk Oligar, who was a big donor to the Hillary Foundation, more than $10 million officially, unofficially more than $100, gave.
And he started to basically move aside people like Polomoyski and other oligarchs who had some influence over Zelensky and start to put his people in by the order of the Democratic Party or Liberals, start to put his people in their seats.
Liberal Party Interference00:06:34
And when Zelensky appointed the prosecutor general who's acting today, he thought it was his guy.
That's what he told President Trump in the July phone call.
But today we see that the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, Mr. Yabushatka, 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 SOARS group.
And he's reporting them as deputies in their prosecutor's office.
So this is right now Zelensky, thought who had power over the government, is going to fight back.
And we're going to see in the next couple of months, hopefully there's going to be changes 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 when 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 Chuk, Leshenko, and people who were like Raboshatka, also the prosecutor general.
But the main guy was probably Kumchuki was talking about.
That's the oligarch who was involved with Hillary and helped give Peter money to the Open World Foundation.
What was the talk?
What was the talk about when the president started talking about the servers, the DNC servers, and the, what was it, Crossroads, I think it was?
Yeah, 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 put them here.
The problem, 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 investing millions and millions of dollars into this country, into their operatives who work on the ground here and giving them grant money who are basically loyal to them.
And basically they can only trust Ukraine.
It's kind of like a black ops for the DNC and Soros.
Yeah.
Basically, what the Democratic Party and the liberals are going against Trump with Russia, they did the same thing in Ukraine.
So now they're using this narrative to go against Trump, and that's it.
Right.
Okay.
So now 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 have 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 illegal 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, talking to Mr. Giuliani, and I still talk to him today over the phone, and we call each other once a week.
And when I come to the U.S., I see him every time.
So basically, what we're talking about here is a possibility of corruption from what the media, Mass 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 lobby because I know the president.
I am just doing this work as his attorney, and I cannot do any other business other than this.
That's why I trusted him.
So all these stories that are in the media today, they have to be investigated and proven in court.
I cannot comment on that.
I know that Parnas, Hruman, and all these other guys, they were running around.
They were doing some job, but what they were doing and how they were doing it, I don't know because I did not contact them.
I only was 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.
When we meet, he has this whole huge couple of books which he writes out everything.
His staff even know less.
He knows more about Ukraine than a lot of Ukrainians probably.
You tell him a name.
He knows who's the guy connected to who, which is his connection circle, where he gets the money from.
I mean, 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 Semko talked about, giving this information to the DOJ, these documents, nobody knows where they are right now.
And everybody was blocked beforehand.
And when people found out Giuliani, Mr. Giuliani, was doing this work, everybody came to him.
That's why he came to him.
I want to tell him 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 Juliania at this basically moment this spring.
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 to.
People just went to this channel.
Media Control Truth00:02:34
How does this story end?
I mean, you have two titanic forces.
I mean, they're just they could 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 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.
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 for 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 is telling the truth?
There's the media, there's the Democratic Party, with the Republican Party, it's Trump, Zelensky, Biden.
This is not for us to decide.
We're just experts here.
You're journalists.
I'm an expert.
I am 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 down and point fingers and say, this guy is innocent, this guy's guilty.
This is how it's going to finish.
Only with a proper investigation and with the outline of this investigation from Ukraine and from the United States, parallel.
And when it has to be public, when it's going to 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.
Andrei 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.