All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 8, 2020 - Rudy Giuliani
42:13
Common Sense Ep. 5 | The Complete Witness: Proof of Bribery & Collusion
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello and welcome to Rudy Giuliani's Common Sense.
It's our purpose to bring to bear the principle of common sense and rational discussion to the issues of our day.
America was created at a time of great turmoil, tremendous disagreements, anger, hatred.
It was a book written in 1776 that guided much of the discipline of thinking that brought to us the discovery of our freedoms, of our God-given freedoms.
It was Thomas Paine's Common Sense, written in 1776, one of the first American bestsellers, in which Thomas Paine explained, by rational principles, the reason why these small colonies felt the necessity to separate from the Kingdom of Great Britain and the King of England.
He explained their inherent desire for liberty, for freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the ability to select the people who govern them.
And he explained it in ways that were understandable to all the people, not just the elite.
Because the desire for freedom is universal.
The desire for freedom adheres in the human mind and it is part of the human soul.
Today we face another time of turmoil, of anger and very serious partisan division.
This is exactly the time we should consult our history.
Look at what we've done in the past and see if we can't use it to help us now.
We understand that our founders created the greatest country in the history of the world.
The greatest democracy, the freest country.
A country that has taken more people out of poverty than any country ever.
All of us are so fortunate to be Americans.
We're not a perfect country.
They weren't perfect men and women.
And neither are we.
But they did it better than anyone else.
And that has to be our goal.
To keep America a leader.
But a great deal of the reason for America's constant ability to self-improve is because we are able to reason.
We're able to talk.
We're able to discuss.
We're able to analyze.
We're able to apply our God-given common sense.
So let's begin.
Today's episode is going to be about the complete witness.
He's the complete witness because, fortuitously, he was in the right place at the right time.
His career tracked.
Basically where the crimes were committed.
So what he allows us to do is to bring together the two parts of the case.
One part involves the two bribes with Biden.
Zlochevsky's bribe to him to protect Zlochevsky, Burisma, ultimately Hunter Biden.
Paid through Hunter Biden and then his bribery extortion of Poroshenko to get the prosecutor fired so that the case then could be dismissed and so Sheskey could go free and Burisma could keep its ill-gotten gains and his son could continue to collect his million dollars a year, which he did for two or three more years.
That's one part of the case.
The other part of the case is collusion.
The very thing the Democrats were charging the President with, falsely, they did almost to the point of exhaustion with the Ukrainians.
In other words, they got dirty information.
Some of it was paid for, some of it was extorted, some of it was just given from the Ukrainians to try to destroy the Trump campaign.
This witness brings it all together, and his name is Andrei Teleshchenko.
I am going to have him Describe his background so you get to know him and your
education Your education University District Columbia in Washington
DC. That's where I started my bachelor's in journalism and political science
Political science and journalism and then I went to Ottawa you for global affairs and trash relations and that
finished in Ukraine my bachelor's in international relations and
Also got my master's in Ukraine for innovative management After some lesser positions, he's appointed to the
prosecutor general's office the key place to be And you were there in the General Prosecutor's Office from approximately what time?
and head of protocol of the General Prosecutor's Office.
And you were there in the General Prosecutor's Office from approximately what time?
From mid-June 2014 till April 2015.
Now to put it in context, this is just after the revolution of dignity, the Maidan, the
revolution in which Yanukovych, the Russian-leaning crook, organized criminal, they would call
Yanukovych's mafia, just as he was being thrown out, a new government taking over, and with
him went all of his mafia members, one of whom was Zlochevsky, Mykola Zlochevsky.
I know the names are hard, but we got to follow this because this is very important to our country to get this right.
Mikola Zlochevsky was a minister in Yanukovych's government.
Ecology, natural resources, but really what he was was a big thief.
What he did was he just gave himself licenses and leases for natural gas, for oil, gave it to his company Burisma, which was in Cyprus.
That's where the money went.
So he accomplished two things.
He got all the leases to the company and he got all his money out of the country.
It's going to turn out to be about $5 billion.
So when the revolution happened, he had to go just like Yanukovych.
He fled to Monaco.
Not a bad place, huh?
Yanukovych went to Russia, where Putin took care of him, and Zlochesky fled to Monaco with his $5 billion stuck in banks all over the world.
But very worried that his business is going to be taken away and that the prosecutor's office was going to come after him.
So let's have Andre bring us up to date on that.
How did you first hear about the Burisma case?
It was when I was working in the prosecutor's office.
After we came in, in June, July, we had to oversee what Machnitzky was doing.
And the Burisma case was opened by Machnitzky as the prosecutor general.
And then Mr. Gerema reopened another case under Burisma.
And we took it to London court at the end of that year, 2014.
And what was the purpose of going to the London court?
To retain the money, which was money laundered from Ukraine by the owner, Boris Zolchevsky, and take it back to the Ukrainian government.
Our budget was low and it was illegal money laundering, which Ukraine owned that money because it was laundered from the Ukrainian budget.
And where was Zlochevsky when you brought the action in London?
From what I know, he was living in Monaco and other places in Europe.
He was outside of Ukraine?
Yes.
He was not being able to come back to Ukraine because there was a criminal case open against him.
And he would come back at that time to Ukraine and he would be arrested.
You notice when he ended, Andrei said that if Zlochevsky came back to Ukraine, he'd be arrested.
That's one of the things Joe Biden can take care of for him with the two brides.
So this London case that he's talking about is, the prosecutors found a small amount of money for them, given the context of this, 23 or 27 million in London.
They seized it as often as done.
However, the case went south.
And I think Andrei can explain to you how that happened and how Poroshenko got his first of two bribes, possibly more in this case.
Did that happen just as a matter of course, or was it done corruptly, or how did it happen that that case couldn't be pursued?
From what we knew, because Mr. Cusco was also responsible for communicating, and he was the Deputy Prosecutor General, of all the letters and documentation to the British authorities, he did not pass enough evidence and documentation for the British authorities to have a court Hearing in our favor of the Ukrainian side, even though he was warned that that would happen and he never took any actions or informed the Prosecutor General on that matter.
Was he paid something for that?
Was there corruption involved with that?
I don't know, but he was involved in pro-left organizations prior to this, working with pro-Soros funded organizations and by the Renaissance organization, which is involved with the Open Society Foundation of George Soros.
And what happened with the President?
With President Poroshenko?
Poroshenko, he basically pressured the government to leave the office and Mr. Shokin became the new Prosecutor General.
Now was there a time in which Poroshenko received money for that?
There was a time where he, after I left the prosecutor's office, I was to know more on what happened in that case.
He received around $8 million in that case.
Did he receive something specifically for the London thing?
That's what I believe that was for the London case.
That was the funds he received in cash.
It was done through people like Mr. Arnishenko or his private bodyguard, who is now part of the country.
What's his name?
I forgot his name.
Konenko?
No, no, Konenko was the intermediary in the second case, but there was also the people who were bringing the money physically to Poroshenko.
There was Onyshenko before 2015, and then afterwards there was this private bodyguard, I can send you name afterwards, who fled the country after Poroshenko lost the elections.
What happens now?
What happens now is that Poroshenko, now that he's gotten his, it's really five million, for Getting back the $23 or $27 million to Zlochevsky.
Now he presses to reopen the Burisma case.
But he presses to reopen it, not because he's interested in justice, not because he's interested in really acquiring the money for the country.
This is another opportunity for him to get a bribe, because from the beginning, according to Teleschenko, he had about $20 million in mind as the right bribe for this case.
So let's hear what Andriy has to say about that.
Now, after that happened, did Poroshenko want the case against Burisma to be reopened or continued?
Yes, he wanted the case reopened because the first initial involvement, what he would want to do was to get $20 million out of the whole case, but he only got $8 million, which was not enough for him.
So he pushed for another pressure on the case and get it reopened.
The first payment he got for the London situation was 5 million or 8 million?
I thought you had told me it was 5 million.
I think it was 5 or 8.
I don't remember which one the number is right now.
I apologize.
A lot of questions the last couple of days were depressed so I forgot.
So Shoken took over in February 2015.
And was he immediately involved in the Burisma case?
He opened up the Burisma case a month or two after he came into his office and started looking through the case.
There were three cases opened overall on Burisma and on Mr. Zolchevsky's involvement in money laundering in Ukraine and abroad.
Was he investigating it thoroughly?
I mean, was he investigating it with enthusiasm?
Was he investigating it slowly?
No, he wasn't investigating the case in the capacity he could within the prosecutor's office, even though there was, afterwards, there was some pressure from outside.
Not investigating the case, but he was trying to do it in the way that he could, because from what he saw, from what I know, he was pissed on what the Americans were pressuring.
Now we switch venues.
to reform and to tell them what to do so he said I'm gonna do this no matter what
if there's Americans or anybody else involved that has to be investigated
that's from what I heard from him personally in his office.
Now we switch venues.
In April of 2015, Teleschenko left the prosecutor's office and eventually was reassigned to be an assistant in
Washington DC to Ambassador Sharij, who was the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States.
He didn't start until December 2015, and it was a fairly short but very, very important stay, because he lasted only until June of 2016.
His original job was overseeing the press office, and then sometime in December, when he got there, They put him also in charge of the American presidential process.
In other words, overseeing that for the embassy.
There are several very critical things that happen while he's here.
One is a January 2016 meeting in the White House with the National Security Council staff of Barack Obama.
Actually, some of them are Joe Biden's members to the National Security Council and Ukrainian officials, prosecutors.
The purported purpose of the meeting is to discuss corruption and how to fight it in Ukraine.
You'll find out what the real purpose of the meeting is.
It was arranged by Andrei and the people who attended it and will put their names up because these names are not the easiest names to pronounce or to remember.
And then there are some unidentified Obama officials that were at the meeting, but those were the key people who played a role in the meeting.
The meeting begins with a discussion of Jeff Cole, discussing the reform efforts that are being made in Ukraine, and according to Andriy, he dominates the meeting.
Then when Jeff Cole mentions Burisma, all of a sudden, very, very quickly, the U.S.
representatives kind of freeze up.
But it's quite clear that some of the staffers, the Biden staffers, had something else in mind for this meeting.
What they had in mind for this meeting is to turn the Ukrainian officials into political operatives for them to dig up dirt on the Trump campaign.
And their target at the time was the party of regions.
That was the Yanukovych party, because they suspected that they had some kind of relationship with Paul Manafort.
And if they could get this dirty information on Paul Manafort, They could put it out to the public and try to end Trump's campaign.
So don't think of this as they're trying to gather evidence for a criminal case.
I mean, eventually that happens.
Purpose here was target date being around August or September, just releasing the information.
And then seeing if that doesn't explode Trump's campaign.
So let's listen to what Andriy has to say about this.
The second thing was, at the end of the meeting, National Security Council, Los Santos, Eric Carmanel, others who were involved from the White House, I don't remember everyone who was there, but they mentioned to our team, Mr. Khovnitsky, Mr. Sitnik, Mr. Sikoridze, to look into Party of Regions was a party under Yanukovych who fled Ukraine after Maidan, and any U.S.
citizens or any U.S.
consultants who were involved in payments with Party of Regions.
At that time, I didn't understand what it was about, but a week or two later... What?
Is that all they said?
Did they mention any names?
They didn't mention any names at that meeting.
Did they mention Manafort or...?
At that meeting, no.
They only mentioned that part of party regions and any payments they made to any American consultants or any U.S.
citizens involved in that.
And the response was?
We will look into this.
Of course, this was a request by the National Security Council.
It was to our authorities.
And also, from what I understood after we came out of the meeting, I spoke to Mr. Khodnitsky.
He did not understand what it was about directly.
But two weeks later or a week later, he told me that it was they got an order from the U.S.
Embassy to get involved with the Black Ledger book and Mr. Paul Manafort, which was... They were told to look for a Black Ledger book?
They were told to get to look into and investigate the Black Ledger, which was given to the public a couple of months later and look into the name Paul Manafort when they came back to Ukraine.
I think this would be a convenient time for us to take a very short break.
For those of you who know me, in addition to law and politics, I'm passionate about the Yankees, baseball, football, all sports to watch, golf to play, history to read, opera, classical music to listen to and watch, and cigars to relax and socialize.
And I have very definite opinions on the best cigars for the right time and the right place.
But the revolution in cigars took place in the 1990s.
Most cigars then were machine made with foreign ingredients.
Now it's just the opposite.
Most are hecho a mano, man-made, and all organic, natural, and premium.
This revolution was led by one man, and one man alone, and his magazine, Marvin Shankin and his Cigar Aficionado magazine.
Marvin had been rating wines quite successfully for Wine Spectator magazine, and he brought the rating system Wine Spectator to Cigar Aficionado.
The first cigars rated in the 90s were soon gone.
Quick.
Even now, the first thing I do when I get my Cigar Aficionado Edition is I immediately go look at the ratings.
I go look for 92, 93, 94, and I go try them.
This quality comparison system revolutionized the cigar industry and quality rose to the top.
Then there's the Cigar of the Year edition.
25 selected, only one number one.
The top ones are gonna be hard to get, so subscribe to Cigar Aficionado right now through the link on our website.
And then go get the ones that are left or order them and smoke them and see if you agree with the ratings and let me know.
Sometimes I do agree, and when I don't, I let my opinion be known to Marvin.
He listens very, very intently, and then he says to me, Rudy, Stick to the law.
Also, along with rated cigars, Cigar Aficionado has articles on politics, sports, interesting profiles, and Marvin also has Wine Spectator, which I mentioned, and Whiskey Advocate.
So if you like wine, bourbon, scotch, vodka, et cetera, it's a great guide to the best quality.
Subscribe now to Cigar Aficionado through the link on our website.
You're gonna really enjoy it.
It's a great read.
Thank you.
you This is Marvin's magazine also.
So, confession, I like wine too.
I also like scotch.
So, back to very important issues at hand with Mr. Teleshenko.
Sometime in March of 2016, while he's working at the embassy in DC, He's told by the number two person at the embassy, I believe it's the number two person, Oksana Shulyar, we just put her name up there also, so you can understand it better, that he should have a meeting, a luncheon meeting with a representative of the Democratic National Committee, or she may say an important Democrat who can do a lot to help us.
And Oksana Shulyar sets up a luncheon meeting that lasts for about an hour to an hour and a half at a rather famous Washington restaurant, Leopold's.
And really, he's told nothing more about it.
And Andriy shows up.
Oksana makes the introduction, kind of steps aside, but stays at the meeting, not really paying attention to it.
And then for the next hour, Alexandra Shalupa, Really has an extraordinary conversation with him, in which she very aggressively tells him that she wants him to dig up dirt, anything he can get, on Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, because it's her intention to destroy his candidacy.
To take them out.
This is not an attempt to build a criminal case on Paul Manafort or Donald Trump or anything like that.
This is an attempt to come up with a piece of evidence that would be explosive that could destroy the campaign of Donald Trump in August or September of 2016.
This is all going on within a mile of the FBI and the Justice Department.
Right under their nose.
Real crimes being committed.
So let's listen to this extraordinary conversation.
She introduces, Oksana introduces me to Mrs. Chalupa.
This is Oksana Chalupa.
She works for the DNC.
She's a Green Patriot.
You should talk to her.
And then Oksana sits away.
She sits away?
She sat at the table with you?
Yeah, she sat at the table with us.
She just backed out of the conversation and let us talk with Mrs. Chalupa on what she wanted to talk to me about.
Basically, she wanted to talk to me.
I had nothing to say to Mrs. Chalupa because I didn't know what was the matter of that meeting.
What did she tell you?
She represents herself.
I'm a DNC operative.
I work for the DNC.
I'm a Ukrainian patriot.
I work on the Trump campaign and the Presidential candidate Donald Trump, and we're trying to collect any dirt we can find on him.
I mean, I think he's connected to the Russians, he's connected to the Russian authorities, to the president of Putin, and I want to find anything I can find on him, and this right-hand man is going to become the head of campaign.
I think it was a week before Paul Manafort got officially appointed to the campaign.
He wasn't officially already there.
We started talking about him.
About Paul Manafort to take Trump off the election process at the end of September by Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur.
What did she want from you?
Dirt.
She said any dirt we can find on Trump's connection to Russian mafia, Ukrainian mafia, Paul Manafort's connections to mafia, Russians, and anybody from the campaign team and Donald Trump's campaign team basically.
What did you tell her you would do?
I said, look, I looked at Oksana.
She was my overseeing officer, basically, in this process of overseeing diplomats.
So I said, OK, I'll look into this because I'm a diplomat.
I have to reply diplomatically.
I don't know what this is about.
Maybe you have to reply.
Can I just say no to her and run away?
Right.
So I replied, OK, I'll look into this.
We'll keep in touch.
And she said we'll keep in touch through Oksana Schrader.
Through her, if something needed to be saved.
So I won't call her directly.
And that's how I went back to the embassy.
She and Oksana still stayed in Leopold's.
They talked.
While walking back to the embassy I thought I should report this to the ambassador because the request was unethical and from what I understood was illegal because we are represented as a foreign government.
Right, right.
And I'm a third secretary within the Ukrainian embassy.
Maybe not a high-ranking position overall but with my background and with the request that this is...
the DNC, the Democratic National Committee, from what I also understood after going back because
I thought this in my head. I reported this to the ambassador because I also had direct access
to him all the time. I reported everything, all my actions directly to him or to Oksana.
And he just said, what Oksana tells you, Oksana Shorout tells you, you should do.
So you see that when he left the meeting and headed back to the embassy, he was very concerned
about this being unethical and illegal. He goes to Shalee, hoping that Shalee will
relieve him of his tension. And Shalee does just the opposite, tells him to do what Oksana Shuliar
tells him to do, which means he's ordering him to play along with the criminal conspiracy
of digging up dirt on the Trump campaign.
to He's uncomfortable with that very, and he therefore leaves, and by May of 2016, he's on his way back to Kiev.
He did some transitional work in the government agency and then he got a job in Blue Star Strategies, a lobbying firm very, very close to Hillary Clinton, the Bidens, John Kerry, and put him in a position to find out everything that went on historically and then everything that was going to go on now with that period in May of 2016.
So let's have him describe it.
It was right after Biden won resignation.
Did people know about that at the time?
Did people know that Biden went there and threatened?
Yes, that's what everybody in the government knew what happened.
How was it described in the government?
It was that the Americans told to fire, that they did something, that the Americans are already doing something.
They're telling Poroshenko who to fire and who to resign.
Then, of course, there's the real purpose of this whole thing, the centerpiece of all this.
Which is where the big money is coming from.
And that is to protecting Sloshefsky and his ill-gotten gains.
That's what Biden was brought in for in the first place.
That's why Biden brought in Hunter Biden to sort of collect the bribe money in the form of the million dollar payments to him every year.
That went on for five years, by the way.
And the purpose was to protect Sloshefsky and Burisma if there ever was a time when it needed protection.
And that came about.
And that's why he had to get rid of Shogun.
So, how exactly did the Burisma case get dismissed?
Telichenko is going to describe what he found out.
So, uh, how did the Borisma case then get finally stopped or dismissed or?
Borisma was just dismissed end of October or November of 2016 by Lutsenko.
And from what I heard, that Mr. Komenko also was involved in this and he took the, there was money involved around, I think this time was 8 million, the first time was 5 and this one was 8 million dollars given to President Poroshenko to close this case.
At or about that time, he got that money?
Yes, that was it.
And that came from who paid the money?
It was from Boryspil.
The owner is Mr. Zolchevsky personally.
It was cash, no transfers, nothing.
This is how it's done in Ukraine.
Was Zolchevsky then eventually allowed back?
Yeah, Zolchevsky came back to Ukraine almost right away.
He came back to Ukraine, he saw From what I know, he saw what's going on in Ukraine, and he said, look, it's nice and interesting here, but I like living abroad, and he left Ukraine, but he's still being able to come to Ukraine.
From what I know, there's cases open, but the cases are open in a way that he can still come back.
Now we get to Blue Star Strategies.
Blue Star Strategies is a lobbying firm in the swamp in Washington, D.C.
It's a Democratic lobbying firm.
Two of the principals were officials in the Clinton administration, very close to Hillary Clinton, very close to Biden and John Kerry.
When Zlochevsky bribed Biden and brought him in as his protector, and the deal was to pay Hunter, For a no-show job and also possibly some other money to Biden.
Biden brought in Blue Star Strategies, the lobbying firm, to do several things.
First thing they did was they wrote a report that basically said that Burisma was not corrupt, which is, of course, absurd.
I don't even have to tell you why.
We've seen all the evidence of all the money they stole, all the money they laundered.
So this is a totally phony report.
Of course, it's exactly what Zochesky wanted.
So we hired Blue Star Strategies and they became not just his lobbying firm in the swamp in Washington, they became kind of like the facilitators for him and for Biden and for the other people who were trying to protect his illegal interests in Burisma.
And by the way, I believe that Blue Star Strategies is representing Burisma to this day.
But Teleschenko knows these facts cold, so let's listen to him.
What are they all about, Blue Star Strategy?
What are they?
They are the lobbying firm for Burisma Holdings, and they were involved from what I understand from the beginning.
When Burisma hired Hunter Biden, they were offered a job there by Burisma themselves after they came up with Audit, who, on the request of Mr. Vice President Biden, they did and came up with no evidence that the company is corrupt.
And they provided this information also to Mr. Biden, from what I heard personally from the owners of Boostar, by Sally Painter, and also they provided this information to Burisma, and I'm pretty sure they got hired right afterwards.
And they still, up to today, are representatives of Burisma and are still lobbying Burisma Holdings today and being coordinated by Burisma what to do with all the money on lobbying the United States and Atlantic Council.
Nothing has been said negatively about Burisma and Atlantic Council.
They host Atlantic Council meetings and all the money goes to Blue Star.
You know, in the long run, the most troubling part of Teleschenko's testimony It can be what we cover now.
Probably this confuses me and hurts me the most because I spent so much of my life working for the Justice Department.
Low-level, high-level, third-ranking official in the department.
And Teleschenko is just one of many witnesses who will describe to you how American law enforcement, aided by the State Department and what really was a corrupt embassy in Kiev, kept numerous witnesses about these crimes From coming forward at a time in which it could have done some good, maybe prevented all of this waste of money in the first place.
The embassy under Jovanovich blocked visas.
They're blocking visas for Shokin right now.
The FBI didn't follow up on information that was given to them.
And the impression given to the Ukrainians who wanted to get this information to us about all of this democratic soliciting of Ukrainian officials to dig up dirt, the creating of false evidence, the briberies that were going on involving Biden and the Fusion GPS that was paid money by Hillary to dig up dirt on Trump.
They wanted to testify to all this.
They wanted to describe it.
For over a year, well over a year, almost two years, this was systemically handled by the deep state.
And they kept it away from us.
And part of it may also be that all the FBI and all the DOJ cared about was getting Trump People could come to them with evidence of the same kind of criminal activity that they were alleging against Trump involving the Ukraine and they would turn them away.
Now there's a lot of controversy over who dismissed the Burisma case.
It was... Whether it was Lutsenko or Nabu or Sapp or a combination of all of them.
It was dismissed by... So what, from your point of view, you were in Ukraine at the time.
Yeah.
Who dismissed it?
It was Prosecutor General Moshe Lutsenko who dismissed the case.
And then afterwards, they have all influence.
If there was any outgoing investigations or looking into the case, why NABU,
they could have been closed right away because the case was originally dismissed.
And afterwards, it was reopened by the same prosecutor, Mr.
Lysenko.
And was there a time that you found out that there were people in Ukraine
who were trying to reach the United States FBI, the Justice Department,
law enforcement to explain to them about collusion in the Ukraine?
Yes, I was one of them also.
And when did that start?
It was during the process of the election, but people... Even while the election was going on?
Yes, some people did also try to reach out, like Mr. Novachinko, the former head of SBU.
And he would try to reach out.
He had really good connections with the U.S.
Embassy.
And then he reached out after the election already happened and President Trump already got elected because everybody was afraid that they would reach out prior to this.
And what would happen to them if Hillary would get elected.
The President Trump got elected and people started to reach out.
Mr. Miller-Washington was one of them.
Then he reached out another time.
It was me.
I reached out after also the DNC article came out because I tried to deliver this message that there was a problem and people from the opposition team and Trump knew that.
Ukraine Embassy was involved.
That's where I heard.
Ukraine Embassy was involved in?
Working with the Hillary people and the DNC.
In obtaining dirty information?
Dirty information or coordination or cooperation.
I was told, I knew this personally from myself, but then after the election process, I heard it by people from the transition team.
Beyond just the Black Fledger?
Yes.
The Black Fledger was a great example of what happened, but it was beyond what the Black Fledger was involved in.
And was ANTAC involved in it?
The NGO, the Soros NGO.
Were they involved in the dirty information and the collusion?
They were also working in destroying everybody who would go against us.
When did the effort to try to reach the United States law enforcement start?
I tried to reach out in February 2017.
And I tried to reach out, and later on within that year, a couple of times, to the United States Department of State, U.S.
Embassy, even though I had really good connections with Ambassador Tefft and Ambassador Pyatt prior, they knew me personally.
I had their personal cell phone numbers.
And I was helping a lot with the U.S.
Embassy and their work in Ukraine prior to all this collusion issues, what happened later on.
I was blocked from the embassy.
I said, I want to talk to an FBI office.
I spoke to this political officer named Stephen Glazer.
His name is G-L-A-Z-E-R.
He was a political officer within the U.S.
Embassy in Kiev.
And he said, I didn't hear about it.
Don't talk to me about this.
And how long did you try to reach out?
For over a year I had tried to reach out.
And how many others were doing it?
Also there was 12 other people from I don't know who were doing it.
I mean just think of what he's describing.
At least 12 witnesses wanting to come forward to describe crimes like interfering in the 2016 election which Mueller and Comey and All the phonies that were involved in that claim was so important with regard to Russia and it didn't happen.
Somehow it wasn't important that there was a substantial Ukrainian interference and creation of false evidence to try to stop the Trump candidacy and to try to destroy it.
That didn't matter.
They didn't care about it.
Is that justice?
Or is that some kind of corruption of our law enforcement?
It's corruption.
Teleshenko also dispels another myth that lies at the core of the coup attempt by the Democrats and their attempt to frame President Trump for false charges.
They keep saying, the Democrats, that President Trump and I, for President Trump, was trying to dig up dirt on Joe Biden.
That's absolutely untrue.
This all started, as you know, in November, well before Biden was a candidate.
It was presented as evidence that would help defend the president, and it is evidence that could help defend the president, and I collected it in my capacity as his defense attorney, which any good defense attorney would do.
And President Trump is entitled to the same vigorous defense that anyone else is, and the lawyer who does it Shouldn't become a victim of a massive meteor attack.
Gosh, if I were defending a terrorist, they'd probably make me a hero.
And if I were defending a Democrat, I'd probably be man of the year.
The double standard is so bad.
But what I want you to hear, because I've been saying it, but I want to prove it.
I didn't go find these people.
They came and they found me because they were being turned away by Jovanovich, by the embassy, by the State Department, by the FBI, and by the Department of Justice.
They had nowhere to go after a year and a half, and they came to me.
This is just one example.
And you reached out for me.
I didn't reach out for you.
I was looking for you.
I came to see you.
First of all, it was interesting to meet you as an author.
It's official.
Well, thank you.
But then it was also to deliver this information that this is going on.
So now you can see that the witnesses, the tapes and the documents that we've already presented to you Uh, prove some things.
They substantiate some things that are very, very important.
They present evidence, substantial evidence, of two bribes.
One to Biden by Zlochevsky.
In order to protect Zlochevsky, Burisma, and Biden's son, Hunter.
Hunter Biden was going to get what turns out to be five to eight million dollars in payments for a no-show job.
That was how the bribe was paid.
And then when it came time to have to protect Burisma, Biden was there to get Shokin fired, to basically extort Poroshenko or bribe Poroshenko with the loan guarantee to get rid of The prosecutor general, who was being too aggressive in prosecuting the case, and putting their person in, who then proceeds to dismiss cases to help Antac, Soros' company, to help the guy who was creating the phony evidence, Lyshenko, and then most importantly, after a rather lengthy negotiation, because Poroshenko wanted to
Wanted to get his bribe for this.
He wasn't going to do it for nothing.
Finally, in October or November of 2016, Biden gets it done.
The case is dismissed.
So, Chesky's allowed to come back.
He keeps his five billion.
He keeps his company.
He's allowed to go back and forth to the Ukraine.
So, one of the biggest crooks in the Ukraine is freed based on the activity of our vice president.
And this isn't being investigated.
These are crimes at the highest levels of two governments, where there was a mutual sale of public office.
The Vice Presidency of the United States and the Presidency of Ukraine.
If we can't investigate something of this magnitude, where you have corruption at the highest levels of two governments, The sale of public office.
The Vice President of the United States sold to Zlochevsky.
The presidency of the Ukraine basically sold to Biden to get rid of Shokin.
If we can't investigate something like this because it's too politically difficult or the press is going to demonize the prosecutors and say they're corrupt and terrible and awful and mean and Corrupted themselves.
If the prosecutors can't withstand what I have to go through, then how can our relations with Ukraine ever be good?
Isn't this a national security matter?
We're trying to get the Ukraine legitimately to end what is systemic corruption.
I have a special fondness for Ukraine because it's one of the countries that was freed by my hero, Ronald Reagan.
But if we can't be capable of fully investigating and holding accountable our highest public officials because we're intimidated.
Then how can we be a model for Ukraine for anything other than they're just as corrupt as we are or we're just as corrupt as they are.
It may just be a matter of degree.
It's got to stop.
It's got to change.
People in Ukraine are very hopeful because people in Ukraine supported the president's conversation with Zelensky.
Many of them said to me, this is the first time an American president has really been straightforward about corruption here.
And although we have corruption here, and it's systemic, your people in the United States participate in it.
And no one's acknowledged that before.
And you know who participated a big time?
And we're going to find out all about it.
The Obama administration.
Many of them told me that from the time Obama came into office until the time he left, corruption in Ukraine got a lot worse and American participation much higher.
And you're going to find out about all of that in future episodes.
But for now, I thank you very much and please digest this and realize what's going on in your country.
It is very, very dangerous to subvert the system of justice for one political party and that is what is happening.
▲
Export Selection