All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 26, 2020 - Rudy Giuliani
48:37
Interview with Ukrainian Whistleblower Over EXCLUSIVE New Documents | Common Sense Ep. 10
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello again, this is Rudy Giuliani, and I'm here with Rudy Giuliani 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.
There 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 gigantic Kingdom of England and the King of England.
He explained their inherent desire for liberty, freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and he explained it in ways that were understandable to the people, to all the people, not just to the educated upper class.
Because the desire for freedom is classless.
The desire for freedom adheres in the human mind and in the human soul.
Today we face another time of turmoil, of anger, and very, very serious partisan division.
This is exactly the time we should consult our history.
Look at what we've done best in the past and see if we can't use some of that to help us now.
We understand that they created the greatest country in the history of the world, the greatest democracy, a country that has taken more people out of poverty than any other country on earth.
They weren't perfect men and women, and neither are we.
But a great deal of the reason for America's constant ability to self-improve is because we're able to reason.
We're able to talk.
We're able to analyze.
We are able to apply our God-given common sense.
So let's do it.
Today we have a very very special guest.
He's here live.
You've seen him in previous episodes and you've seen him elsewhere because he's been a witness in this matter and a very important one.
Because remember I described him as the witness that spans the whole situation from 2014 up to the present.
He just happened to be in positions where he found out a lot of information.
And as I said to him before, he has a very special quality of integrity.
And when he saw that these things weren't right, he wouldn't go along with them.
And he's willing to have the courage to speak out about it.
So, this is Andrei Teleschenko.
Many of you have written in and tweeted and texted about how impressed you were with his testimony.
We're not going to go over that testimony, all of it, because there are a few A few things I want to clarify about it, and a few things that I knew that I want his opinion about.
So, Andre, first of all, I know this will sound partisan, but I'm trying to get at the facts.
The situation that we see with Biden, the situation we're going to talk about in a little while, the $5.3 billion it's unaccounted for from 2014, 2015 to 2017, some of the other things, the fact that Ukraine was the largest contributor to the Clinton Foundation, The oligarchs, Ukrainian oligarchs.
Yeah, not the people, the oligarchs, which probably money they stole from the Ukrainian people.
That's what the oligarchs, yeah.
Was there a special relationship between the Ukrainian oligarchs, the Ukrainian crooks,
organized criminals, whatever you want to call them, and the Democratic Party in general,
and the Obama administration in particular?
Of course.
It was going back between 10 years ago when Yanukovych, the guy who fled to Russia, they were working with the Clinton Foundation, they were working with the Clintons, they were working with the Obama administration, the money that we talked about in Ukraine when you came, the $7.4 billion with the Franklin Templeton Fund, everything else.
And going back today, they're still using Ukraine to fight the political war in the United States.
And if they would love Ukraine, they would never talk about it.
They would say, yes, investigate it.
Let's show we never did anything in Ukraine.
We will not use this country in this political war in the United States.
Let's get it over with.
They didn't do that.
They still kept quiet.
They're blocking everything that's being done right now and continuing their war
right now in Washington to fight for the presidential seat.
And they had a relationship with both Yanukovych.
Yes, Poroshenko.
And then Poroshenko, when he took over, they established the same... They basically put him as the president after the Maidan, after the Revolution of Dignity, when people came out to basically protest against the pro-Russian vector of the country, and they put Poroshenko afterwards to become this president.
I was part of his team, I was part of his government, and I worked there, knowing that we're trying to go for a pro-Western vector, but we didn't know that we were used at that time.
And that relationship, that special relationship with the Democrat Party, does that exist even today after, you know, two or three years of Trump?
After you started your investigation, it's gotten weaker.
That I can tell you.
I'm serious.
It's gotten weaker because the U.S.
Embassy doesn't have that much influence over those pro-liberal organizations or politicians.
They are keeping quiet, but they're still out there.
They're still talking Soros.
Pro-Soros organizations are still out there, pro-democratic organizations are still talking, but they got much quieter after your investigations became public.
Now, you say Soros, George Soros.
What's his role?
His name keeps coming up with ANTAC and with the ambassador and with his case getting fixed.
He goes way back to 1993 when he came into Ukraine and started his Open Society Foundation, the Renaissance.
And that's when they started to fund these NGOs for a better future they didn't want for the Ukrainian people.
But then they got politicized and used all those people they funded to go against people who did not support the ideas of liberal views, pro-democratic views of the Democratic Party, etc, etc.
Anybody who did not support their views, they would destroy them politically, because those organizations would become much powerful within the last 20 years.
And they basically went against all the politicians, government officials, who went against them.
The prosecutor general, Judges, politicians, members of parliament, ministers, everybody were destroyed by ANTAC and pro-Soros organizations.
So they were afraid, I mean, the political figures in Ukraine were afraid of them.
Yes.
And the main organization was the Anti-Corruption Center?
Yes, that's right now... ANTAC.
ANTAC, that's what it's been called.
And that was funded by Soros and USAID, right?
Yes, U.S.
taxpayers' money.
And Soros?
Yes, and Soros.
Open Society Foundation, yes.
So let's just clarify a few of the things that you talked about earlier.
One of the most important things that you testified to In which you are corroborated almost word for word by Mr. Kulyuk and Mr. Kolanitsky, who I also interviewed separately.
It's the January, I believe it's 18th?
19th.
19th, 2016 meeting.
But what you brought me today is very useful.
It is in Ukrainian, we'll get it translated, but I think you can help us with it.
Um, this is, and we'll do it like we're in a courtroom.
This is Exhibit 1.
Your Honor, this is Exhibit 1.
Mark for identification.
Okay.
So, Exhibit 1 is the letter inviting the prosecutors to the meeting, correct?
Yes, it's the letter from the Department of Justice of the United States and the U.S.
Embassy in Kiev inviting Mr. Kholodnitsky, for example, the Special Corruption Prosecutor, to come to Washington and to, for trading purposes, to come to meetings with the FBI Department of Justice White House, etc., etc.
So this is the first letter.
The purpose of the meeting was to train Mr. Kolenitsky, Mr. Kuliuk, Mr. Sitnik, and who were they?
Well, let me identify them so it's easier.
Mr. Sitnik ran NABU.
Yes, he was the head of anti-corruption.
Which were the corruption investigators.
Special undercover.
Prosecutors.
Yes.
He's a professional investigator.
That's what he does.
And Mr. Kuliuk was the number one deputy in the prosecutor general's office.
Yes.
And it seems to me the guy who's done the most work in investigating this case.
He's a professional investigator.
That's what he does.
Yeah, right.
Seems rather dogged, the kind of investigator I like.
So they came to the meeting.
Now, what was your role in this meeting?
The ambassador, Charlie, assigned me to organize their trip and their meetings here in Washington
together with the Department of Justice, as I was the former assistant to the prosecutor
general and I knew that field.
And more than anybody else at the embassy, that's why I was organizing and I was responsible
for their visit to Washington from day one, from their arrival to their departure.
So, listed as, I think, their number one meeting, Yes.
Yes, that's the meeting on January 19, 2016, 11 a.m.
to 12 p.m.
Yes. Is that correct? Yes, that's the meeting on January 19, 2016, 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. National
Security Council White House. We'll show this on the screen so people can see it, but these
are the two of the names here are in, is this in Ukrainian or Russian?
Ukraine, yeah.
So the two names are in Ukrainian, but if you could translate those two names, it would be very, very helpful.
It's Eric Cermonella and Liz Zentes.
And who were they?
They were representatives of Biden and the National Security Council working on Ukraine and on Ukrainian issues.
And they were the ones who were hosting that meeting.
Oh, they were.
They were more or less the official hosts.
Yes, there were official hosts of that meeting in the White House, and they were the ones representing Biden in that White House meeting.
And did they speak during the meeting?
Of course.
Eric Trimonello and Liz Endo spoke, asked questions, and asked about the, allegedly, Paul Manafort and the party regents' investigations for our authorities to investigate when they come back to Ukraine.
Was there such an investigation at the time?
At that time, no.
So they, in essence, They, in essence, instigated the investigation of Paul... They instigated a criminal investigation in Ukraine.
Yes.
And that was at the request of Eric Chermella.
And Liz Zentes.
And Liz Zentes.
Yes.
And basically... How did they generally say it?
What did they say?
It was a meeting, like, look, you have a party of regents, a party which is pro-Russian, which was ousted by the people of Maidan.
You have to investigate the party of regents and their connections with any American consultants that they were working for the last five years.
Basically, the only consultant was their main consultant.
Not everyone, but everybody on the inside knew their main consultant was Paul Manafort.
Yes.
Everybody in Ukraine, in the political sphere, knew that their consultant was Paul Manafort, and so the U.S.
Embassy did, and the U.S.
government also.
Now, was there a subsequent telephone call with Mr. Kolodinsky when that was made clear?
Two weeks after he came back to Ukraine, Mr. Kolodinsky told me he had a call with the U.S.
Embassy in Kyiv, where they told him directly that he has to look into Paul Manafort, which came out as a back-ledger in the future.
And then your next, I'm sure there were a lot of other connections, but your next main connection with this, that sort of ties it together, is your meeting with Chalupa, who was an operative of the DNC.
Yes.
And that meeting, you really didn't know the purpose of that meeting when you went there.
No.
But if I could summarize it, and if you want to add anything to it, fine, please do so.
But basically, she asked you To dig up as much dirt as you could on Trump, Trump Jr., the Trump campaign, and Paul Manafort.
Yes.
And she outlined to you a scheme, not to build a criminal case on Manafort, but a scheme where Manafort was going to be used to destroy Trump's candidacy.
Yes, that's correct.
How did she describe that?
The meeting was held by embassy officials.
Oksana Shular, she invited me to that meeting.
It was outside the embassy in Leopold's Café.
Chalupin represented herself as a DNC operative asking for dirt, any dirt I can find as you
said on Trump, Trump Jr., Paul Manafort.
Was she as direct as that?
Yes.
Dirt?
I want dirt on Trump, Trump Jr., Paul Manafort.
So she's asking a foreign national.
Government official.
A government official on a foreign national.
This is precisely what Donald Trump Jr.
was investigated for for two years, threatened to be indicted, because a foreign national came And actually ended up offering nothing.
But she was telling you she wanted dirt.
Yes, to take off Trump from the campaign at the end of September through a Congresswoman, Marcy Kaptur.
She said, we're going to have Marcy Kaptur have a committee hearing where Trump, presidential candidate Donald Trump at that time, will be taken off the ballot.
Now we'll take a 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 definite opinions on the best cigars for the right time and the right place.
And you'll hear about that, too.
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 hetero-mono man-made.
All organic, natural, The Revolution was led by one man and one man alone, Marvin Shankin and Cigar Aficionado magazine.
Marvin had been rating wines quite successfully for Wine Spectator magazine and he brought the rating system to cigars.
The first cigars rated in the 90s were gone in a flash.
Even now the first thing I do when I get my magazine is I go right to the ratings page.
There it is.
Hmm, 93.
91.
Oh yeah, I'll go for that one.
Then there'll be 94.
92.
Problem is, you gotta get there fast, because they go fast.
This revolutionized the cigar industry, and quality rose to the top.
Then there's the Cigar of the Year.
Try to get them as fast as possible because they're gone pretty quick.
This magazine revolutionized the industry.
And I'll tell you why.
This month is Cigar of the Year.
Cigar of the Year.
One of these four is Cigar of the Year.
You better get this magazine quick because these cigars are going to be gone very, very quickly.
Go to the link on our website and order it.
And you'll be able to get down to your cigar store and get to smoke a few of these and you'll let me know which ones you like better.
Because we can have a really good conversation about it.
Sometimes I do agree with Marvin.
And when I don't, I let my opinion be known.
And Marvin usually says, stick to the law.
Also, along with rated cigars, there are articles on politics, sports, interesting profiles.
And Marvin also has Wine Spectator, Spirit Advocate.
If you like wine, if you like scotch, if you like bourbon, if you like rye, if you like vodka, if you like gin, they're the magazines for you.
And you know what?
Subscribe to Cigar Aficionado right now through the link on our website.
Welcome back to my interview with Andrei Teleshenko.
So, that meeting clearly was referring, because she talked about August-September, when they were going to destroy him.
Yes.
It was clearly connected to the so-called Black Ledger.
It was one of the phases that they were supposed to do.
And the Black Ledger was purported to be a ledger of the party of regents, the party they had asked about, Chiamilla and Zentes had asked about.
And it purportedly had bribes in it, and people signed for the bribes.
Yes.
And one of the persons that signed for the bribes, according to this ledger, was Paul Manafort.
Yes.
Allegedly.
Allegedly.
Allegedly, and I mean, I've been investigating crime for 50 years.
I never remember anybody signing for a bribe.
You do not sign for a bribe.
Yeah, you don't sign up for it.
When I asked witnesses, because I asked four Ukrainians also, just to check on Manafort's credibility, if that was their signature, they said, number one, we've never seen it before, number two, it's not my signature, and two, I look crazy.
Why would I sign for $12,000 in bribes?
So it's pretty clear now that it was a forgery.
Plus it's not a book.
It's a couple of pages combined together.
It's pages with names, numbers, and little... Signatures.
Not quite signatures, but like... I will often do RWG.
Something like that.
But it was treated like it was the biggest revelation in the history of the world.
And instead of being used for political purposes, it was leaked to the press, correct?
Yes.
It was never investigated.
It was just leaked to the press directly, basically.
So this was the strategy that Chalupa was talking to you about.
It's the strategy that Chiarmela and Zentes put into play.
And then finally, in August, September, it gets discussed with the press by Mr. Sitnik, who's the head at NABU, which turns out to be illegal under Ukrainian law.
He's not supposed to talk about investigations.
And number two by Leshchenko.
Who had been already very vocally anti-Trump.
He was a member of parliament with Poroshenko party.
And he was a former, connected to ANTAC, a pro-Soros organization, Open Society, the Renaissance.
And he was basically putting on his Facebook page, we will nail the coffin on Trump.
That's what he was talking about.
So for all the investigations about Russian collusion with Trump, where nothing happened, This is an actual executed plot, plan, and I think Leschenko says, like Chalupa earlier, this will destroy Trump's candidacy.
Yes.
Now, it didn't work, but that was the purpose of it.
That was the main first stage of the purpose of what they were supposed to do to destroy presidential candidate Donald Trump.
And when the election was over, Did this hatred of Trump, did it subside or did it continue in Ukraine?
First of all, people didn't understand what happened.
Then it subsided for a bit.
Then it continued with a new wave afterwards with the same people involved.
Chalupa, still doing it today, talking.
You can look at her Twitter.
Today, meaning now four years later.
Four years later.
She still, she denied So you were interviewed by Politico, and this created quite a stir, after the election and before the inauguration.
still do it today, even though she denied that she did it.
So you were interviewed by Politico, and this created quite a stir, after the election and
before the inauguration.
Yes.
And in it, you revealed, and people can read it so we don't have to go into detail about
it, but you revealed the substantial amount of what we now call collusion between Ukrainians
and members of the DNC, members of the embassy.
As a first-hand witness.
As a first-hand witness, including your meetings with Chalupa, Shelley, and a number of other people who admitted it to you.
So what happened to you in Ukraine when that happened?
The article came out on January 11th, a couple of weeks before the inauguration.
Biden was in Kiev as the Vice President, his last tour of Ukraine before he left his post.
And the article was given from Biden to Poroshenko that night he was in Kiev.
He said, look, you have to get your stuff together.
This stuff is coming out.
How do I know that?
Yeah, how do you know that?
Poroshenko told me that because he called me up to his office through the people I used to work with.
Was that uncommon for him to call you up to his office?
Would he call you up to his office normally?
I never went to his office before that.
I was in the office of the presidential administration with my boss.
But never with him?
Never with him personally.
What did he say to you briefly?
You can imagine a president of a country calling a regular citizen... Yeah, he's a big man too.
...a regular citizen to his office and yelling for an hour.
Was he yelling?
Yelling and threatening for an hour.
I'm trying to discredit him personally, that this is against him and his relationship with the United States, even though I never mentioned Poroshenko in the political article before that because I was afraid for my life.
I knew if I would mention him it would go too far.
What my main purpose was to get attention and to get investigated.
I mentioned Shelley, the DNC, but never Poroshenko.
When he calls me up, Did it help a little?
me that he's going to destroy my life, politically, because I'm a political consultant.
Were you frightened? Were you afraid?
Me? I said, Mr. President, calm down, please. Let's talk.
Don't yell at me. I don't like when people yell at me. So I told him.
Did it help a little? Did it help a little to calm him down?
He actually, after an hour, he actually backed off because for him it was like, people never
told him to calm down. People just usually just listen to what he says.
Is he someone that people would be afraid he would have them killed?
Bye.
He's a president, he can do whatever he wants, right?
It is an active fear.
It is an active fear.
Yes, first of all, he's a player, and he's a political player.
I mean, many people have told me that, including the poisoning of Shokin.
Yes, first of all, he's a player, and he's a political player.
He would go anything to get his, to what he wants to get, to his goal, by any means.
So now, this is after the election. This is after Trump becomes president.
Was there any, was there, was there no effort to try to patch up relationships with Trump?
From what we understand, there was nothing.
And is it true that they did not send an official representative to the inauguration?
Yeah, that's true.
There was nobody.
It was only Shelley, the one who was... Shelley, who's the ambassador who had made a speech against Trump during the campaign.
Yes, in the Hill article, in the Hill op-ed, a couple of months before the elections.
When he said Trump was incompetent to be president.
Yes.
So he went, and then this other gentleman named Nazarov.
Nazarov, yeah.
He went because he was a Trump supporter, but he went on his own.
He went on his own.
He wanted to show that he can get inside the swamp, as he thought at that time, to get inside and have some deals made for Ukraine.
But not with Trump, but just overall.
What happened to him when he came back?
He went to prison.
They put him in prison, right?
Yeah.
Like a phony charge.
Nabu put him in prison.
Nabu.
Sitnik.
Yeah.
That's the kind of connection.
The reason I'm asking you this question is that's the kind of insidious connection that the Democratic Party continued to have after Trump was elected and continue to have to this day.
Yes.
Until today, they have the same... And it's still as strong?
Everything is... I said it's weaker because it got investigated.
It started to get investigated by you, by the Senate.
But after your investigations, they started to be afraid to do actions.
Straightforward.
They use right now people like oligarchs like Pinchuk, the guy who gave the money to the Clinton Foundation.
Pinchuk, so we identify him, is the single largest contributor to the Clinton Foundation.
Yes.
Right?
A hundred million?
Up to a hundred million dollars.
Officially it's around thirteen, but it's up to a hundred million.
And alleged to have made campaign contributions to her.
Of course.
In ways that we... Which are illegal within the United States law.
Completely, if you can find it, right?
So, now I'm going to switch topics to a company that hasn't gotten the attention it deserves.
Blue Star Strategies, I think it's called.
Yes, it is.
And Blue Star Strategies is a lobbying firm.
And it's a Democratic lobbying firm, right?
Yeah.
The people work for Bill Clinton, and they lobby on the Democratic side.
Yes.
Now, all of a sudden, when the deal gets made between Zlochevsky and Biden, and they're going to hire Biden's son as kind of a bribe to Biden to get his protection, Blue Star Strategies is hired by Burisma.
Yes.
And to this day, they're still with Burisma.
Yes.
Correct?
They are their official lobbyists or consultants.
And Biden, Joe Biden himself, and eventually you work for Blue Star Strategies.
They hired me after I came from working for the embassy.
I got hired by them for a year, from 2016 to 2017.
So you had the advantage of their telling you what had happened in the past and when they were just gossiping.
Yes.
And it was Biden asked them.
To do an audit, an analysis of Burisma before his son went on the board.
Yes, that's correct.
And did they do that?
Yes, they did.
It came out clean.
This is in 2014.
Yes.
It came out clean, and this is when their owner, Zlochevsky, had fled the country.
He was alleged to have taken billions with him.
Five billion dollars.
Five billion dollars.
And it had become now quite clear that when he was minister of ecology or whatever he was, he was giving himself the licenses.
Yeah.
Many licenses.
For gas development in Ukraine, yes.
And they found that he was acting legitimately.
Yes, even though there was a criminal case opened in 2014, beginning of the year, in April 2014, then three other reopened to get money back from London, $23 million.
Now, to everybody else in the Ukraine, including our embassy, George Kent has testified to this.
Wasn't Burisma and Zlochevsky considered to be among the crookedest operations in Ukraine?
Yes.
Notorious?
Yes.
One of the largest money funders.
They fund a lot of money from Ukraine.
So any person on the street, if you said Zlochevsky or Burisma, would know that it was a crooked company?
Yeah.
So they produced this audit.
One or two?
I think there were more than one, but... So you think there was a sanitized one?
Yes, and then... The reason is wonderful.
And then just so they would know the pitfalls, a real one about all the laundering and... You know, like they do in the mafia, the black book, the white book... But this won them the contract, right?
Yes, that's when they got hired by Burisma officially to work with them and represent them through all means.
After Hunter Biden comes in, they come in and they represent them until today as their official audience.
So after the deed was done, And Shokin was fired.
Biden got him fired.
At this point now, you were back in Kiev, and you were working for Blue Star Strategies.
I was in Kiev when Shokin got fired.
I was in Washington, then I came back.
I'm talking about the aftermath of it, like in May and June of 2016.
Yes, I was already in Kiev.
And one of your jobs was to help them get meetings.
With the Prosecutor General's Office.
Yes, that's correct.
And these meetings were right after Shokin was fired, but hadn't quite been replaced yet.
There was an interim.
There was an acting Prosecutor General.
What was the purpose of the meetings?
To talk the Prosecutor's Office into closing the case, the criminal case against Burisma, to show that they're going to lose.
So these are the letters?
I just want you to look at them so when we show them to people.
These are the letters that they sent asking for the meeting with the acting prosecutor general.
What was the date?
Is there a date on that one?
March 29th.
Yeah, so actually I'm out of order a bit.
This is March 23rd.
Yeah, there's around March.
This is all in the wake of, in fact it wasn't until the end of March that Shokin was officially fired by the parliament, right?
Yes, that's correct.
Here's a March 23rd letter thanking you for setting up a meeting with the Prosecutor General.
Wasn't there a meeting in which they apologized for having defamed Shokin?
Yes, John Solomon wrote about that and where basically they apologized for going against the Prosecutor General.
You worked in the Prosecutor General's office.
You worked in the embassy.
Just tell us about... And there are corrupt people in Ukraine.
Would you describe Shokin as corrupt?
No.
I would not.
He's not as corrupt as anybody else.
Nobody was talked about, only Shokin.
Right.
There's other ministers who were.
Was he notoriously corrupt?
No.
Was he doing his job in a corrupt way?
He was doing his job.
He was actually doing his job.
Maybe people around him were not as well mannered or corrupt, but there was other people.
Now, who manufactured that?
Other ministers, and nobody did anything about that.
Who manufactured that excuse for firing him, that he was corrupt?
It was the State Department, ANTAC people, it was Democrats, and basically Joe Biden.
He wanted him out.
And the NGOs, right?
ANTAC, yeah.
They basically were a protest.
The NGOs are like a, almost like a little, And also Vyshenko, the guy who was talking about how Shokin is corrupt, the guy who was talking about getting Trump out of the election and going against Paul Manafort.
They were going and protesting every day in the prosecutor's office and saying how Shokin is corrupt, how he has to get fired, even though he just started doing his job.
He wasn't there for a year.
So here are the rest of the letters.
I'll just show them quickly.
We can look them over.
We'll put them in the website.
This is a letter for them writing to the Department of Justice and Prosecutor's Office.
So basically what they're doing is they're trying to get the case dismissed.
They're trying to complete the corrupt bribe, but it actually doesn't get dismissed.
It doesn't get dismissed until right before the election.
Around October, end of October.
Maybe known to them, maybe not.
Poroshenko was kind of holding this up so he could shake down Zlochevsky for some real money.
Yeah.
Which he got.
Yes, he did.
Poroshenko was paid off in this case.
Of course.
There are other witnesses who can prove it.
And is that the reason why there's such reluctance in Ukraine to really dig into this case and that it's going to uncover Poroshenko and a lot of other people that got money?
There's a lot of people.
If this case gets uncovered the real way, a lot of people are going to go down politically
and they're going to go to jail.
That's what everybody's afraid of, starting from Poroshenko and then with the Democrats
here in Washington.
So the last subject I'm going to ask you about just came up a short while ago with two things.
First of all, the disclosure of this document called the Accounting Chamber Decision of 19 December 2017.
You've seen this.
You've read it.
Yes.
It basically says that $5.3 billion That's real money.
$5.3 billion is not accounted for.
Whole host of reasons.
Some of it is actual money laundering.
Some of it is failure to list it.
Some of it is they just can't find it.
Some of it is $4 million was given to the Prosecutor General's office and instead of going to the Prosecutor General's office it went to an NGO in Italy.
And this is money U.S.
taxpayers' money.
Three billion of this.
Three billion.
I can't even comprehend the amount!
Three billion of this is American taxpayer dollars, right?
Yeah.
And other European taxpayers' money.
But you didn't even know about this until recently.
This document?
No.
It's kept private, even though it should be a public document.
This is a devastating document.
Nobody talks about it.
The big question in the United States always is, how effective is our foreign aid?
President Trump ran on straightening out foreign aid.
I imagine had this document been known before the election, Trump would have won by three more percent or four more percent.
I mean, because it would prove what Trump had always been saying, that our foreign aid, we've got to be careful about it because it isn't going to help the people.
A lot of it is being diverted for private purposes.
Yes.
So there are many, many cases here to be investigated.
But when it came out, it wasn't investigated, right?
It was covered up.
The police covered it up because they were pressured by the U.S.
Embassy in Kiev.
Yes, I spoke to one very, very distinguished gentleman, Mr. Kulyuk, I can say that, who says that they were pressured twice not to go forward with this, and then finally the president said, drop it.
Even though this is an official document from a body, which is part of the government, which is a constitutional body, which controls basically all the budgets, Yes.
in Ukraine and coordinates how the funding is being spent and nobody talks about it.
So they didn't want it to go forward, the embassy didn't, because they're implicated
in this aren't they?
They're the ones who decide which NGOs get the money.
Yes.
And they give it to their pals.
Yes.
And their pals are all left wing.
Liberal, left-wing, pro-Soros, pro-Democrats.
Not a penny to a moderate or conservative group?
If you're conservative, you're not even welcome in the U.S.
Embassy in Kyiv right now.
I used to help the U.S.
Embassy a lot during Maidan, prior Maidan, when we were opposition to Yanukovych.
And after Maidan, and when Trump was going for president, I showed my views to support President Donald Trump.
And you were... Blocked from the embassy, saying, we don't want to deal with you.
And many other people.
There's a lot.
And in some cases, visas denied by the ambassador.
Yeah.
Hundreds of people were blocked, and that's how the relationship between our countries start to soar.
Well, the last thing I'm going to ask you about is just one example of that $5.3 billion, which has resulted in criminal charges being filed.
And it involves the Ukrainian network for people with HIV AIDS.
It involves the anti-corruption center, ANTAC, which is the company that the ambassador asked Otsenko to drop the case on.
Yes.
And it involves NABU.
It was Dmitry Sherembe.
is the National Anti-Corruption Bureau.
So who ran the Ukrainian network for people with HIV-AIDS?
It was Dmitry Sherembei.
It's a pal of Shabudin, who's the director of ANTAC.
So Dmitry Sherembei started this AIDS network.
Sounds very nice, like a very nice thing to do.
However, he was an unusual guy to start with.
He had spent time in jail, four different times actually, for stealing, for grand larceny.
He had other convictions.
So he was a convict, and he starts the AIDS program, and therefore is entrusted with hundreds of millions of dollars?
$142 million.
Well, $142 million is questionable.
But the budget is much more than that.
It's much more than that.
It's millions and millions of dollars.
Over the years.
Yes.
And at the very beginning, there was some question about his overcharging for medicines and kicking back and laundering money.
And one of the reasons for setting up the Anti-Corruption Center, ANTAC, one of the reasons, was to take a look at operations like the AIDS Center.
Yeah, to fight corruption.
Okay.
So, who put together the Anti-Corruption Center, ANTAC?
Sharon Bay and Shabunin.
So Sharon Bay and Shabunin were the founders of the organization that was going to audit Sharon Bay.
Yes.
That's very convenient.
The fox guarding the chicken coop, right?
It goes worse afterwards.
I know it gets worse, but we don't want to give away the secret right away.
Now, this organization was funded by this anti-ag organization, Once again, George Soros.
One of his organizations, Open Society Foundation, the Renaissance.
Right.
And by US taxpayers.
USAID.
Was the aid center similarly funded?
Yes, it was the same funded organization by Soros.
And Soros had a lot of control over this.
Yes, he had the most control involving what was being done.
And this anti-corruption center, kind of like the next one we're going to talk about, It's really a contradiction, right?
I mean, it became a corruption center.
Yeah.
It was done for good deeds in the beginning.
The founding of it was a good idea, but afterwards it became corrupt itself by taking money from the outside, money from oligarchs, and doing dirty work.
And then there was a third organization called NABU, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, which was actually a new organization set up by George Kent He was the godfather.
Being pushed very hard by ANTAC also.
Yes, and the U.S.
Embassy George Kent.
Which I should tell you is like a pattern for Soros in other countries.
And this thing turned into being totally corrupt.
Yeah, it's not doing what it has to do.
And the people who are on the board members of that NABU who have to oversee their work are Sharon Bay and Shabudin.
So, Sharon Bay runs the HIV Center.
Yes.
That for a number of years has all these questions about stealing money in one way or another.
Including cases that were brought against them and then dropped by the Prosecutor General, right?
Yes, that's correct.
And he's an ex-convict.
Yes, four times.
So they put together a private organization to help oversee it, and they put Sharon Bay on the board.
Yes.
So he's going to oversee himself.
Yes.
And then they have a government organization that's all new, nice and clean, anti-corruption, and they put a convict on the board, Sharon Bay.
So Sharon Bay is going to overlook himself from the government point of view and from the private point of view.
Yes, and he also decides who is being hired by NABU while being on the board of directors.
And the result of that is in seven or eight years of operation, Nothing was... Nothing ever went forward against them.
Nothing ever went forward.
No.
Zero.
Nothing ever.
And did ANTAC or NABU ever write even a report about them?
No.
Zero.
Nothing.
They are as clean as a whistle, even though they basically not only stole money, but they
were criminal activity on getting medicine.
and they were buying the medicine of which the money was given.
So we can't go into all of the details of this, but basically one of the cores of their
fraud was they would buy medicine for people with, they didn't treat people with AIDS.
They would do public advocacy and they spent a fortune on public advocacy.
Big parties, lots of liquor, traveling first class, and then just missing money.
Money just missing.
Then with medicines, they would go to companies.
There are a list of five companies, all of whom have a record of overcharging.
All of whom have a record of kicking back.
And they would spend much more money on the medicine than they would have to spend.
And that money was the excess that would be laundered, passed out, put into pockets, sent to other companies, smaller companies, and laundered to their own pockets.
Finally, the complaint was filed by two people.
One was Mr. Derkosch, who we've interviewed and we're going to interview again, who has a great deal of knowledge of this.
But another one was by Mr. Philandosh, who was a former Member of Parliament.
Have you had a chance to look at that chart?
Yeah.
a question-and-answer thing, and then he put together a chart that lists many, many—
have you had a chance to look at that chart?
Yeah.
It lists all the companies that work for them, how much money they account for each company.
So I should tell you that this is one of 20 cases that are— this is the first one to result in a criminal charge.
Yes.
Mr. Shabunin and Mr. Sharonbay are now charged with multiple crimes.
Some from 7 to 12 years in prison, if they get convicted.
And it appears to be the first of many, because there are another 20 cases.
Because ANTAC played a big role in digging up dirt on Donald Trump and Paul Manafort, didn't it?
that way in this case will be less because Antac played a big role in digging up dirt
on Donald Trump and Paul Manafort didn't it yes they were and they had a case against
them and Lutsenko was forced to drop that case yes by Marie Antoinette and to know how
to which you have a Yovanovitch right but Marie Yovanovitch.
Um...
Well, this has been very helpful.
I'm sorry we had to kind of summarize it so fast because this is all very interesting.
But it does give our viewers a chance to get a sense of the overview.
Just two questions that just bother me.
How did the Ukraine become the biggest contributor to the Clinton Foundation?
You're certainly not the richest country in the world.
You've been going through terrible times.
Yovanovitch left you with $800,000 in the bank.
Yovanovitch left you with $800,000 in the bank.
$800,000 in the bank.
Yeah.
How could Ukraine be the one that was the biggest contributor to the phony, crooked Clinton Foundation?
Because the oligarchs who contributed, Mr. Pinchuk, they want to clean themselves up.
You know how the Democrats call Pinchuk inside their inner circle?
The PG-rated oligarch.
The what?
The PG-rated oligarch.
What does that mean?
A good one.
He's a good oligarch.
Everybody else is bad, but he's the good one.
Even though he's told the same way as anybody else.
They contributed to cleaning their reputation up within the eyes of the United States government.
And they thought they had the power in the pockets of the presidents, former presidents of the United States, former administrations.
So they were giving her that money when she was Secretary of State, also.
Yeah, for years and years before.
In many ways, for the same reason that they corrupted Biden.
They needed favor with the Secretary of State.
Yeah.
And in fact, originally, the way some of the witnesses describe it, Zelensky thought he was buying both Biden and John Kerry.
Yes.
But John Kerry's stepson pulled out of the picture because he kind of figured out how corrupt it was.
He went out pretty fast.
What's the effect of President Trump's approach now to Ukraine, which is basically to call out the corruption, not to be afraid to do it, To point out that Americans are involved, so we're not lecturing you.
We're just as involved in this as you.
We have as many bad people involved as you.
What's the reaction to President Trump doing this?
People on the street, they fully support it.
They say, this is what America, as our friend, needed to do years and years before.
Not teach us how to fight corruption, but work together on fighting corruption on both ends, because we know that Not everybody's perfect, but people support the idea of Donald Trump to investigate it together and to find who is corrupt.
The government is afraid right now to do it because they're all backed by Soros.
Zelensky, unfortunately, is afraid to investigate, but hopefully things will change.
But the people, millions of Ukrainians, support President Donald Trump's idea to do this.
And Zelensky needs the most support he can get in order to be courageous enough To hopefully set up a joint task force.
Yeah.
Let's just find out who they are and let's end it.
It's the better for the development of our relationship between Ukraine and the United States.
We turn this page over with this investigation, we'll have a better future, better relationship.
Trump, anybody else who becomes president, Trump Jr., who knows, we'll have a better investigation, we'll have a better future with our relationship with Ukraine and the United States.
And what is being done to your people is horrendous.
$800,000 left in the bank?
Yeah.
All their money was stolen once.
Yeah, we had no money and we... Now, $5.3 billion is headed your way to help people with AIDS.
If a quarter of it got to the people, it's a lot.
We would have a better developing country.
So, America and other countries are putting up the money for a good purpose.
And then when they find out something like this, that...
So I can't thank you enough for being courageous enough to point these things out because they're so important to your country and to mine.
And I know the crooked media in my country tries to cover this up because, same reason, Democrat.
They try to make the Russians spies.
But I think we're getting through.
I think we're getting through.
And I would say you're one of the primary reasons for it, Andrei Teleshenko.
Thank you, sir.
▲
Export Selection