Thursday, October 31, 2019

Abolishing the Federal Government and the Presidency in Seventeen Easy Steps

     Given the recent scandals in Washington, D.C. regarding Russian and Ukrainian spying and business deals, election sabotage and interference, and association of presidents with known child sex traffickers, it is becoming obvious to more and more Americans that the current federal government with which we are currently burdened, has become unbearably corrupt, as well as financially and morally bankrupt.
     The solution to these problems, in my opinion, must be to abolish the federal government, the Congress, the presidency, and the Supreme Court. Additionally - possibly - to call for a new national government, if reassurances can be made that such a government would be tolerable). But most importantly, to incarcerate (and, if necessary, charge with treason and/or sedition) any politicians or federal officials whom have engaged in unlawful or immoral actions involving representatives of foreign governments.

     If I were asked what federal officials, and/or the president, could and should do, to abolish the federal government as soon as possible, then my advice would be what follows below.
     I would recommend that the president take as many of these sixteen steps as possible - and as quickly as possible, and in the order shown below - in order to achieve abolition of the United States federal Government as swiftly, successfully, and peaceably as possible.

     This list should be viewed as a set of stages.
     The purpose of the first two steps (Phase One) is to communicate clearly to the people why the federal government needs to be abolished. This will help ensure that the president who promises to abolish the government, has the people's trust and support when inaugurated.
     The remainder of the steps should be taken by the president as soon as possible following inauguration. Those steps include the first phase following inauguration (Phase Two). In Phase Two, the president makes sure that foreign nations recognize that the president was elected lawfully, in order to avoid an international incident, and ensure the stability of the new administration while it attempts to abolish the federal government (as the people will want it to do).
     In Phase Three, the president gives Congress, the Supreme Court, and the executive branch officials under the president's control, one last chance (each) to cease cooperating with the continued creation and enforcement of widely unpopular and unconstitutional laws. Many of these cannot even rightfully be called laws, because most unconstitutional acts of Congress, are unconstitutional because they disregard limitations which were put in the Constitution with the specific intent of ensuring that the states and the people retained a significant and meaningful measure of the right to govern themselves (as opposed to being governed by a central authority).
     In Phase Four, the president takes all steps necessary to abolish the entire federal government (with the exception of the offices of the president, and one diplomat for each foreign nation), and issues declarations and public statements explaining and confirming these moves.
     In Phase Five (providing that most or all of steps 7 through 10 were successful), the president declares that efforts to abolish the federal government were successful, and makes statements and invitations which recognize the sovereignty and independence of the fifty states as separate countries, each with their own diplomatic authorities.
     In Phase Six (after the world has recognized the freedom of each state), the president calls for the consideration of a new national or federal government and a new constitutional convention, weighs in on this matter, fires all diplomats still employed federally, and vacates the office of the presidency (leaving nobody to succeed).



     The Seventeen Steps:

Phase One (Before Inauguration):
     Step 1: Communicate, and Campaign on, the Need to Abolish the Federal Government
     Step 2: Communicate the Legal Rationale for Abolishing the Federal Government

Phase Two (Immediately After Inauguration):
     
Step 3: Invite Ambassadors to Recognize the Legitimacy of the President's Election

Phase Three (After Achieving Recognition of the Election Results):
     Step 4: Urge Congress and the States to Convene for an Emergency Amendment Session
     Step 5: File Lawsuits Which Could Severely Limit Federal Authority
     Step 6: Nullify Executive Orders

Phase Four: (If Steps 4 Through 6 Have Little to No Effect):
     
Step 7: Revoke the Authority to Enforce Federal Laws
     Step 8: Order the Congress to Disband
     Step 9: Charge Corrupt Officials with Sedition and Treason
     Step 10: Firing the Vice President and Refusing to Nominate Cabinet Members
     Step 11: Order the Arrest of All Persons Cooperating with the Federal Government

Phase Five (After the Federal Government is Abolished):
     Step 12: Declare the Federal Government Legally Foreign to the States and the People
     Step 13: Invite Ambassadors to Recognize the Sovereignty and Independence of the States
     Step 14: Insist Upon the States' Freedom to Conduct Diplomacy and Join the United Nations

Phase Six (After the World Has Recognized the Independence of the States):
     Step 15: Call for a Constitutional Convention
     Step 16: Fire All Federal Diplomats
     Step 17: Vacate the Presidency




Phase One (Before Inauguration):

     Step 1: Communicating, and Campaigning on, the Need to Abolish the Federal Government

     Make it clear that the presidential candidate, and the congressional and senatorial candidates, are running with the intent to abolish the positions for which they're running.
     It should be emphasized that various notable figures in pop culture have suggested doing without government (such as Kid Rock, who said something to the effect of "What if we decided to have no government, but everybody promised to be cool?"; and Alec Baldwin, who said, while portraying Donald Trump on N.B.C.'s Saturday Night Live, "Maybe it's time we take a break from having a president for about a year."). Forces in favor of abolishing the federal government should make it clear that they could not agree more.
     Attempt to make abolishing he federal government; incarceration of dozens of high ranking federal officials; and full investigations of Jeffrey Epstein, everyone listed in Epstein's black book of contacts, Ghislaine Maxwell, Joe and Hunter Biden, John Podesta and James Alefantis (etc.); into mainstream policies and platform planks (if possible, resulting in multiple parties adopting such positions).
    Additionally, for any officials running for federal positions having promised to work to abolish the federal government, it should be clear that they intend to return the power of attorney back to the people from which they have been borrowing it (through political representation).
     Moreover, campaigns to abolish the federal government should explain that repealing laws, and dismantling and abolishing entire departments, will drastically reduce not only government costs, but also the number of armed government law enforcement officials, as well as the number of violent attacks committed by government agents against civilians.


     Step 2: Communicating the Legal Rationale for Abolishing the Federal Government

     In order to justify, and provide legal context and rationale for the legality of, abolishing the U.S. federal Government, campaigns to abolish the federal government should cite the fact that the Declaration of Independence recognized the people's pre-existing right to alter or abolish our government if it becomes destructive of the liberties which it declared an intent to preserve.
     Additionally, at least six state constitutions recognize a right to reform, alter, or abolish government; -and many nations acknowledge the right to revolution and/or the right to rebel - so those facts should not go ignored in the president's statements.
     [Note: The Supreme Court, historically, has not considered the Declaration of Independence to be organic law, and thus the court does not consider the Declaration to be part of the U.S. Code. However, Congress traditionally has recognized the Declaration of Independence as organic law. This information may be relevant in order to pursue a successful legal defense for the case in favor of abolishing the government.]




Phase Two (Immediately After Inauguration):

     Step 3: Inviting Ambassadors to Recognize the Legitimacy of the President's Election

     [Note: Step 3, and subsequent steps, should all be taken on January 20th, in the afternoon and evening immediately after the inauguration of the president, and within the first 24 or 48 hours of the inauguration.]
     The president should instruct all sitting United States ambassadors to foreign countries, to meet with their counterparts in those foreign nations, and ask those counterparts whether they will affirm that the election of the president was carried out duly and legally.
     This step will help reduce the risk that an international incident (whether diplomatic or military) could flare up, at the news that a presidential candidate has been elected who promised to abolish the position of president as well as the national government of the United States. This step will also help ensure that foreign nations will interact with the states in good faith, following the next several steps which the president should take to abolish the government.






Phase Three (After Achieving Recognition of the Election Results):


     Step 4: Urging Congress and the States to Convene for an Emergency Amendment Session

     The president should strongly urge Congress to convene for a brief, one-time, emergency legislative session, to give Congress one last chance to amend the Constitution in a meaningful way.
     While doing this, the president should cite the need to review the existing set of national emergencies (of which there are dozens and dozens, and probably too many); and the need to declare national emergencies regarding civil liberties, due process, government transparency, and corruption.
     The president should do this, while specifically demanding that the members of Congress authorize their own arrest for misdemeanors as well as felonies, and also demanding that Congress refrain from interfering with any efforts by the states to hold a constitutional convention.
     The president should accomplish this by insisting that Congress and the states work together to immediately pass an amendment which would amend (and repeal a portion of) Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. That amendment should replacing that clause with the following language: "The Senators and Representatives shall not be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance of the Session of their respective Houses, nor in going to nor returning from the same, and in addition to any Speech or Debate in either House, they may be questioned in any other Place."
     The president should additionally insist that the convention of states consider amendments which would repeal the U.S. Constitution in its entirety and revert to a confederation, and/or abolish the office of the presidency (by striking Article II, Section 1).
     In the (extremely likely) event that Congress were to refuse to accept the president's insistence that this emergency legislation be considered (i.e., proposals to allow the arrest of congressmen for misdemeanors, revert to a confederation, and abolish the presidency), then the president should proceed with any and all plans to order the Congress to disband, since it will have signaled that it is not willing to acknowledge the right to hold a constitutional convention as acknowledged in Article V of the Constitution.



     Step 5:  Filing Lawsuits Which Could Severely Limit Federal Authority

     The president and the new administration should file lawsuits intended to make it impossible for the U.S. Supreme Court to avoid promptly weighing in on three key constitutional issues, the outcome of which rulings could have major impacts, potentially including the abolition of the federal government as we know it.
     These lawsuits include suits which will pressure the Supreme Court to issue rulings:
     1) whether there is any constitutional merit to the claims that Amendment XVI (income tax) was passed unlawfully;
     2) whether there is any constitutional merit to the claims that the Titles of Nobility Amendment was passed as Amendment XIII, but has been disregarded despite having been lawfully passed by Congress but not signed by the president; and
     3) whether there is a difference between "the Constitution of the United States" and "the Constitution for the United States", and additionally, within that controversy, whether the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 violates the provision in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 that the federal government exercise exclusive jurisdiction only within the District of Columbia itself, and limited to 100 square miles ("ten miles, squared").
     A ruling on the first issue could have the result of repealing and abolishing the income tax, which would defund the federal government by depriving the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) from collecting approximately half of the total amount of receipts from which the federal government derives its revenue. With its funding halved, the federal government will struggle to fund its enforcement of unconstitutional federal laws.
     A ruling on the second issue could help prohibit federal officials - especially judges and congressmen - from receiving any form of foreign honors, titles, or privileges whatsoever. If the language in the Titles of Nobility Amendment becomes law, then federal judges will likely lose much or all of their power to issue orders which affect the states and localities.
     A ruling on the third issue will help determine whether the federal government is, in a strict legal sense, exercising exclusive jurisdiction anywhere besides the District of Columbia (for example, on federally managed and owned lands, and on U.S. military bases overseas, and in our various overseas territories and possessions, etc.).
     The president should additionally insist that the Supreme Court issue a ruling regarding whether Congress's refusal to allow an emergency convention to amend the Constitution (as described in Step 4).
     If the Supreme Court refuses to take any of these cases, then the president should call for the court to be abolished. If the justices of the Supreme Court refuse to accept their dismissal and the court's abolition, then the president should call for their arrest. These arrests could be performed by branches of the national guard, officials representing the states or community governments, and/or volunteer citizen militia wishing to assist in a citizens' arrests.



     Step 6: Nullifying Executive Orders

     The president should undertake all efforts possible to nullify all past executive orders, presidential signing statements, and line-item vetoes which remain active and have no constitutional merit. These may include executive orders which the president believes to be destructive of civil liberties, or destructive to the rights of the people to be governed in a decentralized fashion.
     The president may need to use both active and passive methods in order to accomplish this. Likely, some executive orders (etc.) can be ignored through the president refusing to issue orders to enforce them, while others may have to be accomplished through presidential actions. These may include new executive orders which invalidate old executive orders.
     Whatever the case, the presidential candidate who intends to abolish the federal government should be prepared to undertake whatever legal means necessary to rescind, or otherwise invalidate, the executive orders which still exist and have been  destructive to freedom or empowering of tyranny.
     These include, but are not limited to, executive orders which: 1) deprive accused people of the right to a trial; 2) establish and maintain secret prisons; 3) instruct officials to deprive detainees and incarcerated migrants of their right to a basic standard of health and safety while in custody; and 4) provide for "continuity of government" programs and exercises which make it difficult to abolish the federal government.






Phase Four: (If Steps 4 Through 6 Have Little to No Effect):


     Step 7: Revoking the Authority to Enforce Federal Laws

     On the president's first day in office, the president and/or the new administration should insist upon the president's right to tell all armed bureaucrats working for the federal government to surrender their badges and to return or lay down any and all arms issued to them by the federal government.
     The rationale for this should be that the president has the right, as the chief executive of the nation's armed forces, to issue orders requiring the firing and disarmament of any and all law enforcement officials continuing to claim to work for the federal government, and attempting to enforce federal laws (which will, as provided in Step 4, have been repealed en masse just prior to Step 5).



     Step 8: Ordering the Congress to Disband

     The president should make an appeal to the people, explaining that the president would not be in the White House unless the people who elected that candidate truly wanted the candidate to abolish the federal government, and truly believed that the candidate would do so if given the opportunity.
     The president should use these facts to justify and explain the president's next step: an order for the United States Congress - i.e., the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives - to disband. If the Senators and Representatives just elected, refuse their dismissal, then state or community officials (or private citizens) should remove them from the chambers of Congress, and take them into custody.



     Step 9: Charging Corrupt Officials with Sedition and Treason

     On January 20th, the president should be prepared with orders to indict all federal officials (justices, elected officials, law enforcement officers, etc.) who continue to serve under the guise and authority of the federal government, and who continue to attempt to enforce federal law.
     The list of this set of federal officials should be made up primarily of the following: 1) elected and appointed officials who abused their oaths of office by engaging in corrupt foreign business deals and/or election collusion; 2) justices, senators, and congresspersons who refused to vacate their offices; and 3) potentially dangerous federal law enforcement officials, intent on continuing to enforce federal law after the authority to do so is rescinded, whom are not likely to give up their arms without a fight.
     Most importantly, the president should be prepared to charge the first set of officials enumerated above, with sedition and/or treason (whichever is appropriate).



     Step 10: Firing the Vice President and Refusing to Nominate Cabinet Members

     The president should ask for the resignation of the running mate who was elected along with the president, and/or undertake any and all peaceable measures possible which could prevent the vice-president-elect from taking an oath of office.
     The president should also refuse to cooperate with any demands to hire a chief of staff, and also with demands to nominate cabinet members. The president should explain that at least half of those cabinet members would only end up heading federal departments which lack proper constitutional authorization (so most of what they do is unlawful).
     The president should dismiss the vice-president-elect, and refuse to hire a chief of staff and nominate a cabinet, in order to prevent those persons from being arrested for cooperating with the federal government (which they would not deserve, having been elected specifically in order to abolish the federal government).




     Step 11: Ordering the Arrest of All Persons Cooperating with the Federal Government

     The president should issue an order which will prohibit, and provide punishment of, all state and local officials, and all citizens of the states, who continue to cooperate with officials claiming to work under the auspices of anything described as a federal or national government of or for the United States.
     If circumstances merit and necessitate it, then the president should be prepared to charge any such "federal officials" - or persons aiding and abetting them - with treason (and/or sedition) against the people and the states.
     The president should issue just under two hundred exemptions, however. The president, and one diplomat for each foreign nation, should be retained, until such time as the president would be prepared to relinquish them from the federal employment rolls. This will be necessary in order to ensure that the president completes the mission to abolish the federal government, and in order to ensure that foreign nations will accept the sovereignty of each American state after that mission is over.






Phase Five (After the Federal Government is Abolished):


     Step 12: Declaring the Federal Government Legally Foreign to the States and the People

     The president should declare intent to re-affirm the only provision of the 1789 Treaty of Paris which is left standing; i.e., the provision which recognizes that the states are, and of right should be free to behave as, "free, sovereign, and independent" states.
     While issuing this declaration, the president should explain that: 1) without recognizing the freedom and sovereignty and independence of each U.S. state, they cannot rightfully be called "states"; and 2) the federal government is, legally speaking, foreign to the states, and to the people.
     The president should predicate the validity of the second point, on the facts that the federal government has alienated the people, the federal government has treated the people as strangers and aliens in their own lands (as if they had no rights), and the federal government has transported accused people to far-off secret prisons for indeterminate lengths of time and without trial (which was one of the main reasons, if not the biggest reason, the Declaration of Independence was drafted in the first place). The president should cite Grievance 8 and Grievance 9, of the Declaration, in order to explain and justify the decision to declare the states' and the people's independence from federal and national government.
     This declaration by the president should be made publicly, and should be billed as "the Second Declaration of Independence" of the United - and fully sovereign - States of America.



     Step 13: Inviting Ambassadors to Recognize the Sovereignty and Independence of the States

     The president should instruct all sitting United States ambassadors to foreign countries, to meet with their counterparts in those foreign nations, and ask those counterparts to affirm that they will not undertake any actions resisting or challenging the president's orders to dissolve and abolish national government for the United States.
     This step will help reduce the risk that an international incident (whether diplomatic or military) could flare up, at the news that the national government is unstable or could soon disappear (because the federal government's abolition is likely to have far-reaching and grave effects on the state of world peace and world finance, as well as on the state of society and the freedom revolution at home).
     Diplomats from the United Kingdom, in particular, should be invited to re-affirm what it affirmed in 1789 when that nation recognized that America was no longer under British control. Namely, that - as provided in the 1789 Treaty of Paris - the American states remain free, independent, and sovereign. 
     This step may, and hopefully will, have the effect of insuring against attempts from within the remnants of the federal government, to either: 1) engage in collusion with foreign governments abroad; 2) challenge or depose the president, or to create another national government; or 3) invade with a foreign army, thus occupying the states with a national government (albeit a foreign one).



     Step 14: Insisting Upon the States' Freedom to Conduct Diplomacy and Join the United Nations

     Immediately upon completing the tasks of ordering the abolition of the federal government, the president should point to the fact of widespread approval of that move, to make it clear that the authority to engage in diplomacy and trade, is now vested in the states themselves, or in the people.
     Next, the president should communicate with all fifty state governors, and insist that those states have the right to join the United Nations, to participate in its programs independently, and to participate in international diplomatic and trade deals without consulting any other governmental body. The president should also insist that each governor extend invitations for foreign diplomats to meet in their states' capitals, to acknowledge the sovereignty of each state, separately and in person.
     If necessary, the president should defend this insistence upon full state sovereignty, by citing the fact that even the Soviet Union (with its storied reputation for repression of both civil liberties and democracy) allowed the Ukraine and Belarus to be members of the United Nations long before the Soviet Union was finished being dismantled.







Phase Six (After the World Has Recognized the Independence of the States):


     Step 15: Calling for a Constitutional Convention

     [Note: This step should only be taken if, and after, it has become abundantly clear that there no longer remain any realistic challenges to the new administration's authority, nor to the federal government's abolition, nor to the states' total sovereignty and independence.]
     The president should call for a second constitutional convention of states. As provided in Article V, no amendment shall be considered which could potentially violate the provisions of Article I, Section 9 as amended.
     In defending the move to call for a constitutional convention, without citing the Constitution's authority, the president should cite the fact that Article V of the U.S. Constitution (which authorized constitutional convention) remained law before the president's inauguration, but was never taken seriously by Congress or enough state governors to make such a convention happen. This made reforming the federal government all but impossible, and made revolution or abolition inevitable.
     The president should call for a constitutional convention of states, to determine whether to create a new national or federal government. However, the president should insist that, if such a government is created, then it should only happen on the condition that the Bill of Rights is strengthened and clarified (or, at the very least, left alone).
     [Note: In my opinion, Amendments II, V, IX, and X could benefit the most from clarifying and modernizing language, through better encapsulating the spirit of liberty which informed the original intentions and original meanings of those amendments.]
     If a new national or federal government is formed as the result of these proceedings, then the most important matters which should be considered in the creation of new amendments, should revolve around: 1) what the structure of the new government should be, and in that issue, how to safeguard civil liberties and severely and explicitly limit the government's powers (which would hopefully include language resembling the suggested amendment outlined in Step 4); 2) how to have free, fair, and open elections; and 3) which measures to adopt in order to ensure the financial security of the new government (and the national economy in general).



     Step 16. Firing All Federal Diplomats

     The president should fire all diplomats still employed by the federal government (which shall have been retained this long solely for the purposes of ensuring international recognition of the legitimacy of the new administration).



     Step 17: Resigning the Presidency and Vacating the Oval Office

     Before the states and the people decide whether to convene for a constitutional convention, the president should announce resignation from the office of the President of the United States - and announce an intent that the office of the presidency be vacated forever, from this day forward (hopefully January 21st) - in a public address which explains the reasons for doing so.
     That address should include the president's thoughts regarding whether a constitutional convention should take place, and whether there is a justification for any national or federal government to exist again in the territory once occupied by the United States federal Government.
     The president should also communicate an opinion about whether positions like the presidency, the chief executive, and the unitary executive, ought to exist or be trusted ever again. This will help make it clear to the people that the president truly is about to become the last president (or, at least, the last president under this current constitution) upon the resignation that follows this address.
     If this public address is not televised live, then it should be either pre-recorded and broadcasted, or else a statement to the same effect should be sent to members of the press and officials representing the fifty states.
     If this public address is broadcast live, then the president should be shown signing a letter of resignation live on television, and then, the president should insist that everyone present in the Oval Office, leave the room immediately (i.e., the president and any remaining members of the president's retinue, members of the press, and/or any state governors or foreign diplomats invited and present for the resignation).





     Those interested in these topics may additionally wish to read my 2011 article "The Spooner Amendment", a suggested list of reforms to the U.S. Constitution. That article is available at the following address:




Based on Notes Taken on October 17th, 2019
Written on October 25th and 31st, 2019

Published on October 31st, 2019
Originally Published Under the Title
"Fourteen Recommendations Regarding How to Abolish
the Federal Government and the Presidency"

Saturday, October 12, 2019

Forty-Eight American Political Figures with Ties to Ukraine


Table of Contents


1. Adams, David
2. Archer, Devon
3. Biden, Hunter R.
4. Biden, Joseph R. “Joe” Jr.
5. Black, Joseph Cofer
6. Bolton, John

7. Carey, Laura
8. Chalupa, Alexandra
9. Clinton, Hillary Rodham
10. Clinton, William Jefferson “Bill”
11. Davis, Richard H. “Rick”

12. Freedman, Matthew C.
13. Gates, Richard “Rick”
14. Gucciardo, Charles
15. Giuliani, Rudolph “Rudy”
16. Giustra, Frank
17. Heinz, Christopher
18. Kent, George P.
19. Kerry, John
20. Kerry, Teresa Heinz
21. Leiter, David J.
22. Luzzatto, Tamera Stanton
23. Manafort, Paul J.
24. Mulvaney, John Michael "Mick"
25. Nuland, Victoria C.
26. Nunes, Devin
27. Obama, Barack Hussein
28. Pelosi, Alexandra
29. Pelosi, Nancy
30. Pelosi, Paul Jr.
31. Pelosi, Paul Sr.
32. Pence, Michael “Mike”

33. Podesta, John
34. Podesta, Tony
35. Pyatt, Geoffrey
36. Romney, Willard Mitt
37. Romney, Tagg
38. Schiff, Adam
39. Sondland, Gordon D.
40. Taylor, William Brockenbrough "Bill" Jr.

41. Trump, Donald J.
42. Vindman, Alexander
43. Volker, Kurt
44. Waters, Maxine
45. Weber, Vin

46. Williams, Jennifer
47. Yovanovitch, Marie
48. Zeldin, Lee



Content


     The preceding list, and the text which follows, enumerate forty-eight Americans - in legislative politics, diplomacy, law, business, and the military - who likely have ties to Ukrainian business interests (usually the energy market) and/or corruption in Ukrainian politics and/or military affairs. 
     These include persons who testified, and have stated willingness to testify, at the impeachment inquiry hearings regarding President Trump's possible collusion with Russia and/or Ukraine. Not all persons mentioned below have investments in Ukraine; but they are still worth mentioning for other reasons. For example, Alexander Vindman and Alexandra Chalupa don't have any known investments in Ukraine, but they are Ukrainian-American.
     The purpose of this article is to explain what ties - if any, and however distant - these politicians, government officials (and political campaign and party officials), businessmen, etc., have to Ukraine (or might have).

     [Note: Of anyone listed herein, John Bolton is perhaps the only one who should have been omitted. That is, outside of the individuals who are listed here due to their ties to the Uranium One scandal. But only provided that the deal to sell Uranium One to Russian company Rosakom had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton or Tony Podesta.]









1. Adams, David

     American diplomat. Former chief adviser to Hillary Clinton at the State Department. Principal at the Podesta Group (ired by the Podesta Group after being Hillary Clinton's chief adviser). Adams's link to Ukraine is indirect; Adams met with Clinton to discuss the Uranium One deal, which may have been done in order to help Russia acquire leverage in the energy market (leverage which could be used against Ukraine).

http://observer.com/2016/04/panama-papers-reveal-clintons-kremlin-connection/
http://washdiplomat.com/events/2018/CPS-conference/speaker_bios.php
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/oct/03/who-devon-archer-ukrainian-gas-executive-playing-g/
http://splinternews.com/ukraine-gas-exec-in-trumps-nickelback-meme-is-actually-1838771764
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/joe-hunter-biden-seen-golfing-with-ukraine-gas-company-exec-back-in-2014-photo-shows











2. Archer, Devon

American businessman, and partner of Christopher Heinz (John Kerry's stepson) at Rosemont Seneca Partners. Sat on board of Ukraine-based Burisma Holdings Ltd. (the largest energy company in Ukraine).
http://www.newsweek.com/devon-archer-trump-meme-joe-hunter-biden-1462879










3. Biden, Hunter R.


American businessman and son of Democratic former vice president Joe Biden. Sat on the board of Ukraine-based Burisma Holdings Ltd., earned $50,000 per month (or perhaps $83,333 per month, which has also been reported).


Hunter Biden's father Joe Biden was caught on film bragging about how he got Ukrainian top prosecutor Viktor Shokin to refrain from continuing investigation of Burisma while Hunter served on its board. Although threatening to withhold aid from Ukraine was part of official federal government policy at the time, Joe Biden took advantage of the legality of withholding that aid (a billion dollars in loan guarantees) in order to bring about Shokin's firing (summarizing what he said as “you're not getting the billion dollars... I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money”). Joe Biden said he did this after Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk committed to take action against state prosecutor Shokin (who was investigating $3 billion going into Hunter Biden's firm Burisma), but failed to do so, and then Biden told them that President Obama authorized Biden to make that deal.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/27/flashback_2018_joe_biden_brags_at_cfr_meeting_about_withholding_aid_to_ukraine_to_force_firing_of_prosecutor.html
http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2019/10/15/politifact-pelosi-romney-and-kerry-dont-have-sons-working-for-companies-linked-to-ukraine/












4. Biden, Joseph R. “Joe” Jr.


Democratic former U.S. Senator from Delaware, and former Vice President under the Obama Administration (2009-2017). Advised new Ukrainian leaders about anti-corruption while vice-president under Obama. Caught on film bragging about how he got Ukrainian top prosecutor Viktor Shokin to refrain from continuing investigation of Burisma while his son Hunter Biden served on its board. Although threatening to withhold aid from Ukraine was part of official federal government policy at the time, Biden took advantage of the legality of withholding that aid (a billion dollars in loan guarantees) in order to bring about Shokin's firing (summarizing what he said as “you're not getting the billion dollars... I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money”). Joe Biden said he did this after Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk committed to take action against state prosecutor Shokin (who was investigating $3 billion going into Hunter Biden's firm Burisma), but failed to do so, and then Biden told them that President Obama authorized Biden to make that deal.http://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-05/bidens-visits-to-ukraine-under-scrutiny
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-10-09/joe-biden-son-ukraine-gas-company
http://www.wsj.com/articles/firm-hired-by-ukraines-burisma-tried-to-use-hunter-biden-as-leverage-documents-show-11573009615
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/27/flashback_2018_joe_biden_brags_at_cfr_meeting_about_withholding_aid_to_ukraine_to_force_firing_of_prosecutor.html
http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2019/10/15/politifact-pelosi-romney-and-kerry-dont-have-sons-working-for-companies-linked-to-ukraine/













5. Black, Joseph Cofer

Joined board of Burisma in 2017 (three years after Hunter Biden joined the board and Christopher Heinz left). Former foreign policy adviser to Mitt Romney and former C.I.A. official.
http://www.npr.org/2019/10/04/766579412/what-to-know-about-the-ukrainian-company-at-the-heart-of-trumps-biden-allegation







6. Bolton, John



     American political consultant, political commentator, diplomat, national security advisor, and attorney. Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (under George W. Bush, 2005-06) and former U.S. National Security Advisor to Donald Trump (April 2018 to September 2019).
     Expressed an intent to testify that he opposed what the Trump Administration was doing in regard to Ukraine from the start, and that he felt the administration was deliberately investigating a political rival. However, also missed an impeachment deposition.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/07/impeachment-house-inquiry-has-questions-john-bolton-ukraine/4176402002/
http://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/us/politics/bolton-giuliani-fiona-hill-testimony.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/07/impeachment-house-inquiry-has-questions-john-bolton-ukraine/4176402002/
http://www.foxnews.com/media/white-house-press-secretary-stephanie-grisham-john-bolton-impeachment










7. Carey, Laura



American congressional staffer (whose staffer she is, however, is not clear, and neither is Carey's relationship to Lee Zeldin). Laura Carey wrote an email to Republican New York Congresswoman Lee Zeldin about how Carey wanted to
“discuss some Ukraine-related oversight questions” with Zeldin. Zeldin spoke to Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch after that.
http://www.nationalreview.com/news/dem-staffer-exchanged-private-emails-with-yovanovitch-contradicting-her-sworn-testimony/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/marie-yovanovitch-ukraine-emails-house-democrat-staffer-delicate-issue






8. Chalupa, Alexandra


Ukrainian-American woman who worked as a contractor for the Democratic National Committee, exposed Paul Manafort's work for Ukraine, and met with officials at the Ukrainian Embassy to attempt to find ties between Trump, Manafort, and Russia.
http://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/alexandra-chalupa-the-ukrainian-american-who-exposed-manafort.html
http://thefederalist.com/2019/10/30/anti-trump-whistleblower-worked-with-dnc-operative-who-sought-dirt-on-trump-from-ukrainian-officials/
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/441892-ukrainian-embassy-confirms-dnc-contractor-solicited-trump-dirt-in-2016







9. Clinton, Hillary Rodham

Obama's Secretary of State (2009-2013), 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, and wife of former president Bill Clinton (1993-2001). Received help from Ukrainian government officials as early as 2013, and later received help from them to undermine Trump and question his fitness for office.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-and-ukraine-11569881729
http://www.usubc.org/site/USUBC-Washington-Watch/usubc-washington-watch-no-4
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/12/13/russian-uranium-one-deal-and-hillary-clinton-in-the-news-again/#10b28475526d
Additionally, associate of Frank Giustra since 2005. Giustra built and sold UrAsia energy company to Canada-based Uranium One. Uranium One then sold UrAsia to Russian energy company Rosakom. Indirect link to Ukraine because the sale of UrAsia may have been done in close talks with Hillary Clinton, and/or may have been done in order to help Russia acquire leverage over Ukraine in the energy market.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/10/ukraine-alignment-hillary-clinton-began-2013-polit/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7598493/President-Trump-asks-AG-investigate-Hillary-Clinton-links-Ukraine-Steele-dossier.html
http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/462658-lets-get-real-democrats-were-first-to-enlist-ukraine-in-us-elections






10. Clinton, William Jefferson “Bill”


Former president, husband of Hillary Clinton, and associate of Frank Giustra.








11. Davis, Richard H. “Rick”


Former campaign manager for John McCain, political consultant. Business partner of Paul Manafort while their company Davis Manafort (later Davis, Manafort, and Freedman), which was paid to consult for arguably “pro-Russian” Ukrainian political party the Party of Regions. Burisma co-founder Mykola Zlochevsky served as the Ecology and Natural Resources Minister under Viktor Yanukovych's Party of Regions government.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012403383_pf.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/06/davis-ukraine-update/48840/





12. Freedman, Matthew C.



Former partner of Paul Manafort and Rick Davis at political consulting company Davis, Manafort, and Freedman. The company consulted for arguably “pro-Russian” Ukrainian political party the Party of Regions.

http://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/20/john-bolton-former-lobbyist-national-security-council-597917













13. Gates, Richard “Rick”


Former deputy campaign chairman for Donald Trump. Claimed to have told lobbyists hired by Paul Manafort that the think tank the lobbyists were representing – the European Center for a Modern Ukraine – was a front for Ukraine's government (i.e., the Party of Regions government under Yanukovych and Zlochevsky).
http://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/22/rick-gates-manafort-ukraine-1472517
















14. Gucciardo, Charles



Trump donor and pro-Trump attorney. Made half million dollar payment to Rudy Giuliani on behalf of Giuliani associate and Ukrainian-American broker Lev Parnas.











15. Giuliani, Rudolph “Rudy”


Served as Trump's lawyer, while allegedly taking the lead in initiating Trump's efforts to push Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky into investigating Burisma and Hunter Biden in July 2019. Possibly under investigation for those activities. Reportedly consulted with Paul Manafort, while Manafort was in prison, over matters related to Ukraine. Also, Giuliani reportedly met former Ukrainian state prosecutor Viktor Shokin, and tried to get Shokin a pass to come visit the United States. Shokin opened an investigation into Burisma, but did not complete it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/11/us/politics/rudy-giuliani-investigation.html







16. Giustra, Frank


Built and sold UrAsia energy company to Canada-based Uranium One. Uranium One then sold UrAsia to Russian energy company Rosakom. Indirect link to Ukraine because the sale of UrAsia may have been done in close talks with Hillary Clinton, and/or may have been done in order to help Russia acquire leverage over Ukraine in the energy market.http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/12/13/russian-uranium-one-deal-and-hillary-clinton-in-the-news-again/#10b28475526d














17. Heinz, Christopher




Son of Teresa Heinz Kerry and stepson of former Senator and Secretary of State John Kerry. Board member of Burisma. Supposedly cut ties with Hunter Biden over a 2014 deal, concerning Burisma, which took place between Hunter Biden and Ukrainian “oligarchs”. Partner of Devon Archer (another Burisma board member, and American businessman) at Rosemont Seneca Partners.http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/john-kerrys-son-cut-business-ties-with-hunter-biden-over-ukrainian-oil-deal











18. Kent, George P.


Senior State Department expert on Ukraine under Donald Trump (specific title: Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs) since September 2018. Testified, alongside Bill Taylor, that there was clear
quid pro quo on the July 25th, 2019 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Kent also testified that the Trump Administration undermined the rule of law and deliberately pushed Kent himself out of Ukraine policy.

http://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/george-kent-transcript-released/index.html
http://www.npr.org/2019/11/07/777170751/read-testimony-of-deputy-assistant-secretary-of-state-george-kent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Kent
http://www.thedailybeast.com/george-kent-testimony-state-dept-brass-told-hannity-to-stop-smearing-marie-yovanovitch










19. Kerry, John

Obama's Secretary of State (2013-2017). Stepfather of Christopher Heinz, who served on the board of Burisma. Christopher Heinz supposedly cut ties with Hunter Biden over a 2014 deal, concerning Burisma, which took place between Hunter Biden and Ukrainian “oligarchs”.http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/john-kerrys-son-cut-business-ties-with-hunter-biden-over-ukrainian-oil-deal
http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2019/10/15/politifact-pelosi-romney-and-kerry-dont-have-sons-working-for-companies-linked-to-ukraine/












20. Kerry, Teresa Heinz


Mother of Christopher Heinz, who served on the board of Burisma. Christopher Heinz supposedly cut ties with Hunter Biden over a 2014 deal, concerning Burisma, which took place between Hunter Biden and Ukrainian “oligarchs”.http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/john-kerrys-son-cut-business-ties-with-hunter-biden-over-ukrainian-oil-deal
http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2019/10/15/politifact-pelosi-romney-and-kerry-dont-have-sons-working-for-companies-linked-to-ukraine/















21. Leiter, David J.


American Democratic political consultant, and former adviser for John Kerry. Former lobbyist for Burisma (hired on May 20th, 2014, a week after it was announced that Hunter Biden would join the board). Husband of Hillary Clinton aide Tamera Stanton Luzzatto, who emailed John Podesta about her granddaughters being in a heated pool for “entertainment”, on October 8th, 2015 (the same John Podesta whose consulting firm, the Podesta Group, did lobbying work for Paul Manafort's European Center for a Modern Ukraine, two to three years prior).http://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/46736

















22. Luzzatto, Tamera Stanton


American Democratic political adviser, and former chief aide to Hillary Clinton. Wife of Burisma lobbyist David J. Leiter. Emailed John Podesta about her granddaughters being in a heated pool for “entertainment”, on October 8th, 2015. Managed Evie's Crib blog (and may have used it to let strangers pay to see her abuse her children).http://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/46736












23. Manafort, Paul J.


American political consultant and former campaign manager for Donald Trump (June to August 2016). Associate of Rick Davis and Matthew C. Freedman at political consulting firm Manafort, Davis, and Freedman, which did consulting work for arguably “pro-Russian” political party the Party of Regions (whose president Viktor Yanukovych fled to Russia when the civil uprising occurred in Ukraine in 2014, and whose ecology minister Mykola Zlochevsky co-founded Burisma). Along with co-founder Rick Gates, Paul Manafort founded the (arguably pro- Party of Regions) think tank, the European Center for a Modern Ukraine (which gave the Podesta Group $900,000 for lobbying work in 2011-12). Manafort functioned as an agent of former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, and Ukrainian political parties Party of Regions and Opposition Bloc. Claimed to have worked to “Westernize” the Party of Regions (in exchange for $12.7 million in undisclosed payments).http://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/paul-manafort-worked-for-ukraine-not-russia/
http://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/13/manafort-podesta-emails-lobbying-823868















24. Mulvaney, John Michael "Mick"



White House Chief of Staff, and Director of the Office of Management and Budget, for the Trump Administration. Said there was no “quid pro quo” between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during their July 25th, 2019 phone call, but then reversed his position (Gordon Sondland reversed his position as well), saying "get over it".http://www.foxnews.com/media/ukraine-trump-mulvaney-sondland-stirewalt
http://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/mick-mulvaney-ukraine-confession.html












25. Nuland, Victoria C.


American diplomat. Former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, with the rank of Career Ambassador in the United States Foreign Service, at the U.S. Department of State (under the Obama Administration). Appointed by Hillary Clinton. Spoke to U.N. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, in a leaked February 2014 phone call, about how the U.S. should disregard the opinion of the European Union and decide who leads Ukraine after the 2014 civil uprising.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957











26. Nunes, Devin


American congressman and Republican from California. Former Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, and former member of Donald Trump's transition team. Rudy Giuliani's associate, Ukrainian-American Lev Parnas, claimed that former Ukrainian state prosecutor Viktor Shokin told Parnas that Shokin had met with Nunes in Vienna, Austria, in December 2018 (a claim which Nunes denies). Shokin had previously opened an investigation into Burisma, but did not complete it.









27. Obama, Barack Hussein



Former U.S. president, 2009 to 2017. Chose “White House points person on Ukraine” Joe Biden as his running mate. Chose Hillary Clinton (whose ties to Ukraine are through Tony Podesta and Uranium One) as his first Secretary of State (2009-2013). Chose as his second Secretary of State, John Kerry, whose stepson Christopher Heinz served on the board of Burisma (leaving in 2014).

Joe Biden said in February 2018 that Obama authorized Biden to take advantage of the opportunity to use legally authorized threats to withhold a billion dollars of loan guarantees from the Ukraine, unless state prosecutor Viktor Shokin (who had begun an investigation into $3 billion going into Hunter Biden's firm Burisma) could be fired.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/27/flashback_2018_joe_biden_brags_at_cfr_meeting_about_withholding_aid_to_ukraine_to_force_firing_of_prosecutor.html




28. Pelosi, Alexandra


American Democratic writer, journalist, and documentary filmmaker. Daughter of Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Paul Pelosi Sr.. Sister of Paul Pelosi, Jr.. Tie to Ukraine is through brother Paul Pelosi, Jr..







29. Pelosi, Nancy

Democratic Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. Mother of Paul Pelosi, Jr.. Tie to Ukraine is through son Paul Pelosi, Jr..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1KfU5ifhqE&feature=youtu.be
http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2019/10/15/politifact-pelosi-romney-and-kerry-dont-have-sons-working-for-companies-linked-to-ukraine/







30. Pelosi, Paul Jr.



Son of Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Paul Pelosi, Jr. has been accused by various media outlets of having ties to corruption in the Ukrainian energy market. According to public records, Paul Pelosi, Jr. visited Ukraine in 2017 as part of an American business initiative. Pelosi Jr. was a board member of Viscoil. He is also an Executive for NRG Lab and Research, which has stated interests in environmental protection. Viscoil, according to various reports, is based either in California, or Ukraine. Viscoil and NRG Lab have each been reported to possibly be based in Singapore. Either or both of the companies may have changed headquarters at some point. Paul Pelosi Jr. has denied that his business with Viscoil had anything to do with Ukraine. Pelosi's ties to Ukraine apparently stem from allegations about the hiring of a Ukrainian singer to promote the Viscoil company.
http://www.canyon-news.com/paul-pelosi-jr-alleged-ties-to-ukraine/98961
http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2019/10/15/politifact-pelosi-romney-and-kerry-dont-have-sons-working-for-companies-linked-to-ukraine/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1KfU5ifhqE&feature=youtu.be






31. Pelosi, Paul Sr.

Husband of Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Father of Paul Pelosi, Jr. and Alexandra Pelosi. Tie to Ukraine is through son Paul Pelosi, Jr..











32. Pence, Michael “Mike”

Republican Vice President of the United States (since 2017). Was reportedly present for the July 25th, 2019 phone call between Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, but it was actually one of Pence's aides, Jennifer Williams.
http://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/jennifer-williams-testimony/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-ukraine-call-transcript-read-the-document













33. Podesta, John



American Democratic political consultant. Former Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton, and former chief adviser and campaign manager for Hillary Clinton. Co-founder (with brother Tony Podesta) of the political consulting firm Podesta Group, Inc. (John Podesta has since left the company, however). Podesta Group provided $900,000 of political lobbying work for the European Center for a Modern Ukraine (which was co-founded by Paul Manafort) in 2011-12.
http://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/13/manafort-podesta-emails-lobbying-823868
http://www.businessinsider.com/tony-podesta-russian-backed-lobbying-ukraine-manafort-mueller-russia-2017-10











34. Podesta, Tony


American Democratic political consultant. Co-founder (with brother John Podesta) of the political consulting firm Podesta Group, Inc. (John Podesta has since left the company, however). Podesta Group provided $900,000 of political lobbying work for the European Center for a Modern Ukraine (which was co-founded by Paul Manafort) in 2011-12.
http://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/13/manafort-podesta-emails-lobbying-823868
http://www.businessinsider.com/tony-podesta-russian-backed-lobbying-ukraine-manafort-mueller-russia-2017-10










35. Pyatt, Geoffrey



Former United Nations Ambassador to Ukraine (appointed by Barack Obama). Spoke to Former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, in a leaked February 2014 phone call, about how the U.S. should disregard the opinion of the European Union and decide who leads Ukraine after the 2014 civil uprising.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957













36. Romney, Willard Mitt

Republican U.S. Senator from Utah, and 2012 Republican presidential nominee. Hired former C.I.A. officer Cofer Black (who joined Burisma in 2017) as his campaign manager. One of Romney's sons has been accused of being on the board of a Ukrainian energy company (although which one of his five sons is not clear; perhaps Tagg because he is the only Romney son with political work in his resume and he served as a surrogate for his father during his presidential campaign).
http://www.npr.org/2019/10/04/766579412/what-to-know-about-the-ukrainian-company-at-the-heart-of-trumps-biden-allegation
http://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sons-top-democrats-ukraine-clinton/












37. Romney, Tagg

American businessman. One of Romney's sons has been accused of being on the board of a Ukrainian energy company (although which one of his five sons is not clear; perhaps Tagg because he is the only Romney son with political work in his resume and he served as a surrogate for his father during his presidential campaign).
http://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sons-top-democrats-ukraine-clinton/











38. Schiff, Adam

     Democratic U.S. Representative from California (since 2013), and one of the lead investigators in the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, as part of his position as chair of the House Intelligence Committee. That inquiry has featured investigation into Trump's dealings with Ukraine as well as Russia.
     Schiff has been accused of associating with alleged “Ukrainian arms dealer” Igor Pasternak. Pasternak is, in fact, Kazahstan-born, and an American citizen; he is an entrepreneur and an engineer. His company, U.S.-based Worldwide Aeros Corp, manufactures airships. Pasternak has been mistakenly labeled as a “Ukrainian arms dealer”, but “Kazakh-American arms dealer” would perhaps be appropriate. Also, Pasternak's company has (according to Snopes.com) “provided military hardware to Ukrainian military troops who were fighting Russian forces in Donbas”. Additionally, Adam Schiff 
has associated with Pasternak; Pasternak hosted a fundraiser for Schiff in 2013.


http://ktla.com/2019/10/18/l-a-area-rep-adam-schiff-draws-ire-of-gop-as-he-oversees-probe-into-trump-ukraine-relations/

http://www.snopes.com/fact-check/adam-schiff-ukrainian/









39. Sondland, Gordon D.


Ambassador to the European Union under Donald Trump. Said there was “quid pro quo” between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during their July 25
th, 2019 phone call, but then reversed his position (Mick Mulvaney did the same thing). The New York Times reported that Sondland said that he told Ukrainian officials that Ukraine probably wouldn't receive American military aid unless it “publicly committed to the investigations President Trump wanted”.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gordon-sondland-testimony-confirms-quid-pro-quo-trump-ukraine-2019-11
http://www.cnn.com/2019/11/05/politics/gordon-sondland-kurt-volker-transcripts-impeachment-inquiry/index.html
http://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/05/sondland-reverses-himself-on-ukraine-quid-pro-quo-000318
http://www.npr.org/2019/10/17/770405439/gordon-sondland-the-ambassador-whose-texts-put-him-at-the-center-of-ukraine-scan
http://www.npr.org/2019/10/17/770752655/trump-gave-giuliani-the-ukraine-portfolio-and-boxed-out-diplomats-sondland-says
http://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/16/us/politics/gordon-sondland-impeachment.html
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/11/gordon-sondland-fingers-rudy-giuliani-as-trumps-ukraine-shakedown-man/









40. Taylor, William Brockenbrough "Bill" Jr.



     American diplomat, former soldier, and State Department enjoy under Donald Trump. Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine (2006-2009, appointed by George W. Bush).

     Testified that there was clear quid pro quo during the July 25th, 2019 phone call between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky. Testified alongside diplomat George Kent. Taylor testified that it would have been crazy to make continued aid to Ukraine contingent upon investigation of Hunter Biden and Burisma.

http://time.com/5720446/william-taylor-ukraine-quid-pro-quo-transcript/
http://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/us/politics/william-taylor-ukraine-impeachment-testimony.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-11-07/why-william-taylor-will-be-impeachment-s-first-public-witness
http://www.vox.com/2019/11/6/20952155/william-bill-taylor-transcript-testimony-impeachment-house
http://www.c-span.org/video/?466134-1/impeachment-hearing-william-taylor-george-kent




















41. Trump, Donald J.


Businessman, and Republican President of the United States since 2017. Made a phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which Trump allegedly threatened to withhold congressionally authorized military aid in exchange for Zelensky getting Ukrainian top prosecutor Viktor Shokin to cease his investigations into Burisma (and potentially into Hunter Biden).
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-ukraine-call-transcript-read-the-document
Additionally, Trump hired Paul Manafort as his campaign manager 13 years after Manafort's corruption in Ukraine began.
http://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/paul-manafort-worked-for-ukraine-not-russia/
http://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/13/manafort-podesta-emails-lobbying-823868




















42. Vindman, Alexander



     Ukrainian-American immigrant, lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, and Iraq War veteran. Director for European Affairs and “top Ukraine expert” for the U.S. National Security Council under Trump. Listened to Trump's July 25th, 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Testified that Trump had undermined national security by asking Zelensky to investigate the Bidens.

     Vindman has been accused of being a “Never Trumper” and a spy, and there have also been conflicting and confusing reports about whether he has been fired or will be fired. To date (as of November 14th, 2019), it appears that he has not yet been fired from the National Security Council. He may be "rotated back to his own department", according to National Security Advisor Robert C. o'Brien.

http://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/alexander-vindman-national-security-council-work/index.html

http://www.snopes.com/fact-check/alexander-vindman-llod/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-alexander-vindman-testimony-ukraine-call-conspiracy-a9192131.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/30/who-alexander-vindman-president-donald-trumps-top-ukraine-expert/4095387002/

http://www.snopes.com/fact-check/vindman-fired-nsc/













43. Volker, Kurt



     American diplomat, former U.S. Ambassador to N.A.T.O. (for the last six months of the George W. Bush Administration and the first four months of the Barack Obama Administration). Also, former executive director of the McCain Institute for International Leadership.
     Volker texted what has been described as a “script” to a Ukrainian official, which the Trump Administration allegedly wanted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to use to announce investigation into the Bidens' business affairs in Ukraine (ostensibly in exchange for U.S. military aid in the form of a billion dollars in loan guarantees).



http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/11/gordon-sondland-fingers-rudy-giuliani-as-trumps-ukraine-shakedown-man/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/schiff-pressed-volker-to-say-ukraine-felt-pressure-from-trump














44. Waters, Maxine
     American congresswoman, Democrat from California. One source reported that Adam Schiff, the Pelosi family, and Maxine Waters all have investments in Ukraine; however, the accusation in regard to Waters has not been substantiated, nor has it been well-publicized.













45. Weber, Vin


Received money from Mercury Public Affairs (Company A in Robert Mueller's indictment). Mercury Public Affairs was paid by Paul Manafort's European Center for a Modern Ukraine to provide lobbying work.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/justice-department-ends-investigation-tony-podesta-vin-weber-without-charges-n1058306

















46. Williams, Jennifer



     American political aide for Vice President Mike Pence. Was present for the July 25
th, 2019 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (although various media outlets reported instead that the vice president himself was present during that call; he was not). Williams said that the call was diplomatic, not political, and “normal”.
     Former Ambassador to Ukraine (Trump ordered Yovanovitch removed from her post in May 2019). Axios reported that Yovanovitch was warned to “watch her back”, by Ukrainian officials, about how Giuliani wanted to replace her (supposedly because they felt that Yovanovitch was hindering investigations into Biden and his son). Yovanovitch was called to testify as part of the impeachment inquiry into Trump's possibly illegal withholding of aid from Ukraine. Reportedly used her personal email to communicate with congressional staffer Laura Carey.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/george-kent-testimony-state-dept-brass-told-hannity-to-stop-smearing-marie-yovanovitch
http://www.nationalreview.com/news/dem-staffer-exchanged-private-emails-with-yovanovitch-contradicting-her-sworn-testimony/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/marie-yovanovitch-ukraine-emails-house-democrat-staffer-delicate-issue













48. Zeldin, Lee


   Republican U.S. Representative from New York. Received an email from congressional staffer Laura Carey regarding how Carey was hoping to chat with Zeldin to “discuss some Ukraine-related oversight questions”. Carey spoke to Yovanovitch after that.


http://www.nationalreview.com/news/dem-staffer-exchanged-private-emails-with-yovanovitch-contradicting-her-sworn-testimony/











Originally Published on October 12th, 2019

Edited and Expanded on October 13th, 22nd, 25th, and 30th,
and November 7th, 8th, 14th, and 26th, 2019

Who Took Third Place in Each State?: Which Non-Major-Party Presidential Candidates Did Best in Which States in 2024?

     The map below depicts which presidential candidates came in third place in the 2024 U.S. presidential election.      By showing the thi...