Mark Carney, CBDCs and the United States Dollar - Dealing with Donald Trump

For some reason or another, Canadians believe that Mark Carney is best suited to negotiate trade issues with Donald Trump.  This is likely due to the non-stop coverage that Canada's left-biased media has deluged Canadians with since Carney entered the race for replacement Liberal leader/Prime Minister in December 2024.  If we look back at comments that Carney made at a speech in 2019 which get no coverage on Canada's mainstream media, it would appear that Carney might well have an uphill battle with President Trump.

On August 23, 2019, Mark Carney in his role as Governor of the Bank of England gave this speech to the Jackson Hole Symposium, an annual gathering of central bankers, finance ministers and other economic experts from around the world:

In this rather mind numbingly boring and very technical speech, he delves into the international monetary and financial system (IMFS), focusing on how the current system challenges monetary policy.  He notes that the world economy is being reordered (thanks to the growing impact of the BRICS nations on the global economy) with the U.S. dollar remaining as important as it was when other currencies were pegged to the U.S. dollar which was pegged to the price of gold ($35 per ounce) at the Bretton Woods meeting in 1944.  This was the case until 1971 when President Richard Nixon announced his New Economic Policy, suspending the conversion of the U.S. dollar into gold.

Carney states that there is a growing "destabilizing asymmetry" at the heart of the IMFS and, with the U.S. dollar's continuing importance to the economy, it is having a significant spillover into trade performance and financial conditions of emerging economies.  This makes it difficult for central bankers to provide the stimulus necessary to achieve their objectives and, as a result, there is a growing risk of a global economic slowdown. To summarize his comments, the near-zero interest rate policies adopted by the central bankers of the United States and other advanced economies made it nearly impossible for them to lower rates further. 

 Here is a quote:

"Today, the combination of heightened economic policy uncertainty, outright protectionism and concerns that further, negative shocks could not be adequately offset because of limited policy space is exacerbating the disinflationary bias in the global economy.

What then must be done? In the short term, central bankers must play the cards they have been dealt as best they can."

He then states that central bankers need to "change the (reserve currency) game" in the new multipolar  international monetary and financial system and that (with my bolds):

"When change comes, it shouldn’t be to swap one currency hegemon for another. Any unipolar system is unsuited to a multi-polar world. We would do well to think through every opportunity, including those presented by new technologies, to create a more balanced and effective system."

Note the use of the words "new technologies".  We will see what those are later in this posting.

Now, let's see what he has to say about the U.S. dollar (again with my bolds):

"The dollar represents the currency of choice for at least half of international trade invoices, around five times greater than the US’s share in world goods imports, and three times its share in world exports.  The resulting stickiness of import prices in dollar terms means exchange rate pass-through for changes in the dollar is high regardless of the country of export and import, while pass-through of non-dominant currencies is negligible. As a result, import prices do not adjust efficiently to reflect changes in relative demand between trading partners, in part because expenditure switching effects are curtailed, and global trade volumes are heavily influenced by the strength of the US dollar....

Huge network effects mean the dollar has remained dominant in the IMFS despite the transformation of the global economy. At the time of the Latin American debt crisis, EMEs made up a little more than one third of global GDP. Since the last Fed tightening cycle, their share of global activity had risen from around 45% to 60%. By 2030, it is projected to rise to around three quarters.

As well as being the dominant currency for the invoicing and settling of international trade, the US dollar is the currency of choice for securities issuance and holdings, and reserves of the official sector. Two-thirds of both global securities issuance and official foreign-exchange reserves are denominated in dollars. The same proportion of EME foreign currency external debt is denominated in dollars and the dollar serves as the monetary anchor in countries accounting for two thirds of global GDP.

Basically, Carney blames the U.S. dollar for the woes in the global economy.    You'll note that he stated that in "changing the game" when it comes to new reserve currencies to replace the U.S. dollar, new technologies must be considered.  What are these new technologies?  Here you go:

"The Bank of England and other regulators have been clear that unlike in social media (and its attempts to create new payment systems like Facebook and Libra/Diem), for which standards and regulations are only now being developed after the technologies have been adopted by billions of users, the terms of engagement for any new systemic private payments system must be in force well in advance of any launch.

As a consequence, it is an open question whether such a new Synthetic Hegemonic Currency (SHC) would be best provided by the public sector, perhaps through a network of central bank digital currencies.

Even if the initial variants of the idea prove wanting, the concept is intriguing. It is worth considering how an SHC in the IMFS could support better global outcomes, given the scale of the challenges of the current IMFS and the risks in transition to a new hegemonic reserve currency like the Renminbi.

An SHC could dampen the domineering influence of the US dollar on global trade."

He also notes that the most likely candidate for a replacement reserve currency is China's Renminbi but that it still has a way to go before it becomes truly a global reserve currency.  This is very noteworthy given that the Trump Administration appears to be viewing China as their "foe of choice".

So, given that Mark Carney believes that the issuance of central bank digital currencies (aka a Synthetic Hegemonic Currency) are necessary to reduce the global reliance on the U.S. dollar as the "hegemonic reserve currency" and that China's Renminbi is the heir apparent in a multi-reserve currency world, I wonder how Donald Trump will view a Prime Minister Carney, particularly given that one of his Executive Orders banned the development and use of a central bank digital currency in the United States and that his core belief is to make America the great sole superpower that it was prior to the rapidly developing multipolar reality of today.

The Media's Irony Impairment and the Trump Assassination Attempt

The left-leaning media in the Western world has long used Hitler as the model for a fascist dictator, however, in recent years we've seen Donald Trump repeatedly compared to Adolf Hitler as a means to drive voters away from Trump's agenda.  In this posting, we'll look at one example and how the owner of the media company that published the opinion piece is obviously irony impaired.

  

On December 20, 2023, this missive appeared in the Washington Post:

 

The author of the opinion piece is Mike Godwin, an American attorney and author and formulator of Godwin's law aka Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies which is expressed as follows:

 

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1." (i.e. a 100 percent certainty)."

  

Godwin's law implies that the level of discourse regarding a subject has devolved to the degree that further discussion is absolutely pointless with the person who mentions Hitler being the loser in any argument.

  

Despite his creation of Godwin's law, he makes the following remarks in his Washington Post opinion piece:

 

"But when people draw parallels between Donald Trump’s 2024 candidacy and Hitler’s progression from fringe figure to Great Dictator, we aren’t joking. Those of us who hope to preserve our democratic institutions need to underscore the resemblance before we enter the twilight of American democracy.

 

And that’s why Godwin’s Law isn’t violated — or confirmed — by the Biden reelection campaign’s criticism of Trump’s increasingly unsubtle messaging. We had the luxury of deriving humor from Hitler and Nazi comparisons when doing so was almost always hyperbole. It’s not a luxury we can afford anymore."

 

He also notes that not only is Trump's authoritarian bent an issue, so is his use of certain dog-whistle words like "vermin" which Trump has used to describe those who oppose him and that the current influx of undocumented immigrants which he claims are "poisoning the blood of our country" which Godwin claims parallels Hitler's rhetoric about the "untermenschen" which included Jews, gays and gypsies not to mention the Slavic people as a whole.

 

His opinion piece closes with this:

 

"Will Trump succeed in being crowned “dictator for a day”? I hope not. But I choose to take Trump’s increasingly heedless transgressiveness — and, yes, I really do think he knows what he’s doing — as a positive development in one sense: More and more of us can see in his cynical rhetoric precisely the kind of dictator he aims to be."

 

So basically, Mike Godwin has fallen into a trap of his own making, hoisting himself on his own petard.

 

Now, you may say that the Washington Post merely published Mr. Godwin's opinion piece in the interest of maintaining political balance and that the intent was not that the piece was to be a dog whistle for the left/Democrats.  I would suggest that you may want to rethink that idea this quote from this Washington Post article in 2013 which was published when Jeff Bezos took over the WaPo:

 

 

Given his leaning to the left of the political spectrum, I would propose that it is highly unlikely that the Washington Post would have published Mr. Godwin's opinion piece comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler if it did not pass Jeff Bezos' approval.

  

Now, let's close with this tweet that Jeff Bezos posted about "Hitler" after there was an attempt on Donald Trump's life on July 13, 2024:

 

So, apparently it's okay for the rulers to be thankful that "Hitler" is safe after his brush with death.

The irony impairment evident among some of the ruling class is, to put it mildly, stunning.  Apparently, running "assassination porn" against Donald Trump is okay until someone swallows the KoolAid and decides to take matters into their own hands, perhaps staining the political left and its pathological hatred of the "far right".

Speaking the Truth at Davos 2024 - The Problem with the Global Elites

While your local globalist media organization will only barely mention the 2024 edition of the World Economic Forum's meeting in Davos, Switzerland, there is one speaker that received minimal coverage because he spoke the truth that the ruling class needed to hear.

  

At a panel entitled "What to Expect from a Possible Republican Administration", the president of the right-leaning Heritage Foundation, Dr. Kevin Roberts, made the following comments when asked by the British moderator of the panel, Sir Robin Niblett (7 minute 50 second mark):

 

Robin Niblett: "Using our assumptions as they are, even a Trump Administration may have won the popular vote, I'll say, it is likely that whoever wins, people are going to be contesting therefore that 60 vote margin becomes quite important....On the domestic side...what kinds of people, and if you've got some names, put them out there, do you think might be the kinds of people the Trump Administration....will pull in on the big domestic agenda elements....?"

 

Dr. Roberts: The kind of person, and I'll be candid here because I think that I've been invited here to be candid the kind of person who will come into the next conservative administration is going to be governed by one principle and that is destroying the grasp that political elites and unelected technocrats have over the average person.  And, if I may, I will be candid and say the agenda that every single member of the administration needs to have is to compile a list of everything that's ever been proposed at the World Economic Forum and object to all of them wholesale.  Anyone not prepared to do that, take away the power from the unelected bureaucrats and give it back to the American people is unprepared to be part of the next conservative administration."

 

When the moderator made the following comment (20 minutes 45 second mark):

 

Robin Niblett: "....you said yourself, a minute ago, anyone who is not with the program is not going to be in an administration.  One thing, that Davos, you might say and the people may stand up for is liberal democracy so if the idea of that's going to be swept under the table is part of the idea hopefully that's not what he (Trump) means."

 

Dr. Roberts: "It's laughable that you or anyone would describe Davos as protecting liberal democracy.  It's equally laughable to use the word ‘dictatorship’ at Davos and aim that at President Trump. In fact, I think that's absurd.

 

President Trump, if he's the next president, for that matter, the next conservative president is going to take on the power of the elites which I mentioned earlier.

 

But the thing that I want to drive home here, The very reason I’m here at Davos, is to explain to many people in this room and who are watching, with all due respect – nothing personal – that you are part of the problem.

 

Political elites tell the average people on three or four or five issues that the reality is ‘x,’ when in fact, reality is ‘y,’.  Take immigration.  Elites tell us that open borders are, and even illegal immigration, are okay.....Elites also tell us that public safety isn't a problem in big American cities....Thirdly, I guess the favourite at the World Economic Forum, is climate change.  Elites tell us that we have this existential crisis with so-called climate change so much so that climate alarmism is probably the greatest cause for mental health crisis in the world.  The solutions, the average person know, based on climate change, are far worse and more harmful and cost more human lives, especially in Europe during the time that you need heating than do the problem and the problems themselves."

 

Roberts goes on to note that Trump, if elected president, will have the will of the people backing him.

 

If you wish to hear the entire panel discussion, please click here.

 

The global elite are once again shaking in their collective boots over the spectre of a second Trump Administration.  While Donald Trump is not viewed positively by many world leaders, we cannot deny that his priority is the United States, unlike leaders like Canada's Justin Trudeau who are puppets of the World Economic Forum and its ruling class members.  It will be interesting to see what lengths the rulers are willing to go to to prevent a Trump reelection in 2024.

Donald Trump, Twitter and the American Technocracy

This has just happened:

 

...and, according to Twitter's Blog, this is why:

 

All of that, despite some rather odd events on Capitol Hill including this where Capitol Hill police seem to be opening barricades for demonstrators:

 

The American technotyrants are alive and well and living in their own little enclaves from which they hope to shut down any discussions that do not subscribe to their limited, self-serving narrative.  Who is to say when or for what reason they will shut any of us down because our opinions are not theirs?

Censorship is alive and well and living in our post-truth technocracy.

 

As an aside, if you want to send a message to the social media companies that have been heavily censoring their products over the past year, in particular, stop clicking on the advertisements that they present you with.  That is the source of nearly all of their ungodly profits.

What Happens if Donald Trump Wins?

While insiders in Washington, particularly of the Donkey brand, love to brandish the tired old mantra of Russian interference in America's political theatre, a document from the Transition Integrity Project or TIP shows who is really showing potential for interfering in America's growingly fractured and fractious political landscape.

The Transition Integrity Project is a group that you have not likely heard anything about.  TIP is made up of a group of Democratic Party insiders and former Obama and Clinton era officials as well as a selection of disgruntled neoconservative Republicans.  TIP was created in late 2019 by Rosa Brooks and Nils Gilman.  Rosa Brooks was an advisor to the Hillary Clinton State Department and was previously the general counsel to the President of the Open Society Institute, part of George Soros' Open Societies Foundations as shown here:

The current director of TIP is Zoe Hudson, former serving as senior policy analysis at the Open Society Foundation where she also played the role of liaison between the U.S. federal government and the foundation as shown here:

While we only know the identities of a few members of TIP, many members remain anonymous other than David Frum, William Kristol, Donna Brazile, John Podesta and Chuck Hagel.

Members of TIP met in June 2020 to conduct a series of four "war games" which simulated the eleven week period between the November 3, 2020 Election Day and the January 20, 2021 Inauguration Day under various scenarios. 

Here is the lead page of the "Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election and Transition" document: 

 

In the four exercises, participants noted the following as an overriding concern and reasoning for the necessity of holding such a simulation:

"We assess with a high degree of likelihood that November’s elections will be marked by a chaotic legal and political landscape. We also assess that the President Trump is likely to contest the result by both legal and extra-legal means, in an attempt to hold onto power. Recent events, including the President’s own unwillingness to commit to abiding by the results of the election, the Attorney General’s embrace of the President’s groundless electoral fraud claims, and the unprecedented deployment of federal agents to put down leftwing protests, underscore the extreme lengths to which President Trump may be willing to go in order to stay in office."

TIP felt it necessary to examine the following unknowns:

 

1.) How far might candidates go in contesting negative electoral outcomes or disrupting the normal transition process?

 

2.) How well would American institutions hold up if one or both candidates refused to play by the rules.

Each exercise involved seven teams consisting of 2 to 3 people as follows:

 

1.) Trump campaign team

2.) Biden campaign team

3.) Republican elected officials

4.) Democratic elected officials

5.) Career military and civilian federal government employees as well as political appointees

6.) Media - right wing, left wing and mainstream

7.) Public - consisted of polling experts

 

Here are the four game scenarios:

In case you are interested in more details, here is a detailed outline of each of the four game scenarios:

 

Here are the top-line findings of the exercises:

 

1.) Campaign decisions about whether to contest the election are likely to be political calcula- tions, rather than calculations based on legal rules alone.

 

2.) A close and contested election may be resolved through the exercise of power, not through the courts.

 

3.) As an incumbent unbounded by norms, President Trump has a huge advantage.

 

4.) A show of numbers in the streets- and actions in the streets- may be decisive factors in de-

 termining what the public perceives as a just and legitimate outcome.

 

5.) Trump is likely to prioritize his personal interests in the transition period.

 

Let's focus on point five.  Here are some quotes from TIP's report about how Donald Trump will handle a contested electoral result:

 

1.) Take the money and run. Participants in the scenario exercises universally believed that self- preservation for President Trump and his family will be Trump’s first and possibly only priority if he is forced to concede electoral defeat. Before he leaves office he might maximize the flow of federal money into Trump businesses (moves played: direct COVID-19 relief package for Trump hotels; relocate to Mar-a-Lago for the final months of his presidency); negotiate business deals with foreign countries; and purge documents that might incriminate foreign governments and business partners (for example, documents related to Jamal Khashoggi’s murder). President Trump could also launch his next business venture from the White House (speculations include “MAGA TV,” possibly headed by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner

 

2.) Pardon everyone. In almost every TIP scenario, Team Trump executed or prepared for the par-dons of relatives, campaign associates, and himself. Players took different approaches in each of the scenarios; in one scenario Trump resigned on January 19, 2021, trusting that Pence would sign the pardons. In another scenario, Trump executed his own pardon. In the debrief, participants noted that the pardons could be challenged only after he leaves office and someone files charges. Even with an expansive understanding of pardon powers, Trump can’t absolve himself of state crimes…He will certainly try to establish the narrative in advance that any efforts to hold him or his allies accountable for wrong-doing and illegality is politically motivated revenge.

 

3.)  Wag the Dog/spark a foreign adventure. There was quite a bit of speculation that Trump might himself initiate a foreign crisis shortly after the election or during the transition, perhaps to change the media narrative around a contested election, attempt to rally nationalist feelings to himself, or placate foreign leaders to whom he may feel beholden, such as Vladimir Putin. Some participants noted that in the event of political chaos in the United States, certain US adversaries might be emboldened to act opportunistically, especially if electoral contestation was generating uncertainty about who precisely was acting as Commander in Chief. From a national security perspective, participants expressed concern about US vulnerability during a contested election.

 

4.) Destroy evidence. In an effort to preserve the President’s legacy and thwart future criminal investigations, Team Trump ordered numerous documents destroyed in several of the exercises. Team Trump also classified many more documents as top secret and expanded the use of non-disclosure agreements.

 

5.) Disrupt the transition process. In several of the TIP exercises, Team Trump refused to provide clearances or briefings for proposed members of the incoming Biden administration, offering only what is already in the public domain. Team Trump attempted to discredit the transition team (“We’re cooperating, but not with Democrat Antifa agents”). In a debrief, one participant ex- pressed concern that Attorney General Barr could launch a bogus investigation into “terrorist ties” of the Biden transition team in order to justify surveillance, and/or facilitate a false flag operation before the election or when the election is still being contested. 

Now, in closing, let's look at TIP's recommendations:

1.) Plan for a contested election. If there is a crisis, events will unfold quickly, and sleep-deprived leaders will be asked to make consequential decisions quickly. Thinking through options now will help to ensure better decisions. Approach this as a political battle, not just a legal battle. In the event of electoral contestation, sustained political mobilization will likely be crucial for ensuring transition integrity. Dedicated staff and resources need to be in place at least through the end of January.

 

2.) Focus on readiness in the states, providing political support for a complete and accurate count. Governors, Secretaries of State, Attorneys General and Legislatures can communicate and rein- force laws and norms and be ready to confront irregularities. Election officials will need political and public support to see the process through to completion.

 

3.) Address the two biggest threats head on: lies about “voter fraud” and escalating violence. Voting fraud is virtually non-existent, but Trump lies about it to create a narrative designed to politically mobilize his base and to create the basis for contesting the results should he lose. The potential for violent conflict is high, particularly since Trump encourages his supporters to take up arms.

 

4.) Anticipate a rocky administrative transition. Transition teams will likely need to do two things simultaneously: defend against Trump’s reckless actions on his way out of office; and find creative solutions to ensure landing teams are able to access the information and resources they need to begin to prepare for governing.

 

What I find particularly interesting about this document is that even if Donald Trump clearly wins the election, this group of Obama-administration linked individuals is willing to take extreme measures to ensure a Biden win as quoted here:

 

"The Biden Campaign encouraged Western states, particularly California but also Oregon and Washington, and collectively known as “Cascadia,” to secede from the Union unless Congres- sional Republicans agreed to a set of structural reforms to fix our democratic system to ensure majority rule. With advice from President Obama, the Biden Campaign submitted a proposal to 1) Give statehood to Washington, DC and Puerto Rico; 2) Divide California into five states to more accurately represent its population in the Senate; 3) Require Supreme Court justices to retire at 70; and 4) Eliminate the Electoral College, to ensure that the candidate who wins to the popular vote becomes President....

 

One of the most consequential moves was that Team Biden on January 6 provoked a breakdown in the joint session of Congress by getting the House of Representatives to agree to award the presidency to Biden (based on the alternative pro-Biden submissions sent by pro-Biden governors)."

 

And here we all thought that Russia was the "bogeyman in the closet" when it came to interfering in the will of American voters.  What should be of concern to all American voters is the presence of more than one of George Soros insiders among the leaders of the rather ironically named Transition Integrity Project, particularly given Soros close links to Hillary Clinton as shown here (thanks to WikiLeaks):

A Divided America - The Intersection of Religion and Politics

While I have posted on this subject in other postings, I have only recently become aware of another analysis by a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization that looks at American society at the intersection of research, culture and public policy. In its 2019 American Values Survey, the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) provides us with an interesting snapshot into how religion impacts political persuasion and how it impacts Americans' concerns about the direction that the United States is heading.  Here are some highlights from the report.

Let's start by looking at the critical issues and how Republicans and Democrats rate the importance of each issue:

1.) Health Care - 48 percent Republicans 77 percent Democrats

2.) Climate Change - 17 percent Republicans 72 percent Democrats

3.) Foreign Interference in Elections - 26 percent Republicans 72 percent Democrats

4.) Terrorism - 63 percent Republicans 50 percent Democrats

5.) Immigration - 60 percent Republicans 49 percent Democrats

6.) Crime - 50 percent Republicans 46 percent Democrats

As time has passed, the importance of issues to Americans has changed.  Since 2016, the percentage of Americans that believe that terrorism is of concern has fallen from 70 percent to 54 percent, concerns over jobs and unemployment has fallen from 61 percent to 45 percent, concerns about crime has fallen from 54 percent to 45 percent and concerns about the federal deficit has fallen from 49 percent to 40 percent even though the federal deficit has done this:

Over the three year period from 2016, certain issues have become more important to Americans.  Americans' concern for presidential electoral fairness has grown from 41 percent to 48 percent, concerns over immigration have grown from 44 percent to 49 percent and concerns over climate change have grown from 34 percent to 49 percent, a rather significant increase.

Now, let's look at how religious affiliation impacts the top three issues for each group:

It is interesting to note that health care one of the top three issues of concern for Americans of all religious affiliations whereas the fairness of presidential elections is a top three issue of concern only for black Protestants, non-Christians and Americans with no religious affiliation.  Climate change is another key issue that is of concern only for Hispanic Catholics, non-Christians and Americans with no religious affiliation.

Here is a graphic showing Donald Trump's jobs approval and strength of support by party affiliation and religious affiliation:

As you can see, religious affiliation  has a strong impact on support for Donald Trump.  Trump is supported by 82 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning independent white evangelical Protestants who prefer him to be the Republican Party's nominee.  Trump is also supported as nominee by 75 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning white mainline Protestants and 73 percent of white Catholics.  By way of comparison, 60 percent of Catholic Republicans and Republican-leaning independents and 65 percent of religiously unaffiliated voters support Trump's candidacy.  When it comes to Donald Trump's behaviour, 52 percent of white evangelical Protestants wish Trump's speech and behaviour were like previous presidents compared to 68 percent of other Christians, 70 percent of Catholics, 72 percent of white mainline Protestants, 74 percent of Hispanic Protestants, 81 percent of black Protestants, 69 percent of non-Christian religious Americans and 85 percent of religiously unaffiliated Americans.

Donald Trump's personal conduct has also had a varying impact on his support levels by both party and religious affiliation as shown here:

Only 36 percent of white evangelical Protestants state that Trump's behaviour makes it less likely that they will support him, the lowest level of all religious groups in the United States.  Trump's behaviour gets the poorest reviews by both unaffiliated Americans and black Protestants with 76 percent and 80 percent respectively stating that his behaviour has made it less likely that they will support him.

American society is becoming increasingly polarized.  This survey by the Public Religion Research Institute shows us that religion plays a very significant role in the societal divisions that have become apparent in the United States since November 2016.

The Legal Connection Between Washington and Kiev

With the Trump impeachment procedures ongoing and the connection to his conversation about the Biden family with Ukraine President Zelenskyy, there has been very little coverage of an important aspect of the relationship between Washington and Kiev.  While none of us can speak to the actual intent of Donald Trump's remarks be it for personal gain or for other reasons, there is background information that may help illuminate the context of the discussion between the two world leaders.

In case you haven't read the pertinent section of the transcript of the conversation, here it is:

"President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly.. That I can assure you.

President Trump: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all, I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough.

President Trump: Well, she's going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets. It's a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, their incredible people." (my bolds)

Now, let's look back in time to 1998.  On July 22, 1998, a treaty was signed between Ukraine and Washington.  The Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters was signed in Kiev on the aforementioned date.  Here is an excerpt from the The original letter of submittal from the Department of State to the President's office dated October 19, 1999 which states the following:

"I have the honor to submit to you the Treaty between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex (``the Treaty''), signed at Kiev on July 22, 1998. I recommend that the Treaty be transmitted to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification.

 Also enclosed, for the information of the Senate, is an exchange of notes under which the Treaty is being provisionally applied to the extent possible under our respective domestic laws, in order to provide a basis for immediate mutual assistance in criminal matters. Provisional application would cease upon entry into force of the Treaty.

The Treaty covers mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. In recent years, similar bilateral treaties have entered into force with a number of other countries. The Treaty with Ukraine contains all essential provisions sought by the United States. It will enhance our ability to investigate and prosecute a range of offenses. The Treaty is designed to be self-executing and will not require new legislation." (my bold)

The Treaty was then transmitted by the President of the United States (Bill Clinton) to the Senate on November 10, 1999 (Treaty Document 106-16 -106th Congress - First Session) as shown on this letter of transmittal from Bill Clinton's office:

Note this key excerpt from the letter of transmittal:

"Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving documents; locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to restraint, confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state."

The Treaty was reported favourable by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on September 27, 2000, consented to ratification by the Senate on October 18, 2000 and ratified by the President of the United States on January 5, 2001.  The Treaty was entered into force on February 27, 2001.  Here are the title page of the Treaty and the signature page:

Here are the first two pages of the Treaty which outline the scope of assistance that is to be offered by both nations as well as the limitations on assistance:

If you wish to read the Treaty in its entirety, please click here.

With this background and while I don't want to appear to be pro- or anti-Trump, it is very, very clear that the current POTUS was within the law under the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between the United States and Ukraine when it comes to asking Ukraine to investigate a potential criminal matter.