Did a top Democrat firm cover up paid work for Biden Ukrainian scandal firm Burisma?
Senators, Congressmen Demand Investigation Into Claims Of Illegal Fetal Tissue Research at University of Pittsburgh
DonnyFerguson.com
Wednesday, May 25, 2022
In this issue:
>>> Did a top Democrat firm cover up paid work for Biden Ukrainian scandal firm Burisma?
>>> SICKENING: Biden Celebrates Rising Gas Prices
>>> Senators, Congressmen Demand Investigation Into Claims Of Illegal Fetal Tissue Research at University of Pittsburgh
>>> Judge Dismisses Bogus Defamation Lawsuit Against Government Critic
>>> Lawsuit filed to defend Americans’ privacy rights against invasive Census surveys and huge fines
>>> DID A TOP DEMOCRAT FIRM COVER UP PAID WORK FOR BIDEN UKRAINIAN SCANDAL FIRM BURISMA?
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland questioning whether Blue Star Strategies, a Democrat lobbying firm, filed incomplete and misleading information with the Department of Justice (DOJ).
On May 12, 2022, Blue Star Strategies’ top executives, Karen Tramontano and Sally Painter filed, under penalty of perjury, Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) forms with DOJ regarding the work they did on behalf of their foreign client, Burisma Holdings (Burisma) and the company’s corrupt Russia-aligned owner, Mykola Zlochevsky.
Based on the senators’ previous work examining the extent to which Blue Star Strategies met with Obama administration officials on behalf of Burisma and Mr. Zlochevsky, it appears that Blue Star Strategies’ FARA form lacked complete and accurate information. For example, on its FARA form Blue Star Strategies disclosed that it only had two meetings with Obama administration officials and that its work with respect to Mr. Zlochevsky and Burisma “began and ended in 2016.”
The senators wrote that based on this filing “it appears the date of the meeting with Mr. Hochstein is inconsistent with our investigative records. Further, Blue Star Strategies’ FARA filing states that its activity with respect to Mr. Zlochevsky and Burisma ‘began and ended in 2016’; however, our records indicate that the activity began in 2015 and extended several years after 2016. Accordingly, it appears that Blue Star Strategies failed to disclose several other meetings it arranged with U.S. government officials on behalf of Burisma and Mr. Zlochevsky in its FARA filing.”
In fact, the senators noted that “Blue Star Strategies failed to disclose on the FARA form at least nine other meetings it had with U.S. government officials—including two meetings with sitting U.S. ambassadors to Ukraine—regarding Burisma and Mr. Zlochevsky.”
Sens. Johnson and Grassley’s staff’s August 2020 transcribed interviews of Ms. Tramontano and Ms. Painter can be found here and here, respectively. Errata for the Tramontano and Painter interviews can be found here and here, respectively.
The full text of the letter can be found below.
May 23, 2022
The Honorable Merrick Garland
Attorney General
Department of Justice
Dear Attorney General Garland:
In 2020, we examined the extent to which Blue Star Strategies, a Democratic lobbying firm, met with Obama administration officials on behalf of its foreign client, Burisma Holdings (“Burisma”), and the company’s corrupt Russia-aligned owner, Mykola Zlochevsky.[1] Based on our investigative records and recently published Foreign Agents Registration Act (“FARA”) forms, it appears that Blue Star Strategies’ top executives, Karen Tramontano and Sally Painter, filed incomplete and misleading information with the Department of Justice (“DOJ”).
According to FARA filings dated May 12, 2022, Ms. Tramontano and Ms. Painter disclosed under penalty of perjury their meetings with government officials on behalf of Burisma and Mr. Zlochevsky.[2] The form noted that in February 2016, Blue Star Strategies emailed and met with then-State Department official Amos Hochstein to “introduce Mr. Zlochevsky’s attorney so he could present an explanation of the adverse proceedings in the U.K. and Ukraine involving Mr. Zlochevsky.”[3] The form also indicated that in March 2016, Blue Star Strategies emailed and met with then-Under Secretary of State Catherine Novelli for the same purpose.[4] However, it appears the date of the meeting with Mr. Hochstein is inconsistent with our investigative records. Further, Blue Star Strategies’ FARA filing states that its activity with respect to Mr. Zlochevsky and Burisma “began and ended in 2016”; however, our records indicate that the activity began in 2015 and extended several years after 2016.[5] Accordingly, it appears that Blue Star Strategies failed to disclose several other meetings it arranged with U.S. government officials on behalf of Burisma and Mr. Zlochevsky in its FARA filing.
Specifically, Ms. Tramontano wrote to our Committees in December 2019 that Blue Star Strategies had two meetings with Mr. Hochstein regarding Burisma—the first meeting was on December 10, 2015, and the second meeting on March 24, 2016.[6] Blue Star Strategies failed to disclose these meetings on its FARA form.
With respect to the December 2015 meeting, Ms. Tramontano noted that the “initial meeting with Mr. Hochstein was to understand his and the State Department’s position regarding an independent energy company, Burisma.”[7] In a transcribed interview with our Committees, Ms. Tramontano discussed the December 10, 2015, meeting and described Mr. Hochstein’s view of Burisma as “negative.”[8] It is unclear why Blue Star Strategies did not disclose this initial meeting with Mr. Hochstein in its FARA form.
With respect to the second meeting with Mr. Hochstein, according to our records, Ms. Painter and attorney John Buretta were in attendance.[9] While it appears that Blue Star Strategies provided an accurate description of the purpose of this meeting on its FARA form, the date of this meeting on the form is inconsistent with the information the firm provided our Committees. Whereas the FARA form indicates that the meeting between Blue Star Strategies, Mr. Buretta, and Mr. Hochstein occurred in February 2016, Ms. Tramontano and Ms. Painter confirmed to our Committees that this second meeting with Mr. Hochstein occurred on March 24, 2016.[10]
In addition, Ms. Tramontano told the Committees that Blue Star Strategies engaged in “government relations assistance” in the United States for Burisma and Mr. Zlochevsky.[11] However, Ms. Painter denied to the Committees that Blue Star Strategies’ activities were “government relations assistance.”[12] Both Ms. Tramontano and Ms. Painter denied to the Committees that they lobbied the U.S. Government on behalf of Burisma and Mr. Zlochevsky and denied that they intended to influence U.S. policy with respect to them.[13] However, Mr. Hochstein’s testimony before the Committees contradicted Ms. Tramontano’s and Ms. Painter’s claims. When the Committees asked Mr. Hochstein whether he believed Blue Star Strategies intended to “alter or influence U.S policy with respect to Zlochevsky,” he told the Committees, “[t]hey did not like my answer [regarding Mr. Zlochevsky], and they tried to convince me otherwise.”[14] This example indicates that Blue Star Strategies did, in fact, engage in lobbying efforts on behalf of Burisma and its owner.
Based on the evidence in our possession, it appears Blue Star Strategies failed to disclose on the FARA form at least nine other meetings it had with U.S. government officials—including two meetings with sitting U.S. ambassadors to Ukraine—regarding Burisma and Mr. Zlochevsky including the following:[15]
December 14, 2015, meeting with State Department official William Laitinen;[16]
December 14, 2015, meeting with USAID official Steve Gonyea;
December 16, 2015, meeting with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt;
December 8, 2016, meeting with U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch;
December 14, 2016, meeting with State Department official Reggie Singh;
November 2, 2017, meeting with Energy Department official Andrea Lockwood;
November 21, 2018, meeting with State Department officials Melissa Simpson and Brian DaRin;
November 27, 2018, meeting with Commerce Department officials Matthew Edwards and Boris Chumuk; and
February 19, 2019, meeting with Energy Department officials Charles Phillips and Heather Bell.
DOJ must scrutinize Blue Star Strategies’ recently filed FARA forms given the firm’s apparent incomplete disclosures and its lack of consistency with our investigative records, which are based, in significant part, on Blue Star Strategies’ representations to Congress.
Accordingly, we request DOJ provide the following information:
Please provide all letters of inquiry and letters of determination DOJ sent to Blue Star Strategies, its officials and affiliated entities.
Did Blue Star Strategies, its officials or any affiliated entity request an advisory opinion from DOJ with respect to registering as a foreign agent? If so, please provide a copy of the request and opinion.
During DOJ’s review of Blue Star Strategies’ obligation to register under FARA, did it review whether or not Blue Star Strategies shared informational material with U.S government officials? If so, what was found? If not, why not? Please provide all copies.
Was DOJ aware of the nine meetings Blue Star Strategies did not disclose on their May 12, 2022, FARA form?
Did DOJ review whether John Buretta should register under FARA for his work on behalf of Burisma and Mr. Zlochevsky? If so, what did it conclude? If not, why not?
How will DOJ address Blue Star Strategies’ apparent incomplete FARA filings?
How will DOJ determine whether Blue Star Strategies’ apparent inconsistencies and inaccuracies in its FARA filing—as described in this letter—were deliberate?
How will DOJ hold Blue Star Strategies officials accountable if it determines those officials made deliberately inconsistent and inaccurate disclosures on FARA forms?
Please provide this information as soon as possible but no later than June 6, 2022. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
- Senator Chuck Grassley
###
>>> SICKENING: BIDEN CELEBRATES RISING GAS PRICES
Maybe he is just out of touch, or maybe he’s incompetent. Or MAYBE this was the plan all along. President Joe Biden celebrated skyrocketing gas prices as an “incredible transition” while Americans across the country are struggling to make ends meet and afford to fill up at the pump.
“The national average for a gallon of regular gas stands at $4.56 as of Monday, which is more than $.40 higher than it was just a month ago.
In parts of the country such as California, however, the average price for a gallon of regular gas reached $6.06 on Monday.” – Fox News
Perhaps due to the fact that his administration can’t figure out how to help lower the cost of fuel, he is now turning it into a push for the radical Left’s environmental agenda. Remember when his very own Secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttigieg advised Americans in rural communities and in lower income families to buy electric vehicles to help with gas costs? Out of touch once again. If families are struggling to afford to fill up their cars, then how can they afford the average price of a new electric vehicle of $55,676?
D.C Democrats can’t seem to get it right. And instead of fixing the crisis they have fueled, they choose to blame anyone else and come up with any excuse they can to keep the spotlight away from them. Unfortunately for them, Americans aren’t buying their charades. This is their livelihoods, and they are sick and tired of it.
Will vulnerable Senate Democrats continue to vote in line with the Biden Administration’s anti-American energy policies? Do they agree with Biden’s celebration that this is just an “incredible transition?”
- NRSC
###
>>> SENATORS, CONGRESSMEN DEMAND INVESTIGATION INTO CLAIMS OF ILLEGAL FETAL TISSUE RESEARCH AT UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
Senators James Lankford (R-OK), Steven Daines (R-MT), and Josh Hawley (R-MO) along with Representatives Chris Smith (R-NJ), Vicky Hartzler (R-MO), Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO), Lisa McClain (R-MI), Mike Kelly (R-PA), and 81 Members of Congress called Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Inspector General (IG) Christi Grimm to conduct an immediate audit into whether the University of Pittsburgh violated federal law while conducting fetal tissue research subsidized by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
“Rather than conduct an independent evaluation of its own, NIH chose to accept and endorse a report that had been paid for by the institution it had been asked to investigate,” the lawmakers wrote in the letter.
Last year, Lankford sent a letter with his colleagues demanding the DOJ investigate the illegal fetal tissue research. The push for a comprehensive IG audit comes after HHS ignored serious concerns raised in previous letters by the Members of Congress who all oppose fetal tissue research. Instead of probing the alarming allegations, the Biden Administration said that the NIH Office of Extramural Research had “been in discussions” with the University of Pittsburgh that resulted in the commissioning of an “independent, third-party firm” whose report could be found publicly posted on the University’s website.
In their letter to Grimm, the lawmakers reiterated the grave allegations that HHS refused to address, including concerns that University researchers had illegally altered abortion procedures solely for the purpose of obtaining fetal tissue, or derived fetal tissue by organ or tissue harvesting from aborted babies who were born alive and then killed.
“When we raised these concerns with HHS, we received an unacceptable response that failed to substantively address either question,” the lawmakers wrote to Grimm. “We ask for your assistance in conducting an audit, consistent with the extent of your jurisdiction, to answer the questions that the Department has failed to answer.”
The flawed report—issued by the DC-based firm Hyman, Phelps and McNamara (HPM) and financed by the University—has been widely criticized for narrowing the scope of the investigation to sidestep key questions about the abortion procedures and the baby-victims.
You can read the full letter below:
Dear Inspector General Grimm:
We request that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) conduct an audit to determine whether fetal tissue research funded by HHS at the University of Pittsburgh violated federal law.
Between fiscal years 2016 and 2020, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) provided approximately $1.5 million to the University of Pittsburgh as the GenitoUrinary Developmental Molecular Anatomy Project (GUDMAP) Tissue Hub and Collection Site. The University of Pittsburgh had stated in its funding application that, to assist with the study of the “congenital diseases of the genitourinary tract (kidneys, bladder, ureter, uretha),” its Health Sciences Tissue Bank (HSTB) could provide tissue from unborn babies 6-24 weeks old and its partner, the International Institute for the Advancement of Medicine, could provide tissue from unborn babies 25-42 weeks old.
The University of Pittsburgh’s application emphasized that “warm ischemia time is minimized.” It stated, “We record the warm ischemic time on our samples and take steps to keep it at a minimum to ensure the highest quality biological specimens [30, 31]. We get feedback from our users and utilize this feedback to tailor our collection processes on a case-by-case basis to maximize the needs of investigators. Warm ischemia time” refers to the amount of time the baby’s body part would remain at body temperature after blood supply had been cut off but before it was cooled.
The university’s assertions raised two questions.
First, did the University of Pittsburgh and its recipients and subrecipients of HHS funding violate federal law prohibiting the alteration of abortion procedures solely for the purpose of obtaining fetal tissue? 42 U.S. Code § 289g-1 states that the tissue of aborted babies may only be used in research if the abortion.
provider signs a written statement that “no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue.” The University of Pittsburgh’s statement, as noted above, that it will “tailor our collection processes on a case-by-case basis” is not clearly consistent with the requirement of federal law and merits further investigation.
Second, has the tissue being used for research been derived from aborted babies who were born alive and then killed by organ or tissue harvesting? The University of Pittsburgh and its partners provide tissue from aborted babies old enough to survive outside the womb with appropriate care. Babies born at younger than 22 weeks gestation have been known to survive and thrive. If the babies are born alive after surviving an abortion, are the university and its recipients and subrecipients of HHS funding reducing “warm ischemia time” by keeping the babies alive until their organs or tissues have been harvested to provide blood flow to the organ or tissue for as long as possible? If infanticide by organ or tissue harvesting is occurring, it is a crime under Pennsylvania state law. It is also a violation of federal regulation, which requires, among other things, that “there will be no added risk to the neonate resulting from the research.”
When we raised these concerns with HHS, we received an unacceptable response that failed to substantively address either question. (Both letters are attached for your reference). We were told, because of these concerns, the NIH Office of Extramural Research had “been in discussions” with the University of Pittsburgh that had resulted in the commissioning of an “independent, third-party firm.” NIH then advised us that we could find the report publicly posted on the university’s website. Rather than conduct an independent evaluation of its own, NIH chose to accept and endorse a report that had been paid for by the institution it had been asked to investigate. This outsourcing of duties further raises concerns regarding how commonplace this practice is, warranting further oversight of HHS.
The firm’s report itself failed to address the two main questions about whether the University of Pittsburgh and its recipients and subrecipients of HHS funding have violated the law because it stopped short of investigating the University of Pittsburgh’s sources for fetal tissue. The report explained that the university coordinates with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) to obtain fetal tissue for research. It goes on to state that the review “did not include the activities conducted by individuals acting in their capacity as a UPMC employee.” In summary, the assessment narrowed the scope of its investigation to such an extent that it was able to sidestep the two key questions about the abortion procedures and the baby victims.
We ask for your assistance in conducting an audit, consistent with the extent of your jurisdiction, to answer the questions that the Department has failed to answer. These include the following information requests for project number 1U24DK110791, for both the University of Pittsburgh and its recipients and subrecipients of HHS funding, from the beginning of the grant project period to today:
The number of cases at each gestational age involving abortion, miscarriage, stillbirth, and neonate utilized in the GUDMAP program during the grant project period;
Detailed protocols for Dilation & Curettage abortion, Dilation & Evacuation abortion, and Labor Induction abortion followed to obtain fetal tissue for the GUDMAP program;
The detailed biospecimen collection IRB application and approval for the Health Science Tissue Bank;
Documentation to verify the physiological status of unborn babies delivered by labor induction abortion upon tissue harvest;
The number of fetal tissue collection procedures from babies delivered by labor induction abortion;
Documentation of the number of babies delivered by labor induction abortion that were deceased, and documentation that cardiac activity had ceased prior to fetal organ and tissue collection;
Documentation of when “warm ischemia” time was recorded with reference to death when collecting organs and tissue from abortion, miscarriage, stillbirth, and neonate;
Documentation on the specific steps that were taken to minimize warm ischemic time when collecting organs and tissue from abortion, miscarriage, stillbirth, and neonate;
Details on how specimens from abortion, miscarriage, stillbirth, and neonate are collected and transferred to the Tissue Hub and the personnel involved at each step;
Documentation of how compliance is ensured (including any reporting and oversight mechanisms) with regard to each of the following statutes and regulations:
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (18 U.S.C. 1531);
Research protections for pregnant women and fetuses (42 U.S.C. 289g, 289g-1, and 45 C.F.R. 46.204);
Research protections for neonates (45 C.F.R. 46.205); and,
Prohibitions regarding fetal tissue (42 U.S.C. 289g-2, 45 C.F.R. 46.206).
We are cognizant that the HHS OIG has a reputation for performing thorough, non-partisan audits in pursuit of its mission to promote the economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity of HHS programs. We thus await your unbiased evaluation of the serious concerns we have raised, which may either obviate or confirm the need for additional congressional oversight.
Sincerely,
- Senator James Lankford
###
>>> JUDGE DISMISSES BOGUS DEFAMATION LAWSUIT AGAINST GOVERNMENT CRITIC
Tuesday afternoon, Judge Jon E. Fredrickson of the Racine County Circuit Court granted the Institute for Justice’s (IJ’s) request to dismiss a defamation suit brought by Mount Pleasant Village Attorney Chris Smith against local political activist Kelly Gallaher from the bench. During a controversy over a proposed change to the term lengths of members of the Mount Pleasant village board, Smith told a local newspaper that the change had been discussed “since 2018.” This struck Kelly as wrong, and she followed up by sending Smith a public-records request for all records of public discussions since 2018. Told there were no records dating that far back, Kelly went public, accusing Smith of lying in emails to reporters and in social media posts.
Smith responded promptly, telling Kelly he would sue her for defamation unless she publicly posted a retraction that he wrote himself and “refrain[ed] from publicly referencing [him] in any comment, regardless of whether such comment is written or spoken.” Kelly, who is not a lawyer and was frightened by the cost of a potential lawsuit, posted the retraction he wrote for her. And Smith sued her anyway.
“Public officials don’t get to use lawsuits to punish people for criticizing them,” explained IJ Senior Attorney Robert McNamara. “Chris Smith’s lawsuit was transparently bogus and had no basis in the law. But a lawsuit doesn’t need to have any merit to scare people into silence, and that’s all too often the whole point of lawsuits like this one.”
That is why IJ took on Kelly’s case. It is easy for lawyers or people with easy access to lawyers to file lawsuits and force their critics to spend thousands of dollars defending them (or, more likely, simply shut up). But the First Amendment means that lawsuits like Smith’s are baseless. Kelly had done her research and fully explained her basis for thinking that Smith was lying, and Smith (as a government official) has to overcome the high bar of First Amendment protection for speech like Kelly’s. For both reasons, IJ’s brief argued, the case should be dismissed.
In today’s ruling from the bench, Judge Fredrickson agreed. “We’re talking about public citizens trying to do their due diligence about what their governments are doing,” he explained from the bench. “The record here is clear that [Kelly’s] Facebook, email, and Twitter statements are not defamatory.”
Judge Fredrickson did not find that Smith had actually lied in his statements to the press, noting that, “Attorney Smith is not a liar, I’m not finding that.” Instead, the judge emphasized that a defamation suit was inappropriate because, whether Chris Smith had lied or not, Kelly “appeared to be concerned with getting the truth or falsity correct.”
“It is a relief to prevail in court today and not just for myself,” said Kelly. “Every resident of Mount Pleasant won today because our public officials have been put on notice that they cannot silence the voices of their constituents through intimidation tactics like the frivolous lawsuit filed by Village Attorney Chris Smith. This lawsuit was filed to bankrupt me and force me into a settlement, thereby silencing any and all criticism of every Mount Pleasant official.”
Nationwide, 32 states and Washington, D.C., have adopted anti-SLAPP (“Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation”) laws to discourage retaliatory defamation lawsuits like Chris Smith’s. These laws allow for quicker dismissals of abusive litigation and even allow defendants to recover their attorneys’ fees.
“Today’s decision is a victory for free speech and a defeat for government officials who would like their constituents to shut up about them,” concluded IJ Constitutional Law Fellow James Knight. “But not everyone is represented by free public-interest lawyers, and the Wisconsin legislature should adopt meaningful reforms before the next Chris Smith decides to file a lawsuit like this.”
- IJ
###
>>> LAWSUIT FILED TO DEFEND AMERICANS’ PRIVACY RIGHTS AGAINST INVASIVE CENSUS SURVEYS AND HUGE FINES
Maureen Murphy of Washington and John Huddleston of California filed a class action lawsuit against the U.S. Census Bureau, challenging the agency’s demand for inappropriate and intrusive information about them and their families.
The American Community Survey (ACS) contains upward of 100 questions that, according to the Census Bureau, recipients are compelled to answer or else be criminally charged and fined $5,000 per question refused. The survey’s deeply personal questions include questions about a person’s job, gender and sexual orientation, whether parents and children in the same home are biologically related, and whether and how many times each person was previously married, widowed, or divorced.
The Census Bureau can ask Americans any questions it wants but it cannot make them answer. Under its authorizing statutes, the Census Bureau cannot compel responses to surveys outside the 10-year census, it cannot make refusing to answer a crime, and it cannot unilaterally raise the penalty for refusing to answer questions on the 10-year census from the $100 authorized by Congress to the $5,000 per question it threatens.
“The Census Bureau does not have the authority to compel Americans to divulge any information it sees fit, beyond what’s needed for the 10-year census,” said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Adi Dynar. “Congress has not authorized the Census Bureau to impose criminal penalties and fines for refusing to answer their intrusive, deeply personal questions.”
The case is Maureen Murphy et al. v. Gina Raimondo et al., filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
- Pacific Legal Foundation
###