A new report shows that the Justice Department just finished their probe of the public affairs company that did work for Burisma, the Ukranian energy firm that Hunter Biden served on the board of directors of.
The company is called Blue Star Strategies and was found to have not committed any crimes by the DOJ, says the Washington Post.
The investigation centered around a filing showing that it had done work for Burisma and its owner Mykola Zlochevsky in 2015 and 2016. Earlier forms didn’t show that the company had worked for them.
According to the Foreign Agents Registration Act, U.S. firms are required to disclose any foreign clients that they lobby the government on behalf of. Blue Star Strategies had not done this despite the DOJ clearing of them any wrongdoing in this matter this week.
See what Psaki said about claims of associations between Hunter and his father earlier in April.
Ironically this week, the DOJ filed a FARA-related suit this week against casino owner Steve Wynn over allegations that he had lobbied Trump on behalf of a Chinese businessman named Guo Wengui, who is being charged by Beijing.
The Burisma story led to former President Trump’s first impeachment, although he was acquitted in the Senate.
The form was filed this month by lawyer Karen Tramontano and shows that Blue Star Strategies had scheduled two meetings with the State Department to “explain adverse matters in the U.K. and the Ukraine.”
Another amended form confirmed the same information and was filed May 12 by consultant Sally Painter that said: “Pursuant to guidance from DOJ personnel, registrant is adding retroactively a foreign principal for a specific and limited time in 2016. The filings are intended to facilitate full termination of registrant’s current FARA reporting status as an agent of a foreign principal.”
Peter J. Kadzik, attorney to Tramontano, told the Washington Post that his client was cooperating with the probe.
“There was no finding of any wrongdoing,” Kadzik said. “To respond to the DOJ request, Blue Star Strategies submitted an administrative filing to explain the purpose of meetings that were held.”
Do you think that this is a cover up or that the firm really didn’t do any wrongdoing?