Trump could disperse and conceal, his relationships.
President Trump hired a law firm to craft a letter declaring that he has no current ties to Russian interests that would constitute a conflict of interest.
It is conceivable that Trump and his organization could disperse, conceal, and hide such relationships by moving money to Trump corporate entities, and further change paper titles to cover them. That is why the Treasury and FBI need to investigate in depth.
You can't take Trump's word or that of his law firm representing him because he is untrustworthy on merit.
"Trump Hires Law Firm to Fight Suggestions of Russia Business Ties
President Donald Trump has hired a Washington law firm to send a letter to a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee saying he has no connections to Russia, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday.
Spicer's revelation was in response to a question from reporters on a briefing about committee member Sen. Lindsey Graham's remarks that he wants to look into whether Trump has any business dealings with Russia.
"The president, obviously, was aware of Senator Graham's suggestion after he made it today and he's fine with that. He has no business in Russia. He has no connections to Russia. So he welcomes that," Spicer said."
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-hires-law-firm-rebut-suggestion-russia-business-ties-n757106
Keep the heat on.
The facts we know so far about President Trump’s firing of James Comey as FBI director
ReplyDeleteThere was bombshell news this week: President Trump fired the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, becoming the second United States president to ever do so. There are so many questions about the firing, but not many concrete facts yet. So we sorted through some of the key questions and inconsistencies that arose from the firing of James B. Comey.
Did Comey really tell Trump he wasn’t under FBI investigation?
There was an unusual line in Trump’s letter firing Comey: “I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation.” It raised many questions: When did this happen? Who raised the question? And would this type of conversation have been appropriate?
Since we don’t know for sure what happened in their private conversations, we contacted former attorneys general to get the necessary context. Here’s what they said:
Alberto Gonzales, attorney general, 2005-2007 (George W. Bush): “I don’t know if it in fact happened. It’s hard for me to think of a situation where it might be appropriate,” Gonzales said. He said that, if asked by the president about such a probe, the best response would be: “I can’t answer that question and it would be wise for us to not have this discussion.” He said that because the investigation had not been completed, “how would he [Comey] know where he would end up with the investigation?”
William P. Barr, attorney general, 1991-1993 (George H.W. Bush): “The President is the chief law enforcement officer and it is perfectly appropriate for the Attorney General to discuss cases with the President that don’t touch on the President himself,” Barr said. “For example, I discussed the Pan Am 103 case with the President.” But he added: “I don’t know the scope or current thrust of the Russian investigation. Comey would know.”
The Washington Post