Professor Jed Shugerman was quoted in a Vox article about President Trump’s role in Donald Trump Jr.’s misleading statement about meeting with Russians.
The clearest case for Trump’s obstruction of justice was firing [FBI Director James] Comey, because Trump himself admitted as much (to Lester Holt on NBC, to [Russian Foreign Minister Sergei] Lavrov and [now-former Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey] Kislyak in the Oval Office). There is nothing illegal about lying in itself, but this latest news adds to the growing mountain of evidence of a cover-up and “corrupt” intent required by the obstruction statute.
But this news also raises a question: If President Trump was drafting responses — and changing his son’s own response — about what happened in the meeting, doesn’t that at least suggest he knew much more about the meeting than he had suggested? “Collusion” is not a crime, but conspiracy to hack computers is a felony. See the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
…
“There is nothing illegal about lying in itself, but this latest news adds to the growing mountain of evidence of a cover-up and ‘corrupt’ intent required by the obstruction statute” – Jed Shugerman, Law Professor, Fordham University.
