Donald Trump 'could face legal charges' over role in drafting son’s Russia meeting statement
'The biggest exposure is obstruction of justice', former chief White House ethics lawyer says
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A Former White House lawyer has said Donald Trump could face legal repercussions for helping his son write a statement responding to revelations of a Trump Campaign meeting with a Russian lawyer ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
Richard Painter, the former chief White House ethics lawyer, said Mr Trump’s intervention, revealed over the weekend, meant the President could face legal charges including obstruction of justice and witness tampering.
When news of Donald Trump Jr’s meeting with the Russian lawyer was reported last month, the President reportedly dismissed the advice of his advisers, who wished to put out a comprehensive statement about what had happened at the meeting.
According to The Washington Post, Mr Trump instead “personally dictated” a statement in which Mr Trump Jr said that in the meeting with the Russian lawyer, they had “primarily discussed a programme about the adoption of Russian children”.
But Mr Trump Jr released emails two days after the revelations, showing he had been keen to meet the Russian lawyer after learning that she may have compromising information about Hillary Clinton, and was acting on behalf of the Russian government who supported his father’s presidential bid.
In response to the offer of damaging information about Ms Clinton, the emails show Mr Trump Jr replied: “I love it.”
The White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said this week Mr Trump “certainly didn’t dictate” his son’s statement in the wake of the revelations.
“The President weighed in as any father would, based on the limited information he had,” she said.
This is refuted by sources close to the President, which the Washington Post based its article on.
Speaking to US website Salon, Mr Painter said if the President did draft the response statement for his son, it could trigger criminal charges. He said: “The biggest exposure is obstruction of justice.
“He is already in hot water for that because of the [former FBI director James] Comey firing and his admission that it was about Russia.”
“A misleading statement, even a lie, told to the press or to the public is not itself a crime,” Mr Painter said. “But he must have known that his son and others would be called to give evidence in the criminal proceedings. Once he drafts a public statement that he knows is false, he is boxing them in when they talk to [special prosecutor Robert] Mueller, testify before Congress and at trial, or at least he is attempting to do so. That is obstruction of justice, witness tampering.”
Speaking to the Washington Post, one of the President Trump’s advisers, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said of Mr Trump dictating a statement for his son: “This was … unnecessary.”
“Now someone can claim he’s the one who attempted to mislead. Somebody can argue the President is saying he doesn’t want you to say the whole truth.”
In addition, David Sklansky, a professor of criminal law at Stanford Law School, told Reuters a misleading public statement could later be used as evidence of corrupt intent.
He said: “Lying usually isn't a crime… but it could be relevant in determining whether something else the President did, like firing Comey, was done corruptly.”
In the US a conviction for obstruction of justice can be an imprisonable offence.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments