Did Trump dictate son’s Russian meeting statement?
Donald Trump faces more questions after reports that he dictated his son’s statement about a meeting with a Kremlin-linked lawyer during the campaign.
The revelation will heighten suspicions the administration has something to hide as federal investigators continue to look into Moscow’s attempts to influence last year’s election.
Lawyers said Mr Trump’s alleged interference could put him in deeper legal jeopardy.
He already faces accusations of obstructing justice by removing James Comey as head of the FBI while he led the investigation into Russian meddling in last year’s election.
“Now someone can claim he’s the one who attempted to mislead,” a White House adviser said. “Somebody can argue the president is saying he doesn’t want you to say the whole truth.”
Donald Trump Jr initially issued a statement claiming they had discussed nothing more sinister than adoption rules.
But it quickly emerged he had been told that Ms Veselnitskaya would bring damaging information about Hillary Clinton as part of a Russian effort to help his father.
Trump advisers wanted to issue a full and truthful explanation to protect the administration if further details emerged.
Instead, flying home on Air Force One from the G20 summit in Germany, Mr Trump
Lawyers said Mr Trump’s alleged interference in his son’s explanation for meeting lawyer could put him in deeper jeopardy
changed the plan, according to the report.
The president dictated the statement saying the meeting had “primarily discussed a programme about the adoption of Russian children”.
American intelligence agencies have concluded that Moscow was trying to help Mr Trump win the election at the expense of Mrs Clinton, who they believed would prove a more hostile president.
They are also looking into any collusion between Mr Trump’s campaign and the Kremlin.
Although they have found no evidence that campaign officials were aware of Russian hacking, Donald Jr’s own email chain suggests he was told that Ms Veselnitskaya was bringing information as part of Russian government support for Mr Trump.
Robert Shapiro, professor of political science at Columbia University, said every new revelation deepened suspicions of a cover-up.
“The question is, why did Trump feel the need to intervene and what exactly was being hidden?” Dr Shapiro asked.
At the same time, it provided more incentive for Robert Mueller, the special counsel leading the federal investigation, to probe more deeply.
“It does connect Trump more directly to that meeting,” Dr Shapiro said.
David Sklansky, a professor of criminal law at Stanford, said a misleading statement did not constitute a crime in itself but it could be used as evidence of corrupt intent.
“Lying usually isn’t a crime,” Dr Sklansky said.
However, “it could be relevant in determining whether something else the president did, like firing Comey, was done corruptly”.
Last month, the president’s legal team said he played no part in writing the statement.
Jay Sekulow, Mr Trump’s personal lawyer, said at the time: “I do want to be clear that the president was not involved in the drafting of the statement and did not issue the statement.”
On Monday, he issued a new statement denying the latest twist as inaccurate.
“Apart from being of no consequence, the characterisations are misinformed, inaccurate, and not pertinent,” Mr Sekulow said.
The episode comes at a time when the White House is trying to reboot after a difficult first six months.
John Kelly, a retired four-star general, took over as chief of staff on Monday, and given the job of unifying a divided administration.