“You cannot benefit from a foreign adversary in this kind of scenario.”Other legal minds agree. “It’s a shocking admission of a criminal conspiracy,” said Jens David Ohlin, associate dean of Cornell Law School, in a statement shared with The Post. “The conversation will now turn to whether President Trump was personally involved or not. But the question of the campaign’s involvement appears settled now. The answer is yes.”
…The fact that Trump Jr. took this meeting while being told what the Russians were up to is as clear as intent can get, legal experts say.
“If he received an email in advance saying, ‘This is coming from the Russian government,’ he’s certainly knowledgeable about where the information is coming from,” Jacobovitz said. “And he attempts to attend a meeting with the hope and intent to obtain inside dirt on Hillary Clinton. That would go a long way in trying to determine whether it’s conspiracy. … It’s not as if he walks into the meeting and he’s surprised by what he’s hearing.”
…Jacobovitz said conspiracy to commit election fraud is the big legal fish Mueller and his team may be trying to fry. But they’re probably also looking at a whole host of laws that could have been broken under this scenario: quid pro quo with the Russians, bribery, potential perjury related to what members of the Trump campaign said under oath to Congress and failing to disclose these contacts in official security forms.
“This goes further than collusion,” he said. Especially now that Trump Jr. appeared to provide proof to all of this.