When the Cover-Up Is a Crime, and the Actual Act Being Covered Isn't

I'm of mixed feelings on the George Papadopolous case. On the one hand, it's commendable that the White House is not covering up for obstruction of justice in the form of George P's lies to the FBI, and fully cooperated with the probe, and gave everything that was needed to build the case.

On the other hand, I can't really rid myself of a nagging feeling that George P. may have been lying per the request FROM the White House, and if so, he is being made into a scapegoat for not only the thrust of misguided initial policy towards Putin, but engaging in crime for the sake of the President who is perfectly ok with having someone else commit a crime just to avoid scrutiny of non-criminal but bad policy.

I mean, I wasn't sure what Papadapolous thought would happen as a result of his lies, and it was remarkably stupid and unethical for him to do that, regardless of whether he did that of his own initiative or was asked to do so. But there is something altogether Nixonian about having low-level grunts engage in obstruction of justice to cover up for someone with an enormous ego who is likely not man enough to face the political consequences of strategic mistakes made during his presidential campaign. Again, the irony of this is that none of the initial comments about Putin or even meetings with Russian diplomats are in and of themselves criminal.

It's the cover-up that raises legal questions, and it's unclear why it's even necessary, since it makes the whole thing look significantly worse than it was originally was.