Some legal experts are weighing in on news that President Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., apparently met with a Russian lawyer in the hopes of getting some dirt on Hillary Clinton during the heat of the presidential campaign. Several say what he did may be evidence of a crime.

Attorney Richard Painter, who served as an ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, weighed in on twitter, blasting Trump Jr. as acting treasonous, and saying he should be questioned by authorities.

This is treason. He must have known that the only way Russia would get such information was by spying.https://t.co/MSwr3DsbHs — Richard W. Painter (@RWPUSA) July 9, 2017

In the Bush Administration we would have had him in custody for questioning by now https://t.co/MSwr3DsbHs — Richard W. Painter (@RWPUSA) July 9, 2017

The New York Times’ sources said that the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, was expected to hand over damaging information about Clinton during a meeting at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016.

In a statement regarding the meeting, Trump Jr. said: “After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.”

It doesn’t matter. Attempted theft of a presidential election in collusion w/ Putin is a serious felony and a high crime against the state https://t.co/WEwqreBm5Z — Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) July 9, 2017

Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe says it “doesn’t matter” that the Trump campaign was ultimately unsuccessful in getting information from the Russians. He continued that the “attempted theft of a presidential election in collusion with Putin” is a “serious felony and a high crime against the state.”

Some legal experts say Trump Jr.’s own statement to the Times is pretty incriminating because he very much admits he was trying to get blackmail on Clinton.

“If he intended to get illegally stolen private information from the Russians it was illegal for him to attempt to do so. Just like buying stolen goods from a known fence,” Painter said in an email to LawNewz.com. “The Russians were known to be hacking a lot of American computers and to have animosity toward Clinton. At a minimum it was well known at the time that a hacking attack was likely and indeed it was probably known by some persons that it had already occurred.”

LawNewz editor Alberto Luperon contributed to this report. LawNewz has reached out to more legal experts and will update this article accordingly.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]